Left Behind (2014).

Review #2151: Left Behind.

Cast: 

Nicolas Cage (Rayford Steele), Chad Michael Murray (Cameron "Buck" Williams), Cassi Thomson (Chloe Steele), Nicky Whelan (Hattie Durham), Jordin Sparks (Shasta Carvell), Lea Thompson (Irene Steele), Lance E. Nichols (Pastor Bruce Barnes), William Ragsdale (Chris Smith), Martin Klebba (Melvin Weir), Quinton Aaron (Simon), and Judd Lormand (Jim) Directed by Vic Armstrong.

Review: 

Hey, remember Saving Christmas (2014), that religious film about the holidays with Kirk Cameron that made for quite the doozy for last year's Turkey Week? Well, how about another religious movie to help close this Turkey Week out, this time without the machinations of Cameron that got released in 2014 just as well? Religion is not a particularly strong subject for me, but I think we can draw the line to possibly look at those that try to push the idea of faith-based "entertainment" and, say, Passion of the Christ. Perhaps next year will be something even more drenched in dying for the sins of the hustle. So, what do we have here? In late 1995, Baptist evangelical Christian minister Tim LaHaye and writer Jerry B. Jenkins wrote a novel together called Left Behind. LaHaye came up with the idea of apocalyptic fiction involving the Rapture that made for plenty of notes for Jenkins to write books based on the notes. And yes, the inspiration came because LaHaye saw a married pilot flirting with a flight attendant. In total, there were sixteen books written from 1995 to 2007 to go along with a barrage of novellas done for children fittingly called "Left Behind: The Kids". The book series generated interest for a film that led to rights being optioned by the beginning of the new millennium, which eventually found its way to Cloud Ten Pictures (as founded by the Lalonde brothers of Peter and Paul). The result was a 2000 adaptation that had Kirk Cameron as the lead with an initial direct-to-video release before a limited theatrical release. There were two further direct-to-video sequels, but the funny thing is that LaHaye disliked the films enough to sue the production company, and eventually he gained a chance to do his own film attempt. I particularly like the ambition of wanting to "enter the movie theater with a first-class, high-quality movie that is grippingly interesting, but also is true to the biblical storyline". Anyway, two years after that lawsuit, Cloud Ten got the rights back and decided to begin again with Left Behind, with Paul LaLonde and John Patus doing the screenplay. Vic Armstrong, a stunt coordinator with one directorial credit in Joshua Tree (1993), was hired to direct. In the year of films such as God's Not Dead (2014), Left Behind was a $16 million film that did make a profit of sorts. There have since been two other Left Behind films, one based on the kid novellas and the other being Left Behind: Rise of the Antichrist that came out this year, complete with crowdfunding (everyone has a hustle, here's one where someone needs the money to get back up doing all of those books as a multi-film series) and a whole different cast. 

Consider the quotes of LaHaye: "It is the best movie I have ever seen on the rapture" and Jenkins: "I believe it does justice to the novel and will renew interest in the entire series. It's better than good." Now consider the film itself. Do I really need to lay out just how bad the film is? Okay, I'm sure you remember the four selections of Airport films over the years. Each of those were boring in their own ways when it comes to that art of trying to not just be about terror in the skies with growing terrible quality of actual star power and execution. Okay, Left Behind is Airport if it was made by the world's biggest narcoleptic. I can't believe that Nicolas Cage was involved in such a bland film, but my eyes and ears did not lie to me, this was probably the dullest experience you could have that involved a plane. There is no sense of scope with this film, because even the Rapture is handled with such strange lowkey timing. Apparently, all the children are raptured, and I remember that when I was a kid, I once tricked a fellow kid into Googling a certain type of waffle (okay maybe some kids aren't little ba-you get the idea). The cities may look like they are being ravaged by the lack of certain people, but then you see shots that look cleanly free of damaged buildings until the sequel baiting final shot. Religion or not, there is no sense of interest in actually inspiring anything in the viewer when it comes to raptures or in the people that are left over that can only be described in bland platitudes or "the singer that doesn't sing" or "the pirate from Pirates of the Carribean". Who was this movie made for? People who needed 110 minutes to take a nap, or people who need to see what bad editing looks like? It presents boring people with faith and boring people with a lack of it, gee, what a good idea to show the Christian folks. Did the money go to paying the cast or to the accountants? As you might remember, Cage was reported as taking roles left-and-right to help stave off a tax debt around this time. You can see it on display here. He can't give this crap any sort of dramatic heft, particularly since it is mired in autopilot with plane drama that can't even make two planes passing by seem anything other than just a minor inconvenience. Good god, imagine trying to have scenes of would-be adultery-turned-liar revelry with Whelan seem like it was dinner theater night. Murray can at least say a random episode of One Tree Hill had more for him to actually do. Thomson is stuck on the set of the grounds of mildly inconvenient rioting that, you know, this is a film that can't even show the Antichrist, so I'm just going to phone it in here. Klebba being punted out of the plane onto a safe spot is probably the most amusing thing of the whole film. This would make a good doubleheader with Saving Christmas - both films are dubious in their intentions of trying to reach a religious audience, but the latter is repugnant in its construction of "facts" and in its star while this is just straight boring. Unless you want to see what "The Skydivers of religious movies" is, I'd stick to doing anything else than watching this, like hearing a drunk man talk about Israel. But hey, what do I know...

