Showgirls.

Review #2246: Showgirls.

Cast: 

Elizabeth Berkley (Nomi Malone/Polly Ann Costello), Kyle MacLachlan (Zack Carey), Gina Gershon (Cristal Connors), Glenn Plummer (James Smith), Robert Davi (Al Torres), Alan Rachins (Tony Moss), Gina Ravera (Molly Abrams), Lin Tucci (Henrietta "Mama" Bazoom), Greg Travis (Phil Newkirk), Al Ruscio (Sam Karlman), Patrick Bristow (Marty Jacobsen), William Shockley (Andrew Carver), Michelle Johnston (Gay Carpenter), Dewey Weber (Jeff), and Rena Riffel (Penny/Hope)  Directed by Paul Verhoeven (#002 - RoboCop, #632 - Total Recall, #1922 - Starship Troopers, #2046 - Flesh and Blood, #2069 - Turkish Delight)

Cast: 

"I always felt that it was what you might call a hyperbolic approach to filmmaking. Yes, it was over the top. And that was on purpose. The environments were very flashy. There were too many lights, too many idiotic things, and too much Vegas — not only in the surroundings, but “Vegas” in the way the people behaved, in the dialogue, in the acting. As for the finished product: I thought it was perfect. Otherwise I would have changed it. I had time to change it. I could change whatever was there. Even now, when I see the movie, I think it’s shot in an extremely elegant way." - Paul Verhoeven

“I’m not going to spend a lot of time on that moment, because why do that? We don’t live in the past. But I found my own resiliency and my power and my confidence – not only through what I had to find out, but because of you guys. I want to thank you guys for giving me this gift of truly getting a full-circle moment of experiencing the joy with you. You guys and the love you have for this movie have made this the cult film that it is.” - Elizabeth Berkley

Undeniably, I have been waiting to find the best time to finally do (no pun intended) this movie. How could one resist the first and only film with the NC-17 rating to be given a wide release in all the big theaters. A long time ago, one could think of the X rating and think, okay, sure, its unsuitable for kids, but it could be good for the rest of the public to think about watching. But it did not take long for others to use the X rating as a way for certain type of films...ones related to skin flicks. This would work out in the favor of films such as Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1989), which the filmmakers decided was better off released "unrated" rather than accept the MPA's X-rating. As such, the MPA was spurred on to get rid of the X and go with a NC-17 rating for "No children under 17 admitted" (a few years later, they changed it to "No one 17 and under"). Henry & June (1990) was the first film to get the rating, but Showgirls got a release in over 1,000 theaters. I think I mentioned all of this first because I didn't really feel like talking about Joe Eszterhas. He had his first filmed screenplay was F.I.S.T. (1978) on the way to a steady career of scripts that ranged from the known such as Flashdance (1983), Big Shots (1987), and, well, Basic Instinct (1992), which was directed by Paul Verhoeven. While they didn't exactly get along in making that film, they reconciled and eventually came onto an idea of doing a film in the "world of Vegas" (Verhoeven stated that the debates with the MPA on Instinct spurred him make Showgirls with an intended N-17 rating). The fact that Carolco Pictures decided to drop Verhoeven's Crusade project helped in spurring him along to work with Eszterhas in doing stuff such as going to Vegas and talking to people around the sex industry that spurred some of the storyline (that, and a bit of All About Eve). Interestingly, the $40 million dollar project was not a major success with audiences, but it attracted quite a following on the home video market. No, I mean it was really popular on the home video market (first with a slightly edited R-rated cut by Verhoeven), complete with a "V.I.P Edition" that reminds one that DVDs used to have collector things...of things not related to dolls or shirts, because what else could have suction-cup pasties.

