Masters of the Universe (1987).

Review #2545: Masters of the Universe.

Cast: 

Dolph Lundgren (He-Man), Frank Langella (Skeletor), Meg Foster (Evil-Lyn), Billy Barty (Gwildor), Courteney Cox (Julie Winston), Robert Duncan McNeill (Kevin Corrigan), Jon Cypher (Man-At-Arms), Chelsea Field (Teela), James Tolkan (Hugh Lubic), Christina Pickles (Sorceress), Tony Carroll (the Beastman), Pons Maar (Saurod), Anthony De Longis (Blade), and Robert Towers (Karg) Directed by Gary Goddard.

Review: 

Hey, remember Masters of the Universe? The impetus for trying to make the toy line came from Mattel's drive to come up with something good enough to possibly forget their rejection to produce action figures for a little film called Star Wars [1977] (Kenner famously did it first instead). Various concepts came around from people such as Roger Sweet and Mark Taylor. Coincidentally, this happened around the same time that the rights holder for Conan the Barbarian tried to do a toy deal with Mattel that fell through (they later sued Mattel claiming infringement, but Mattel won out in their toy line being original). The figures first came out with mini comics in 1981 before further waves of toys and, well, your parents probably watched the Filmation animated shows, with He-Man and the Masters of the Universe running from 1983 to 1985 and a spinoff with She-Ra: Princess of Power running from 1985 to 1987 (with that show, The Secret of the Sword [1985] was the premiere, a compilation of the first five episodes that was in theaters). According to one source, the original script by David Odell (writer of films such as Supergirl) had significant time spent on Eternia and Snake Mountain but this later changed to what you see here with a fairly Earthbound adventure (apparently, the link between the two places was that He-Man's mother was born on Earth). Mattel decided to be as cloying as possible for production, reportedly not paying their half of the production budget on time and they didn't want to their title character doing anything morally wrong. The film was directed by Gary Goddard (with his one other film credit being the co-writer of Tarzan, the Ape-Man [1981]) in the only theatrical film he has done. He has done theater shows along with dark rides and 3D movies.* Released around the same time as Stakeout and The Living Daylights in August 1987, Masters of the Universe was a flop, with its failure (along others such as Superman IV) hindering Cannon Films. They had planned to do a sequel film with Albert Pyun as director and even made some costumes and sets only to renege on a deal with Mattel that led them to re-tool it for what became Cyborg [1989].

Honestly, I never really got into He-Man, because, I was born in 1996, Legos were just more interesting (and as for the animated show...no, sorry). You might say that could help when talking about a movie that probably has a special cheesy place for those who watched it back then. No, not really, this movie is a lazy, middling film, a Conan/Star Wars wannabee mired in a "fish out of water" plotline and a monosyllabic lead.  Goddard claimed that the film's storyline was inspired by various Jack Kirby comic books (namely The New Gods), and he wanted Kirby to be a conceptual artist for the movie. I feel like play-acting a comic book would be a more entertaining experience, especially since it would probably have violence against actual humanoid-looking people in it (after the first couple of totally not Stormtroopers get shot by lasers, how far can you go?). Lundgren (in his first starring role after Rocky IV [1985]) and his dialogue was re-recorded and dubbed over the original footage, which at least sounds better than Goddard wanting to re-dub the whole film with someone else's voice...in theory. For a character that goes around dallying without using a sword too much, Lundgren is left adrift to really say anything of meaningful substance (this is me trying to be nice in not just calling him wooden*). It probably is a bit of a casting coup to have a willing Langella (of films such as Dracula [1979], which I'm sure somebody liked*) go all-out, apparently because his son was big on the animated show. He hams it up a bit and basically steals the movie, which is a bit of an accomplishment when wrapped in so much makeup (as one does for a skeleton). It doesn't save the movie, but still. Cox and McNeill (future featured players in television*) just look lost in this corny movie with little to really make you care about them in a film that just meanders around with the bare minimum to offer (to say nothing of an ending that basically is wish fulfillment without really earning it). Barty, cast as a freshly created character because they could not make Orko, a floating magician for the screen...is okay, but it probably makes one appreciate stuff like Legend (1985) and Willow (1988) by comparison in the "comedy relief" aspect that only goes so far to distract from a movie that has folks going around confronting the new realities of a bucket of ribs. In a sea of attempts of support from Foster and Cypher (and those totally comfortable suits), at least you can say Tolkan was trying to be funny. For someone who really does have a varying bar of giving films a chance, this is a movie that is just too shallow to really garner that much care for what goes on in it (a sorceress being trapped has never felt so small). As a whole, the movie didn't reach its target audience in its day (people who either loved their toys and sure love PG-rated flicks), and there are oodles of people who will try to call it a cult movie, but I'm just not a fan to where I can't even call it a "just missed the mark" type of movie. So it goes.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*He may also be a pervert, as detailed by articles such as this: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-entertainment-news-updates-anthony-edwards-pens-powerful-essay-1510344160-htmlstory.html

