The Quest (1999).

Review #2543: The Quest.

Cast: 

Jean-Claude Van Damme (Chris Dubois), Roger Moore (Lord Edgar Dobbs), James Remar (Maxie Devine), Janet Gunn (Carrie Newton), Jack McGee (Harry Smythe), Aki Aleong (Khao Prahan), Louis Mandylor (Riggi), Chang Ching Peng Chaplin (Master Tchi), Ryan Cutrona (Officer O'Keefe), Abdel Qissi (Khan, Mongolian Fighter), Jen Sung (Phang Prahan, Siamese Fighter), Stefanos Miltsakakis (Greek Fighter), Ong Soo Han (Korean Fighter), Peter Wong (Chinese Fighter), Kōji Kitao (Kyoshiro Yama, Japanese Fighter) Directed by Jean-Claude Van Damme.

Review: 

It feels a little nice to finally complete a movie pack, honestly. This was the fourth and final movie on a pack I somehow got about a couple of years ago that had four Jean-Claude Van Damme movies: Hard Target (which was awesome), Lionheart (fair), Sudden Death (hilariously enjoyable), and this one. As early as 1991, Van Damme was interested in doing a film that basically would be his farewell to the martial genre, as he once labeled it as "the Ben-Hur of martial arts films", albeit with inspirations taken from the Belgian comic The Adventures of Tintin. Amidst delays and other strange things (Van Damme apparently was going to fly above the city of Cannes for the 1993 Cannes Film Market in a Quest-branded hot air balloon, but bad weather scuttled these plans), thing eventually started moving with Moshe Diamant as producer for a production that had Universal Pictures distribute the film in North America. The script for the film basically became a rotted potato of half-baked ideas and disputes over who did what, with four names listed: Van Damme and Frank Dux (remember Bloodsport ?) were credited with the story (in a WGA decision rather than going with "Story by Jean-Claude Van Damme and Jean Claude Van Damme & Frank Dux" - more on that in a bit). Steven Klein and Paul Mones were credited with the screenplay, with the former being a pseudonym for Gene Quintano. Ed Khmara apparently was originally paired with Dux to help further out his ideas (after Sheldon Lettich gave some idea pitches but rejected the offer to co-write the movie). The result was a movie that ended up as a bigger hit with international audiences than in America. It is Van Damme's only released film as a director (with Frenchy, a 2008/2010 film, still unreleased). In 1998, Dux (who once claimed Bloodsport was based on his life, among other tall tales) sued Van Damme for improper compensation, arguing that his "Enter the New Dragon" and "The Quest" were the same film and that they had an agreement for money and percentage of the film's profits (somehow, one claim for the promise by Van Damme was an audio tape...that was unable to be retrieved because of damages to his apartment from the 1994 Northridge earthquake). 

According to Roger Moore's autobiography, the production of the film was not a happy one, with Diamant trying to get people to work extra hours to compensate for delays that were mostly because of Van Damme showing up late on set, with second unit director Peter MacDonald being a positive for the film. Apparently, a large horseback battle was cut at the request of Diamant and Van Damme claimed that the budget was more around $12 million rather than the usual reports of $30-35 million. I think you can see at times where the movie is a bit unfocused in that regard, as it is a strangely unbalanced movie full of undercooked characters and story beats that basically come off as re-heated leftovers from Bloodsport. I will say, however, this is an amusing movie to see through to the end even in its mediocrity. You get a story in a bar with Van Damme in elderly makeup kicking ass (why not?) and it all closes with a closing of a book because, well, why not? I imagine that aside from the kicking, the real appeal of Van Damme movies is seeing what kind of hokum-sorry, charm is meant to be present with his character and the company of people around him (which namely involves flimsy romances and at least one funny moment by a supporting character). Here, he seems a bit vacant, as if he is lost in the shuffle of his own movie besides the kicks. At least his ego is funny to chuckle along with, as opposed to say, Steven Seagal? The tournament as a whole just seems repetitive (one round beatdowns that probably aren't as fun to watch as say, playing Mortal Kombat without the fatalities*) and not all that interesting beyond the attempt to raise the stakes at the end. 

