Late Night with the Devil.

Review #2196: Late Night with the Devil.

Cast: 

David Dastmalchian (Jack Delroy), Laura Gordon (Dr. June Ross-Mitchell), Ian Bliss (Carmichael the Conjurer), Fayssal Bazzi (Christou), Ingrid Torelli (Lilly D'Abo), Rhys Auteri (Gus McConnell), Nicole Chapman (Cleo James), Georgina Haig (Madeleine Delroy), Josh Quong Tart (Leo Fiske), and Michael Ironside (the Narrator) Written and Directed by Colin Cairnes and Cameron Cairnes.

Review: 

"In the '70s and '80s, there was something slightly dangerous about late-night TV. Talk shows in particular were a window into some strange adult world. We thought combining that charged, live-to-air atmosphere with the supernatural could make for a uniquely frightening film experience."

Sure, some films just come out of the blue. The Cairnes brothers had worked on a handful of television and film productions (in or around their native Australia), such as 100 Bloody Acres (2012) and Scare Campaign (2016), which had limited releases, but this film came out of the intent of the two to do something that could be self-contained, which eventually sprang with what they saw as "always felt a little bit taboo and dangerous to us as kids" with late-night talk shows of long ago. Filmed in Australia with a varied level of funding that makes this a production of Australia-UAE-USA, Late Night with the Devil was first shown on the festival circuit in early 2023, but some of us are fortunate to get a screening in a theater (IFC Films and Shudder are behind the distribution for the States prior to release in Australia, and, well, by mid-April one could stream it, so you get the idea). There is a mix of effects that range from the practical to digital to the use of AI-generated ones (with the last one: I don't care for AI as anything other than a guiding tool, so go with that in mind). 

By default, one pretty much compares found footage movies to The Blair Witch Project (1999) when it comes to achieving some sort of effect, I suppose. Fortunately, since that movie is massively overrated, clearing the bar of "Blair Witch" is a step in the right direction, and the conceit generated here by this film works out pretty well for gnarly interest for 93 minutes. I think it is more a movie I wished I liked even more than I did, because while it is a pretty good one, there are a few quibbles one can have, whether in its starting conceit or with its finish, which you may or may not see arise pretty quickly. So yes, it involves the pursuit of ratings under the guise of curiosity, and the opening is the only part that doesn't take place around the set of the show, which does look pretty nice in capturing a feeling of a time long past. The performance of Dastmalchian is the key to the whole film to being what it is when it comes to having to play a second-rate host. Apparently, it was an article he wrote in a magazine about regional hosts that got him asked first. He excels here in that clear-cut balance of self-assuring charm that has the layer of something lurking beyond the surface of someone who you can see loves the audience member that only a showbiz person can love when wanting to love them in confines bigger than one could imagine. Late night hosts can feel like one's friend (unless it is someone who sucks, like Jim-), so it is a tightrope to walk in not playing it as just a Johnny Carson pastiche or clear-cut smarm, and he does well to work it out. Bliss is the one who gets to work out the smarm in a spin probably loosely inspired by James Randi, the famed skeptic and former magician that had a handful of appearances dedicated to knocking on alleged paranormal activity (such as fraud Uri Geller, who failed to bend spoons like a fraud on live TV and then failed to successfully sue Randi when he wrote a book calling him a fraud) who also offered a cash prize if someone could prove their powers (no one ever did). His skepticism fuels the film with worthwhile conflict that is is self-aggrandizing in the most delightful of senses, particularly when paired against Gordon and her do-gooder attitude to trying to be validated in a interesting sort of contradictions (as only one can do, with a book tour but totally not willing to go all-out in parading a teenager on television, sure). Auteri plays a quality sidekick to the presentation as it degrades into one certain type of desperation in mind. Torelli plays pretty key to the film as well when it comes to an aura that likes to back in the glow of a camera by staring right into it that fits right in with the movie's presentation of clear-cut terror looming. The ending can be a bit hit or miss depending on one likes to see dread stick the landing when it finally boils to a head. Personally, this might seem odd, but I kind of wish the film ended just a minute or two before it really ends, because one could really have it go completely Twilight Zone and have it end with a great twist involving a man sacrificing the things around him to be #1 only to be trapped in a never-ending illusion. But at any rate, I accept the conclusion when it comes to sealing some entertaining dread in footage form for a movie that is on the level in pretty good execution from everyone involved. It is the kind of indie film that could make a solid recommendation on a late night for one who craves building of dread within comfortable confines.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Starship Troopers.