Overall, I give it 1 out of 10 stars.

Congratulations, you have seen the end of Turkey Week 4. What a fun crop of crap, eh? There were plenty of candidates to make the nine-film shortlist that either couldn't be found to satisfy the curiosity or just didn't seem ripe right now, such as: An Alan Smithee Film: Burn Hollywood Burn, Moment by Moment, The Legend of the Lone Ranger, The Adventures of Ford Fairlane, The Conqueror, An American Hippie In Israel, Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever, Parting Shots, Showgirls, and Striptease.

Turkey Week The Fifth will be November 24-30, 2024 - suggestions are always welcome.

Howard the Duck.

Review #1704: Howard the Duck.

Cast: 

Howard the Duck [Ed Gale and Jordan Prentice (suit performance), Tim Rose, Steve Sleap, Peter Baird, Mary Wells & Lisa Sturz (puppeteers), Chip Zien (voice)], Lea Thompson (Beverly Switzler), Tim Robbins (Phil Blumburtt), Jeffrey Jones (Dr. Walter Jenning), David Paymer (Larry), Paul Guilfoyle (Lieutenant Welker), Liz Sagal (Ronette), Dominique Davalos (Cal), and Holly Robinson (K.C.) Directed by Willard Huyck.

Review:

If I simply told you that this was the first feature-length film based on a Marvel Comics character, would that satisfy your curiosity? Good, because one does desire a little big of history for a movie that really deserves more than a few cursory words for a movie that has certainly turned a few pages since its release on August 1, 1988. The movie was written by Willard Huyck and Gloria Katz, with Katz also serving as producer; indeed, this is a Lucasfilm production, one that makes sense given the connection between Hyuck, Katz, and Lucas. Huyck & Katz had met Lucas as students at the USC School of Cinematic Arts. Huyck had his first film credit with The Devil's 8 (1968), and Katz made her first effort with Messiah of Evil (1973), which she co-directed/co-wrote/co-produced with Huyck. That same year, they would work together with Lucas on American Graffiti (1973), which found sucess with audiences despite nearly being rejected by every film studio of the time. It was at the end of production that Lucas had mentioned his approval of the comic series Howard the Duck (created by writer Steve Gerber and artist Val Mayerik), although a decade passed before production would ever start, and Gerber had already been let go from Marvel by that time, and the series wasn't exactly popular by the time of the 1980s. A wife and husband team, Katz and Huyck would work on four further films together (with the latter serving as a director for three of them) while also doing work for Lucas as script doctors for Star Wars (1977) and co-writers on Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984). Of course, they didn't have success with every project they wrote for, because that same year also saw the release of Best Defense (1984). Incidentally, Lucas would step down as president of Lucasfilm in order to focus on being a film producer. It may interest you to know that this is the last movie to be directed by Huyck and the second-to-last project for both him and Katz, who each served as a writer for the film Radioland Murders (released in 1994 after nearly two decades of production hell, which also included Lucas as a writer and was also a movie that failed at the box office).

Production troubles, yadda yadda, you might say. But yes, this is an important thing to mention when it comes to a film that at one point was intended to be animated (of course, contractual obligations forced it to be live-action, which probably saved money); it probably didn't help that the design for the title character had to be re-designed a few times in order to make sure a certain media conglomerate would not sue for resemblance to a certain duck. But hey, this is a movie that tries to pass off California as Cleveland. You might notice that there are several folks credited as the title character, which is kind of odd, because how many movies have a mix of dwarf actors, puppeteers, and a Broadway actor? Is it a troubling sign when there are different viewpoints from Katz and Gerber about the title character? Katz stated that the movie was "about a duck from outer space...It's not supposed to be an existential experience", which seems different from Gerber's description of the series as existentialist that has one main point of not having a joke, as if "life's most serious moments and most incredibly dumb moments are often distinguishable only by a momentary point of view." So...yeah, here we are with a PG-rated movie that really seems to be confused on exactly what it wants to be. On the one hand, it certainly tries to be funny along with showing a side of adventure within effects....on the other hand, it also features a title character that is clearly a few years too early for this to be convincing. That duck simply never seems convincing at any point in time, whether because of the eyes or perhaps one never stops thinking about the fact that one is watching folks suffer in suits. It is not quite offbeat enough, particularly when it tries to do a variety of duck puns that seem to mask something that is desperate to be loved for 111 minutes, which seems too long for a film like this. Of course, the first film that comes to mind when relating to this one comes in retrospect: Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988), which utilized a variety of techniques to make a movie with animated characters interacting with human actors (which ranged from puppets to robotic arms). So yes, this era was certainly interesting for filmmaking with effects, with varying results. Sometimes the effects work here, but if you aren't quite sold on it from the start, you will pretty much be checked out by the time you see a climax involving an ugly beast and exposition. At least the music (a mix of songs by Thomas Dolby and a soundtrack by John Barry and Sylvester Levay) works out pretty well.

