Raise the Titanic.

Review #1195: Raise the Titanic.

Cast: 
Jason Robards (Admiral James Sandecker), Richard Jordan (Dirk Pitt), David Selby (Dr. Gene Seagram), Anne Archer (Dana Archibald), Alec Guinness (John Bigalow), Bo Brundin (Captain Andre Prevlov), M. Emmet Walsh (Master Chief Vinnie Walker), J.D. Cannon (Captain Joe Burke), and Norman Bartold (Admiral Kemper) Directed by Jerry Jameson.

Review: 
What film can best be summed up by a quote from its producer other than this one: "It would have been cheaper to lower the Atlantic." With a budget of over $40 million (which would be roughly over $120 million in 2019) and an ultimate box office finish of $7 million, this was another of Lord Lew Grade's failures for the year of 1980, where production overruns and story re-writes doomed a film to fail beyond belief. The film is based off the novel Raise the Titanic! (1976) by Clive Cussler, the third book in his series of adventure books involving the character Dirk Pitt, for which he has currently written 24 of since 1973. Grade saw potential in Cussler's books to adapt to film and make a series much like with the James Bond films. The intent was to have Stanley Kramer as director, although he quit as pre-production began due to creative differences, with the brunt of the budget's spiraling being due to making models (alongside re-writes for the script); a fifty foot scale model was built for the climatic raising of the ship that required a 10 million-gallon tank to accompany its size. Larry McMurtry (writer of novels such as The Last Picture Show and Lonesome Dove) claimed to have worked on the screenplay alongside sixteen other writers, although he was the only one who did not petition for writing credit, although the final credits list Eric Hughes for story and the screenplay credit for Adam Kennedy.

As ridiculous as it may sound, the idea of making an adventure film set around raising the Titanic could have had potential, albeit one that would have to rely on charm and effects instead of tight logic to really work. Keep in mind, the Titanic was not proven to have been broken up into two pieces (as opposed to the theory that it simply sunk intact) until 1985. Unfortunately, the final product is not particularly interesting to watch, managing to squander its premise with plenty of padding surrounded by one pure highlight. Jordan doesn't spring too much interest as the main hero, perhaps in part because there really is nothing for him to go on in terms of personality. I suppose him and Selby are supposed to be an interesting pair to see interact and bicker with, too bad they don't really click well. Robards is okay. The actors besides him really seem to just say the lines very mildly. Honestly, the only one who seems interesting is Guinness, playing a survivor of the Titanic who exists just to say exposition about the mysterious person who just happened to put the "byzanium" in a vault before the ship sank. He's in the film for one scene, looking perfectly like someone waiting to cash a check, but at least it means he isn't stuck in the feature for very long. Archer has slightly more screen-time, yet her character (and her motivations for being in the plot) fade halfway through the film. There isn't even a real villain worth mentioning, and the only real menace in the entire film is boredom over the water scenes, which don't really give the film much in terms of spectacle for 114 minutes of run-time.

Comparing it to Grade's other boondoggle in Saturn 3 is amusing, since both films have such strange differences yet still manage to both be ridiculous in their own ways due to their cast, story and use of effects. In this regard, the earlier film is somehow a bit better, perhaps because it doesn't feel so long. Undeniably, the only shining part of the film is composer John Barry (known for his work on Born Free and the James Bond films) and his score, which is entertainingly majestic, fitting quite well for the film, particularly when dealing with the climatic raising. In a less flawed film (i.e. one that works better), the scene of the Titanic rising the depths would prove to make the film ultimately feel worth it, as it is a nice sequence even after over three decades since its release. Understandably, Cussler was not happy with the results of the film, saying that they had turned the plot into a hollow shell of the original along with not liking the cast. He refused to give permission for any more film adaptations of his books, with the only other film adaptation of his books in Sahara (2005) also being a tremendous failure with audiences. In any case, this is a strangely terrible flick, being occasionally watchable but also being something that doesn't quite elevate itself to serviceable entertainment, unless one likes to watch an adventure film sink itself.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Legacy of Blood (1971).

Review #1123: Legacy of Blood.

Cast: 
Rodolfo Acosta (Sheriff Dan Garcia), Merry Anders (Laura Dean), Norman Bartold (Tom Drake), Ivy Bethune (Elga), John Carradine (Christopher Dean), Richard Davalos (Johnny Dean), Faith Domergue (Veronica Dean), Buck Kartalian (Igor Garin), Brooke Mills (Leslie Dean), Jeff Morrow (Gregory Dean), John Russell (Frank Mantee), and John Smith (Dr. Carl Isenburg) Directed by Carl Monson.

Review: 
The most interesting thing about this movie is the fact that there isn't one consistent title - there are three. The titles are Legacy of Blood, Blood Legacy, and Will to Die, but I think I will go with the first one, since that one was used for the opening title sequence. It also happened to be featured on Elvira's Movie Macabre with that same title, who I imagine had more fun delivering commentary for a cruddy film like this than I could generate. In any case, this is a movie that is described as a "mystery slasher" - and I put that term in quotation marks because the film is barely a mystery and barely a slasher in any respectable sense. Basked in cliches, the only surprise is how frustrating it operates itself, having minimal gore but maximum tedium. None of the situations or characters presented aren't too particularly interesting. The best thing one can say about the cast is that Carradine is the only one adept at making something watchable - even material boring as this. He's kooky, but he commands attention that the others can't do as well. There isn't anyone to follow with, whether to cheer or hiss at, just a bunch of oddball people who look like they are either doing it for a paycheck or doing it for "the art", whatever that means. Everybody else comes off as stale or not particularly exciting to follow with, unless you count sideburns as something to look at. The body count goes up at a snail's pace while the soap opera type plot serves to irritate its audience, with its best scene being one single shot - a lamp, which relates back to an earlier line about one character's past. How does a movie manage to make a bee sequence come off as boring? Have the setup to said sequence not make much sense. The climax (and its "twist" ending) is like a big joke to its audience, since it comes out of nowhere while bringing itself to a crashing halt - with a last line that breaks the fourth wall that is a sure groaner. Ultimately, this is a dull experience that is more horrible than horror.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Real Life (1979).