Review #1922: Starship Troopers.

Cast: 

Casper Van Dien (Johnny Rico), Dina Meyer (Dizzy Flores), Denise Richards (Carmen Ibanez), Jake Busey (Ace Levy), Neil Patrick Harris (Carl Jenkins), Clancy Brown (Sgt. Zim), Seth Gilliam (Sugar Watkins), Patrick Muldoon (Zander Barcalow), and Michael Ironside (Jean Rasczak) Directed by Paul Verhoeven (#002 - RoboCop and #632 - Total Recall)

Review: 

You know, this is a strange movie to think about with its reputation in the 25 years that have passed since its release. Edward Neumeier started writing an original script called "Bug Hunt at Outpost Nine" in the time that followed RoboCop, which he co-wrote (with Michael Miner). The script was a bug movie that also happened to be a teen romance movie. However, when Jon Davison noticed the similarities to Robert A. Heinlein's Starship Troopers, the script was kindly modified to fit as an "adaptation" of the book in order to sell better to any interested studios. It was a film made for over $100 million that made its budget back by a slight amount. The reputation of the film has handily improved in later years to where it is considered a "cult classic". Incidentally, there have been four sequels, all released direct-to-video (the lead star in Van Dien reprised his role in two of the films while Ed Neumeier wrote three of them while directing one). If I am being honest, I wonder how a straight adaptation of the novel would have been rather than this ended up. A cursory glance at the plot of the original work notes that they share a similar structure: a young lad (in the book a Filipino) enters the military because of a woman, makes an error but decides not to leave, sees family members in Buenos Aires get nuked, participates in a futile battle on the alien Arachind before seeing a successful raid on the brain caste and queens while seeing a platoon named after him. But the work is more involved in discussing the nature of what a world would look like if only veterans of the military were allowed to vote (also Rico ends up serving alongside his father in the book). Of course, fascism in the eyes of people wanting to label something fascist may just be their personal boogeyman rather than based on facts (but hey, the book is totally about fascism, trust a person on the Internet telling you this). With all of that in mind, the movie is massively average. Satire or not, I found it just a mild movie. It doesn't shock me or enrage me one bit, but maybe that falls to how many movies one has seen over the years. You might think that the fact that folks being unable to "recognize true propaganda" is a bad thing, but you know, Dirty Harry (1971) was labeled a fascist movie, and I don't see people getting weird about it being average in the "entertainment" department. "Joke" or not, an average movie is still average.

