The Lonely Lady.

Review #2150: The Lonely Lady.

Cast: 

Pia Zadora (Jerilee Randall), Lloyd Bochner (Walter Thornton), Bibi Besch (Veronica Randall), Joseph Cali (Vincent Dacosta), Anthony Holland (Guy Jackson), Jared Martin (George Ballantine), Ray Liotta (Joe Heron), Kerry Shale (Walt Thornton, Jr), Sandra Dickinson (Nancy Day), Lou Hirsch (Bernie), Ed Bishop (Doctor Baker), and Shane Rimmer (Adolph Fannon) Directed by Peter Sasdy (#1159 - Taste the Blood of Dracula)

Review: 

I didn't have this film initially in mind for Turkey Week 4, you know. I thought to myself, hey, what was the next film adaptation of Jacqueline Susann's works after Valley of the Dolls (1967). Well, The Love Machine (1971) did seem like an idea, but I found my way to something that might as well be part of it all. The Lonely Lady was a novel released to stores in 1976 by the hands of Harold Robbins. He dedicated the book to Susann (who had died in 1974). Robbins was notable as a writer in his own right, of course; born and raised in New York to Jewish emigrants, he served in the U.S. Navy for a time before going on to work a variety of jobs that even included Universal Pictures. He started writing in 1948 and basically wrote melodramas for the rest of his life, which would see various film adaptations that went from King Creole (released in 1958, after changing the title from the book) to The Adventurers (1970) to The Betsy (1978). He was the kind of racy book writer that lived a life so colorful that had people such as Stephen King say didn't want to end up like him as a "nightmare". Needless to say, Robbins led a strange life that probably would've made for its own film, even if he liked to fib about his upbringing; he died at the age of 81 in 1997. And then there's Pia Zadora. Born in Hoboken, New Jersey to a violinist and wardrobe supervisor, she actually was an actor from a young age, which included what else but Santa Claus Conquers the Martians (1964). She later married Meshulam Riklis, who wanted to push her as an actress, complete with financing from his company. This would culminate in Butterfly (1982), a film that saw her get critical savaging and a "Newcomer" Golden Globe. Fake-Out (1982) isn't even remembered as the follow-up, because, well, the next one was this film. It all aligns together because Riklis helped out the logjam that Universal Pictures had when it came to doing a film based on that Robbins book that had stalled for years despite having Susan Blakely in mind to star. The eventual screenplay credit went to John Kershaw and Shawn Randall with a story credit for Ellen Shepard. Peter Sasdy never directed another theatrical film after this failure, which had the dubious honor of having an ad campaign lead by John J.B. Wilson, the guy behind the Golden Raspberry Awards who "liked" what he saw (Zadora apparently said that receiving a nomination but not winning would've been something she "hated" - take one guess how that worked out). Robbins called the film crap but liked the fact he received $600,000 before it opened.

I should mention that Zadora called the film a turkey upon release. She had one more star role in her with the B-flick sci-fi musical Voyage of the Rock Aliens (1984) and has since been more known for her musical career. It is kind of like watching a perverted cousin of The Oscar (1967), another film involving an awards ceremony setup (but that one had the actual Oscar statuette). It actually is a short film at 92 minutes, and if you avert your eyes as the ridiculous amount of sex scenes, it is even shorter, unless one really needed to see a guy shoot a pool ball at a naked woman on a table. I think the preening title song has the most life next to Zadora when it comes to such ridiculously lowkey acting around it all. Holland is probably the only "normal" person in the film, which includes plenty of perverts and lurid attempts at hard-hitting dialogue that has the impact of light cat scratching. Bochner and Cali might as well be mailing it in from downtown. Zadora may have been the target of criticism because, well, title character, but who could have helped this film? She really tries to show the trouble and toil that come with an industry that seems to value the body of a woman over a body of work and where it can lead someone to go down the road of shame. Of course, skin showing aside, there is nothing for anyone to grab on to because the dynamics of the film are skewed into lame soap opera with no sense of dignity or interest. For a "writer", you see exactly one line of dialogue that she suggests, which really can apply to dubious choices of any kind: "Why?". I can't tell what is most embarrassing in the opening sequence: Zadora supposed to be playing a high schooler among other near 30-somethings or, well, the garden hose moment. The fact that the particular sequence has Ray Liotta (a future member of being in even worse material than this) making his debut is probably a testament that if you can make it there, you can...escape to anywhere. The movie dives into the mud early, puts oil all over said mud and decides lighting a match would be better than the garden hose to top it off. Calling the film silly trash is actually a bigger joke than you think, because this is the kind of movie you show to someone who thought Valley of the Dolls lacked that cheesy factor. The closing sequence takes the cake for such empty dramatic heft that Zadora gamely tries to make stick, for better and certainly for worse. I especially like how she just leaves the ceremony to no one around, as if the film was about to hang itself in shame. The points that the film that stop one from going all "zero stars" is mostly on her shoulders, because the script and director failed her most of all. As a whole, it is a lurid and ridiculously terrible time to spend for all the reasons you would expect, but Zadora at least seems like she deserved better than the reviews of the time gave her. It isn't the worst of anything, but if you love some Hollywood trash, you have something to consider.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Once more on Turkey Week, let's consider some religion. The Left Behind (2014) kind.