*Unpopular and unrelated take: I suppose there's something to say about He-Man being a "gay icon" or something. No, not really. People will claim anything as an "icon" if it sounds "cool" enough. You can say "Fortunate Son" is an anti-war song but people will still put that song on full blast because...it sounds cool. 

*I still can't get over mediocre that Dracula movie was. Goddamnit. 

*folks would see Lundgren on the big screen a few more times in the next ten years (Red Scorpion [1988], The Punisher [1989 - although America got it direct-to-video], I Come in Peace [1990], Showdown in Little Tokyo [1991], Universal Soldier [1992], Johnny Mnemonic [1995]) sprinkled in with direct-to-video fare.

*Friends stinks. I'll watch Star Trek: Voyager all the way through once before I see Friends.

The Friends of Eddie Coyle.

Review #2063: The Friends of Eddie Coyle.

Cast: 

Robert Mitchum (Eddie Coyle), Peter Boyle (Dillon), Richard Jordan (Dave Foley), Steven Keats (Jackie Brown), Alex Rocco (Jimmy Scalise), Joe Santos (Artie Van), Mitchell Ryan (Waters), Helena Carroll (Sheila Coyle), Jack Kehoe (The Beard), Margaret Ladd (Andrea), and James Tolkan (The Man's Contact Man) Directed by Peter Yates (#506 - Bullitt, #927 - Krull, and #1197 - The Deep)

Review: 

In 1970, George V. Higgins saw his first novel in The Friends of Eddie Coyle become published. Formerly, he had served his native Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a deputy assistant attorney general alongside as an Assistant United State Attorney. Higgins dabbled as a novelist when not involved in private practice in law that distilled the words that he would hear from gangsters and made them the kind of thing you would hear in a great potboiler. Better writers than me can lend you some context within the scene of Boston and gangs (as presented here). It made some sense to have Peter Yates as director, as his third effort with Robbery (1967) had given him a chance to direct Bullitt (1968), a movie packed with a car chase so notable that I'm sure those who view it now will talk about with fanfare; Yates directed a variety of genres besides crime of course, but, well, we are here to talk about a film that was underappreciated by audiences in its time. This is the first of only two adaptations of a Higgins book, with the only other one being Killing Them Softly (2012). Paul Monash wrote the screenplay while serving as producer. Of the films that Yates made, he stated that the three films he was most proud of was Breaking Away (1979), The Dresser (1983), and this film.

