Harriet.

Review #1982: Harriet. 

Cast: 

Cynthia Erivo (Araminta "Minty" Ross / Harriet Tubman), Leslie Odom Jr. (William Still), Joe Alwyn (Gideon Brodess), Clarke Peters (Ben Ross), Vanessa Bell Calloway (Rit Ross), Vondie Curtis-Hall (Reverend Samuel Green), Jennifer Nettles (Eliza Brodess), Janelle Monáe (Marie Buchanon), Omar Dorsey (Bigger Long), Tim Guinee (Thomas Garrett), Zackary Momoh (John Tubman), Deborah Ayorinde (Rachel Ross), and Henry Hunter Hall (Walter) Directed by Kasi Lemmons.

Review: 

"I don't wake up every day saying I'm a black woman because it's too given, but I wake up every day feeling like an artist and I feel I'm an artist."

Admittedly, maintaining a career as a director is no small feat for folks with talent, whether as a man or a woman. Kasi Lemmons was born in St. Louis, Missouri but raised in Massachusetts, complete with an early interest in movies. She attended New York University Tisch School of the Arts before doing study at UCLA. Lemmons first was an actress, starting in television in the late 1980s along with making her film debut in School Daze (1988). She made a handful of appearances in film and television over the next few years, most notably with Candyman (1992). Lemmons directed her first film with Eve's Bayou (1997), a Southern Gothic drama that was a general success on the independent level. Lemmons has directed five further films in the 25 year-span since that film, such as Talk to Me (2007) and Black Nativity (2013). One is never sure how a movie can lend a portrait to a famous name in history, especially with Harriet Tubman (born Araminta Ross), who did indeed make an escape from Maryland to Philadelphia that covered roughly 100 miles (although she actually tried to bring along two of her brothers on the trip as opposed to it being a solo trip - they quit not long into the trip). She rescued roughly seventy people that were born into slavery in her native land of Maryland, whether that meant secret travel by night to the North or in later times, British North America (and yes, she did carry a gun). The Civil War led to her serving as a cook, a nurse, and later a scout for the Union Army (her service did not merit a pension for decades, and when it did come, it did not mention her work as a spy). She lived long enough to also take part in the fight for the right for women to vote, living into her nineties before passing away in 1913. The most mainstream depiction of Tubman before this film was a television miniseries in A Woman Called Moses that was shown in 1978 with Cicely Tyson as Tubman. Not that the film is to be judged entirely on the merits of 100% historical consistency, but one can judge for themselves how to interpret a film that features Alwyn, Monae, and Dorsey each playing characters not based in fact. The screenplay was done by Gregory Allen Howard, who is listed as co-writer of the story with Lemmons. 

Honestly, the movie is just fine. It is comprised of a handful of tropes you would probably see coming from a biopic of 125 minutes. But what exactly does one expect? Well, with the litany of biopics involving men or talking more about the time of 19th century America, I suppose another biopic about someone as remarkable as Harriet Tubman will be fine enough to please those interested in cut-and-dry American stories. It is sincere enough in its direction while having a solid lead performance to make it one of those quality movies that you might rent for a time. Erivo soars fairly well when it comes to handling the lofty expectations laid out in playing a historical character, which basically means she blends into the role without distraction. Tenacity and devout faith (the real Tubman was quite religious and also prone to experiencing visions, as depicted in the film) are key to understanding Tubman in the eyes of Erivo that emanate the power of deliverance. The rest of the cast proves fine, although the dialogue occasionally puts them at risk for wooden traps. Odom makes a fine headliner among the historical character support (the real Still was indeed an abolitionist that was once called "The Father of the Underground Railroad", and his 1872 publishing of records of the people who went through the Railroad is key to understanding the process). Peters pops in to provide warmth against Erivo. Alwyn is at the very least a semi-compelling adversary composite. Others like Monae and Dorsey don't fare as well, but again, there isn't a weak factor in the film, which generally moves on a set pace that makes the Underground Railroad (a series of routes and safe houses) seem quite interesting. As a whole, the movie is generally diligent about keeping focus on its subject without turning mundane or spinning itself away from historical basis too much. It is a fairly entertaining movie that honors its subject with fitting reverence that does exactly what it hopes to do, albeit one that operates within a certain boundary of range. If its gloss of history is that important to keep in our memories for important women in history, it will likely work out just right for a watch.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Lady Bird.

Hard Target.

 

Review #1855: Hard Target.

Cast: 

Jean-Claude Van Damme (Chance Boudreaux), Lance Henriksen (Emil Fouchon), Arnold Vosloo (Pik Van Cleef), Yancy Butler (Natasha Binder), Kasi Lemmons (Detective May Mitchell), Chuck Pfarrer (Douglas Binder), Willie C. Carpenter (Elijah Roper), Wilford Brimley (Uncle Clarence Douvee), Sven-Ole Thorsen (Stephan), Jules Sylvester (Peterson), Robert Apisa (Lopacki), Tom Lupo (Jerome), David Efron (Billy Bob), Joe Warfield (Ismael Zenan), Eliott Keener (Randal Poe), Douglas Forsythe Rye (Frick), Mike Leinert (Frack), and Marco St. John (Dr. Morton) Directed by John Woo (#030 - Face/Off, #336 - Broken Arrow (1996), and #1100 - Mission: Impossible 2)

Review: 

"Mr. Jim Jacks, the writer, Chuck Pfarrer, and Jean-Claude Van Damme, they flew over to Hong Kong to meet me, and push me to do the job. They all loved my movies, liked my style, and they wanted an American action film with a new look. And I found the people from the studio were very sincere, very warm, and made me feel very relaxed about doing the film. So I took the job."