No Escape (1994).

Review #2043: No Escape.

Cast: 

Ray Liotta (John Robbins), Lance Henriksen (The Father), Stuart Wilson (Walter Marek), Kevin Dillon (Casey), Kevin J. O'Connor (Stephano), Don Henderson (Killian), Ian McNeice (Tom King), Jack Shepherd (Dysart), Michael Lerner (Warden), Ernie Hudson (Hawkins), Russell Kiefel (Iceman), and Brian M. Logan (Scab) Directed by Martin Campbell (#173 - GoldenEye, #220 - Green Lantern, and #285 - Casino Royale)

Review: 

Honestly, the only reason I picked this movie is because of the confounding elements that come from its director and stars. How does a movie that features Ray Liotta as star and Martin Campbell as director one year before GoldenEye (1995) slip by under the radar? The most noted film that Campbell made as a director came considerably late in his career, you know. Born in New Zealand, he moved to London to become a director for softcore sex comedies and action TV in the 1970s, as represented by The Sex Thief (1973) and The Professionals, respectively. His most notable television project, however, came with the six-part serial he directed for BBC Television in 1985 in Edge of Darkness (incidentally, he would direct the feature film remake in 2010). Campbell's first film away from his initial start was Criminal Law (1988), which was as successful as his next in Defenseless (1991), which is to say not very much. At any rate, No Escape may have been a ineffective hit with audiences, but GoldenEye, the first James Bond film in the 1990s, was a major hit that he followed with The Mask of Zorro (1998). The film is based on the novel The Penal Colony by Richard Herley, with the screenplay written by Michael Gaylin and Joel Gross.

Technically, the movie does look like the cost to make it was $20 million, because it is a decent-looking "sci-fi action film", but the plot has the rumblings of something unearthed from decades ago in the B-movie realm. Think about it: a man is dropped into a totally inescapable situation and finds either savages or a slipshod attempt at community that has his own reasons to escape. Set in the then-future year of 2022 involving a lead character that suffers PTSD from his experience in Benghazi, the result is something you can see coming right from the very get-go. I really wished I liked the film better, but the only thing that may stick out for you beyond the name actors is the odd distinction that it has no women in the cast (what zero interactions with women does to a person, heh). It just seems too ordinary as a dystopian film (even with a for-profit prison depiction), so stop if you've heard this before: a loner rogue ends up leading people off to safety, an elder that is secretly dying ends up sacrificing oneself, a greedy authority (and/or traitor) figure gets what they deserve, and so on and so on. Liotta is at the very least a solid presence to give the movie some sort of attempt at a redemption story, one where he simply cannot escape being with people despite his traumas and desire to run. Henriksen certainly has a knack for playing authority figures for a handful of his roles, but it is merely too little for him to really lean into for anything meaningful (perhaps it is dwarfed by having Hard Target (1993) on my mind). Wilson seems to be having a nice time playing the heavy, even with the makeup done to portray "the law of the jungle", but yea, we both know that the conflict between him and Liotta isn't exactly the stuff that compelling duels are made of. Dillon is in the most obvious of sacrificial lamb roles and it has very little to trot in meaningful interest, which slips by more than Hudson, who comes and goes with little to no distinctions. Hell, the "rat" character and the "eccentrics" aren't exactly ones to write home about, the movie just seems a bit too plaid to do anything that would stick out that could threaten the serious time the film aims for that ends up for not much when you realize it is a B-movie with nowhere to go but the middle because you don't really know these folks that much or feel like you want to know about them for 111 minutes. As a whole, it is a movie that comes and goes without anything really meaningful to say about people beyond the mildest of conflicts of "decent" and "very bad" that can only go one way when you already know where the cards are stacked to escape. It is a decent-looking movie with decent-seeming people that just can't find that extra ingredient to carry it over the finish line, but maybe you might find something to notice for yourself.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Cocaine Bear.