When it comes to the grimy classics of a decade as ideal for grimy films as the 1970s were, you can't really go wrong with this one. Life is hard, but it sure is harder if you are stupid, as is reflected within the dialogue that is told with such dedicated efficiency. Before you get to films of the region such as The Town (2010) or The Departed (2006), you might want to consider this one when it comes to looking at the people that dwell in the corners of crime. This isn't merely just the big-timers or two-bit hustlers, it involves folks wrapped firmly in the middle, the kind that are referred to with irony as having friends. It rewards those who value character presences such as Boyle or Keats to serve in the lines behind the immeasurable Mitchum. One of the cast members actually was formerly involved in organized crime within the East in Rocco, who was linked loosely with the Winter Hill Gang in the Boston area that had seen him accused of being involved in an assault on a diner owner. Apparently, when Mitchum had asked to see a local gangster for research, Rocco tapped him to see Howie Winter, who was still part of the gang. Of course, Mitchum having an accent that has been looked upon favorably among select folks in the region is not a surprise given the veteran actor's immense talent that relies heavily on seeing this one man in the time he has remaining in such a weary existence that knows his strengths and weaknesses when it comes to the life put upon him. This includes moments spent with Carroll to remind oneself of just what is really at stake when it comes to playing information or not (it isn't a movie built on overt violence, basically). Only Mitchum could waltz right into a role like this with such natural skill that it seems that nobody could have done it better. He may be a hustler of guns, but he is our hustler and his dilemma matters more than anything to us, particularly since we know the game that comes in Boyle, who provides such a worthy mobster presence in subtlety on the level of a snake. Jordan is the leading authority (with pretty good results) to watch upon these distinct elements of crime that is thoroughly unglamourous. Violent or not, you know what kind of underworld you are in with this film in folks such as Keats and Rocco that obviously accomplish what is required in the shades of laying out plans in their own scope that can only go the way things go with the unending world of crime moving on with or without the best laid-out plans working right. The robbing aren't the most important part, because it is a slow boiler all about seeing what happens to Mitchum as a battle of pride, one that works out to effective drama with no sense of false note moral by its end. In that sense, it is a worthwhile crime film wrapped firmly in its Boston surroundings for a worthwhile time of grime. Bleak and unflinching, it stands worthy of its time rather than one that flinches away.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Redux: Top Gun.

Redux: #029: Top Gun.

Cast: 

Tom Cruise (Pete "Maverick" Mitchell), Kelly McGillis (Charlotte "Charlie" Blackwood), Val Kilmer (Tom "Iceman" Kazansky), Anthony Edwards (Nick "Goose" Bradshaw), Tom Skerritt (Mike "Viper" Metcalf), Michael Ironside (Rick "Jester" Heatherly), John Stockwell (Bill "Cougar" Cortell), Barry Tubb (Leonard "Wolfman" Wolfe), Rick Rossovich (Ron "Slider" Kerner), Tim Robbins (Sam "Merlin" Wells), Clarence Gilyard (Marcus "Sundown" Williams), Whip Hubley (Rick "Hollywood" Neven), and James Tolkan (Tom "Stinger" Jardian) Directed by Tony Scott.

Review: 

"Jerry was the first person to see the energy and dynamism that ad directors could bring to movies because he was from a commercials background himself."