There's a bit more to it than that, because Moore plays a guy who tricks Van Damme's character into being sold into slavery while Remar plays the heavyweight boxing champion who never ends up fighting in the tournament...no, really.  Having Moore in the film probably was a big thing in terms of "stature", even if by this point, he was nearly 70 (perhaps most famously, he once joked that he had three expressions as James Bond: "right eyebrow raised, left eyebrow raised, and eyebrows crossed when grabbed by Jaws"). While I get having him there, it doesn't make that much sense when you also have Remar there in the "guys who come along for the tournament" department, with even McGee seeming more in place than having both Moore and Remar. Gunn is basically given the equivalent of when you give someone an unplugged controller, and Qissi is basically just doing re-heated leftovers from when he was in Lionheart (you'd think killing an opponent would help in the "villain" department, but no, not really). You might be wondering: what the hell is the "quest" part? Well, the lead character is a guy who ran away from gangsters after he helped some orphans get money, promising to return to America, so I guess he's on the quest for his soul (and money). Somehow in the aftermath of denying himself the "Golden Dragon" (to save the dudes who formerly tricked him into slavery), one is told in voiceover that he returned to New York and helped the kids get off the streets (while the others get happy endings). As a 95-minute movie that is basically split between the adventure aspects (a ship boarding, the training stuff) and a repetitive tournament that happens to end with the characters going outside the ring, it's all pretty amusing hokum. Sure, it's a retread of stuff you've probably seen before, but there are some movies where inflated self-importance is part of the fun for an action movie that is exactly what you think it is. As a whole, The Quest is sometimes amusing, sometimes odd and generally watchable even as a lesser effort for Van Damme as both star and director.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*I was never that good at getting the fatalities in Mortal Kombat, sue me.

The Warriors.

Review #2217: The Warriors.

Cast: 

Michael Beck (Swan), James Remar (Ajax), Deborah Van Valkenburgh (Mercy), Marcelino Sánchez (Rembrandt), David Harris (Cochise), Tom McKitterick (Cowboy), Brian Tyler (Snow), Dorsey Wright (Cleon), Terry Michos (Vermin), David Patrick Kelly (Luther), Roger Hill (Cyrus), Edward Sewer (Masai), Lynne Thigpen (the D.J.), and Thomas G. Waites (Fox) Directed by Walter Hill (#1072 - 48 Hrs, #1091 - Last Man Standing, #1139 - Supernova, #1625 - The Long Riders, #1728 - Another 48 Hrs)

Review: 

“Our film doesn’t say everyone is supposed to be a lawyer or a doctor or something. The movie sees gangs as a defensive alignment in order to help you survive in a harsh atmosphere.”

In 1965, Sol Yurick made a crime novel that took inspiration from Xenophon’s Anabasis involving gangs and a desperate run back to Coney Island through rival turf. He had been a social investigator within New York City's welfare department for several years prior to becoming a fulltime writer. Lawrence Gordon (once a vice president within American International Pictures before starting to produce films with Dillinger in 1973) was the one to spearhead a production as a producer, even if it would be a semi-cheap film made for Paramount Pictures with a director in Walter Hill that had two films to his name with Hard Times (1975) and The Driver (1978); at the time, only Hard Times was remotely successful. Hill delivered re-writes to the original script as done by David Shaber (the actual Yurick novel was, well, a straight-to-the point book about a gang in all of the rough-and-tumble moves). The wild road of making a film on location in New York City led to a good deal of success and turmoil in filmmaking (Waites, apparently seen as a "potential next James Dean", got into arguments with Hill about the nature of the dialogue and filmmaking that saw him get suddenly get killed off, to which he demanded to not be credited for the role). The film was rushed a bit to beat the rush of a film that came out in the same year in The Wanderers, which was a Bronx coming-of-age story involving teenagers in gangs; both movies were pretty moderate hits, but only one attracted a bit of violence within screenings (which because pundits really are as dumb as you think, they linked to the film just because someone died) that saw a brief halting of advertising by Paramount. The introduction of Hill's director's cut makes reference to the Battle of Cunaxa (in tying the run of a group of people back home) to go with other additions (comic book panels) that apparently were things that Hill could not do due to the rushed time to make the film. Your milage may vary on whether the panels add anything substantial to the film. 

