Masters of the Universe (1987).

Review #2545: Masters of the Universe.

Cast: 

Dolph Lundgren (He-Man), Frank Langella (Skeletor), Meg Foster (Evil-Lyn), Billy Barty (Gwildor), Courteney Cox (Julie Winston), Robert Duncan McNeill (Kevin Corrigan), Jon Cypher (Man-At-Arms), Chelsea Field (Teela), James Tolkan (Hugh Lubic), Christina Pickles (Sorceress), Tony Carroll (the Beastman), Pons Maar (Saurod), Anthony De Longis (Blade), and Robert Towers (Karg) Directed by Gary Goddard.

Review: 

Hey, remember Masters of the Universe? The impetus for trying to make the toy line came from Mattel's drive to come up with something good enough to possibly forget their rejection to produce action figures for a little film called Star Wars [1977] (Kenner famously did it first instead). Various concepts came around from people such as Roger Sweet and Mark Taylor. Coincidentally, this happened around the same time that the rights holder for Conan the Barbarian tried to do a toy deal with Mattel that fell through (they later sued Mattel claiming infringement, but Mattel won out in their toy line being original). The figures first came out with mini comics in 1981 before further waves of toys and, well, your parents probably watched the Filmation animated shows, with He-Man and the Masters of the Universe running from 1983 to 1985 and a spinoff with She-Ra: Princess of Power running from 1985 to 1987 (with that show, The Secret of the Sword [1985] was the premiere, a compilation of the first five episodes that was in theaters). According to one source, the original script by David Odell (writer of films such as Supergirl) had significant time spent on Eternia and Snake Mountain but this later changed to what you see here with a fairly Earthbound adventure (apparently, the link between the two places was that He-Man's mother was born on Earth). Mattel decided to be as cloying as possible for production, reportedly not paying their half of the production budget on time and they didn't want to their title character doing anything morally wrong. The film was directed by Gary Goddard (with his one other film credit being the co-writer of Tarzan, the Ape-Man [1981]) in the only theatrical film he has done. He has done theater shows along with dark rides and 3D movies.* Released around the same time as Stakeout and The Living Daylights in August 1987, Masters of the Universe was a flop, with its failure (along others such as Superman IV) hindering Cannon Films. They had planned to do a sequel film with Albert Pyun as director and even made some costumes and sets only to renege on a deal with Mattel that led them to re-tool it for what became Cyborg [1989].

Honestly, I never really got into He-Man, because, I was born in 1996, Legos were just more interesting (and as for the animated show...no, sorry). You might say that could help when talking about a movie that probably has a special cheesy place for those who watched it back then. No, not really, this movie is a lazy, middling film, a Conan/Star Wars wannabee mired in a "fish out of water" plotline and a monosyllabic lead.  Goddard claimed that the film's storyline was inspired by various Jack Kirby comic books (namely The New Gods), and he wanted Kirby to be a conceptual artist for the movie. I feel like play-acting a comic book would be a more entertaining experience, especially since it would probably have violence against actual humanoid-looking people in it (after the first couple of totally not Stormtroopers get shot by lasers, how far can you go?). Lundgren (in his first starring role after Rocky IV [1985]) and his dialogue was re-recorded and dubbed over the original footage, which at least sounds better than Goddard wanting to re-dub the whole film with someone else's voice...in theory. For a character that goes around dallying without using a sword too much, Lundgren is left adrift to really say anything of meaningful substance (this is me trying to be nice in not just calling him wooden*). It probably is a bit of a casting coup to have a willing Langella (of films such as Dracula [1979], which I'm sure somebody liked*) go all-out, apparently because his son was big on the animated show. He hams it up a bit and basically steals the movie, which is a bit of an accomplishment when wrapped in so much makeup (as one does for a skeleton). It doesn't save the movie, but still. Cox and McNeill (future featured players in television*) just look lost in this corny movie with little to really make you care about them in a film that just meanders around with the bare minimum to offer (to say nothing of an ending that basically is wish fulfillment without really earning it). Barty, cast as a freshly created character because they could not make Orko, a floating magician for the screen...is okay, but it probably makes one appreciate stuff like Legend (1985) and Willow (1988) by comparison in the "comedy relief" aspect that only goes so far to distract from a movie that has folks going around confronting the new realities of a bucket of ribs. In a sea of attempts of support from Foster and Cypher (and those totally comfortable suits), at least you can say Tolkan was trying to be funny. For someone who really does have a varying bar of giving films a chance, this is a movie that is just too shallow to really garner that much care for what goes on in it (a sorceress being trapped has never felt so small). As a whole, the movie didn't reach its target audience in its day (people who either loved their toys and sure love PG-rated flicks), and there are oodles of people who will try to call it a cult movie, but I'm just not a fan to where I can't even call it a "just missed the mark" type of movie. So it goes.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*He may also be a pervert, as detailed by articles such as this: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-entertainment-news-updates-anthony-edwards-pens-powerful-essay-1510344160-htmlstory.html

