Blue Steel (1990).

Review #2361: Blue Steel.

Cast: 

Jamie Lee Curtis (Officer Megan Turner), Ron Silver (Eugene Hunt), Clancy Brown (Detective Nick Mann), Elizabeth Peña (Tracy Perez), Louise Fletcher (Shirley Turner), Philip Bosco (Frank Turner), Richard Jenkins (Dawson), Kevin Dunn (Assistant Chief Stanley Hoyt), and Tom Sizemore (Robber) Directed by Kathryn Bigelow (#1258 - K-19: The Widowmaker, #1548 - The Hurt Locker, #1820 - The Loveless, #2188 - Near Dark)

Review: 

"What was interesting to me was kind of a heretical, irreverent look at a particular moment in time. You have this woman who's a police officer. And believe it or not, that was very difficult to get made because the police officer was a woman. I was asked to make her a man, and then we could get financing. I said no, the whole point of making this was that she was a woman. It seems so strange today to think of that as being an obstacle, but it was a big obstacle."

The road for what became Bigelow's third feature film is a tricky one. According to Bigelow, Universal Pictures had tried to develop a movie that would be about gangs in East Harlem that had her interested in writing and directing that had come after Walter Hill had been in the process of setting up a producing deal there around the time of Streets of Fire. Years later, Oliver Stone apparently was interested in doing a project but about South LA gangs...and then he got involved in Salvador and Platoon while she did Near Dark. Long story short, Stone liked that film and was interested in doing whatever she wanted to do next, complete with being producer, and Bigelow sent him, well, the script for Blue Steel, which eventually came around with Stone and Edward Pressman producing. I wonder who exactly came up with what in the script for the film, since Bigelow shares the writing credit with Eric Red; they had previously written Near Dark (1987) together, although Red has apparently labeled the script as basically a "female version of The Hitcher". Apparently, the climax of the film (you know, the gun fight) would've had Curtis nude, but she said no to that, being quoted as saying "Everyone would be watching my breasts flopping around instead of watching the scene." Bigelow in the past was quoted as having an interest in "treading on familiar territory", describing Blue Steel as a "mutation that maybe implies a different genre". The movie was released by MGM in the wake of Vestron Pictures' impending doom as a company, and the movie made a small amount of money while Bigelow next directed with Point Break (1991).

Some reviews of the time compared the movie to Halloween (1978) because of the whole boogeyman thing and having Curtis, I guess, but I don't seem to remember the part in the earlier film where the lead became a cop. But what we do have is a weird movie, one that is entertaining but stupefying in its execution to varying levels of effectiveness that tries to play two different angles: the plight of a (woman) cop that has to come to terms with who they really are when faced with rough surroundings...and also a nut that has an obsession with her and, well, things that lead him to want to shoot again and again. Technically speaking, the movie is kinetically interesting in general action while dragging along at 102 minutes to a conclusion that will befuddle the viewer in its certain positioning (ambiguity or overwrought, you might wonder) while seeming digging new ways to throw itself in melodrama. But how many films do we let certain things fall by the wayside because of our relative enjoyment, anyway? Is it nitpicking to wonder where the line should be drawn with a movie where a robbery takes place but somehow the guy in the front of it thought he saw a knife rather than, well a gun*. But Curtis does hold the film together with a generally tense performance that shows the struggle that arises with her position that only is solid when she essentially plays nice in the box she is constrained to, and that's without even mentioning her interactions with the other side of the coin of someone trapped in the strange world of struggling with their position and place. We the audience know what we know, so if someone can badger her about her method the way they do in one particular scene, imagine how is in an actual active scenario. If you're not with her and her charm that comes through even in the plight around her, then, well, the rest of the film goes down with her, for better or worse. Silver is mostly effective in evoking tension, albeit with a few obvious beats (bad enough he carves names into bullets, does he need to have voices in his head and also spout lines about death?) to go with the newfound power of a gun, which I'm sure could be interpreted in different ways**. The scenes the two share with each other are curious enough to make a worthy enough cat-and-mouse game to a certain point, being more interesting in the start and close rather than the holding down that comes with stretching things out. Brown moseys about with a casual charm, albeit with late usefulness in the long run, since it is more a movie of doubts and moods that might as well be a dreary dream. You don't exactly get much time to spend with Bosco and Fletcher[*] besides the bare minimum that comes with semi-resolved (?) family tension either. By the time the movie moves to its endgame around Wall Street, you have a movie that is frantic enough to possibly override the inevitable quibbles because it has a committed director and star that want to make an entertaining thriller. In a sea of varying effectiveness when it comes to women-leading action movies, Blue Steel is at least a solid enough recommendation to seek out for the ride it goes on in the curiosity about the nature of power and, well, the thrills.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*I don't want to pick all the way to hell, but probably the most ridiculous idea is that our lead comes to her parents, sees a fresh bruise on her mom, arrests her dad but decides in the middle of a conversation with him in the back of the car to just...let him off with a warning to not be who he is anymore. Or something. 