There is something about filming on location that really brings out the ingenuity in a director, particularly one as interesting as Walter Hill in lean and mean adventure that really could double as a Western (Hill was once quoted as saying that every one of his films was a Western, although it wasn't until one would be amused to compare this to Hill's fourth feature with 1980's The Long Riders). It is a certain kind of capsule movie that has a look one can't just replicate when it comes to grime that works so well here for a relatively breezy 92-minute runtime that goes right in for a useful kinetic journey that just has the feeling of...being in a rush. It has the coordinated energy in its arrangement of fight sequences to go with a handful of amusing moments involving appealing people (punks probably had a field day). Beck (picked after Hill watched him star in a film called "Madman") and Van Valkenburgh have that type of wavering chemistry that could only come from people that believe they can navigate the stormy waters. Sure, you can't really define these characters more than a sentence or two, but that can go for anyone here and yet they still make it worth the trip. Remar (in just his second film role) has a chaotic energy to him that commands the screen in stupefying fervor worth appreciating. Of course, Kelly (making his film debut) does well in that worthwhile type of sadistic derangement that naturally has the most enduring bit of the whole film involving "come out to play" (emphasis on that last word, dragged out). It is a movie one catches for the exhilaration and madness, all of which gets going with that buildup in the starting sequence involving a collection of gangs and a man named Cyrus (if one looks up Anabasis, that involved a large group of Greek mercenaries hired...by someone named Cyrus the Younger, which, well, ended with Cyrus dying). It isn't a film about the social problem but instead a frenzy of coordinated chaos that is broadly crude but totally the kind of movie to slip on one night and enjoy for its clear-eyed dystopian nature that just busts loose.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Tales from the Darkside: The Movie.

Review #2129: Tales from the Darkside: The Movie.

Cast: 

Wraparound segment: Deborah Harry (Betty) and Matthew Lawrence (Timmy)

"Lot 249" segment: Steve Buscemi (Edward Bellingham), Julianne Moore (Susan Smith), Christian Slater (Andy Smith), Robert Sedgwick (Lee), Donald Van Horn (Moving Man), and Michael Deak (The Mummy)

"Cat from Hell" segment: William Hickey (Drogan), David Johansen (Halston), Paul Greeno (The Cabbie), Alice Drummond (Carolyn), and Dolores Sutton (Amanda)

"Lover's Vow" segment: James Remar (Preston), Rae Dawn Chong (Carola), Robert Klein (Wyatt), Ashton Wise (Jer), and Philip Lenkowsky (Maddox) Directed by John Harrison.

Review: 

Well, when you have a good film going for you, why not do a television series? The success of Creepshow in 1982 led to the creation of Tales from the Darkside with a pilot (as written by show creator George A. Romero) in 1983 and a syndication run that started the following year, which ran until 1988 in displaying stories of sci-fi or fantasy that adapted various authors such as Stephen King or Harlan Ellison to go with narration, that, well, "Man lives in the sunlit world of what he believes to be reality. But ... there is, unseen by most, an underworld ... a place that is just as real, but not as brightly lit. A darkside." I went on a lark and watched the DVD boxset of the series roughly four years ago. It was...decent if not very wavering in quality, but somehow, I found myself comparing it to the other show that followed the lead of EC Comics in Tales from the Crypt, which started its run on television almost immediately after the end of Darkside. Perhaps it makes perfect sense that the show's success would inspire a feature film in 1990. This was the feature film debut for director John Harrison, who had started in film as a first assistant director on Creepshow (1982), which he also composed the music for. He also wrote and directed a handful of episodes on Darkside. Richard P. Rubinstein (who also produced Creepshow) and Mitchell Galin (who produced with Rubinstein the Darkside spinoff Monsters) produced the film.