*Unpopular and unrelated take: I suppose there's something to say about He-Man being a "gay icon" or something. No, not really. People will claim anything as an "icon" if it sounds "cool" enough. You can say "Fortunate Son" is an anti-war song but people will still put that song on full blast because...it sounds cool. 

*I still can't get over mediocre that Dracula movie was. Goddamnit. 

*folks would see Lundgren on the big screen a few more times in the next ten years (Red Scorpion [1988], The Punisher [1989 - although America got it direct-to-video], I Come in Peace [1990], Showdown in Little Tokyo [1991], Universal Soldier [1992], Johnny Mnemonic [1995]) sprinkled in with direct-to-video fare.

*Friends stinks. I'll watch Star Trek: Voyager all the way through once before I see Friends.

The Lords of Salem.

Review #2311: The Lords of Salem.

Cast: 

Sheri Moon Zombie (Heidi LaRoc / Adelaide Hawthorne), Bruce Davison (Francis Matthias), Jeff Daniel Phillips (Herman "Whitey" Salvador), Judy Geeson (Lacy Doyle), Meg Foster (Margaret Morgan), Patricia Quinn (Megan), Dee Wallace (Sonny), Ken Foree (Herman "Munster" Jackson), María Conchita Alonso (Alice Matthias), Andrew Prine (Reverend Jonathan Hawthorne), Richard Fancy (A.J. Kennedy), Camille Keaton (Doris Von Fux), Bonita Friedericy (Abigail Hennessey), and Nancy Linehan Charles (Clovis Hales) Written and Directed by Rob Zombie (#743 - Halloween (2007), #1590 - House of 1000 Corpses, #1751 - Halloween II (2009), #1756 - The Devil's Rejects, #1920 - 3 from Hell, #2090 - The Munsters)

Review: 

"50% of you will think this is the greatest thing ever, and 50% will hate it...I think I wanted to let everyone there know that it's OK to feel that way about a film like Lords. It's meant to make you unsure about what you just saw. That's the way the things that I like are—they're not for everybody. People have this delusion that everything has to be for everybody at all times. Every album must be liked by everybody, and every TV show must be liked by everybody, and every movie must be liked by everybody. Everything then becomes bland."

Those with a familiarity with history involving witches or Salem might know that people accused of being witches were not actually burned at the stake. In fact, of the hundreds accused of doing witchcraft in 1692-1693, the thirty that were found guilty suffered the hands of hanging or for the small few, torture (one was pressed until they succumbed to their wounds...and was an 81-year-old man) or death by filthy prisons. Naturally, there have been dozens of books and films that have used the trials as a key topic, whether that involves comedy such as I Married a Witch (1942) or allegories such as The Crucible (play or film). But I suppose it makes sense that one would go and make a film that plays around with the idea that yes, witches really could just be as real as you or me through the old tricks. It was reported in 2010 that Zombie, fresh off the debacle of Halloween II (2009) would get around to writing and directing this film while on his concert tour circuit for shooting in 2011. He apparently had came up with the premise a few years beforehand, but it eventually was tinkered with by Zombie in order to make a "strange, dreamlike movie" (as noted in interviews here, he took inspiration more so from European trials of witches than Salem, which he was misinformed about). He did the film in collaboration with Haunted Movies (so basically, Blumhouse), which at the time had done Insidious and The Bay, particularly because he had total control over the script and casting for a fairly low budget movie. The next Zombie production would come across with 31 (2016), which would go through crowdfunding for certain financing.

