Anaconda .

Review #2123: Anaconda.

Cast: 

Jennifer Lopez (Terri Flores), Ice Cube (Danny Rich), Jon Voight (Paul Serone), Eric Stoltz (Dr. Steven Cale), Jonathan Hyde (Warren Westridge), Owen Wilson (Gary Dixon), Kari Wuhrer (Denise Kalberg), Vincent Castellanos (Mateo), with Frank Welker (Anaconda snake) and Danny Trejo (Poacherck) Directed by Luis Llosa.

Review:

Look, you know what you are getting into with a film like this, especially one released in the late 1990s. The film utilizes a mix of computer-generated imagery and animatronics for its title creature (apparently, one can see an animatronic from the film at the California Academy of Sciences). Hans Bauer, Jim Cash and Jack Epps Jr wrote the screenplay, although it has been stated that Mark Haskell Smith provided a "production draft". The film was directed by Luis Llosa, a Peruvian film critic-turned-director (of course, being a cousin of noted novelist Mario Vargas Llosa is something to note). He got his start as director with Peruvian television shows such as Gamboa and Carmin before becoming a feature director with (where else?) Roger Corman productions such as Hour of the Assassin (1987) and Crime Zone (1989). Perhaps to the surprise of no one, there were follow ups; only Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid (2004) was released theatrically, although it retained no original cast members from the first film. Plans to make a reboot film are apparently in motion, which I'm sure is interesting news to those who are familiar with recent creature features such as The Meg (I still can't get over that title). 

Honestly, the film almost overrode my low expectations. You have Ice Cube making a reference to his own songs for a line. You have Jon Voight putting on a Paraguayan accent because, well, okay, sure. You have a snake that reminds me of a gummy worm when it comes to the CG moments to go with an amusingly long snake (with sound effects by Frank Welker). Top it all off, you have a character swallowed up and regurgitated that shows a shot of them blinking right before they are shown dead. Imagine all of this coming in a film about a National Geographic crew looking for an obscure tribe in the Amazon. It sure isn't Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954), but it is the kind of goofy film that would fit just right from one of Corman's old features such as Attack of the Crab Monsters (1957). It probably goes without saying that a handful of sea creature features all seem to owe something to Jaws (1975), whether that involves POV shots or making creatures out to seem more dangerous than they are in the actual wild. Granted, the idea of going out in the jungle is a bit spooky, so having to deal with the idea of a snake that may eat or bite you is at least an idea I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. But this is about as scary as, well, looking at a snake in a picture book. It is cheesy in every way you would expect that I can only cite as a light negative assessment. Lopez doesn't exactly have much to really do when overshadowed by obvious presences in Cube or Voight, because even being a screamer would be part of a personality. The cardboard "PG-13" folks are there just to come and go, which seems hollow when compared to other cheesy movies. Stoltz is probably given the most thankless role of the whole film, since he is basically put out of commission for half of it, which makes him pale in comparison to the ones that at least get to act in fear of the gummi snake. Undeniably, Voight seems to be the only one giving it his all when it comes to ridiculous mannerisms, a preening cliche if there ever was one to the very end that I'm sure Vincent Price would've blushed at. Hyde probably is the only one of the body-count to make an impression, even if it is a mild laugh. I do appreciate the time taken to build up a killer snake only to have one victim of the film fall at the hands of a guy who chokes a person out with their legs while tied to a board. One can do better or worse with creature features, and this is not exactly a winner, but with its evident qualities of being exactly what you expect from a 90s product that stands more of its time than older-aged films of its ilk (for better or worse), well, you get what you think you get. 

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Next: you might be wondering why Thursdays this month featured Dracula and Frankenstein films. Hell, why not? For the fourth and final time, let's get a doubleheader, starting with Blacula.

The Mummy (1999)

Review #1748: The Mummy.

