King Kong Lives.

Review #2474: King Kong Lives.

Cast: 

Brian Kerwin (Hank Mitchell), Linda Hamilton (Dr. Amy Franklin), John Ashton (Lt. Col. Archie Nevitt), Frank Maraden (Dr Benson Hughes), Peter Michael Goetz (Dr. Andrew Ingersoll), Jimmie Ray Weeks (Major Peete), with Peter Elliott (King Kong), George Yiasoumi (Lady Kong), and Benjamin Kechley (Baby Kong) Directed by John Guillermin (#726 - King Kong [1976], #1231 - Shaft in Africa, #1447 - The Towering Inferno, #2044 - Never Let Go)

Review: 

Do you remember when they did a remake of King Kong the first time around? The 1976 film of King Kong was the one with the poster that called it "The most exciting original motion picture event of all time." Dino De Laurentiis spearheaded the venture after buying the film rights from RKO-General (whether he did so on the basis of seeing a poster in his daughter's room or because he was brought in to it by Paramount after Michael Eisner suggested the idea of a remake is debatable). The fiery John Guillermin (Laurentiis called him a "talent guy" and also a "strange character" while Guillermin aimed to do a remake that could balance jokes and the "danger of bathos" with obvious sincerity) directed a movie laced with a few hiccups. A Lorenzo Semple Jr-penned script aimed for a light amusing touch for a supposed more sophisticated audience while having the balls to have a lead character named Dwan and had to do a man in a suit because of failed attempts to do a full-scale animatronic Kong*. Even though it may not have been the megahit Laurentiis thought it would be (he actually thought it could rival Jaws [1975]), it did make some money. I watched the movie back in 2015 and thought it was painfully average, especially with its human stars, because when I watch a King Kong movie, clearly, I want to focus on the love story. So, anyway, ten years later. Laurentiis wanted to make another movie for years but couldn't get a good script going, with ideas being floated about Kong going to Russia or even being involved with kids for goofiness. But Ronald Shusett (the co-writer of Alien) and Steven Pressfield pitched an idea of an artificial heart that apparently won him over. As for Guillermin, he had made three flops (Death on the Nile [1978], Crossover/Mr. Patman [1980], Sheena [1984]), but here he was, back for what ended up being his last theatrical film as a director; he died in 2015 at the age of 89. Evidently, documentary filmmaker Charles McCracken did uncredited work on the film in directing the film. 

Apparently, when it came to reviews, they tried to strong-arm Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert in to only showing snippets of the film on TV for their show if they were positive about the film. The movie did make money (most notably in the Soviet Union), but the marketing costs evidently did not help matters for Laurentiis in a movie that has not exactly had many admirers over the years. It's easy to see why. At least the effects for the two Kongs look fine at times. It helps when the rest of the movie is so damn silly that even the 1960s Godzilla movies would tell it to relax. You might remember that Kong was bloodied and fell down the World Trade Center in the last film. Don't worry, the film will tell you that with its reprisal of the ending of the film that is included here...and that Kong actually is in a coma. I think it actually makes me want to check out King Kong Escapes (1967), the one where Toho did a mechanized King Kong. Here we have a movie with half of a good premise: Kong in the backwoods rather than in a big city...or just have it be about the two Kongs. Instead, it tries to play every card on the table with a lack of interest in really given Kerwin & Hamilton meaningful lines. Kerwin apparently was in on the idea that it was an adult fairy tale that would have humor and basically be more a film to show Kong, and, well, I can't blame him there. The two are just stuck in autopilot, even when trying to spruce up the bare minimum in "he's the cocksure dude and she's the smart one". Ashton and the others that deal with Kong result in little to really care for besides calling them disposable, which is a shame, since one could have fun with an adversary that cares about taking down the beast. It just lacks drama or even corny fun, somehow managing the impossible of just appealing to nobody. At the end of the day, this is overblown 10-pound schlock in a five-pound bag of crap that is semi-enjoyable when one knows that the 1976 film was already pretty lame to begin with. For a film that pretty much nobody wanted, you could probably do worse.

Overall, I give 4 out of 10 stars.

Tomorrow: Fantastic Four (2015)

*Carlo Rambaldi, Glen Robinson and Frank Van der Veer won a special Academy Award for the visual effects. Also, unrelatedly, Pauline Kael called the 1976 movie a "romantic adventure fantasy". Ridiculous.

Steven Pressfield wrote in his book The War Of Art : Steven Pressfield : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive that he thought the script was going to turn out a hit film. While it wasn't, it at least meant he was an actual pro and he went on to do scripts such as Above the Law and novels such as The Legend of Bagger Vance and Gates of Fire.

Wolfen.

Review #1902: Wolfen.