Review #1981: Cocaine Bear.

Cast: 

Keri Russell (Sari), O'Shea Jackson Jr. (Daveed), Alden Ehrenreich (Eddie), Christian Convery (Henry), Brooklynn Prince (Dee Dee), Isiah Whitlock Jr. (Bob), Margo Martindale (Ranger Liz), Ray Liotta (Syd), Jesse Tyler Ferguson (Peter), and Aaron Holliday (Stache) Directed by Elizabeth Banks.

Review: 

The beginning of a new month always lends itself to surprises and interesting things to talk about in film spotlighting. Such is the case with another March that attempts to spotlight female directors in film beyond just getting to the point. Elizabeth Banks became an actress because she found it interesting after giving it a try for a school play after hurting herself playing softball. She studied at the University of Pennsylvania and the American Conservatory Theater while acting in various plays. This continued throughout the mid-2000s with highlights in films and TV such as The 40-Year-Old Virgin (2005), Scrubs (2006-09), and 30 Rock (2010-12). Banks first became involved in directing with Movie 43 (2013), serving as one of numerous co-directors before making a debut on a real movie with Pitch Perfect 2 (2015), having served as producer and co-star on the previous film. Cocaine Bear (2023) is the third feature film from Banks. The film was written by Jimmy Warden, which takes loose inspiration from the story of the "Cocaine Bear", an American black bear that spent a brief amount of time under the influence of cocaine, as the bear ate a large portion of cocaine that was in a jettisoned container (as one sees from drug trafficking, which was done by Andrew C. Thornton, who indeed died in freefall when trying to unload the cocaine into the wilderness); the film is set in the same year as the real-life story of the bear (1985), albeit with fictional characters.

You know, I wonder if the buzz for the film was similar to Snakes on a Plane (2006), a movie that has a catchy title involving animals. Honestly, what do you expect from a movie like this? The fact that the movie lives up to, well, the title of the film, is at least grounds for a decent time with comedy horror for 95 minutes. It is a movie that gives you a (CG rendered) killer bear on the loose that is meant to look ferocious, and it generally works out here in weird amusement. It is mildly funny without turning into vacant self-parody, giving what one exactly thinks they desire in the basic requirements of entertainment. The acting is mildly interesting, albeit in parts. Jackson and Ehrenreich have an interesting rapport together in the grand art of bickering and "old couple energy" that actually may make a more interesting bond than the one meant to be shown between Russell, who in of herself is decent; look, in a movie about a parent trying to protect their daughter in horror, what do you think is going to happen besides, well, you know? Actually, if you really want to be bold and ridiculous with a bear attack movie, putting one of the kid characters in peril may be the way to go, but that is just me (I also believe that if you really want more of these killer animal movies, they should be made in completely ridiculous genres, like a musical horror). What were we talking about? Oh, right: Liotta is my personal highlight, mostly because even in limited screen time he accomplishes the act of ideal horror-target in all the right tones (Liotta passed away shortly after completing his scenes for the film). Whitlock is a moderately amusing authority figure, complete with a vertical standoff. As a whole, the setup for the bear scenes are pretty decent, with no one really overstaying their welcome or killing a bit for too long, which is what you hope even in less ambitious movies. I think the actual fate of the bear body is far more interesting than what the film pulls: After the medical examiner had finished looking at the corpse, he wanted to make sure it was not wasted, so he had it taxidermized (so yes, a bear got stuffed after it died from cocaine). It got donated to the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area (near the National Forest where the bear died) before it got lost and found in a pawn shop before somehow making its way to a mall in Lexington, Kentucky. It almost clouds the other flaw that happens with a good deal of B-movies but seems more apparent here: it has a middling ensemble that seems guilty of having perhaps one too many characters for such a thin amount of interesting things for them to say, as if the movie should either have focused on a bear ravaging a family or a bear ravaging around while dopey fixers try to recover drugs. But hey, the movie accomplishes what it sets out to do: have fun showing a bear high on cocaine taking out disposable characters in disposable situations for moderate results. Man or woman as director, this generally means a good time for those who like what the movie is selling, though it will be up to the viewer to see what will actually endure in its memory after seeing it.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Welcome to Movie Night: Women's History Month III. This time we are going reverse-chronological, which means the month will end in the early 20th century. This means next up is Harriet.