Cast:

Brendan Fraser (Rick O'Connell), Rachel Weisz (Evelyn Carnahan), John Hannah (Jonathan Carnahan), Arnold Vosloo (Imhotep), Kevin J. O'Connor (Beni Gabor), Jonathan Hyde (Dr. Allen Chamberlain), Oded Fehr (Ardeth Bay), Erick Avari (Dr. Terence Bey), Stephen Dunham (Isaac Henderson), Corey Johnson (David Daniels), Tuc Watkins (Bernard Burns), and Omid Djalili (Warden Gad Hassan) Directed by Stephen Sommers (#201 - G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra)

Review: 

Yes, I know, technically this isn't an "all the way horror movie". But it is a remake of the classic 1932 film of the same name as some sort of epic romantic adventure with help by Industrial Light and Magic. If you remember, the original movie involved Boris Karloff playing the title character, one that involved a mummy (Imhotep) raised from the dead that proceeded to live among folks for a decade before wanting to bring back his long-dead princess with a person that happens to be half-Egyptian and looks like said princess. Well, aside from the Book of the Dead helping in a resurrection, the movie isn't quite a straight-laced remake. Of course, this wasn't the first time this had happened, since Hammer Film Productions had done their own version that began in 1959 (although it was based on the sequels more so than the original, and this was followed by a number of sequels). It should be noted that the film that came from Universal Studios in 1999 was a culmination of a decade of attempts from producers James Jacks and Sean Daniel to make a modern Mummy movie that went through several directors and writers in consideration that revolved from George A. Romero to Clive Barker to Joe Dante; it should be noted that until 1996, Universal was aiming for a cheaply budgeted movie, and they were really aiming for an unstoppable villain at the level of The Terminator (incidentally, the movie was made for $62 million. So yes, one is probably wondering a bit about Sommers. Born in Indiana but raised in Minnesota, he was a graduate of the USC School of Cinematic Arts before he went to direct his first film in Catch Me If You Can (1989), which attracted a little notice despite minimal release; he directed two features for Walt Disney Pictures involving literary figures (Huckleberry Finn, Jungle Book), and it was during the end of shooting Deep Rising (1998) that he found interest in the ongoing attempts to bring The Mummy onto the screen. So, yes, I suppose one can be glad that Sommers (a fan of the original film that had aimed to do a remake for years) wanted to make a fair adventure with tinges of horror, at least for a title character that goes around wanting flesh to regenerate before creating sand storms. Sommers would be credited for the screenplay while also doing work on the story with Lloyd Fonvielle and Kevin Jarre. 

So, now we have a mummy that was buried alive due to attempts with the Book of the Dead to bring back a lost love that has been watched over from the bodyguards of the pharaoh and its descendants for 3,000 years while a lost city holding wealth and the tomb is waiting to be found. Look, it all depends on how much one buys into its attempts at sweeping adventure that doesn't take itself too seriously while having a few CGI effects here and there. Honestly, I'm fine with it, albeit in the mindset that it is basically comfort food; it may be fluff, but it is decent fluff, one that has interest in making charm count more so than sitting back and looking at effects sequences for two hours. It may not be great scary fun, but being alright fun that is aware of its surroundings is decent enough for most folks, a blockbuster in the era that fits it, and at least one can recognize some fair effects and some ideas of spooky scenery; the scarabs are pretty chilling, and the title creature in its growing form is pretty creepy. Technically speaking, it compares favorably to the original 1932 film, and it likely stands up fair for the era it was made for; while I undoubtedly have more curiosity over the film that could have been with a different director, being a loose effective remake of the original 1932 film is still an effective film in the long run (two sequels would follow in 2001 and 2008 before Universal did a "reboot" in 2017). Of course, the highlight among the cast is Fraser. He manages to roll along with the quick pace and wavering attempts at humor with just enough timing and stature to make things count, playing with the material with a casual appreciative nature. Weisz fares fine, straddling the line in curiosity that at least has more to do than her counterpart in the original feature (which, incidentally, means Weisz and Fraser have a bit of chemistry together). Hannah (first known for his work in Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994) among television work) fits exactly to what is needed in mild comic relief without dragging the film down (or being easy bait in line for being taken down), while O'Connor does okay in sniveling middleman material. Vosloo is curious as the adversary, one that has to try and seem interesting in creeping terror despite being surrounded by a bunch of makeup that doesn't give him that much to really do. Part of me wishes this would have done more when it comes to actual horror, because the potential is there is you think about it. As a whole, it manages to push most of the right buttons in doing stirring entertainment in the guise of Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), but then again most blockbusters probably honed a trick or two from that film, so being a step or two below something like that isn't a bad thing. It is a romp, and a romp is fine if one is in the mood for it. I wavered between just how "good" it was, but I guess calling it a good kind of average film (in either genre) is appropriate. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Final Destination (2000).