Oh, but what anthology isn't worth mentioning unless it has a framing device? The wraparound (taking up eleven of the 93 minute film) is a suburban housewife...and modern-day witch preparing a dish made of a kid she has locked up in her house, but the kid tries to stall by reading three stories from, well, "Tales from the Darkside". Needless to say that the story goes better than it does for the main characters of the real three stories, although I could do without the 4th wall moment at the end. "Lot 249" (28 minutes) is based on a short story by Arthur Conan Doyle first published in 1892 that saw Michael McDowell (a novellist and also most notably the writer of Beetlejuice) serve as screenwriter. The ending of the story is the most changed from the original and likely for the better, since it involves more than just being on the run. Besides, the story wisely lets the one we like the most mostly off without a hitch. Buscemi makes a suitable presence to strike revenge upon such confident jerks that come with Slater (a moderately convincing goof), Moore (this was her film debut), and Sedgwick. The mummy stuff is decent for a yarn, but yeah, go with gore. "Cat from Hell" (23 minutes) is based on a 1977 short story of the same name by Stephen King with Romero as screenwriter. The premise is as such: a man hires a hitman to kill a cat that apparently led to the deaths of three people. A good chunk is spent on telling said story of the cat, but it is at least spent with a darkly amusing Hickey, talking about a cat that seems like an assassin due to the nature of his work (drugs affecting poor little black cats). Besides, the conclusion of what happens when cat meets the mouth is a nice and grisly conclusion to see play out. "Lover's Vow" (29 minutes) is based on the Japanese folk story "Yuki-Onna", as originated by Lafcadio Hearn, which you may recognize because that story was adapted into Kwaidan; McDowell wrote this story with gargoyles taking the helm, in this case one that happens to strike on a bunch of drunks that have an artist survive and swear his life on not telling what happened. Remar is at least where on expects him to be when it comes to being good for middle material, which contrasts against the bare minimum of mystery provided by Chong for a story that, well, can only go one way, I guess. It's a decent story but somehow it feels lacking in that build to the inevitable, although the final moment is at least somewhat poignant. As a whole, the film is basically about on par with the show that it arose from: halfway entertaining if not exactly a great successor to Creepshow. It is basically a notch above Twilight Zone: The Movie (1983), to put it bluntly. The stories are decently handled with a few recognizable names, but one would be hard-pressed to say just which story is the real showstopper when it comes to such varying tones. It has a few fun moments for being an ordinary anthology that would probably fit just fine in the latter recommendations for any October, so take that for what it's worth.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next: A John Carpenter film - 25 years later!

Django Unchained.

Review #1932: Django Unchained.

 

Cast: 

Jamie Foxx (Django Freeman), Christoph Waltz (Dr. King Schultz), Leonardo DiCaprio ("Monsieur" Calvin J. Candie), Kerry Washington (Broomhilda "Hildi" von Shaft), Samuel L. Jackson (Stephen Warren), Walton Goggins (Billy Crash), Dennis Christopher (Leonide "Leo" Moguy), James Remar (Butch Pooch / Ace Speck), David Steen (Mr. Stonecipher), Dana Gourrier (Cora), Nichole Galicia (Sheba), Laura Cayouette (Lara Lee Candie-Fitzwilly), Ato Essandoh (D'Artagnan), Sammi Rotibi (Rodney), Clay Donahue Fontenot (Luigi), Escalante Lundy (Big Fred), Miriam F. Glover (Betina), Don Johnson (Spencer "Big Daddy" Bennett), and Franco Nero (Amerigo Vessepi) Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino (#638 - Kill Bill: Volume 1, #639 - Kill Bill: Volume 2, #1180 - Reservoir Dogs, #1218 - Pulp Fiction, #1251 - Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, #1307 - Jackie Brown, #1551 - Inglourious Basterds)

Review: 

"I want to explore something that really hasn't been done. I want to do movies that deal with America's horrible past with slavery and stuff but do them like spaghetti westerns, not like big issue movies. I want to do them like they're genre films, but they deal with everything that America has never dealt with because it's ashamed of it, and other countries don't really deal with because they don't feel they have the right to."

It should only figure that Quentin Tarantino had his eye on Sergio Corbucci. Tarantino was actually writing a book about the director when he found a way to tell a story that he wanted to make in a tribute to Spaghetti Westerns, one where he found inspiration in what he saw as Corbucci's "this evil Wild West, a horrible Wild West" in his feature. Specifically, Tarantino is doing a tribute to Corbucci's Django (1966), a film that the director co-wrote that featured Franco Nero as star involving a drifter and a companion mixed into a deadly feud between Confederates and Mexican revolutionaries. The film was made to capitalize on the success of Sergio Leone's A Fistful of Dollars (1964), which in turn was a "loose" remake of Akira Kurosawa's Yojimbo (1961). If you remember, Inglorious Basterds (2009) was made by Tarantino as his desire to make a Spaghetti Western but as a World War II film, and we all know how that went: good for some, okay for others. Here, he has made a film that he calls a "Southern" that is part of his long line of tributes to genres of film such as revenge films, road-rage movies, and martial arts films.