In the Name of the King.

Review #1765: In the Name of the King.

Cast: 

Jason Statham (Farmer / Camden Konreid), Leelee Sobieski (Muriella), John Rhys-Davies (Merick), Ron Perlman (Norick), Claire Forlani (Solana), Kristanna Loken (Elora), Matthew Lillard (Duke Fallow), Ray Liotta (Gallian), Burt Reynolds (King Konreid), Brian White (Commander Tarish), and Mike Dopud (General Backler) Directed by Uwe Boll.

Review: 

Have you ever wanted to see a bad filmmaker get $60 million dollars to make a fantasy ripoff of Lord of the Rings? Here is your chance. Uwe Boll was born in Wermelskirchen, West Germany. He wanted to make movies when he was a kid; he studied at the University of Cologne and Siegen. Of course, he has managed to go viral for all the strange reasons. In 2006, he actually challenged critics who gave him harsh reviews to a boxing match; this resulted in Boll fighting and winning against five participants. I'm sure one already knows that prior to 2006 he had utilized a loophole in the tax system in Germany that meant that he could recieve rebates from his movies if they flopped. In 2015, he tried to crowdfund a film and failed to get the targeted funds; he proceeded to release a video lashing out about failing to fund the movie. Boll initially retired from filmmaking in 2016, doing so he could open up his own restaurant (which actually had fair reviews). However, he has since decided to return to filmmaking. The thing about Boll is that not all of his features have exactly been called terrible (2009's Darfur and Rampage received attention for example). The movie is adapted from Dungeon Siege, an action role-playing game published in 2002. This is one of the numerous video game adaptations he would do in his career, which started with House of the Dead (2003) before expanding to great failures such as Alone in the Dark (2005) and Postal (2007); Boll would direct two sequels (2011, 2014) with decidedly smaller budgets. The movie was done by Brightlight Pictures and distributed by Freestyle Releasing and Vivendi Entertainment in the US while 20th Century Fox did overseas distribution (which explains why I saw a Fox logo on the cover on my DVD). 