**Something something Freud something something penis. Actually, I wish my memory was a bit better, because I swear it isn't too particularly hard to find a movie about someone finding a gun and deciding to mosey around the city with it. Instead, I keep wondering why I haven't watched Gun Crazy.

[*] Bosco was a Tony Award winning actor for 1989, while Fletcher, well, you know her Academy Award-winning role in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, but for me, her performances as Kai Winn on the massively underrated Star Trek: Deep Space Nine was probably just as cool.

Exorcist II: The Heretic.

Review #1915: Exorcist II: The Heretic.

Cast: 

Linda Blair (Regan MacNeil), Richard Burton (Father Philip Lamont), Louise Fletcher (Dr. Gene Tuskin), Max von Sydow (Father Lankester Merrin), Kitty Winn (Sharon Spencer), Paul Henreid (The Cardinal), James Earl Jones (Kokumo), Joey Green (Young Kokumo), Ned Beatty (Edwards), Karen Knapp (The Voice of Pazuzu), and Dana Plato (Sandra Phalor) Directed by John Boorman (#565 - Zardoz, #975 - Deliverance, and #1210 - Excalibur)

Review: 

"The sin I committed was not giving the audience what it wanted in terms of horror ... There's this wild beast out there which is the audience. I created this arena and I just didn't throw enough Christians into it."

I was waiting for this day to happen, if you can believe it. I knew damn well what I was getting into when it came to the sequel to The Exorcist, which I remember being a fine film, if not exactly one I went back to again and again. Maybe it was one of those times where I stick more to my comfort horror picks than anything, but yes, the things that stuck with me was the voice of the demon (maybe the devil) by Mercedes McCambridge or maybe the lead performance by Ellen Burstyn. It was good, but the fact that it was nominated for multiple Academy Awards makes its reputation perhaps a bit too lofty when compared to other features of its time. Of course, others will remember William Friedkin and his direction of material that had been written by William Peter Blatty based on his 1971 novel of the same name, and it should be noted that neither had spoken about it being a horror film, instead viewing it as a movie about the mystery of faith. Uh, okay. However, you do not get to see none of them in the sequel, since Blatty and Friedkin clearly had better things to do (such as suing each other and Warner Bros because of disputes over profits and credits) and the only actors to return from the original was Blair, Winn, and von Sydow (who is given more mention than Jason Miller, whom the film practically ignores). Somehow, it should only make sense that a director that didn't even like the first film was recruited to do the sequel, and the studio actually thought they could aim for a PG rating rather than an R, if only because they didn't want to be as controversial as the original was when it came to being rated an R (because some people thought it merited an X, proving that taste is selective).. No seriously, Boorman though that he could make a "kind of riposte to the ugliness and darkness of The Exorcist" - you know, the guy who turned down The Exorcist for Zardoz. William Goodhart was tasked with writing the script, one that was aimed for the metaphysical, but this script ended up with rewrites from Rospo Pallenberg and Boorman, albeit with no credit to them (Blair has stated that Pallenberg directed a good chunk of the film, probably because of Boorman suffering from Valley fever for a number of weeks). The final product came about after attempts were made to tinker with it due to bad preview screenings, which didn't really help matters. You know how bad the reviews were? Apparently, when studio executives went to see the film, the audience members got so mad at what they were watching that they chased down the executives down a street. The film was successful on its $14 million budget, but the reputation was so horrendous that a third Exorcist movie wouldn't happen until 1990, directed by Blatty. While the fact that the film turns 45 years old this year seems like a good reason to cover it, the fact that there is a new Exorcist film out for release in 2023 seems like another good reason to get back into the spirit, regardless of who is directing it, I guess.