A main core is only as successful as the parts that come with it. Tony Scott was born in Tynemouth, England as the youngest of three sons; when his older brother Ridley shot his first film in 1962, he cast his brother as the lead. At any rate, the younger Scott studied at Sunderland Art School and the Royal College of Art before he decided to join his brother in making advertisement films (as was the case with other soon-to-be directors like Alan Parker and Adrian Lyne). Of course, he did do his own shorts with One of the Missing (1968) and Loving Memory (1970) before his feature film debut came with The Hunger (made in 1983 to minor attention), but it was his filming in advertisements that would keep him steady for a number of years, and it was his advertisement for automaker Saab (which had a car racing a fighter jet) that raised interest from Jerry Bruckheimer to do this film. Of course, as a young man, Bruckheimer had worked in advertising before moving to producing films in 1972; it was his meeting years later with Don Simpson, who also had years of experience with film production that later led to their first collaboration: Flashdance, released in 1983, would be Bruckheimer and Simpson's first major hit as producer. The movie was inspired by an article called "Top Guns", written originally for California magazine in May 1983 by Ehud Yonay. The article detailed a F-14 pilots training with the Navy Fighter Weapons School program that was noted for its prose and still photography that conveyed what flying a fighter seemed like, as stated by two pilots named "Yogi" and "Possum". Bruckheimer and Don Simpson liked it and thus got Jim Cash and Jack Epps Jr to construct a first draft, although there would be considerable differences before it finally made it to the big screen (which reportedly saw a last-minute rewrite from Warren Skaaren). This also extended to their work with the Department of Defense (a key backer that wanted to maintain that the movie honored the fine points of security, accuracy, policy, and propriety with the story (i.e. a character not suffering a mid-air collision or the love story being changed from between military personnel to a military man and civilian). The technical advisor utilized for the film was Peter "Viper" Pettigrew, a former "Topgun" (as the actual term is referred to) instructor at the Miramar Naval Air Station in Miramar, California.

As stated by its opening card: On March 3, 1969 the United States Navy established an elite school for the top one percent of its pilots. Its purpose was to teach the lost art of aerial combat and to insure that the handful of men who graduated were the best fighter pilots in the world. They succeeded. Today, the Navy calls it Fighter Weapons School. The flyers call it: You get the idea. The last time I saw the film was over a decade ago, and I remember that the film was a "cheesy flick", one that worked best with its action sequences more so than its overall mood and atmosphere. But time does find a new way to write more clear words about a movie that has now reached over three decades of age. If one gets even a fraction of how Yonay felt when he flew in an F-5 for an hour in terms of aching muscles or the thrill of wanting to get up there again, then the movie has obviously succeeded. The sequences in between talking are quite effective in their choreography, ones that serve as a useful tool of conveying action with the strange duality of not churning itself in its look but also conveying violence without drops of blood. Admittedly, the movie served as a useful tool to one thing in particular: the United States Navy, who not only helped support the film but also found plenty of recruits after the movie was released. Perhaps it isn't surprising that Oliver Stone (director of Platoon, which won Best Picture the same year as this film) felt the movie was fascist. Honestly, the parody Hot Shots (1991) might actually be the most appropriate feeling about the movie: a movie that made light of its overt macho nature that doesn't have time to think, instead acting on instinct and not much else. I think the mediocrity that my eyes saw as a fourteen-year-old only slightly changed very slightly as a 25-year old. The best thing about the movie is still the style first and Cruise second. One can see the persistent charisma oozing from Cruise (who had his breakthrough with Risky Business three years prior) that molded him from casual leading man to one with a formula fitting for a big-name presence, and he essentially walks over most of the folks here, to the point where McGillis can't catch up even when "Take My Breath Away" is blaring. Edwards provides warm energy to the early part of the proceedings for a movie that set a tone as a so-called movie for the "bros", if you will. Kilmer (who had early success in comedies like Top Secret!) has his own kind of icy charm that is just as confident and self-assured as Cruise. Skerritt and Tolkan are useful tools for authority foils, ones fitting of a sports movie filled with recognizable people meant to induce a wise-ass remark or smile. Besides, sports movies could only wish to be as eccentric with their opening besides seeing someone take a photo from up above. I think the opening with Stockwell going through a panic attack in the air is probably the best actual sequence of dialogue and visual sense; the volleyball sequence may be talked about to death, but honestly it only seems to exist as an offshoot to all of the other scenes that seem shot for a commercial rather than anything to seriously dissect. I respect the craft while also recognizing that the script quality is essentially on a level equivalent to an adventure movie where inevitability is king. It is probably how driving a car from the 1980s would turn out: it may look sleek, but one has to watch out for the simple things. For a number of years, the idea of a Top Gun sequel came up a couple of times in the 21st century, even with the suicide of Scott in 2012, and after a number of years in film/development, Top Gun: Maverick was released in late May 2022. It isn't a surprise that this followed along the lines of other sequels to movies long ago, because Top Gun is a curious representation of its era: bold, set firmly in its time, and possibly ripe for further viewing if one is in the mindset for what it wants to sell.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next Review: Top Gun: Maverick.