Honestly, I enjoyed the film far more than I thought I would, with my hopes being that it would be a slightly more interesting of sprawling alternate history than the weird jumble that came from his last feature. Of course, Waltz and Tarantino won Academy Awards for their work on the film (both winning their second award for acting and writing, respectively), so who knows what kind of expectations were to be had here from Tarantino's seventh feature. I felt it was a consistent pulp experience that shows its respect for the filmmakers of the past in terms of classic Western types without becoming just a carbon copy of the things that were. It packs a message about slavery and racism in a revenge movie that conveys a sense of scope and scale worth all of the attention it has received in the ten years that have passed since its release. It is dignified mayhem seemingly split into two segments: a movie about the repertoire of its two main stars and a movie about revenge through the eyes of Foxx. History is taken to the woodshed in a glorious manner, with Tarantino saying that he wanted to show two types of violence: the brutal reality of slave life and the violence of retribution, since he believes the genre of the Western reflects the time it was made in more than any other genre to go along with reflecting the morals and feelings of its audience. The Western may not be the most prevalent genre of the past few decades, but they sure do pull an interesting punch when a director is interested in generating fresh voices of the West. It is funny when you think about the fact that DiCaprio and Jackson don't show up until the first hour has passed in a 165-minute movie. And yet, the pair of Foxx and Waltz are ideal to hold everything together, making a great pairing in both chemistry and their distinct approach to the art of hired guns. Foxx is confident and capable to the task at hand, and it is interesting to see that he was not the first choice approached, since Tarantino wrote it with Will Smith in mind, but he rejected it (he wanted to make a love story, not one about vengeance, go figure). Foxx knows what he wants to do and say as a knight of vengeance that is never consumed in self-parody. Oh, the film does have little moments of humor between the two, particularly since Waltz plays dignity to an amoral(ish) killer, which he plays magnificently: they are fun together without making one think the whole film is just them and nothing else. DiCaprio is magnificent in clear-cut villainy in his time on screen that makes him suitably intense when you see him on screen. Jackson is the ideal foil in as the off-center moral compass with resourceful timing and the expressive nature you expect from him that makes him an ideal actor that has collaborated with Tarantino countless times. The rest of the cast proves worthwhile in their own contribution to the terror of dignity in 1858, whether that involves Johnson and his huckster plantation act or the oozing menace in Goggins or the weary fear in Washington. The movie has a wonderful design and atmosphere to it, but I am sure you already know that.

Well, the movie is probably not for everyone, which you might say for a number of Tarantino movies depending on one's patience for violence or language, particularly with the use of one particular word. However, the movie sat fine with me, since Tarantino has a keen eye for what he wants to show in violence and atmosphere without going up his own nose in gratuitous excess (he actually trimmed the film's violence down a bit before release anyway, even though it already received an R rating from the MPAA), despite what critics may think of his interest in not just making a message movie with the usual trimmings. What's not to ponder in a movie that seems a reference of phrenology, people being used as human shields, fighting to a pulp, supremacists dwelling on how hard it is to see out of a hood, and action that might as well be called Shaft (1971) on a horse? You know what really is more of a problem than violence in movies? Folks who really believe that toning things down is better than confronting them head on. It is the grisly Western that represents its era in all of the ways it needs to be: honest without condescending, brutal but not exploitative, and entertaining but not inattentive to the matter at hand. It is the sensation you would hope from Tarantino in the art of making fresh kinetic cinema. He may not hit the mark on every moment of bold brutality, but he knows where he is going without wandering too far from wanting to entertain himself and others.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Red (2010).

Review #1824: Red.

Cast: 

Bruce Willis (Frank Moses), Morgan Freeman (Joe Matheson), John Malkovich (Marvin Boggs), Helen Mirren (Victoria Winslow), Karl Urban (William Cooper), Mary-Louise Parker (Sarah Ross), Rebecca Pidgeon (Cynthia Wilkes), Brian Cox (Ivan Simanov), Richard Dreyfuss (Alexander Dunning), Julian McMahon (Vice President Robert Stanton), Ernest Borgnine (Henry, the records keeper), and James Remar (Gabriel Singer) Directed by Robert Schwentke. 