There will be time yet to cover the long career of John Woo in all the meaningful details. He was born in Guangzhou, China before purges in the country saw his family move to Hong Kong when he was five; at the age of 23, he started work in the film industry with his first short before directing features in 1974. A director for over four decades, he has directed features for both Asian and American cinema, with The Killer (1987) receiving considerable attention abroad. After the release of Hard Boiled (1992), Woo decided to move to the States despite not having a dream to work there before coming there. Chuck Pfarrer, a former Navy SEAL, had developed a script at Universal Pictures that was soon developed with Van Damme in mind. The script took a couple of renditions (such as being inspired by The Naked Prey (1965) and Aliens (1986)) before it found its final form, which was inspired by The Most Dangerous Game (as helped by producer Jim Jacks). Jacks, Pfarrer, and Van Damme all flew over to Hong Kong to meet Woo and try to get him to do it. Jacks helped to bring Woo onto the project, although the studio would have to be convinced to hire Woo because of their doubts - one about his handling of drama and the other about his command of English. Van Damme was the star brought on to star in the movie, although Pfarrer actually had Armand Assante in mind when writing the movie (for his part, Woo actually wanted Kurt Russell, but he was too booked). Woo had gone through a couple of scripts offered to him (one was a script involving switching faces...) before he accepted this one; Sam Raimi was hired by Universal as a potential successor to look over Woo in case things would go south for him, which is why he is credited as an executive producer, although obviously Raimi had confidence in Woo. Van Damme had the star power of script approval and even final cut privileges, which means that there are different versions of the film - Woo had to cut the film just to make sure it wasn't rated NC-17 (the last cut submitted to the MPAA that failed was called the international version, running at 99 minutes), while Van Damme insisted on a version with more of him, complete with close-ups too. This means that the theatrical cut is 97 minutes as opposed to a screening cut done by Woo, which had lasted 116 minutes; an unrated director's cut was released in 2021. A direct-to-video sequel was released in 2016 with none of the cast, and I'm sure none of you give a crap about that. Hard Target was the first Hollywood studio film made by an Asian director.

Even if he had trouble converting his directing talents to a Hollywood "sensibility", one can still see the talent involved in his distinct techniques, whether that involves slow-motion shots and birds that fly around before action starts. I'll be honest, the movie may be a "starring vehicle", but it actually is the second actor that takes control of general interest. No seriously, Henriksen is the more interesting presence in the movie, and this is in a movie where our lead is playing a Cajun drifter who just happens to be a former Marine with a greasy mullet, and one of the supporting actors is Wilfred Brimley playing a Cajun relative who doesn't even show up until a hour has passed. In a sense, it probably is a bit strange to see a movie about taking rich eccentrics and company hunting down homeless veterans (which happen to be in New Orleans after several hunts in other places). If Van Damme (a martial artist after his father enrolled him in classes at the age of 10 before also taking up ballet) is known for his rigid stature of doing one particular hero type for his movies, Woo at the very least managed to make him seem a bit more heightened in a way that will at least make one believe him to be in between say, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Steven Seagal (in other words, below the former but considerably higher than the latter). He moves well to the beat of the action without becoming just a man wrapped in the background of lurid fun, which makes it better than previous stuff like Bloodsport (1988), obviously.

There is a twisted elegance to Henriksen that dominates the interest in ways that probably made Van Damme jealous. Imagine someone as professional and dedicated to their work as Henriksen, who excelled in character roles such as Aliens, stealing the show away from a guy who kicks hard because of his pitch-black attitude. He lives on the edge, complete with a dandy weapon that makes him very entertaining to see against the lead, which is probably best represented by a scene where an explosion leads to his jacket being on fire and he just rips that thing off like it was a wad of gum on the shoe (which was an ad-lib by Henriksen). Vosloo is the other key adversary, and he does just as well here in conniving charm needed for the other sociopath in the movie. Hell, you could almost have made a movie with just them as the leads, in an offbeat sort of way, because one does have some fun with what they do together. Butler (making her feature starring debut) is the middle person between interesting presences that is adequate without becoming just a shell for nothingness (Lemmons gets to be the empty one, since authority figures in this kind of movie is like throwing beer on a fire). Brimley is clearly enjoying putting on an accent bordering on "hooting and hollering" that is silly enough to endear oneself to a movie that uses him to solid effect for the climax with Van Damme.