Generally, one worries about films that have some sort of camp appeal on the level of Rocky Horror, because sometimes it could subject you to insufferable mediocrity in the name of "attempted satire" or "something deep". And since I found little to really hold in Verhoeven's Starship Troopers, the worry/curiosity was considerable. And we have an over-the-top lead performance (acting, dancing, nudity) that had considerable influence by Verhoeven (to get the "element of style" he thought would work for the film). He aimed for hyperboiic over-the-top stuff, not camp. To understand the movie is that the cult status that arose from it comes in people that either enjoyed it as irony, drag performers/midnight movie people, or, well, guilty pleasures. Eszterhas stated that the film was intended to be something dark in amusement. But really, this is a movie with little eroticism (but plenty of flesh), and, well, the ethics of a soap opera that is totally not surprising from the guy who directed Turkish Delight (1973), which had dream sequences and thrusting frustrations. Satire this, camp that, I actually had fun watching the movie as a heightened piece of exploitation. By the halfway point, the question on my mind, was, well who gives a shit if the film "is what it is" on purpose or not? Who cares if it is some sort of "satire" or something to do re-thinking on? It is a silly movie that basically takes All About Eve and throttles it right into the gutter in a way that would make Beyond the Valley of the Dolls (1970) proud. Granted, it isn't as *entertaining* as the aforementioned Dolls film, but it sure has the guts to go where it thinks it needs to go. It really is an elegant type of movie when it comes to presentation of its numbers beyond just being a vehicle of skin that, well, you just don't see in movies today.

Berkley had Saved by the Bell as her big credit prior to this film, which basically killed off her chances to be a leading star in mainstream stuff. It is a pity too, because her abrupt timing is actually pretty cut-rate in entertainment value. One is watching a viper that simply believes they can dive right into a pit and not get something left on them. Is it really so bad to be so goofy just because one is showing a bit of skin? Far be it from me to criticize her performance for being what it aimed to be: a riff on the "star is born" trope that should be watched with clear interest rather than just lumping it as just one-note. Her passion is to not have the seams unravel on her little act, and there is something amusing about her attempt at trying to look like a good dancer along with tough that hides a hollowed-out soul. Undeniably though, Gershon (who thought the role was from the get-go as, well, was something fun) is devilishly charming in a role that could've just been fodder for cheap jokes, because only a person of her caliber could handle lines involving the good ol' days of Doggy Chow or the duality that really is apparent between her and Berkley in terms of opportunistic people wrapped in a meat market (known as show business). Her allure carries the film in a way that is easy to see why she received good marks for her role back then. MacLachlan (best known as the star of Twin Peaks that happened to receive less than 1/10th the slams of Berkley for this) apparently chose this film because, well, Verhoeven. Sure, he might call the film "inadvertently funny" now, but I think there is something quite amusing about his performance when it comes to the cascade of devious artificiality (particularly with that mop-hair he wears). If the women re-invent themselves to stay alive, surely the men have their own "re-inventions" in store (bribery, extortion, etc.). Consider how one would see the scenes of the unerotic eroticism (as one might put it) between him and Berkley in the club (which has the eyes of Gershon right there) and the one by themselves at the pool before it all ends with an "intended compliment"  Really though, I fail to see how people took a film seriously that has a character played by Tucci that basically plays a mentor to strippers that does an act with popping..skin or having Davi basically play a wisecracking pervert saying lines like "It must be weird not having anybody...on you". Ravera is seemingly the only normal one of the whole bunch, which is only more amusing to see her continue to interact with Berkley (because again, gotta have a friend to a would-be star). Plummer's opportunistic wisecracks (a sort of chorus when saying everyone "got AIDS and shit") pop up from time to time with amusement, particularly with the last punchline involving his intended choreographed dance.

Admittedly, the most controversial scene in the film probably will affect the mood of those who watch it because, well, the rape scene comes out of nowhere. It may serve the point that no one really can just claw innocence in a place of sin, but it surely won't be the easiest thing to try and stomach. The fact that it serves as the impetus for both a soap opera-twist alongside a pretty quick resolution that may or may not ring true in the last marks of elegant exploitation is surely a strange one. While the hint of a sequel (supposedly set in Hollywood) did not come to pass, Showgirls is a surprise to the viewer who dares to see it, regardless of if they expect something with "camp" or for supposed terrible quality. I see a strangely alluring exploitation film that shows that some people really, really, really, should not take themselves that seriously. If you watch the film with an open mind for elegant exploitation rather than just going on a checklist, you might find a strange gem worth holding up. Sleazy and absurd, I find no shame in calling this a winner for those with the interest in skin-deep elegance. Lord knows if I come back to it sometime and like it (or don't like it) as much or even more the second time around.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next: Okay this one is not quite on the theme, but Alien: Romulus was anticipated by me anyway.

Flesh and Blood.