I sometimes wonder if I give Zombie a bit too much slack as a filmmaker for all of the fairly average stuff he does. What we have here is a slow burn movie that shows fascination with what Zombie finds interesting about both witchcraft and in "Satanic Panic" that is grim and unforgiving. It may be disjointed; it may not be all that one might think when it comes to the previous Zombie films in terms of stark strangeness in the unfinished cycle of violence but "mixed bag" seems aptly appropriate to try out once if you know what you are getting into. Some might find it basically cribbing from Rosemary's Baby (1968), but given how "fine" that movie was, sometimes you really can just crib from fine movies as long as you don't insult my patience with attempts at simplicity. As before, S.Zombie headlines a R.Zombie film. This time around, there is a passive nature to a character with such a strange and stunted job (it's a radio gig where they hang out about the same level as a couple of inebriated folks) before one eventually sees the logical conclusion of a downward withdrawn spiral. She handles the affair with subdued grace that is probably her most compelling performance for the films I've seen of her. Geeson, Wallace, Quinn play along in weird neighborly charm that is fun to see play out from scene to scene that has fun with self-help in the name of a certain kind of worship. Interestingly, Davison had previously been featured in The Crucible (1996); he was cast when Bruce Dern dropped out of this film due to scheduling conflicts. His curiosity (which went from being a shill for himself to actual curiosity) in the face of impending dread is entertaining to see play out, needless to say. Rounding out the cast is folks such as an unnerving Quinn along with understated presences in Phillips and Foree, who work out fine. The movie has some interesting imagery eventually play out through its trek of dread (such as strange visions or priests) that at least looks like the kind of movie Zombie wanted to just go out and do in having cruelty and uncertainty (for the audience) be the point. As a whole, it might not play well for everyone, but there is promise shown by Zombie in terms of odd duck dread that has a worthy enough cast to carry the waters for a cruel experience that might just work for those that know where to go with a director interested in making a movie to leave you unsure of what you just saw. I ended up going with it enough to say it is fine for one patient viewing, which is more than enough when trying to branch out for horror movies down the road.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next up: We close out our sixth week after Halloween with John Carpenter's The Fog.

They Live.

Review #1298: They Live.

Cast: 
Roddy Piper (John Nada), Keith David (Frank Armitage), Meg Foster (Holly Thompson), Raymond St. Jacques (Street Preacher), George Buck Flower (Drifter/Collaborator), Peter Jason (Gilbert), Sy Richardson (Black Revolutionary), Susan Blanchard (Ingenue), and Norman Alden (Construction Foremanst) Directed by John Carpenter (#068 - Halloween (1978), #634 - Escape from New York, #712 - The Thing, #732 - Escape from L.A., and #1221 - Dark Star)