Hey, do you want a movie that tells you that violence is the way to solve problems (satire)? Okay then, enjoy a cadre of teen romance cliches sprinkled in for probably longer than you actually think it will be present. Take my perspective on it: Things in this movie only seem interesting when it involves the Arachnids. The movie may think it is pretty funny for itself when talking about "fascism", but my god, sometimes you should just embrace the cliches that people really care about when it comes to "sci-fi action film". Oh, but RoboCop (1987) is a sci-fi satire that was handled great by Verhoeven, you might say. Well, one realizes pretty quickly that RoboCop would be as convincing as a ball of mud trying to be tinfoil if "teenagers" were the lead focus. That isn't to say I despised the characters (because hey, they mostly act like folks who don't think they are bad guys), but there was never a time where I felt this material was anything better than the general schlock you might see from a 1950s sci-fi film about dealing with marauders from abroad or being anything better than the unintentional amusement found in Top Gun (1986). The attempt to turn the idea of a military elite-ruled world (reminder: Verhoeven didn't even finish the novel because it apparently depressed him) into a mockery of politics and culture of modern America is just basically "Beverly Hills 90210 meets Vietnam War". I don't think Heinlein really wanted a government where the military was the head honcho, I just think he wanted to show how one might operate in some twisted way. Hell, consider this quote from Heinlein: "War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is controlled violence, for a purpose.” In response to that, Verhoeven and Neumeier have turned his curiosity into mockery, and I guess this is meant to be clever only because it happens to be an adaptation of a particular novel. Keep in mind, I did like the movie fine, but it isn't worth the discussion as some sort of hidden masterpiece. It is a bug movie on par with schlock movies of the past that happens to be made on a large budget with characters that were pulled from a soap opera mixed in with stock characters (who are ungodly more interesting) that results in a silly effects show. The parts involving a possible "Brain Bug" is quite interesting, if only to suggest the idea of fighting an enemy that isn't just an ugly dumb bug, even if more time is spent wondering just how dumb our lead is before he gets the idea of who wants to bone him. It is the B-movie spectacle that I care most about in the long run of 129 minutes, and Verhoeven does stage his adventure with the basic stops one does see coming without trying to pull an anti-climax. Van Dien maneuvers the dialogue of wood with general interest (whether in on the joke or not), but honestly Ironside and Brown are the highlights for me, if only because they are the seasoned pros of hardlined patience that the movie does best. Patrick Harris and Richards end up overshadowed by Meyer, who naturally doesn't get to enjoy all of the climax. Actually, Busey makes a pretty good heel for a time, so there's another little compliment amongst what seems to be me gritting my teeth. At any rate, I wish I liked the movie more than I did. It does just fine in the presentation of spectacle in all of its weird and cheap forms while barely making headway in any other department, working best for those who dig over-the-top movies that may or may not read as "effective" satire. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Redux: Top Gun.

Redux: #029: Top Gun.

Cast: 

Tom Cruise (Pete "Maverick" Mitchell), Kelly McGillis (Charlotte "Charlie" Blackwood), Val Kilmer (Tom "Iceman" Kazansky), Anthony Edwards (Nick "Goose" Bradshaw), Tom Skerritt (Mike "Viper" Metcalf), Michael Ironside (Rick "Jester" Heatherly), John Stockwell (Bill "Cougar" Cortell), Barry Tubb (Leonard "Wolfman" Wolfe), Rick Rossovich (Ron "Slider" Kerner), Tim Robbins (Sam "Merlin" Wells), Clarence Gilyard (Marcus "Sundown" Williams), Whip Hubley (Rick "Hollywood" Neven), and James Tolkan (Tom "Stinger" Jardian) Directed by Tony Scott.

Review: 

"Jerry was the first person to see the energy and dynamism that ad directors could bring to movies because he was from a commercials background himself."