You know, I wanted to give things a chance, if only because I am reminded that Martin Scorsese stated that the film got a bit of a bum rap upon release, noting its interesting question about the great goodness drawing all evil and all of that stuff that I'm sure would make a nice essay to get drunk with. Sure, a movie trying to frame the first film with "look, what really happened that night?" is a bit shaky, but there is potential. Then the synchronizer and its strobe light come into the picture, which starts the giggling process, complete with see-through glass for the "institution" and a silly sound for the device to boot. Somehow, seeing Richard Burton watch as Louise Fletcher puts on that ridiculous contraption alongside poor Linda Blair makes it apparent just how ridiculous making a sequel can be. It makes me wonder if Blair's appearance in the Exorcist parody Repossessed (1990) would be any less embarrassing, honestly. The fact that Burton (cast because Jon Voight dropped out) drank heavily as the film production wore on makes this only more offbeat. Remember this: Burton did the film as a "paycheck movie" so he could do better things like Equus (1977), a movie about a teen being treated for blinding horses in a stable. Hell, Blair has stated that she doesn't know what the film is actually about, does that tell you all you need to know about this movie? You have a scene that goes on for a bit about Pazuzu and Africa before it ends with a shot of James Earl Jones growling that does a cut to a shot of a leopard. The barrage of locusts doesn't help matters out, either. Honestly, it isn't the lack of gore or exploitation angle that makes things so baffling, it is the fact that it is so bland as a horror movie to the point of coma. In other words: the audience may be a bit weird in what they think they want, but when they know what kind of bullshit won't fly with them, they will tell you very clearly. One feels like they are watching two different movies smashed up into one, as if they couldn't make up their mind as to who to lend their focus on beyond zigzagging everywhere with its alleged main trio of Blair, Burton, and Fletcher, with the latter either suffering the most because of a lack of things to do or benefitting from the lack of dumb shit to do besides maybe playing the "science" lead, which amounts to a bag of sand in screen presence. If Blair was put through plenty of tough things for the original, she gets to have the pleasure of being put through the wringer in a role that even a more quality actor would have been doomed to fail. She seems lost in a wholly different movie than the one that is actually happening, as if being in a movie about silly teenagers would actually be more up her alley than the gobbledygook present (she didn't put on the makeup for the demon as with the first film, by the way); she seems confused, and you would be too, which results in a sad performance that satisfies no one. Burton gets to wander through a paycheck movie with mild dignity that somehow seems too nice for trash like this, as if the movie needs someone to take this material less seriously. Okay, so you are probably wondering how the plot goes. Well, aside from a failed exorcism or so, you get to learn about psychic healers that Pazuzu likes to target while a heretic priest resists the urge of a succubus that looks like Linda Blair before the house from the original goes belly up in locusts. Oh, and there's a scientist that had these powers who now spends time trying to target locust swarms. Got all of that? In its attempts at trying to play with the story elements of the original, it demystifies the test of faith that made a solid first movie.

 

You know who I was most curious to see? Beatty and Jones, because each get to wait over an hour to show up. Yea, maybe the fact that there isn't much to say about them makes them seem better, unless Jones being in a locust suit and spitting some fruit onto a row of spikes counts as embarrassing. The only one who has any sense of dignity is von Sydow, and he is in it for flashback scenes of all things. That is this movie in a nutshell: things happen, and you just go with it to see how stupider it can get. The best possible director for this kind of movie may not have been someone like Boorman, honestly. It needed someone who was willing to work in the parameters of what the script entailed with their own sense of imagination, whether that involved keeping the script as it was or going even more gonzo. Maybe it should have been made as a straight-up exploitation copy of the original instead, because it probably would've looked as cheap as this film feels, which is astounding considering the multimillion-dollar budget on this film. It feels like an exploitation movie that thinks it is high class with no sense of awareness. If the original had the hint of elegance within its material, this movie is like a bastard fifth cousin that came from outer space. The Ennio Morricone score may be the only thing about the movie that makes any sort of sense. This is the kind of movie that will make people who though the original was the greatest horror thing since sliced bread hate the idea of sequels (and perhaps challenge the very nature of God itself) and make people who thought it was fine remind oneself the merits of the original. In short, the only thing scary about it is the idea a sequel worse than this exists. It is an incoherent mess from start to finish in the most amusing ways possible.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Literally anything will be better than this film. So it is time at last for Underworld (2003).

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

Review #1164: One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

Cast: 
Jack Nicholson (Randle McMurphy), Louise Fletcher (Nurse Ratched), Will Sampson ("Chief" Bromden), William Redfield (Dale Harding), Brad Dourif (Billy Bibbit), Sydney Lassick (Charlie Cheswick), Christopher Lloyd (Max Taber), Danny DeVito (Martini), Dean Brooks (Dr. John Spivey), William Duell (Jim Sefelt), Vincent Schiavelli (Bruce Frederickson), Michael Berryman (Ellis), Nathan George (Attendant Washington), Marya Small (Candy), and Scatman Crothers (Orderly Turkle) Directed by Miloš Forman.