Titanic (1997).

Review #1515: Titanic.

Cast: 
Leonardo DiCaprio (Jack Dawson), Kate Winslet (Rose Dewitt Bukater), Billy Zane (Cal Hockley), Kathy Bates (Molly Brown), Frances Fisher (Ruth Dewitt Bukater), Gloria Stuart (Old Rose), Bill Paxton (Brock Lovett), Bernard Hill (Captain Smith), David Warner (Spicer Lovejoy), Victor Garber (Thomas Andrews), Jonathan Hyde (J. Bruce Ismay), Suzy Amis (Lizzy Calvert), Lewis Abernathy (Lewis Bodine), Nicholas Cascone (Bobby Buell), and Anatoly M. Sagalevitch (Anatoly Milkailavich) Written and Directed by James Cameron (#001 - Terminator 2: Judgement Day, #063 - The Terminator, #388 - Avatar, #574 - Aliens, and #606 - True Lies)

Review:
"People call me a perfectionist, but I'm not. I'm a rightist. I do something until it's right, and then I move on to the next thing."

Having particular interests and a particular way of wanting to do them can prove for a resilient director, and James Cameron certainly has proved one of the more memorably resilient directors in ambition. While growing up in Chippewa, Cameron had an interest in building things and in art, although he later expressed interest in doing 8mm home movies after seeing 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). He had an interest in building and physics in his brief time in Fullerton College, but he moved on to small-time jobs such as truck driving with writing on the side. However, he decided to get himself into films because of the excitement of seeing Star Wars (1977). The following year, he raised funds to do a short film in Xenogenesis (1978). Over the next few years, he worked on a few films in effects and assistant work (such as Battle Beyond the Stars and Galaxy of Terror) before being hired to direct for the first time with Piranha II: The Spawning (1982). Although it was a flop, his next film brought him into prominence within science fiction entertainment with The Terminator (1984). Cameron has ventured beyond filmmaking in subsequent years, such as sea exploring and documentary filmmaking alongside activist work.

What can one expect from a film that is actually longer than the sinking of the ship the film is named after? Director/writer/co-producer/co-editor Cameron spent a great deal of time in research while pitching it as "Romeo & Juliet on the Titanic" to 20th Century Fox, with Cameron taking numerous diving trips with a miniature remotely operated vessels to view the wreckage of the Titanic. The film was a tremendous financial venture, with 20th Century Fox handling the international rights while Paramount Pictures handled the North America distribution for a total $200 million budget upon release...and you know the rest. What's there to say that isn't already known or stated already by someone else? It certainly handles itself well in spectacle and trappings of the period in detail. Once it gets to the wreck, you can't stop the freight train of chaos. Of course the film also quibbles itself with a mediocre love story that bloats itself in woodenness that will either inspire fluster in its audience or snickers at just being a slightly-better version of The Poseidon Adventure (1972) while somehow not being as rewarding as Cameron's previous works. One can make two billion dollars with a movie and still come out of it feeling like they only got 80 cents on the dollar, I suppose.

There proves to be an interesting mix of acting, trying their best in a period drama that also has to not become lost within effects and occasional stilted moments. DiCaprio certainly has an instinctive everyman quality to him, certainly proving idea in resonating charm out of simple things, whether that means first seeing the ship for the first time or his high society dinner act with others. Winslet proves just as resounding, wrapped with resourceful grace that makes the star-crossed romance come across without too many obstacles. They click well and likely prove enough in interest to make the inevitability all the more bittersweet to see play out in a climax effects ride. Zane proves quite enjoyable as the default adversary of the film, surprisingly enough. He is quite hammy in the right places needed when it comes to arrogance and anti-chemistry with Winslet that chews scenery quite handily, and the only quibble I have is that his fate is told to us rather than being shown, because one does need one more hammy last moments with Zane, honestly. Bates proves ready in small moments when it comes to clear-cut contrast with stuffier companions. Fisher comes and goes with inevitable parental conflict over romance that is decent for those fleeting moments needed. Stuart and Paxton bridge the beginning and end with proper fitting in clear perspectives when it comes to the ship and the story that is weaved from it.