Besides, the main cast is fairly decent. It just so happens they are in a movie that deserves better, one that has a tone that wavers wildly without that sense of wonder or engagement. Duck puns and (somewhat dated) effects do not exactly go hand in hand with a movie about a duck and a woman who falls for him, you might say. Thompson fares okay in the sense that one doesn't think too much about the fact she is acting against a hodgepodge effect while trying to stick the landing in singing and timing. Of course, the other highlight is Jones, because seeing him undergo an effects show with the changing of his character from "exposition man" to "Dark Overlord of the Universe" seems more interesting as opposed to the tonal shifts that come from Hyuck and Katz, particularly since Jones seems dry enough to make it all work. This was the sixth film role for Robbins, who had dabbled in theater and television. While I can certainly see why he was cast when it comes to his attempts at timing, honestly he is probably the weaker element among the main three, having a hit-and-miss quality (most prevalent in the Ultralight aircraft sequence, which certainly should have been trimmed down). I respect Gale, who was initially rejected for the role because he was thought to be too tall for the role before he was brought in to do stunts and play the understudy. It doesn't take many guesses to wonder why he took over a grueling role from the initial actor hired when it was a child actor.  Keep in mind, the voice for the main role came after the movie was done, complete with trouble in synchronizing the voice to the movements of the mouth (the lines for the duck were spoken by the puppeteers). The filmmakers actually had hired Robin Williams to do the voice for the film, but he quit (because, hey, you would too if your rhythm is being messed with in timing). Zien has an awkward challenge on his hands, because his timing is always a little mixed out when contrasted with the others, but he almost pulls off making the lead character someone worth wanting to see more of. 

Like I said, if that duck was anything other than a ungodly hodgepodge, one could almost take the movie at face value.  If Lucas thought there was something appealing in terms of film noir or absurdism within the comic series...they sure will be looking hard to find it in this movie. It is a confused effort that manages to be infuriating for anybody who isn't on the two extremes when it comes to this film, which either is thought of as a terrible failure or a cult classic. I am certainly one of those frustrated folks, because there are considerably better mediocre movies that merit "cult status" than this, and it isn't even terrible enough to call a complete failure. It exists on the "eye-roll" part of the curiosity scale, really. Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that Katz and Hyuck defend the film for what it is (alongside other members of the cast/crew, such as Thompson), stating that while it could have been "edgier and dirtier", it was a movie plagued by studio demands, and Lucas continued to support the film as one that he felt would be later seen in a better light. But hey, I would cope too if it came to a movie that is either a haven for folks who love to pick on muddled messes or for folks who either see a hidden rough gem (of course, there are probably contrarians in that bunch...but hey). Nay, I think it has an exceptionally appropriate place in limbo, a movie that can either be a raw joke or a welcome slice of camp, one that might as well be encased in amber for all time. As the saying goes, take it for what it is worth and go from there.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Come one, come all, it is time for August to receive its own month. Anniversary in August will dedicate the whole month to films released in that month that will gradually reveal itself over the next few weeks until August 31. Enjoy guessing what movies are to come!

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.

Movie Night: Jaws 3-D.

Review #556: Jaws 3-D.

Cast
Dennis Quaid (Michael Brody), Bess Armstrong (Kathryn Morgan), Simon MacCorkindale (Philip FitzRoyce), Louis Gossett, Jr. (Calvin Bouchard), John Putch (Sean Brody), Lea Thompson (Kelly Ann Bukowski), Harry Grant (Shelby Overman), and P. H. Moriarty (Jack Tate) Directed by Joe Alves.

Review
After making a sequel that was mostly inferior to the original, making a third movie was...a given? The original idea for this movie was devised by the producers of the first two films (David Brown and Richard Zanuck), which would've been a spoof film, called Jaws 3, People 0. The idea of a spoof didn't appeal to the studio, who apparently thought it would've been a mistake, like "fouling in your own nest". So yeah, why is the movie called Jaws 3-D? Due to the revival of films using 3D (Amityville 3D, Friday the 13th Part III), 3D was used, with in-disposable polarized glasses given to the audience to give the impression of elements penetrating the screen, with examples being the opening titles (which look tacky, but make sense), the shark going through the window...and the shark's jaws coming for the screen after explosion. However, when watching on television, the titles are fixed to not be so phoned in, with a title of "Jaws III" and consequently , the resolution is a bit poor to look at. But how is the film itself? Pretty terrible. The actors (save for Louis Gossett, who at least looks like he cares about how he acts in the movie) aren't really anything special, mostly harmless, mostly bland. The effects are pretty awful, it doesn't take long for the movie to "showcase" itself, with the remains of a fish lingering on screen for several seconds, obviously trying to look like it's coming towards the screen, but it just feels like padding. The shark apparently moves like a whack-a-mole, and it's really hard to build up tension when the shark moves s-l-o-w-l-y to break the glass, with the broken grass going towards the camera. The ending is about as silly as it gets, with the guts exploding towards the screen. Oh and the dolphins survive. People die, but oh happy day that the dolphins survive. The movie quite literally jumps the shark with this sequel, but there's still one more sequel to go.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.