After Midnight (1989).

Review #1150: After Midnight.

Cast: 
Ramy Zada (Professor Edward Derek), Marg Helgenberger (Alex, segment "All Night Operator"), Marc McClure (Kevin, segment "The Old Dark House"), Jillian McWhirter (Allison), Pamela Adlon (Cheryl), Tracy Wells (Amy, segment "A Night on the Town"), Judie Aronson (Jennifer, segment "A Night on the Town"), Ed Monaghan (Russ, segment "Allison's Story"), Alan Rosenberg (Richard, segment "All Night Operator"), Richard Gabai (Dave), Loyda Ramos (Molly, segment "All Night Operator"), Kerry Remsen (Maggie), and Nadine Van der Velde (Joan, segment "The Old Dark House") Directed by Jim Wheat and Ken Wheat.

Review: 
I suppose there must be something to the task of making an anthology film come to life. Perhaps it is better fitted for television (such as The Twilight Zone or Night Gallery, for example), but the beginning parts of the film, involving the setup with a weird professor played by Zada, does help give the movie some sort of amusing start, complete with a "Psychology of Fear" college class. Honestly, you would be best off sticking to those shows I just mentioned instead. This is a film brought to life by the Wheat brothers, who had helped co-write the screenplay for A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master (1988). To properly give the film its due, I'll simply recap my thoughts on the three stories told to us, along with the wraparound parts.

The first segment, titled "The Old Dark House", seems to be destined for cliches, owing to the title that had already been used for two films, made by noted directors James Whale (1932) and William Castle (1963) that had been adapted from a novel called Benighted by J. B. Priestley. Honestly, that bit of history is more interesting for me than the actual segment, which goes nearly exactly the way you'd expect from a spooky house story. There is a twist to it, which I suppose makes it worth it, although it reminds me of a magician doing a magic trick and then pulls a jackrabbit out of the hat to mess with the audience with a chuckle. It probably doesn't hold up well on a re-watch, but it isn't anything too annoying. McClure and Van der Velde do just fine with such okay material, at least. "A Night on the Town" is easily the worst segment, in part because of how dull it is. It features a group of teenage girls who get lost and encounter a rundown gas station and are then chased...by vicious dogs. It's a bit of a tedious story, not evoking any sort of fright or even passion to it. The only thing that amuses me is the fact the conclusion, involving an explosion. "All Night Operator" is an average story, but it is likely the best of the bunch since it actually feels like an actual tale worth telling people. It involves Helgenberger (whose character has a broken leg while skiing) working at an answering service on a night shift before she gets involved with a client who is been stalked. The thing that bugs me about the segment is the ending, since it doesn't really have an ending, as opposed to how the other two segments seemed to have a natural conclusion to them. It may not be very scary (unless spooky callers really get under your skin), but it isn't too bad.

As mentioned earlier, the opening parts do help the movie get a bit of footing, with some hammy acting by Zada that is at least trying to get the movie somewhere interesting - he plays a character who likes to scare his students on his opening lecture by going through with Russian roulette (complete with makeup after faking getting shot) and messing with one of the surly kids to scare him, complete with pulling a revolver on him. What's weird is the ultimate setup: he offers private lessons when the college tells him to use textbooks for the class, and a bunch of students go to the lesson. I don't think I ever had a class in college that offered private lessons at a professor's house, but I digress. During the stories, there are shots showing the student who got scared by the professor trying to get his revenge on the teacher, which all build up to a weird showdown in the basement. The acting from the people in the wraparounds besides Zada isn't too interesting, especially since McWhirter doesn't give too much to this character that we follow for the wraparounds. You would think that she has her own story to tell, but she ultimately does not. The last trick the film plays on the audience is the worst of all - all of it was a dream. With how the wraparound segment ends, of course the film picks the one trick that undoes what just occurred on screen. Ultimately, this is a pretty mediocre movie, but the segments aren't recommendable in any sense of the word for frights or scares, being more something to watch on a lark. Nobody stands out in terms of acting aside from Zada, although that may be due to the ridiculous nature of his character, and the film is more of a tedious journey than an actual fun time. There isn't much to recommend, but if you really have a curiosity for anthology tales and cheap 80s thrills without much reward, this might be enough for you.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Mr. Brooks.

Review #1137: Mr. Brooks.

Cast: 
Kevin Costner (Earl Brooks), William Hurt (Marshall), Demi Moore (Detective Tracy Atwood), Dane Cook (Mr. Smith / Graves Baffert), Marg Helgenberger (Emma Brooks), Danielle Panabaker (Jane Brooks), Aisha Hinds (Nancy Hart), and Jason Lewis (Jesse Vialo) Directed by Bruce A. Evans.

Review: 
Mr. Brooks is certainly an interesting film to think about, if not for the fact it certainly stands out for its main character - a man addicted to murder, as if they were doing a modern variant on the Jekyll and Hyde tale, to the point where Costner's character goes to twelve-step meetings for addicts to try and curb his "killing addiction". Believe it or not, this was meant to be the first film in a trilogy, and while the film was a mild success at the box office, there were no further follow-ups made. While I can't say that this is a great film, I will say that it is an interesting thing to watch, if not for the twists that it tries to pull and some of its performances being pretty stand-out, even if the film has some deep flaws of its own that can't quite make a success.