Back to the Future Part III.

Review #748: Back to the Future Part III.

Cast
Michael J. Fox (Marty McFly and Seamus McFly), Christopher Lloyd (Doc Brown), Mary Steenburgen (Clara Clayton), Thomas F. Wilson (Buford "Mad Dog" Tannen and Biff Tannen), Lea Thompson (Maggie McFly and Lorraine Baines-McFly), James Tolkan (Marshal James Strickland), Elisabeth Shue (Jennifer Parker), Matt Clark (Chester the Bartender), Richard Dysart (Barbwire Salesman), Pat Buttram (Saloon Old-Timer), Harry Carey Jr. (Saloon Old-Timer), and Dub Taylor (Saloon Old-Timer) Directed by Robert Zemeckis (#317 - The Polar Express, #352 - Who Framed Roger Rabbit, #581 - Forrest Gump, #648 - Beowulf, #701 - Back to the Future, and #747 - Back to the Future Part II)

Review
The third (and final) part of this trilogy is regarded by some to be the weaker of the three movies, though it is kind of hard to keep the same magic for three movies over a five year span without having some sort of familiarity. Parts II and III were filmed back to back, released one year apart. To be honest, I can't really find much to hate, mainly because this is a trilogy that is easy to appreciate. The cast once again does a fine job. Steenburgen (the only new main person) does a fine job, especially with Lloyd. They actually have some good chemistry together, especially when talking about Jules Verne. The scene with them dancing is also pretty fun to watch, especially considering the music in the background is by ZZ Top, who are certainly Sharp Dressed Men (rimshot). Wilson once again manages to play a pretty good bully, though this one actually has a weapon for once. Fox and Lloyd are good once again, especially when trying to find way to get the DeLorean to actually get to 88mph...like giving the car alcohol.

The Old West is certainly an interesting setting, and the sets do look really well done, especially the town festival scenes and the saloon. The movie isn't as funny as the last two, but at least it makes up for it by being as entertaining and as good-looking. It also is a satisfying way to end the trilogy, all capped off with a time travelling train. How did it get there? I'm not sure, but I'm not complaining that much. Overall, this is an great trilogy that is entertaining and enjoyable, from beginning to end. While the first film is the best, they are all enjoyable in their own way. If you haven't seen them, go see them.

Countdown to #750: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2...

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Back to the Future Part II.

Review #747: Back to the Future Part II.

Cast
Michael J. Fox (Marty McFly, Marty Jr, and Marlene McFly), Christopher Lloyd (Doc Brown), Thomas F. Wilson (Biff Tannen and Griff Tannen), Lea Thompson (Lorraine Baines-McFly), Elisabeth Shue (Jennifer Parker), James Tolkan (Mr. Strickland), Jeffrey Weissman (George McFly), and Flea (Needles) Directed by Robert Zemeckis (#317 - The Polar Express, #352 - Who Framed Roger Rabbit, #581 - Forrest Gump, #648 - Beowulf, and #701 - Back to the Future)

Review
Ah yes, October 21, 2015. The FUTURE. Welp, not now anyway, because today is actually the day that the DeLorean time machine arrived (with Doc, Marty and Jennifer) at the beginning of this film, so I figured that it would be appropriate to review this today, what with our hoverboards and our self lacing shoes...and Jaws 19. Let's recap the first movie, shall we? Or not, because I can just say it quite simply: It's a fun movie. Go see it, if you haven't already. But how is the second movie? It's enjoyable, but maybe not as much as the first one. The characters are enjoyable and about what you'd expect, though I didn't notice that Fox played Marlene McFly, mainly because of the makeup, mainly used for the 2015 scenes, which look pretty good.