Beyond the terrible handling of green screen effects and use of wire fu (as helped by action choreographer Ching Siu-tung) is a hilarious failure. You've got battles that apparently feature ninjas to go along with creatures that are catapulted into the air...while being set on fire (this was written by a man named Doug Taylor, who has exactly the amount of writing credits you would guess). This is 127 minutes of pure tedium, since it is a movie that looks and feels terrible in nearly every frame imaginable, packed with cliches that might make you yearn for the days of Krull. Where did all the money go? Did it really go to packing the cast with a bunch of familiar faces? If that is the case, why does everyone seem thoroughly miscast? I have not seen many movies with Statham as a star, but I do know that he is thought to be a suitable presence for action films in his era (i.e. the 2000s). That said, he is thoroughly unsuited for a film like this, since he looks outmatched in any scene that requires anything other than an attempt at action; the script fails to give him anything to do besides hope he can make these inept words seem useful. Who better to play in a Lord of the Rings "inspiration" than someone from those movies...Rhys-Davies? Well, he is a decent character presence, although one always seems to wonder if he is looking more to when the check will clear rather than a performance beyond "autopilot", and we are talking about a movie that has acting wooden enough to attract termites. Sobieski, Forlani, Loken, and White all suffer from this. Perlman looks like he is waiting to get off the screen and escape. If anybody looks outmatched and out-everything, the honor goes to Reynolds, who as we all know is the sentimental favorite in a variety of mediocre (or terrible) movies on Movie Night. For all of the times he had the knack for curious charisma in any film he did, he also had the knack for having the weirdest film choices ever to cross a screen: Can any man say they have acted with Paul Thomas Anderson and Uwe Boll? He looks befuddled to even be in this role, particularly with that kingly get-up. He grimaces through a role that seems to be suited for has-beens, and while Reynolds clearly had seen better days...there are worse options. At least Lillard seems to know he is in a terrible film, acting with the grand camp value of someone who has decided to go with just having silly fun without looking for a good performance (i.e. range). However, the most dubious performance goes to Liotta, who appears to be wearing street clothes in half of his scenes. He seems to be under the impression that a great evil wizard is best repersented by moving his eyes around while somehow resembling Wayne Newton. His performance in Goodfellas (1990) seems like a lifetime ago (you thought Anderson-Boll was nuts, try an actor who worked with Scorsese and Boll). He is probably just as ill-suited for a fantasy role as Statham is, and the ultimate fight between the two of them is just as hysterical as when Liotta and Rhys-Davies interact with each other (involving swords flying around). As a whole, the fights between the pseudo-orcs and everyone else isn't exactly horrible, but one always has the feeling that Boll is just waiting for the next tax dodge or project to rip off somewhere, complete with a twist near the middle of the movie that makes one go "Oh, we're going that route, are we?". Supposedly Boll had thought about releasing the film in two parts, but he instead settled with having a director's cut released (imagine a two-and-a-half-hour "epic", I bet). Despite its length, the plot manages to be quite inept in moving past first gear, with the only notable thing really happening involving the color starting to look less brown as the film gets to the end, which is handled abruptly. As a whole, this turns out to be a grand joke for those who desire to see what a mismatched cast can do with a mismatched director looking to make money out of a molehill and wind up with one of the dumbest movies I have ever had pleasure laughing at. It isn't exactly terrible enough to be one of the worst, but squeezing a star out of pulp is not exactly an accomplishment.

Overall, I give it 1 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: One must suffer for the crime of believing there is no such thing as a horrible animated movie - Foodfight! (2012). 

Goodfellas.

Review #1496: Goodfellas.

Cast: 

Robert De Niro (Jimmy Conway), Ray Liotta (Henry Hill), Joe Pesci (Tommy DeVito), Lorraine Bracco (Karen Hill), Paul Sorvino (Paulie Cicero), Frank Sivero (Frankie Carbone), Tony Darrow (Sonny Bunz), Frank Vincent (Billy Batts), Chuck Low (Morris Kessler), Frank DiLeo (Tuddy Cicero), Henny Youngman (Himself), Gina Mastrogiacomo (Janice Rossi), Catherine Scorsese (Tommy's mother), Charles Scorsese (Vinnie), Suzanne Shepard (Karen's mother), and Debi Mazar (Sandy) Directed by Martin Scorsese (#990 - Taxi Driver, #992 - The King of Comedy, #1276 - Mean Streets, and #1463 - Raging Bull)

Review: 

"You think you're doing something at the time, and that gets you through it. And maybe it changes over the years. A picture takes on a life of its own."