Review #2046: Flesh and Blood.

Cast: 

Rutger Hauer (Martin), Jennifer Jason Leigh (Agnes), Tom Burlinson (Steven), Jack Thompson (Hawkwood), Fernando Hilbeck (Arnolfini), Susan Tyrrell (Celine), Ronald Lacey (Cardinal), Brion James (Karsthans), Bruno Kirby (Orbec), Simon Andreu (Miel), John Dennis Johnston (Summer), Marina Saura (Polly), Kitty Courbois (Anna), Jake Wood (Little John), and Nancy Cartwright (Kathleen) Directed by Paul Verhoeven (#002 - RoboCop, #632 - Total Recall, #1922 - Starship Troopers)

Review: 

"The triangular relationship [of] Martin–Agnes–Steven is now the main story line, but in retrospect I think we should have stuck with Hawkwood and Martin. The failure of Flesh and Blood was a lesson for me: never again compromise on the main story line of a script."

Admittedly, it is probably easy to forget that the second phase of Paul Verhoeven's career that saw him leave his native Netherlands started with Flesh and Blood (1985). He started making films in the 1960s, with only a spell in the Royal Dutch Navy in between this, and it was his efforts in directing the television series Floris (featuring Rutger Hauer as the star) in 1969 that was set in the early 16th century during the country's Guelders Wars that took inspiration from earlier TV programs such as Ivanhoe. Business is Business (1971), his first feature, wasn't successful, but Turkish Delight (1973), featuring Hauer, still ranks among one of the most famous films made in the country. Hauer and Verhoeven would work together for three of the next four films that the latter made in the Netherlands, which included another famous film with Soldier of Orange (1977). Anyway, after 1984, Verhoeven had received offers from Hollywood to direct but was debating whether it was necessary to leave his native country. As such, he described this film as a "compromise", one that was shot in Europe that was a multi-country production with primary funding by Orion Pictures. Originally, the film was to be about the gradual disintegration of the friendship between the characters ultimately played by Hauer and Thompson. However, the producers pushed introducing a love interest within the character of Leigh that would create a love triangle (Hauer-Leigh-Burlinson), which he went with, much to later regret, although the ensuing troubled production did not help matters. Gerard Soeteman, who had developed the aforementioned Floris and had written a handful of scripts such as Turkish Delight, co-wrote the film with Verhoeven. Made on a budget of $6.5 million, an absolute shoddy promotion effort by Orion led to the film being a flop with audiences.

Wait a minute, people didn't go for this kind of film? A film set in the Middle Ages (1501) that is thrust with plenty of unwieldly characters involving swordplay and wonderful design? It might not have the most conventional of leads to follow, but who the hell cares? Granted, medieval fantasy can be one to favor in entertainment with good ol' swordplay, but with the right execution, you can lend a dose of reality to that hodgepodge, especially with Verhoeven and his approach to violence. In other words: death will happen in the Middle Ages, and it will rarely happen naturally. Well, that, and folks love God. This was the fifth and final film collaboration between Verhoeven and Hauer. During production, the two had such a disagreement with how the lead was supposed to be played that it led to a rift in which they never worked together again, because the former favored moral ambiguity while Hauer did not wish to play such a scoundrel given that he was just breaking into more mainstream features (such as The Osterman Weekend (1983), for example). While I can certainly see Hauer's point, time has clearly favored Verhoeven. The moral ambiguity that Verhoeven aims for when making a Middle Ages tale of such odd people is especially right for Hauer and his rough exterior to make a useful rogue rather than if he had tried to play it with any sort of heroic bent. He is supposed to lead this band of undesirables, and he leans into it with great conviction that is a brute through and through to the worthiest endgame. Verhoeven obviously had an interest in showing a confident woman with convictions that want to go anywhere to get their goal, as represented by Leigh. Consider how she handles her first scene where she consults her maid-in-waiting (Cartwright) about how one, well, has sex. She watches for a bit and then goes to hit her to put it to a stop. The way she deals with both Hauer and Burlinson is exquisite in its cat-and-mouse game of who ends up playing who, one who sells the act as more than a mere observer. Burlinson is undoubtedly the lesser of such a lofty triangle, but being warped by the mesh of trying to seek reason in a world that desires swift retribution does at least make for some sort of interest. I can't imagine the disappointment that could come from Thompson in going from a potential lead to basically support, but he at least makes a worthy character presence that obviously merits curiosity (I should mention his name happens to be the same as a 14th century mercenary leader). I enjoy the atmosphere of the film, because it never betrays the ambition in 126 minutes to make a suitable tale of, well, flesh and blood mixing for craven desires that deserved better marketing. The film doesn't skimp on the brutality that obviously had to happen in a time like this, and it reflects well that one enjoys the supporting cast for as long as they can. The real adversary is the ambition for the flesh to draw blood and not have it be their own, regardless of if the rich person happened to be sending someone off to do their battles for them or not. As a whole, it is a triumph of a movie in excruciating grit, one that dares to show the flesh and blood of the Middle Ages with wonderful design and devastating consistency for a brutally good time.