You will get the whole gumbo of things to note and possibly enjoy, whether that involves our lead biting a snake after asking someone to trust them before setting it up as a death trap, jumping over burning barrels before kicking a fuel canister to shoot at it, guys getting shot through keyholes, arrows being fired at home-made moonshine to help light people on fire, and a climax that happens in a Mardi Gras warehouse (it "helps" that the cops happen to be on strike) because the villain doesn't want to just take him down from the air. It really does flow like lurid ballet, packed with a tiny bit of philosophy (or something when the bad guy targets veterans that no one will notice for his weird hunts) mixed with the primal action. By the time the movie ends, you will either find yourself wanting to see the differences between this movie and other Van Damme movies or you will want to see further John Woo movies (he would do five further films in Hollywood before shifting his focus to make films in China by the end of the 2000s). Silly, bombastic, engaging, it really does make for a curious winner that will hit a certain kind of sweet spot in audience and never let go in Woo's attempt to make a modern Western that succeeds.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Candyman (1992).

Review #1746: Candyman.

Cast: 

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

Review: 

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

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

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

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next-No, wait a minute.

...

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

Houston vs. Atlanta? Hell yeah.

Next Time: Ring (1998).

The Silence of the Lambs.

Review #1498: The Silence of the Lambs.

Cast:
Jodie Foster (Clarice Starling), Anthony Hopkins (Dr. Hannibal Lecter), Scott Glenn (Jack Crawford), Ted Levine (Jame "Buffalo Bill" Gumb), Anthony Heald (Dr. Frederick Chilton), Brooke Smith (Catherine Martin), Diane Baker (U.S. Senator Ruth Martin), Kasi Lemmons (Ardelia Mapp), Frankie Faison (Barney Matthews), Tracey Walter (Lamar), Charles Napier (Lt. Boyle), Danny Darst (Sgt. Tate), Alex Coleman (Sgt. Jim Pembry), Dan Butler (Roden), Paul Lazar (Pilcher), Ron Vawter (Paul Krendler), and Roger Corman (FBI Director Hayden Burke) Directed by Jonathan Demme (#1254 - The Manchurian Candidate (2004))

Review:
"I realized the actual bottom line truth of doing Silence of the Lambs, something I felt when I read that book. I thought, this could be the scariest movie ever, and I wanted to make that movie. I wanted to make a Psycho caliber fucking terrifying movie."

As the first (and so far only) horror film to win an Academy Award for Best Picture, the inevitability for covering this film was high, particularly since the character of Hannibal Lecter is particularly well-known across film and novels over the years. This is adapted from Thomas Harris' novel of the same name, originally published in 1988 as the follow-up work to Red Dragon, which had been adapted into a film by Michael Mann under the name Manhunter (1986). The follow-up book Hannibal (1999) and the other book would be turned into films with Hopkins as Lecter, while the prequel Hannibal Rising (2006) would be turned to a film with Harris as screenwriter, and a Hannibal series followed a decade after that. Fitting that a horror film like this would come from an acolyte of Roger Corman (who even cameos in the film) with Jonathan Demme. He met Corman while doing publicity for Von Richthofen and Brown, and Corman was interested in Demme to do work for him at New World Pictures. The result was Angels Hard as They Come, which Demme produced and co-wrote with Joe Viola. He then directed his first work with the studio as director with Caged Heat (1974). Over the years he had a steady career of films, such as Melvin and Howard (1980), Something Wild (1986), and Married to the Mob (1988).

Despite the failure with audiences at the time of Manhunter (now regarded as a cult classic), there was still interest in turning the next Harris novel into a film, although the initial plans was apparently going to have Gene Hackman directing/starring in it (various others were considered for both lead roles, such as Sean Connery and Michelle Pfeiffer). Hopkins came about in interest because of his doctor role in The Elephant Man (1980). With a dark sense of gravitas and two killer performances from Hopkins and Foster, it is no wonder why this proves to be a great classic. It finds a balance between suspense and horror that drives through every beat and procedure with relish and entertainment. It is amazing to think about how solid of a performance Hopkins draws from such an unsavory but relentlessly fascinating presence, particularly since he only occupies a certain amount of time in the film that doesn't even run to thirty minutes. And yet here we are, still captivated and engrossed by what we see of him (such as in the numerous close-up shots of his face) as the calmest and most brilliant terrors of the human mind. On the other side of such interesting conversations is Foster, who proves quite dedicated and useful in focus of the drive for curiosity with regards to the dark parts of the human mind. She makes a resourceful presence that never seems lost within the madness. Glenn proves just as sharp in reasoned authority, while Levine rounds out the main group with creeping finesse in his lurking moments, and the others prove worthy in keeping the stakes level. On the whole, while the sequences with Hopkins and Foster are easily the most memorable of the film, the film holds up just as well in driving one in pursuit and skin-crawling with no pretensions whatsoever. The thrills can be quite entertaining like any other movie, but it is in that chase that really gives one a good jolt in their seat, and it is easy to see why this became imitated and well-known. It has a capable director in staging scenes with useful impact to go with a game cast that makes the most of their surroundings for a good time of carefully executed thrills that prove as effective nearly three decades later.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.