Crisipin Glover is one of the two actors (with Shue replacing Wells as Jennifer) from the first film who doesn't return for the sequel, either because of pay issues or (according to him, anyway) his problems with the moral of the story (specifically his belief that the money is the reward that leads to happiness), but he would technically be in it, due to footage from the first film being used and Weissman (in prosthetics) playing him, which led to a lawsuit.

Fox and Lloyd shine again, especially when Doc is explaining the new alternate timeline. It's a bit strange to see Marty try to sneak a Sports Almanac from the future to try and make some money back in 1985, especially considering him and his family are already doing pretty well, what with the new truck for Marty and all at the end of the first film. But to be fair, at least Marty learns a lesson by the end of the film (mainly to make sure that when you get rid of something, you really get rid of it thoroughly). The gag of him dropping everything when someone calls him "chicken" is a bit annoying, though it at least is addressed a bit more in the next film. Wilson still does good at being a bully, even when he's playing an aged bully...who still waxes cars. The hoverboard action in 2015 is certainly a highlight to watch, as fun as the skateboard chase in the first film. The movie certainly likes going back to the first film, and it is a little fun watching Marty try to avoid himself while getting to see events again. It's a movie that certainly works as a sequel, and while it isn't quite up to the first film, it is at least a worthy sequel...that leads itself to a sequel of its own.

Countdown to #750: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3...

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Back to the Future.

Review #701: Back to the Future.

Cast
Michael J. Fox (Marty McFly), Christopher Lloyd (Doc Brown), Lea Thompson (Lorraine Baines-McFly), Crispin Glover (George McFly), Thomas F. Wilson (Biff Tannen), Claudia Wells (Jennifer Parker), and James Tolkan (Mr. Strickland) Directed by Robert Zemeckis (#317 - The Polar Express, #352 - Who Framed Roger Rabbit, #581 - Forrest Gump, and #648 - Beowulf)

Review
Yep, Back to the Future. I told you all that this film would be reviewed sometime in the future. And low and behold, the future has arrived. Which is now the present. Or the past. Forget what I said early. Back to the Future is a movie I've watched a few times over the years, from seeing it on a projector when I was a young kid to seeing it on HBO Family (yes that actually exists) three (or so) years ago, I remember this movie vividly as I'm sure many of you do. That being said, this movie is great. Are you not surprised? It doesn't matter when I watch it, it's still a fun movie to watch, and an even better movie to talk about, especially when it comes to the characters. And the music. Fox is just so likable to watch, especially his interactions with Doc and Biff, and he gets his chance to shine alone as well, and one of my (many) favorite scenes is him playing Johnny B. Goode at the dance, solely because Fox looks so energized in that moment of euphoria.

Speaking of energy, Christopher Lloyd is just pure energy, with a load of charm along with the ability to just make words just pop into the head, especially when it comes to gigawatts, pronounced as jiggawatts. Lloyd and Fox make for a really good team because their interactions seem real and seem like the kind of thing that would happen with nearly anyone else. Biff is actually a pretty good villain in the sense that while he is not what one would call intelligent, he is still a brute force of strength that also is what he is: the bad guy that loses. But at least Wilson has his moments, especially with Glover, who is perfectly cast, as is Thompson. The soundtrack by Alan Silvestri is great to listen with its scope working well on the movie, though I must note that Huey Lewis and the News' "Back in Time" and "The Power of Love" are also beneficial to the music being so effective as a whole. This is a brilliant film that features one of my favorite things: A DeLorean. The car is so cool looking (minus the giant door opening, which could really hurt if not opened carefully), and the fact it serves as the time machine is just great, given that it already looked like a strange device. The movie is clever, fun, exciting, hilarious, wickedly cool, and just plain ol' classic. I highly recommend watching the movie more than once.

Oh yeah, the sequels. I'll get to them...in the future.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.