A main core is only as successful as the parts that come with it. Tony Scott was born in Tynemouth, England as the youngest of three sons; when his older brother Ridley shot his first film in 1962, he cast his brother as the lead. At any rate, the younger Scott studied at Sunderland Art School and the Royal College of Art before he decided to join his brother in making advertisement films (as was the case with other soon-to-be directors like Alan Parker and Adrian Lyne). Of course, he did do his own shorts with One of the Missing (1968) and Loving Memory (1970) before his feature film debut came with The Hunger (made in 1983 to minor attention), but it was his filming in advertisements that would keep him steady for a number of years, and it was his advertisement for automaker Saab (which had a car racing a fighter jet) that raised interest from Jerry Bruckheimer to do this film. Of course, as a young man, Bruckheimer had worked in advertising before moving to producing films in 1972; it was his meeting years later with Don Simpson, who also had years of experience with film production that later led to their first collaboration: Flashdance, released in 1983, would be Bruckheimer and Simpson's first major hit as producer. The movie was inspired by an article called "Top Guns", written originally for California magazine in May 1983 by Ehud Yonay. The article detailed a F-14 pilots training with the Navy Fighter Weapons School program that was noted for its prose and still photography that conveyed what flying a fighter seemed like, as stated by two pilots named "Yogi" and "Possum". Bruckheimer and Don Simpson liked it and thus got Jim Cash and Jack Epps Jr to construct a first draft, although there would be considerable differences before it finally made it to the big screen (which reportedly saw a last-minute rewrite from Warren Skaaren). This also extended to their work with the Department of Defense (a key backer that wanted to maintain that the movie honored the fine points of security, accuracy, policy, and propriety with the story (i.e. a character not suffering a mid-air collision or the love story being changed from between military personnel to a military man and civilian). The technical advisor utilized for the film was Peter "Viper" Pettigrew, a former "Topgun" (as the actual term is referred to) instructor at the Miramar Naval Air Station in Miramar, California.

As stated by its opening card: On March 3, 1969 the United States Navy established an elite school for the top one percent of its pilots. Its purpose was to teach the lost art of aerial combat and to insure that the handful of men who graduated were the best fighter pilots in the world. They succeeded. Today, the Navy calls it Fighter Weapons School. The flyers call it: You get the idea. The last time I saw the film was over a decade ago, and I remember that the film was a "cheesy flick", one that worked best with its action sequences more so than its overall mood and atmosphere. But time does find a new way to write more clear words about a movie that has now reached over three decades of age. If one gets even a fraction of how Yonay felt when he flew in an F-5 for an hour in terms of aching muscles or the thrill of wanting to get up there again, then the movie has obviously succeeded. The sequences in between talking are quite effective in their choreography, ones that serve as a useful tool of conveying action with the strange duality of not churning itself in its look but also conveying violence without drops of blood. Admittedly, the movie served as a useful tool to one thing in particular: the United States Navy, who not only helped support the film but also found plenty of recruits after the movie was released. Perhaps it isn't surprising that Oliver Stone (director of Platoon, which won Best Picture the same year as this film) felt the movie was fascist. Honestly, the parody Hot Shots (1991) might actually be the most appropriate feeling about the movie: a movie that made light of its overt macho nature that doesn't have time to think, instead acting on instinct and not much else. I think the mediocrity that my eyes saw as a fourteen-year-old only slightly changed very slightly as a 25-year old. The best thing about the movie is still the style first and Cruise second. One can see the persistent charisma oozing from Cruise (who had his breakthrough with Risky Business three years prior) that molded him from casual leading man to one with a formula fitting for a big-name presence, and he essentially walks over most of the folks here, to the point where McGillis can't catch up even when "Take My Breath Away" is blaring. Edwards provides warm energy to the early part of the proceedings for a movie that set a tone as a so-called movie for the "bros", if you will. Kilmer (who had early success in comedies like Top Secret!) has his own kind of icy charm that is just as confident and self-assured as Cruise. Skerritt and Tolkan are useful tools for authority foils, ones fitting of a sports movie filled with recognizable people meant to induce a wise-ass remark or smile. Besides, sports movies could only wish to be as eccentric with their opening besides seeing someone take a photo from up above. I think the opening with Stockwell going through a panic attack in the air is probably the best actual sequence of dialogue and visual sense; the volleyball sequence may be talked about to death, but honestly it only seems to exist as an offshoot to all of the other scenes that seem shot for a commercial rather than anything to seriously dissect. I respect the craft while also recognizing that the script quality is essentially on a level equivalent to an adventure movie where inevitability is king. It is probably how driving a car from the 1980s would turn out: it may look sleek, but one has to watch out for the simple things. For a number of years, the idea of a Top Gun sequel came up a couple of times in the 21st century, even with the suicide of Scott in 2012, and after a number of years in film/development, Top Gun: Maverick was released in late May 2022. It isn't a surprise that this followed along the lines of other sequels to movies long ago, because Top Gun is a curious representation of its era: bold, set firmly in its time, and possibly ripe for further viewing if one is in the mindset for what it wants to sell.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next Review: Top Gun: Maverick.