Overall, I give it 9 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: RoboCop (1987).

Redux #002: RoboCop.

Cast
Peter Weller (Alex Murphy / RoboCop), Nancy Allen (Anne Lewis), Ronny Cox (Dick Jones), Kurtwood Smith (Clarence Boddicker), Miguel Ferrer (Bob Morton), Dan O'Herlihy ("The Old Man"), Paul McCrane (Emil Antonowsky), Ray Wise (Leon Nash), Jesse D. Goins (Joe Cox), Calvin Jung (Steve Minh), Michael Gregory (Lt. Hedgecock), Robert DoQui (Sergeant Reed), and Felton Perry (OCP Executive Johnson) Directed by Paul Verhoeven.

Review
Welcome to a Redux Review of the original RoboCop film, which is a revised review meant to say more about the movie as a whole. The upcoming Redux Reviews are necessary to help better the evolution of Movie Night in all that has changed from its inception in 2010 to the present age - enjoy.

The initial thing that can be said about RoboCop, released on July 17, 1987, is that it showcased more than the sum of its parts from what you would have expected in its era, with layers of satire and emotional depth to make for a compelling movie. The action and violence is certainly entertaining in that goes over-the-top with great results. I remember seeing the scene where Murphy gets gunned down when I was barely a teenager, and even all these years later it still manages to leave an imprint on my mind because of how striking it is. One effect that certainly still ranks high on the memorability scale is the toxic waste infested Emil, right down to the collision with a car. The effects also are pretty well done, and the fight between ED-209 and RoboCop is impressive, right down to the end result (sure, the stairs part is cute, but the moment where one sees the eye of RoboCop exposed is just as striking). The music by Basil Poledouris is brilliant, being both triumphant and emotionally reaching at the right times, using synthesizer and orchestral music very well, with the music at the climax of the move working just right. Of course, there is plenty to say about the movie besides what one can say was enjoyable in imagery, because it is a movie that strikes at the heart of the age it was made in that still strikes a chord today because of how Paul Verhoeven and company succeeded in what they aspired to do despite the hard conditions of filming. The film was written by Edward Neumeier and Michael Miner, with the former being a junior story executive at Universal Pictures before aspiring to write screenplays, as inspired by him seeing the production of Blade Runner (1982); Miner came on Neumeier's radar because of a student video he did, which led to his idea of a robot-themed rock music video converging rightly with Neumeier's idea. Verhoeven, a Dutch director who had just moved to the States best known for films such as Soldier of Orange (1977) and Flesh+Blood (1985), was approached about directing the film after a handful of names dropped out of doing it, and he actually rejected it before his wife encouraged him to give the script a chance - the scene at the abandoned house hooked him onto doing it. The film was made for under $14 million and made roughly $53 million on original release, with its legacy growing in stature in the wake of analysis over its themes involving humanity and corporate policies.

You have to understand that the era of the 1980s had corporate people who were not above reading Japanese texts about killing more effectively. So, a movie involving a corporation taking the task of running a police department and trying to deploy products to rid crime like it was a cancer isn't exactly too off the deep end (one of the writers termed the movie as "fascism for liberals", so take that for what it is worth). The occasional newsbreak/commercials also help to serve the satire in its excesses and absurdity as well, considering that coverage of an ambush of cops with one gravely injured in the attack closes with a broadcaster going "Good luck" to them. The segments lighten up the movie when compared to the violence, which actually was toned down because of the MPAA deeming it an X rather than the R rating targeted...eight times; one can see the un-rated cut on home video now, fortunately.  Eventually, the movie also looks upon the humanity that starts to shine through the title character despite the attempts to strip it away and present it as product, one that results in a soulful and sobering film that could also be construed in religious tones, and Verhoeven has referred to the execution of Weller's character as like a crucifixion.