Review: 
It should only make sense that the only way to see aliens of the subliminal kind are a pair of sunglasses. The idea for the film came from the 1963 short story "Eight O'Clock in the Morning" by Ray Nelson, which he subsequently adapted with artist Bill Wray into a graphic comic named "Nada" in 1986. As such, the screenplay credit went to Frank Armitage, a pseudonym for Carpenter (who naturally also co-wrote the music score with Alan Howarth). In any case, it really is a variation on Invasion of the Body Snatchers (why else would you have the aliens shown in black-and-white for most of the film), only if the aliens were already here and ready to help people sell out and obey in the vein of an sci-fi action thriller. In that sense, it works out pretty well in the film's favor, one that is packed with plenty of entertainment that is derived from clever subversive material and a mold of action and humor to go alongside it that never seems dull or too convenient. The film holds itself on the every-man in Piper, who signed onto the film after Carpenter met with him in the middle of his run as a professional wrestler. He can play the parts of the action hero like one could see in a b-movie (with that noted bubble-gum line seeming right out of his one-liner notebook) that comes in handy when needed that surely paved the way for other wrestler-turned-actors, but he plays himself with careful simplicity that seems just right for a guy like him. David does a fine job with a quasi-sidekick kind of role, where he can join alongside the action against sellout aliens or even the fight just to believe there even is one needed, which leads to the key highlight for both actors: a five minute fight scene between the two where they just take it to the other. It really does prove astounding how one can make such a scene that is so memorable (imagine having to rehearse that for three weeks) while not leaving the film off balance during the other parts of its 94 minute run-time. Foster is fair and subtle, and the other castmates pull their momentary plays on screen with interest in making a small environment like this seem like one to look at for a while and think about. The effects involving the aliens (resembling ghouls) looks pretty neat for the intent that the film wants to do. The action is also pretty well-done with blending with the rest of the film without suffocating it, and the climax is a nice touch. Of course a film that is meant to be subversive has its shares of political devotees, which are either people who understand the film or partisan ghouls for a certain supremacist side (I only include this sentence lest someone actually think this film is about anything but yuppies and unrestrained capitalism) or nearly as annoying Marxist hacks. In any case, one can enjoy the film for either its action content or its attempts at saying something about the nature of our society when it comes to commercialism through the lens of science fiction that delivers plenty of thrills and thought to go around.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Stepfather II.

Review #1104: Stepfather II.

Cast: 
Terry O'Quinn (Jerry Blake/Gene F. Clifford/The Stepfather), Meg Foster (Carol Grayland), Caroline Williams (Matty Crimmins), Jonathan Brandis (Todd Grayland), Henry Brown (Dr. Joseph Danvers), Mitchell Laurance (Phil Grayland), and Miriam Byrd-Nethery (Sally Jenkins) Directed by Jeff Burr.

Review: 
It is evident from the get go that this film (also known as Stepfather 2: Make Room for Daddy - no that is not a joke) is a step down from the original, with its leap in logic and minimal instances of suspense, with its one saving grace being O'Quinn once again. It isn't much of a horror film, but it will prove to be a time-waster at 93 minutes if you like that sort of thing. The original intent was to release this as a direct-to-video sequel (with a budget of $1.5 million and a shooting schedule of roughly four months), but the producers were impressed by the result enough to have it be released into theaters. In any case, there aren't too many moments of actual scares or slasher elements that you wouldn't have already seen in the first film. If you enjoyed the original, you will be pretty disappointed to see how there isn't much to the story this time around, whether in its setup or even to its main character, especially the first sequence involving the mental ward (after showing the last scene from the other film). How much guff can you give for something that was made as a cash-grab? O'Quinn proves to have the best performance once again, having a fine degree of range in showing the nature of this character in kind moments and intense times, with a few moments of amusing moments such as when he drives the car around in a junkyard while smiling. Foster (and her striking blue eyes) proves to be a mild counter-lead to O'Quinn, for better or worse, not being too particularly interesting (although that isn't much of a difference from the lead in the other film). The other members are mild stand-ins, but they do their job just fine. The death sequences and the climax feel a bit routine at times but also feel inconsistent in being effective. You may be wondering about the blood shots in certain scenes, which look a bit awkwardly placed. This is a result of fake blood being added in later in re-shoots due to studio executive complaints about the lack of blood, although O'Quinn was not involved in these shots. Ultimately, this is a bland sequel that proves to be a drag in terms of expectations for horror, disappointing people wanting something more from the first one while also disappointing anyone wanting more than just mild moments of excitement - whether to mock or not.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.