Nobody (2021).

Review #1673: Nobody.

Cast: 

Bob Odenkirk (Hutch "Nobody" Mansell), Connie Nielsen (Rebecca Mansell), Aleksei Serebryakov (Yulian Kuznetsov), RZA (Harry Mansell), Christopher Lloyd (David Mansell), Gage Munroe (Brady Mansell), Paisley Cadorath (Sammy Mansell), Michael Ironside (Eddie Williams), Billy MacLellan (Charlie Williams), Colin Salmon (The Barber), Araya Mengesha (Pavel), and Aleksandr Pal (Teddy Kuznetsov) Directed by Ilya Naishuller.

Review: 

To me, this film really did come out of nowhere. True, in a normal-ish year, this might have been somewhere carefully placed on the radar, but one can only have so many interests when priorities shift. But research comes in handy when one wonders if they have seen something like this before. The film was written by Derek Kolstad, who you may remember as the writer behind the scripts for the John Wick series, and the director behind the first film in David Leitch is one of the producers for this film. This is the second film by Naishuller (released six years after Hardcore Henry), a Russian-born director known for his work within music with his rock band Biting Elbows (his influences perhaps fit in ranging wildly, citing the James Bond series alongside Wes Anderson). To put it in perspective, this is the first action role for Odenkirk, who has dabbled in comedy and drama with Mr. Show and Better Call Saul, and the latter show relates that argument since Odenkirk felt that on that show he was basically playing an action character but without fighting. Odenkirk came up with the initial idea, inspired by a home invasion that he had experienced and had to deal with personally (complete with a police officer talking about what he would have done if it was his family), and he underwent two years of learning with the choreography in action. The idea of someone deciding to re-inject some adventure in their life isn't particularly a new one, but it is the way that Naishuller maneuvers the film in its action and warmth that makes for a charmer, particularly one that at its heart is a family tale (of course he describes it as an "addiction drama about a man whose addiction is violence", which is also apt). 

One can approach the film from two perspectives, one of them being the idea of awakening oneself into action after dormancy that can hone for any folks struggling in retirement, where finding a new outlet can be a tough one...and then of course there is the perspective of someone who was powerless in a situation with home, where the "should have done X" question definitely can play tricks on your mind (this works also for sports, if you consider how many people believe they could do a certain sport like the folks they see on TV). Consider the bus sequence in the film, because it serves as a hallmark for what comes before and after: it balances its levels of violence within an injection of levity that helps to deliver a riveting time that doesn't end up jamming the senses (i.e. one can appreciate the action without experience a jarring sensation). All of these sentences can be distilled into one: I really enjoyed this movie. It all starts with Odenkirk, because one needs a good presence within calm family man and tense action timing. He excels in that regard, because there is never a moment that one seems to think of him as out of his range, taking the material with relative patience that is engaging without seeming like a pastiche of other action stars - motivation and composure go a long way towards a fun movie that never borders on parody or cartoon of things one has seen before. Nielsen accompanies the proceedings with calm patience, fitting alongside Odenkirk with calm care that keeps the family angle in relative focus (sure, there are two kids to go alongside that, but one isn't thinking too much about that). Serebryakov makes for a quality adversary, wrapped with some menacing quality without seeming generic, managing to make a curious presence count with terror (whether involving weary greed or a bout of live performances). Ah, but the real surprise is to see RZA and Lloyd come together to share time with Odenkirk, which likely makes for one of the more interesting family action films to come around in time (admittedly the bar can be low if you've seen something like A Good Day to Die Hard (2013), for example). I was curious to see how much they would show up in this film, but their presence proves quite necessary in enjoyment, gunning their way through in a manner that inspires curiosity for further adventure (which is easier to say if one is more familiar with either actor, I suppose). As a whole, it runs efficiently at 92 minutes that makes an interesting action flick that has its share of laughs that has fun within a degree of absurdity that Odenkirk uses for great effect in becoming a capable action lead through and through. It might not be the most original work to come through the action genre, but it surely delivers enough to make it all worthwhile with no sense of gimmickry or monotony detected here. However many movies Odenkirk makes in the action genre, one will not forget his first, a winner for both director and star and a well-suited curiosity for the spring.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Total Recall.