Cast: 

Albert Finney (Detective Dewey Wilson), Diane Venora (Detective Rebecca Neff), Edward James Olmos (Eddie Holt), Gregory Hines (Coroner Whittington), Tom Noonan (Ferguson), Dick O'Neill (Captain Warren), Dehl Berti (Old Indian), Peter Michael Goetz (Ross), Reginald VelJohnson (Morgue Attendant), James Tolkan ("Baldy", The Medical Examiner), and Donald Symington (Lawyer) Directed by Michael Wadleigh.

Review: 

Sure, it is possible that there is no real big link between a film like this and ones such as The Howling (1981) and An American Werewolf in London (1981). But it is fun to talk about the one thing they do have in common: each are horror movies with killer wolves, with The Howling being released in March before Wolfen was released in July and American Werewolf in London was released in August. Wolfen was the least successful with audiences among the three, not making its $17 million budget back. The movie is an adaptation of The Wolfen, a 1978 novel by Whitley Strieber (a writer of thriller novels and a "non-fiction" book about being abducted...by non-human entities). David M. Eyre, Jr. and Michael Wadleigh were credited for both the screenplay and story while Eric Roth provided un-credited work. Apparently, the book and film share distinct differences, as the book had cops become the opening victims rather than a land developer (with wife and bodyguard in tow) and the climax is also different in how the lead characters handle the Wolfen. The film began shooting in 1979 for a targeted release in the fall of 1980, but delays would arise between Orion Pictures (the production company behind the film, which was distributed by Warner Bros.) and Wadleigh. It got to the point where the Directors Guild of America had a three-week hearing involving the rights of the director, who apparently had a first cut of four hours while complaining of having no budget reported to him (at least he was granted his choice of star with Finney, since Dustin Hoffman pestered him to try and get the role to no avail). The next cut was two hours and 29 minutes, but then the producers made an agreement to let Wadleigh shoot the remainder of things needed to be filmed before Richard Chew was sent to cut the film after Wadleigh was done and let go (John D. Hancock was sent to supervise the ADR sessions). This is how you get a final version of one hour and 54 minutes. This was the feature film debut of Wadleigh, who is best known for his work in documenting the 1969 Woodstock Music Festival, for which he and his crew shot for a documentary that was released in 1970 to great success. At any rate, this is the only non-documentary that Wadleigh has ever shot.

You can tell that this is a movie written to feel four hours long that got hacked into something that is a procedural movie with flashes of horror that ends up with varying results. Man, do I wish that I enjoyed this film more than I did, because honestly, it pales when compared to the aforementioned other wolf films. For one, this film isn't a "werewolf film", because the wolves here are a spirit that may or may not be gods, ones that have walked the Earth for many, many, many years, as explained by a group of Native Americans that exists to defend their territory. So, yes, there isn't a werewolf transformation here, since the concern is really more about looking at urban decay and procedure, since one is trying to guess how folks are being terrorized by something that severs certain body parts without just thinking it is terrorism, complete with nice shots of New York (such as the South Bronx). A good chunk of this is actually fairly interesting (having a thermographic visual for the Wolfen perspective is one), but at a certain point you really are just waiting for them to stop window-dressing and get to the point. Yes, it does keep itself in the realm of seriousness without ridicule, but it only marginally has the element of shock to keep things going. Sometimes you have to cut the cord, and I think this means that we have a film that is watchable but quite average. I think the cast is assembled nicely, because Finney does make a quality leader. He keeps a shaky but composted attitude about what goes on without making it look like it is beneath him. Venora was actually making her film debut with this film after graduating from Juilliard School and stage plays. She does okay here, quiet but serviceable in the procedural element...the chemistry between not so much, but it isn't too corny. Olmos practically chews on the camera in brooding charm, which proves quite compelling. Tap dancer-turned-actor Hines provides a bit of levity to the surroundings as well, making a useful rapport with Finney in minimal moments. Noonan is offbeat and quite watchable in little moments as well, while O'Neill plays the cop beat about how you would expect. I really did want to like the film more, because there is something to brood over with the idea of nature vs. greed, but I think the pacing is a bit uneven to hold things together enough to really make capable thrills. This isn't to say that I wanted an effects show, because the movie does do fine with the perspective shots alongside ones with wolves, but I think a little more "oomph" is required here to make it less like a procedural that just happened to break out into horror, particularly with a low-key ending (again, one that plays to the allure of what is allowed to lurk in the shadows rather than the book's idea about things) - decent for the film's mood but also just okay. I wonder how this would have worked as a four-hour cut or as a miniseries, where you can play out all of the things you want in trying to do a Bronx tale of people getting cut down by wolves that have humans as their prey. In fact, if you want to play semantics about better procedurals, Q, released the following year involving a winged serpent, handled its balance of procedural and creature elements with more reverence than this film (schlock or not, some things work better to others). At any rate, Wolfen is a decent film sandwiched in between other, better, movies involving creatures of the night, which may work out quite well for those who are interested in curiosity pieces among the years of horror.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.