Review: 

Red (standing for Retired: Extremely Dangerous), if you didn't know, was originally a comic miniseries (or as the film credits put it, a graphic novel), done by writer Warren Ellis and artist Cully Hamner that was published from 2003-04 by Homage Comics (a subdivision of comic imprint Wildstorm, which in term was a publishing imprint of DC Comics until its shutdown in 2010). So technically speaking, one is dealing with a comic book movie, although it apparently is lighter in tone (as scripted by Jon Hoeber and Erich Hoeber) than the actual comic, judging by the cursory glance at the plot (Ellis once stated that while the script wasn't exactly the book, he felt it wasn't a bad script, noting the tight casting). This happened to be released in the same year of The Expendables, which also recruited a bunch of familiar names for an action film with a few select quips (which incidentally had Willis in a cameo). This was the fifth feature film for its director in Schwentke, a West German graduate of Columbia College Hollywood.

You get what you pay for when it comes to recognizable names maneuvering their way through an ensemble designed to draw smiles without too many story beats to count on (in other words, smiling at Borgnine is more interesting than the climax reveal). By this point in his career, Willis was 45. In the decade of the 2010s, he would do a variety of action appearances...alongside plenty of direct-to-video work ("on demand", specifically). It probably isn't a surprise that Willis was the prime actor in mind when it came to casting, since his sly charm is suitable for what is needed here in the small parts before the action pastiche moments come around, which turn out fine (modern movies have certain aims and limits, remember). Freeman doesn't exactly have much to really do here, seemingly overshadowed by the eccentrics like Malkovich with calmness that only works to a certain extent, likely because the film pulls a fake-out involving the character being "dead" for a time. Malkovich makes for a paranoid ham for some splendid amusing moments, which work out for the best without turning into a drudge. Urban lumbers through as the foil for most of the film which works out for engaging action moments. Parker seems bemused just to be there, contributing a few chuckles while having a quirky chemistry with Willis that at the very least doesn't become consumed in all the cliches needed. Mirren seems pleased to be there with graceful engagement that works when finally presented as the last piece of the ensemble for useful effect. One could only hope for further time with Dreyfuss, who has exactly two scenes with a bit that seems honed right in with cliches from the 1980s that is lost in the shuffle. Granted, the movie is going for a light touch when it comes to story, but still. One knows Cox is putting on an accent, but he seems firmly game to make the bit count, which works pretty well for those small moments with Mirren. 

The 111-minute run-time is fairly serviceable, in that the film manages to have enough action set-pieces to go along with occasional chuckles without slowing to a halt too many times, although the climax does nearly slug itself out with abrupt set-ups to nearly derail it. Honestly, the movie is fine. Granted, it might not exactly win many favors as an action spectacle, but it is at the least something that proves suitable for enjoyment with fair style and sly charm. Technically speaking, this is a cast that might have been really, really captivating a couple of years ago, if only to note the names that come together to (put it lightly) "kick ass". It moves through the cheesy aspects with an awareness that it is meant to be that way, not trying to take itself too seriously, which results in a decent movie with only a few surprises but a suitable ensemble film. It could have been better with the number of names involved, but the fact that it slugs through the finish line without many stilted bumps in terms of action sequencing and light touches means that it will prove worthy of your time.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Mortal Kombat: Annihilation.

Review #1671: Mortal Kombat: Annihilation.

Cast:

Robin Shou (Liu Kang), Talisa Soto (Kitana), James Remar (Raiden), Sandra Hess (Sonya Blade), Lynn Red Williams (Jax), Brian Thompson (Shao Kahn), Reiner Schöne (Shinnok), Musetta Vander (Sindel), Irina Pantaeva (Jade), Deron McBee (Motaro), Marjean Holden (Sheeva), Litefoot (Nightwolf), Chris Conrad (Johnny Cage), John Medlen (Ermac), J.J. Perry (Cyrax / Scorpion / Noob Saibot, with Ed Boon as voice of Scorpion) Directed by John R. Leonetti.

Review:

The best way to describe this film is with food. The first film is basically the equivalent of a fairly well-cooked dessert for one to eat (for those who want detail, use an éclair). It tastes nice, and one generally will look back on the moment with a bit of relish, even if they know they shouldn't have too much of it. The second film is essentially what would happen if the one of the ingredients was lost in the writing and so the cook decided to replace it and put a bunch of sparklers and streamers on it in order to make sure you don't notice why it tastes like mud. Actually, if you go by what producer Lawrence Kasanoff said, there is apparently one modification to that: imagine if the chef pulled the dish out five minutes before it was fully cooked, since the initial cut that was screened to test audiences and New Line Cinema was meant to have a second run of effects and editing but the studio was so confident that it would make money and be liked that they released the feature as it was. It might be a strange thing to note that Kasanoff has the dubious honor of being behind two odd sequels to movies as executive producer between this and C.H.U.D. II: Bud the C.H.U.D. (1989, which you should hope is the first and only mention of C.H.U.D. II in recorded Movie Night history). At the helm for writing is five writers, with Brent V. Friedman and Bryce Zabel for the screenplay and Kasanoff, Joshua Wexler and John Tobias for the story (you might recognize Tobias as one of the creators of the video game series). You might be interested to note that the director for this film at least had experience with the series...in that the cinematographer for the 1995 film is now the director for the sequel (incidentally, he would not direct again for nine years...with The Butterfly Effect 2, although he would continue on with cinematography work).