Costner and Hurt are easily the highlights for the film, interacting with each other over the nature of what they are bound to do with the kind of energy and interest that you would probably expect from a buddy film. Costner manages to pull off a entertaining performance, balancing the family man aspect of his role handily while also balancing his struggle to deal with his urges as if he was in a werewolf film. It's hard to resist seeing Hurt and his fiendish grin in his role as the alter ego, being watchable each time he appears on screen with his conversations, having fun with the mayhem that he lives on to compel Mr. Brooks to do. One big flaw that comes out from the cast is that there isn't anyone else in the film that actually gets up to the level of Costner and Hurt in terms of performance or presence. Moore plays her detective role with the kind of wooden nature that could only come from humorless television movies, but the more amusing thing is the threads that the film tries to stake on her character. She doesn't just play a detective, she plays a rich detective who does what she does for her own reasons, which the film likes to explain in the end as some sort of sting. In any case, there isn't any scene where she gives enough energy to make this role seem remotely interesting, being one of the lulls that stops the film's momentum. Would you expect that Moore's character has three plot-lines? Yes, between her investigation into the serial murders in the main thread, there is also the thread of her divorce and the thread about another killer that has escaped from jail that she put away that is in the pursuit of her - named the Hangman. The other lull is in Cook, playing a character seemingly devoid of charm or interest, which I suppose makes sense when playing someone who is trying to parrot Costner's character. Perhaps this would've worked if Cook (a stand-up comedian playing a dramatic role for some reason) actually made this person someone I wanted to be around with Costner and Hurt. Perhaps someone with a bit more charm (or possibly less time on screen) would've made the film run without less stoppage to it. Yes, the character is a slimy one, but it at least could've been a useful slimy one to be around with. Strangely enough, there isn't as much time for Helgenberger and Panabaker, who have minimal time on screen to be around Costner for this on-screen family. Maybe there would've been more for them to do if there had been sequels (and I put that generously), but there had to be another way to have them more involved. I feel like the parts with Costner and Panabaker should've had more of a focus, since she basically only has three brief scenes, and she basically disappears after the first hour. Yes, her character does have a function to at least one plot thread, but it doesn't really resonate as much as it could have. Spoiler alert, her character also committed a murder, as if she inherited it from her dad. Sure, why not. There are just as many plot threads than actual deaths in this film. By the time it gets to its climax, the film essentially collapses from exhaustion. It can be a creepy film sometimes, when it involves the nature of what makes Mr. Brooks who he is, but it isn't as effective as it probably should've been.

With all of its attempts to pull so many twists and narratives, the film can't quite execute at a fair rate, where there become so many threads that it almost feels needless. After a while, it becomes exhausting to wonder why there are so many plot threads going about in a film that probably should've just stuck to a bit more simple for a psychological thriller that manages to last two hours. When it wants to be just Costner and Hurt, the film works just fine, but when it tries to verge on others in its small cast, it feels a bit distracted and not too particularly focused. This may have worked better a television series with all the threads it wants to throw around, but even with that it mind, it's just a frustrating movie to sit through. I like the idea of where it wants to go with Costner and Hurt, but the final product just isn't enough to fully give thrills and satisfaction without becoming ridiculous and overstuffed. It's the kind of movie that might serve as a guilty pleasure for ones in the right mindset, or ones with more patience in mind for where it ultimately lingers.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Always (1989).

Review #958: Always.

Cast: 
Richard Dreyfuss (Pete Sandich), Holly Hunter (Dorinda Durston), John Goodman (Al Yackey), Brad Johnson (Ted Baker), Audrey Hepburn (Hap), Roberts Blossom (Dave), Keith David (Powerhouse), Ed Van Nuys (Nails), and Marg Helgenberger (Rachel) Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168 - Raiders of the Lost Ark, #169 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, #170 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, #302 - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, #351 - Schindler's List, #480 - Jaws, #563 - The Sugarland Express, #573 - E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, and #642 - Jurassic Park)

Review: 
It has been said that this is one of Steven Spielberg's weakest films, but it is easy to admit that with regards to his resume prior to (and after) this film's release; it is also easy to see his love for the 1943 film A Guy Named Joe and the passion that he must've had to make a remake of it. Is this a flawed movie? Yes, but it is the kind of movie that can qualify as a guilty pleasure, for better or worse. The main cast is fairly enjoyable together, having good chemistry with each other (particularly in the first half); I liked Hunter the best in part because her hard but consistently believable tone works best against Dreyfuss and his flippish nature, though Goodman is a welcome comic relief. Johnson is fairly decent in his first co-starring role in a major film, though his chemistry with Hunter isn't as entertaining as the case with Dreyfuss. Hepburn (appearing in two scenes) is graceful as ever in her final film appearance. When it comes to showing the action with the planes (through aerial photography, rear projection and models) or when the movie wants to have some laughs, that is when the film is at its best; when it comes down to saying some of the dialogue about love and death, that is when the film nearly drowns itself in sappiness and sentimentality. At 123 minutes, it does feel a bit long with all of those awkward (but not manipulative) kind of lines, but I found the film made up for some of it with its fiery climax, with Dreyfuss and Hunter handling themselves quite convincingly. It's not a bad movie, but it is obviously not on the top of any totem pole of quality for Spielberg. The best things about the movie is what it isn't, needless to say. It's a nice harmless movie that works best for some, but likely not for others.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.