Review #1028: Real Life.

Cast: 
Albert Brooks (Albert Brooks), Charles Grodin (Warren Yeager), Frances Lee McCain (Jeannette Yeager), J.A. Preston (Dr. Ted Cleary), Matthew Tobin (Dr. Howard Hill), Jennings Lang (Martin Brand), David Spielberg (Dr. Jeremy Nolan), Norman Bartold (Dr. Isaac Steven Hayward), Julie Payne (Dr. Anne Kramer), Johnny Haymer (Dr. Maxwell Rennert), Leo McElroy (Jim Sanders), Lisa Urette (Lisa Yeager), and Robert Stirrat (Eric Yeager) Directed by Albert Brooks.

Review: 
The movie acts as a spoof of the 1973 reality television program An American Family (aired by PBS), being about the filming of a family in their day-to-day lives, with intrusion from the person filming their lives, naturally. Admittedly, this is an interesting idea that seems pretty relevant for the modern age, particularly with how reality television has changed in the past few decades, for better or worse. In any case, the movie can be considered ahead of its time, although its enjoyability will likely depend on how far you think the film goes with its ideas. For me, this is a decent movie, having a few interesting scenes that make for some amusement, although I can see why it may not be for everyone.

Brooks is interesting to watch in his display of narcissism and egocentric nature, but this can wear a bit thin at times, and it sometimes will make you wish you were viewing the family more than you do. At best, Brooks comes off as right for the part that he plays in the story, but at worst it can come off as a bit self-indulgent (it should be noted that he co-wrote the film along with Monica Johnson and Harry Shearer). Grodin is a bit low-key, but in a movie in which he is acting as a person that is trying not to look like an actor in this "documentary", I think he does a decent job. McCain also does okay, being adept at handling the things that occur in the film to her and her family pretty adequately. The rest of the cast do fine in their roles as well, with Lang (a producer in real-life) being amusing playing a producer through a speakerphone. The parts involving the filming is pretty interesting, and the parts with the executives is a bit amusing. The climax of the movie is pretty amusing for what its worth, being the odd cherry on top of a film that aspires for satire and accomplishes its goals in the most basic sense. It isn't anything too great, but Real Life is an odd standout that is worth at least one look, if one is curious enough.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Westworld.

Review #988: Westworld.

Cast: 
Yul Brynner (The Gunslinger), Richard Benjamin (Peter Martin), James Brolin (John Blane), Norman Bartold (the Medieval Knight), Alan Oppenheimer (the Chief Supervisor), Victoria Shaw (the Medieval Queen), Dick Van Patten (the Banker), Linda Scott (Arlette), Steve Franken (Technician), Michael Mikler (Black Knight), Terry Wilson (Sheriff), and Majel Barrett (Miss Carrie) Directed by Michael Crichton.

Review: 
Westworld is certainly an interesting film, in part because of how clever it feels in terms of its construction of plot and style. It's interesting how it can be classified as a "science fiction Western thriller", but it is even more interesting that this was the directorial debut of Michael Crichton, a novelist who prior to this film had four of his novels adapted into films (most notably The Andromeda Strain), while also directing a television film (Pursuit) and writing for another film (Extreme Close-Up). In any case, this is a fun movie that establishes an interesting premise and atmosphere while not bogging itself down with its characters. It's easy to immerse in the fantasies that the character go through in part because of how familiar they seem (namely the shoot-out in the saloon or the sword fight in the hall), but they are being played out in a world all about reenacting things like the Old West or medieval Europe or even Rome. The film is not merely "robots gone amok", feeling like a fable about the danger of corporate greed, but in any case the film still feels pretty relevant today.

Benjamin and Brolin are certainly an interesting pair of protagonists, partly because of how much charisma they give off despite not much being revealed about their characters (aside from one brief conversation); one of my favorite scenes is them being involved in a brawl, in part because you can see the amount of fun they seem to have (even at something like fighting), prior to the climax. Oddly, one other favorite scene of mine doesn't involve the main cast; it is the opening scene, advertising the park (named Delos), complete with a showcase of satisfied customers. Perhaps it's their enthusiasm over what they experienced from the world they visited, but it certainly helps establish the film's credibility without needless exposition. Brynner does a fine job that serves as the highlight of the film, certainly making for a good foe for both the world he inhibits along with in the climax (especially with those piercing eyes), with the look of the Gunslinger being similar to the character that he played in The Magnificent Seven (#427). It was the first film to use digital image processing, done so in order to simulate the Gunslinger's point of view, which was done by pixellated photography by John Whitney, Jr, and Gary Demos at Information International, Inc). I think the view ages pretty well for what it is used for, and the effects with the robots are also certainly quite effective. It's interesting to note how the run-time is 88 minutes, because the film certainly never feels lacking in any kind of quality. A follow up called Futureworld would be released three years later, and there have been two television shows broadcast (Beyond Westworld and Westworld, with the latter premiering in 2016). This is an enjoyable film that certainly lends itself to enjoyment even after over four decades since its release.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.