Review #632: Total Recall.

Cast
Arnold Schwarzenegger (Douglas Quaid), Rachel Ticotin (Melina), Sharon Stone (Lori Quaid), Michael Ironside (Richter), Ronny Cox (Vilos Cohaagen), Mel Johnson, Jr. (Benny), and Marshall Bell (George/Kuato) Directed by Paul Verhoeven (#002 - RoboCop)

Review
This is a movie that probably has its own checklist of ways to be fun and/or awesome to people. Schwarzenegger making faces while trying to act? Check. Verhoeven style of over the top action? Check. Ronny Cox? Check. Effects that are really cool to look at? Check. This could go on for a while, but the point is that this is is at heart a really fun movie to watch. Does it have its moments to make fun of? Sure, but even looking at the reaction to being exposed to the Martian atmosphere is still a good effect, no matter how the face looks like. The story (Inspired by the short story We Can Remember It for You Wholesale, but who's counting) is decently made, it leaves you to figure out if all of this is part of Quaid's Rekall experience, or if it's something more to it, but it doesn't really matter all too much. The action is what you expect from Verhoeven, RoboCop was like this as well, and just like that movie, they are both fun in their own ways. It is always refreshing to see Arnold trying to act as a normal person placed into a tough situation, no matter the decade. Cox and Ironside (I resist typing that as IRONSIDE) are pretty good villains, they make for a good team together, they go a bit over the top, but that just makes it better. Ticotin and Stone are good opposites, they make for fine leads who do get to have some action. In the end, it's a movie that has its quirks, but also a good deal of fun as well.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Terminator Salvation.

Review #090: Terminator Salvation.

Cast
Christian Bale (John Connor), Sam Worthington (Marcus Wright), Anton Yelchin (Kyle Reese), Moon Bloodgood (Blair Williams), Bryce Dallas Howard (Kate Connor), Common (Barnes), Helena Bonham Carter (Dr. Serena Kogan/Skynet), and Michael Ironside (General Ashdown). Directed by McG.

Review
So. We have seen how the films have evolved in a sense. From a good sci-fi film, to a great sequel, to Arnold saying "Talk to the hand", to...this. The only reason that the casting credits is different from others is because this cast has done other, better films then this. This is the fourth film in this series, and it is the worst. The film feels like a prequel, as we already know who lives since the film is set years before Resse is sent back to 1984. We already know what happens, so what's the point of the film? I...don't know. It's supposed to jump start the series again, to get the action rolling. Well, you get the action, but not much else. The name of the film "Salvation" is the exact opposite of what happens. The shades in the film are brown, black, and...not much else. One of the terminator reminds me of Transformers, which doesn't make me feel better... The acting is just standard, but with no memorable actors to help, such as Arn- (He's in for one scene, with CGI. It looks really impressive for the most part) The film is standard stale, with a non-memorable plot that differs from the first 3 and has little else, actors that do standard jobs, and dull colors to make you just forget it. It makes you wonder why would anyone want a Terminator 5, considering that you really can't do much with the series anymore. Now then. Let's get to a better reality. Where are those two I asked for? Countdown stars now. 10...This ends Part V of Robot Week.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.