Weller had spent time studying mime after he managed to be cast in the film, one that had struggled to find a right lead actor because they wanted someone who was both a suitable size that wouldn't look awkward when the suit would be designed around them and also have a good jawline (of course, acting without having the face shown for most of it didn't exactly attract much help either). The studying did not help him much when the actual suit (made of flexible foam latex, polyurethane, and fiberglass) came around, because its bulky nature and long makeup time led to discomfort, complete with dehydration. Eventually, he worked out a more deliberate moving style to help deal with the costume, and it is evident to see how he managed to turn all of this into an excellent performance. He handles the one extended human sequence with warm gusto that you would expect from a cop drama before segueing into the main course handily; the humanity that was thought lost starts to come in bits and pieces that he handles with calm effectiveness, whether that involves him traversing through an abandoned house or the scene where he sees his own face in a reflection before wishing to be left alone. Allen (cast after Stephanie Zimbalist dropped out in preproduction) proves a fitting partner for certain moments to show his lingering humanity in earthy grace. 

It is the adversarial side that makes it all come together of course. Cox may have been known for nice-guy roles, but he sure chomps on this material for all of what it is worth, striking the heart of a great villain in believing in their righteousness to the bitter end no matter who gets struck in their wake. Gang leaders may be tough, but one hasn't seen nothing until he spooks a cocky executive with a few calm words and a hair-pull. O'Herlihy doesn't have a lot of screen time, but he certainly makes his presence felt as the head of corporate sharks. One of my favorite quirks is that Jones regards to the death of an employee via the ED 209 as a "glitch", and the Old Man is more angry at the "temporary setback". Ferrer elevates a corporate wolf-in-sheep's clothing into something charming in its smarminess, one that might have been an adversarial stooge in a different movie but instead ends up something different for satisfaction. Last but not least, Kurtwood Smith does a wonderfully evil job of making Boddicker more than just a cop-killer, with a look that was actually inspired by Nazi leaders. Sure, the execution sequence is a clear highlight, but my particular favorite occurs within a standoff during a negotiation, which involves a line like this: "Oooh. Guns, guns, guns! C'mon, Sal! The Tigers are playing... *slaps table* …tonight. I never miss a game." He has a manner to him that makes him more than just a common street thug, one who controls any scene he is in with confidence (later on, the character spits blood on his booking in jail, as suggested by Smith). The showdown at the end of the movie is riveting, showing the lasting conclusion of Verhoeven's "American Jesus" to its logical endpoint that Smith and company handle well.

The 102 minutes pass by with great execution by Verhoeven and company, as Rob Bottin and his special effects team (which included folks such as Phil Tippet) lend a great hand in making over-the-top spectacle in effects go hand-in-hand with the locations (shot in Dallas, TX alongside Pennsylvania and Long Beach) in seamless style. Sure, some might have had a problem with the violence, but I think it is necessary to understand our own human nature, as if satire is just something you can present in a vacuum or that the darkness of the human spirit isn't lurking within us. I didn't wince at the violence when I saw it years ago, I sure as hell don't see how one can wince at it now. Over three decades later, the legacy of the film is that none of the follow-ups that have passed in its wake have managed to top it in all of the aspects that made the original so striking. The 1990 sequel, with no Verhoeven or the original writers present, proved quite absurd in its continuation of corporate avarice while failing to reach the soulful highlights presented by the original in favor of ultra-violence that lacked a real third act. The 1993 sequel, now without its main star, was an ill-advised attempt at sanitizing the material for younger audiences that made for one hell of a movie to pick apart as a franchise killer. At any rate, the original 1987 movie aimed not for the strings of franchise-making or ultra violent fun but instead for a parable about how far one's humanity reaches even with the confines of a metallic body flung into pursuit for justice. It is a great action film, but it is also a well-done satire that still reaches the mark in corporate insanity and violent absurdity that makes it a movie for all time.

Overall, I give it 10 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.