A great movie can come out of a little observation. In this case, a little bit of observation over the life of a mobster resulted in one of the best films of the 1990s, with others going farther in calling it one of the greatest ever made, with an influence that has reached across other media that took inspiration from its content and style, most notably with David Chase and his television series The Sopranos. The basis for the film is the 1985 non-fiction book Wiseguy: Life in a Mafia Family by Nicholas Pileggi, which was about the exploits of Mafia mobster-turned-informant Henry Hill over the course of 25 years, and the film would follow a majority of the beats covered by the book (aside from a few name changes and certain omissions, such as Hill's hustling while enlisted in the United States Army). Scorsese was first interested in the book while in production on The Color of Money (1986), liking its documentary-style writings of how the Mob worked while beginning it "like a gunshot and have it get faster from there". There is a natural way to how everything flows together in this film, where one feels at ease with time when viewing the life of these wiseguys, with a script (done by Scorsese and Pileggi) that had improvisation that one can see at key points in the film. For example, the "How am I funny?" sequence was actually based on Pesci's experience as a waiter serving an actual wiseguy in a restaurant, which was acted and rehearsed with Pesci and Liotta before being constructed by Scorsese from the transcripts (since this was not actually in the original script). Scorsese was inspired by Jules and Jim (1962) with its use of voiceovers, while deciding to do a mix of the traditional narrative that would start in the middle and move backward and forward. 

Although Hill was not directly involved with the film, De Niro talked to both him and Pileggi (who let them use research material not in the book) in preparation of the role from his walk to how he ate his food, while Liotta listened to tapes of Hill talking to Pileggi, which would be key in the narration in how dynamic it is to the story being told. This is a film with plenty of nuance that handles its subject with precise execution in its cast and direction that spring for several memorable moments mixed in with swift and clear-cut violence that make a fascinating look upon a unsavory-yet-captivating world of crime. It moves at an efficient pace that uses its 145 minutes to tell a well-cut story that has the classic Scorsese hallmarks of quick cuts alongside frantic style (in an attempt to show a "punk attitude", he stated) and key choices of music to go alongside key moments. Liotta is our focus (and voice) for the film, and he does a tremendous job with being our center of unflinching energy that draws us in as well to a certain lifestyle through his eyes with conviction. De Niro proves just as prepared, wrapped in relentless gravitas that carries the film with naturalness. The third leg of our trio is Pesci, who moves along with crazed unflinching energy that attracts us with that early question about a funny wiseguy that keeps you on your toes (the scene with him and C. Scorsese involving cutting a deer and a painting proves just as well in improvised morbid energy). Bracco goes along with the action with frenzied perceptive timing that carries the film with her own narration as someone who enters in the action and stays in that web of crime, even with such turbulent (but fascinating) chemistry with Liotta, such as the moment where she has him in bed with a gun on him. Sorvino rounds out the cast with a collected presence that has plenty of stature and coldness for one to fear and appreciate whenever on screen. The others in the cast (including real-life mobsters cast as extras) prove fine in lending presence and body language to the key moments of the film, which can lead to some tension or a bit of humor (including the famed one-liner comedian Youngman) that make the shifting from youth to adult crime for our lead all the more easier. It handles its moments of violence with cold-cut effienct, never shying from depicting the lifestyle it wants to show in all of its honesty (for a film at least) that runs the gamut of ambition, avarice, and paranoia in all of its unseemly glory. Three decades have only brightened the legacy of this film, an achievement for its cast and director in execution that has kept it in the public consciousness as a seminal crime film for the 1990s and beyond.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Field of Dreams.

Review #488: Field of Dreams.

Cast
Kevin Costner (Ray Kinsella), Amy Madigan (Annie Kinsella), James Earl Jones (Terence Mann), Ray Liotta (Shoeless Joe Jackson), Burt Lancaster (Archibald "Moonlight" Graham), Timothy Busfield (Mark), Frank Whaley (Archie Graham), and Gaby Hoffmann (Karin Kinsella) Directed by Phil Alden Robinson.

Review
Being a baseball nut (as I am) will probably make this film even more of a treat for them, but even if you're not a baseball nut, this is still a pretty enjoyable film. This is my first time watching a film that stars Kevin Costner (Though my dad seemed to love watching his films on DVD when I was growing up), and he does an alright job, perfectly awkward in a film like this, and he pairs off really well with James Earl Jones, the two just mesh well with each other. But of course, the two actors who quite nearly steal the show are Ray Liotta and Burt Lancaster, and it's because their presences in the scenes each have just leave a lasting impression on me, and it really is a warming film that forgoes sentimentality it transcends into its own one of a kind of films. Costner joined this film because he felt this would be "this generation's It's a Wonderful Life", and I don't blame him because while it may not be one of the greats, it can certainly be watched any time, any day, and work just the same.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.