Review: 
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest was originally a novel by Ken Kesey that he had done based off his time working as an orderly in a mental healthy facility, for which he wrote the novel in 1959 before it was published in 1962. In the original novel, the story was narrated through the character named Chief Bromden, who found that society was controlled by some sort of system called "The Combine". A year after the novel was released, the novel was turned into a play, written by Dale Wasserman that had McMurphy played by Kirk Douglas, who had bought the rights to make it for the stage or for film. After a decade of trying to make it into a film, he gave the rights to his son Michael, who helped co-produce the film along with Saul Zaentz, with Lawrence Hauben and Bo Goldman doing the screenplay. The film was primarily filmed at Oregon State Hospital in Salem. Kesey was not happy with how the film adaptation came out, later suing Douglas and Zaentz for a percentage of the gross and damages for “breaking our verbal agreement and ruining the book.” He objected to the fact that the film was from the perspective of McMurphy rather than the Chief, describing it as such: "they took out the morality; they took out the Combine—the conspiracy that is America.”

At any rate, it isn't hard to see why the film is fairly enjoyable, having a certain kind of energy and pull with a fine deal of craftsmanship and interesting people to follow along with. Nicholson and his rebellious presence give a great magnetic pull for the film, bemused at having to deal with the state of the people on both sides of this mental institution that he deals with, while also having a bit of humor and will to him that makes for good entertainment. Fletcher plays her insidious role with a good degree of understated manipulation, having no sense of overblown nature nor being overshadowed by the other members of the cast, having a voice and enough presence to make this battle of wills work without too many hitches. One good scene with Nicholson and Fletcher that I can highlight is the scene where his character tries to get the television to be turned onto the World Series, where he tries to get the necessary amount of votes from the submissive ones in the ward and her attempts to assert her authority, complete with an ensuing (and amusing) act of defiance - imagining the game out loud. Sampson, who had been discovered by the producers due to his 6'7 frame, does a fine job for his acting debut, doing just alright with the small amount of lines he has while playing his part in the climax without any hitches. Dourif and Lloyd (who both had done work on the stage prior to this film) shine in their own ways, with the former's fear and willingness to try and please everyone coming out fairly well and the latter being amusing when picking on Redfield. Lassick does well with conveying panic and nervousness, and DeVito (reprising his role from the 1971 revival of the play) also does fine with brief moments to talk.

The film does take some time to show the conformity and mindless automation of the people in the ward, and for the most part the film keeps itself consistent. The fishing sequence is a bit of a miss when compared to other sequences in part because it just feels a bit too silly that kind of messes with the rest of the film's tone. It should be mentioned that the fishing sequence was present in the novel, although it has a few significant differences - such as the fact that the trip is planned in the book, for example. In any case, it's a bit of a understatement to say that the film turned out to be such a great success, being a hit with audiences while winning numerous awards, winning what is described as the Big Five categories of the Academy Awards: Best Picture (beating films such as Jaws and Nashville), Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress, and Best Adapted Screenplay. On the whole, the film is pretty entertaining, having an enduring spirit to it that makes it work more often than not in its 133 minute run-time. It still manages to hold up well after over forty years since its release with a game cast and an enduring spirit that makes for at least one watch.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Brainstorm (1983).

Review #718: Brainstorm.

Cast
Christopher Walken (Michael Brace), Natalie Wood (Karen Brace), Louise Fletcher (Lillian Reynolds), Cliff Robertson (Alex Terson), Alan Fudge (Robert Jenkins), Joe Dorsey (Hal Abramson), Jason Lively (Chris Brace), Jordan Christopher (Gordy Forbes), and Donald Hotton (Landan Marks) Directed by Douglas Trumbull.

Review
Brainstorm deserves credit for its effects, which are still impressive, regardless of how old the movie is. Which is good, considering the rest of the movie isn't as impressive. Granted, the movie does have a creative premise: A research team creates a helmet that lets someone record their experience (such as racing a car, riding a horse - physically and mentally I might add) onto the device to be experienced later. Oh, and there's some evil management who want to make it militarized. I liked the movie more when it showed the helmet and what it does than the plot involving the company because it felt enjoyable and it felt less forced. The characters are fine, but this is one of those movies where the effects overtake the acting...which has been done before with other science fiction films, but it proves to be a distraction when the effects aren't chugging themselves out. I feel like the movie wants to just be about the helmet and one's experience with it instead of "nyah, we want the helmet for mind control!" Walken and Wood are at least enjoyable, though I wish Fletcher was given more time on screen. Robertson is just okay. Admittedly, the movie had a troubled production, in fact this movie was released nearly two years after Natalie Wood's death in November 1981, on a production break. After MGM tried to lock Trumbull out, the movie was finally let back into production, albeit with limited release and publicity, which ensued the movie's box office failure, and Trumbull has never directed a movie since. The movie was originally going to utilize Trumbull's Showscan process, which uses a quicker frame per second rate...but the cost of retrofitting theaters was too much for the studio. The movie does utilize a different ratio for the virtual reality scenes as opposed to the normal scenes (which is smaller), which is nice. It could be indicative of the future....someday. But until that day comes, it's an okay movie that had some troubled history.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.