For all the expense spared in making one feel like they really are on the Titanic, there are still little details that inevitably spring up. Was it really so hard to depict a mix of fictional and real-life characters without tarnishing reputation? What is the point of perpetuating the myth and lie that J. Bruce Ismay was a coward? While he had his part in the reduction of lifeboats on the ship (which could have had sixty but had barely a third of that), he most certainly did not force the ship to go faster. Perceptions can be everything, and press coverage of Ismay was extremely negative to the point that subsequent film adaptations (including the famed A Night to Remember (1958), which the film apparently shares a few moments of similarity with in terms of arrangement) included this in their portrayals of him (this can be said in a different light about Captain Smith in regards to how history recorded him and his actions before going down with the ship). One depiction was controversial enough to literally inspire an apology to the relatives of William Murdoch (first officer), who is depicted shooting two people before dying himself (the circumstances of his death are disputed, and his body was never found). The enjoyment comes from the obvious for me: the great and wonderfully re-created ship that makes one really experience this ship and the time that comes from it with finesse - and then of course the splitting of said ship that goes from growing waters to panicky escape attempts. This was a pure technical winner for those involved, with Academy Awards ranging from cinematography to visual effects to costume design to other awards like music (score and song) while Cameron would win three Academy Awards. Perhaps this really is just a film that people just love because they love the emotions it can inspire, particularly in crying. If one really wants to judge movies on how well they make you cry, all power to you, but crying at something isn't exactly my thing, and the idea of crying at this almost seems hysterical. To some, it is a great experience, capable of inspiring tears and quotable moments, while others might find it as pure pablum. I recognize its scope and semi-effective touch as enough to win me over on a casual level, where I may roll my eyes at some of its moments while knowing full well it still ranks as good enough to be worth it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Jumanji.

Review #322: Jumanji.

Cast
Robin Williams (Alan Parrish), Jonathan Hyde (Van Pelt and Sam Parrish), Bonnie Hunt (Sarah Whittle), Kirsten Dunst (Judy Shepherd), Bradley Pierce (Peter Shepherd), David Alan Grier (Carl Bentley), Bebe Neuwirth (Nora Shepherd), and Patricia Clarkson (Carol-Anne Parrish) Directed by Joe Johnston (#060 - Captain America: The First Avenger)

Review
In a way, this had been coming for a long time. I had first watched this over two years ago, while on my trip with my father to Oregon for the first time (the second trip would bring a cavalcade of reviews from #043-#058), but I didn't finish all of it, quickly forgetting it. So how was it? (and why did I even try to introduce this to the review?) All your questions (except that one) will be revealed. It's...okay. There, you got your answer, the review is-Oh okay, I'll elaborate (for whoever wants it) on this. It might be slightly interesting to know that this is yet another adaptation from the author Chris Van Allsburg (who had wrote the book The Polar Express which was later adapted into its own film). The acting is decent, Williams doesn't do a bad job (thankfully not doing what other could do, like shouting...), and the rest of the cast are good. (especially with Jonathan Hyde, who is entertaining along with Grier). The effects are okay, not bad for 1995. The story is okay, not too much (what, playing a board game that unleashes unimaginable stuff? Oh and some time travel). For a good part of the film I was asking a question: Why are they playing this game? I know, to finish the game, but they damage more things than if they could've stopped after they recovered Parrish. (Who was trapped in the game for 26 years....) This might be a spoiler (So skip this line if you don't want to know the ending), but why exactly do Parrish and Whittle time travel back to 1969? I suppose the board game is a TARDIS (that might've been a twist. For me anyways...). In the end, the film isn't bad, but there's something about it that keeps nagging at it being really good. Is it bad? No. Is it recommended? Depends on the person. But oh well.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.