To point out all the odd moments in this film would be quite a paragraph, but let's make it a fairly snappy one. The effects have actually degraded from the first film, and it is apt that we see that in the first few minutes of the film (at least after it recounts the first feature's cliffhanger) that leads to the most quotable lines from the feature that goes like this: "Mother...you're alive"/"Too bad YOU...will DIE!" If the dialogue felt a bit silly the first time around, it will feel like a lead weight this time around, made worse by the fact that re-casting most of the actors has only made it felt like one is stuck in a travelling theater show. Characters will be introduced and leave just as quickly, which is stranger with Scorpion and Sub-Zero, who not only come out of the blue from the dead (well, apparently the latter character is the...brother of the one from before and the other is a zombie, but...yeah) but also have a fight scene together (complete with an ice bridge that totally looks like ice if you have never seen it before) and then both disappear from the film entirely. I will give credit though, because they lend to one another amusing scene, where a kidnapping happens and then you hear the voice of Boon saying with no irony the word of "Suckers!" as he leaves stage right. The fact that one of them takes off their mask and talks to Shou about how he isn't ready (because he...didn't participate in the Scorpion/Sub-Zero fight?) and then disappears is the icing on the cake. How about the character of Nightwolf? He talks about three tests that Shou has to go through in order to do the thing that he has to do or whatever...somehow passing the first two tests is all Shou needs, because Nightwolf literally doesn't show up again after that one scene about tests. Raiden revealing his family heritage seems like it should be more impactful, but it manages to hit like a puddle. Characters like Sheeva have the presence of five minutes before she is crushed by a cage (...an action scene was meant to be filmed, but oops). Cables are apparently evident on multiple occasions during fight scenes, since I suppose New Line really believed in the art...of making money. Probably the one bright spot is the music, which continues the electronic trend from the last film (which featured folks such as Buckethead and a music score by George S. Clinton), and it is hard to resist saying that title song from the Immortals one more time.

Shou hasn't exactly improved from the first film, but since the movie doesn't really seem to give him any favors, it would seem forgivable if it was a better project. The silly quest, combined with moments that inspire quizzical responses rather than highlights, combined with a climatic fight scene that has him turn into a terrible CG creation only seals the deal. In that regard, Thompson is a hilariously terrible villain, one that might as well have been tossed out of an episode of Hercules: The Legendary Journeys for being too hammy. I still can't find a reach on Soto when it comes to her acting, because she is basically swept up in a different quality of film this time around, one that is actually too hammy for her to stand out for better or worse. Hess gets to play in the mud and kick a bit, which pairs with Williams for a duo of folks good enough for dinner theater. Christopher Lambert apparently decided that starring in Beowulf (1999, which was also produced by Kasanoff) would be a better prospect than reprising the role of Raiden, so instead one gets James Remar. But at least one can't say Remar is a bad actor, since he has experience in a wide array of features that ranged from The Warriors (1979) to 48 Hrs (1982); of course those movies were villainous roles, but I'm sure that with a better script he might have done better. Here, it seems like half of a performance, one where you are thinking about shambles of a story and the effects around him (take a close look at the opening scene, for example) than the actual character...even the sacrifice is a waste of time. Having a script that was bad enough to chase three of your five primary actors is bad enough, but the fact that the only thing that comes out of it is an endless barrage of fights and effects that aren't as good as before is the true nail in the coffin for the movie. How could New Line see the fight scene at the end between two shambling ugly creations and think that this was even finished? Beyond the need for a polishing, the complete turnover that results from its actors and having too many writers in the room creates an incoherent mess that somehow feels abrupt for 95 minutes. At least there is one reason to watch it: it would make a great movie to laugh at over and over again.

Overall, I give it 4 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.