Redux: Predator 2.

Redux #548: Predator 2.

Cast:  

Danny Glover (Lieutenant Mike Harrigan), Kevin Peter Hall (City Hunter / The Predator; Hal Rayle as voice of the Predator), Gary Busey (Special Agent Peter Keyes), Rubén Blades (Detective Danny Archuleta), María Conchita Alonso (Detective Leona Cantrell), Bill Paxton (Detective Jerry Lambert), Lilyan Chauvin (Dr. Irene Edwards), Robert Davi (Deputy Chief Phil Heinemann), Adam Baldwin (Agent Adam Garber), Kent McCord (Captain Brent Pilgrim), Steve Kahan (Sergeant Neil Reeger), Henry Kingi ("El Scorpio"), Morton Downey Jr. (Tony Pope), Calvin Lockhart (Willie "King Willie"), and Sylvia Kauders (Ruth Albright) Directed by Stephen Hopkins.

Review: 

"I always think that about everything I do. I’m my worst most vicious critic of all of these things but I think I just would have made [Predator 2] probably a little less over the top. So it’s a little uneven in tone and sometimes it feels really real. Then you have these crazy Jamaican guys in gold disco pants. I just always want a sense of authenticity about stuff and there’s some of it that just doesn’t feel authentic at all. Some of it really does get to you and I think there’s a strange veer in tones but there’s nothing I’m ashamed of or anything. I think it is just a child from the MTV running around blowing shit up at will and enjoying it with a huge amount of backup working with people who are much smarter than me and could really help me do something that I never had a chance to do before."

It's possible that action movies are just above horror movies when it comes to looking back and thinking, yes, this was pretty good the next time around. I saw the first Predator (1987) movie on DVD when I was in high school and thought it was good and then go figure, I see it a few years later and thought it was really pretty good. Predator 2, which I saw back in 2014 and I guess I just didn't like the idea of a standalone sequel at the time. What I forgot to know at the time was that Jim and John Thomas, who wrote the first movie (involving a professional hunter hunting big game, at least how they proposed it), did in fact return to write the sequel and pitched a handful of ideas to 20th Century Fox; these ideas apparently included: starting straight after the explosion from the first film, or dropping a Predator into time periods such as the Battle of the Bulge. Instead, they went for a hunter that decided upon the then future of 1997 and the "urban jungle" in Los Angeles. The studio could not get Arnold Schwarzenegger to return because of a salary dispute. At the helm to direct was Jamaican-born British director Stephen Hopkins, who had attracted a bit of attention with his first two movies Dangerous Game (1987) and A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child (1989), and he worked out revisions and storyboarded moments with them. Shot on a quick window that had principal photography start in February for a release nine months later, Hopkins (28 at the time) stated he enjoyed the experience. Released on a budget of over $20-30 million in November 1990 (yes, roughly around the same time as Dances with Wolves and Home Alone), the movie made over $50 million worldwide (in comparison, the original made nearly $100 million). Not counting the Alien vs. Predator crossovers, there were no further Predator movies until Predators in 2010.

If Hopkins went a "bit crazy" in making a movie that still ended up being still pretty grounded that he felt was more in the western/thriller genre than sci-fi horror, well, he sure made a good one. With crazy discs and spears to go along with basically a retread of what you saw before in hunting the hunter, I could understand my initial disappointment to this movie and then also realize, yes, but it still deserves plenty of credit for its entertainment value. Over the top, sure, but I suppose I appreciate intensity and craftsmanship more and more when it comes to action/horror movies as the years move on. A lack of Schwarzenegger is regrettable, although it would've been a team-up movie that had inklings of casting Patrick Swayze or possibly Steven Seagal (Hopkins theorizes that he was persuaded by James Cameron to not do it before doing Terminator 2); instead, the role eventually played by Gary Busey* was expanded upon and Glover got cast (basically making this a semi-Lethal Weapon reunion between them, Steve Kahan and Joel Silver, the latter of whom produced both movies). Glover (in pretty good shape because of the physical training) pretty much elevates the movie to what could've easily just been a middling rehash because of how entertaining he proves to be as our hero. Sure, the stubborn loose cannon ordinary Joe isn't the most original type of movies of its ilk, but he has a certain type of timing and enthusiasm that makes it all seem worth it in seeing inevitable ass-kicking in the heat; besides, whether it was1990, 1997 or 2026, it does seem pretty relevant to have a smart mouth to seeing combative folks in really warm weather. This was the penultimate film appearance for Hall, who died the following year after having contracted HIV from a blood transfusion during surgery from injuries in a car accident, and he really did make the best of this role from that suit in making for a pretty imposing figure (which through the presentation of the hunter makes for basically an oddball looking for the alpha, such as when he does a roar and attracts a lightning bolt). I love this group of oddballs that surround the action with Alonso, Blades, and Paxton (no guesses for which plays the charming relief taken before the 108-minute action is over) or the oddball support with Busey in what can only be called "mellow delusion" and musician-turned-abrasive talk show host* Downey hamming it up as much as possible (or, for whatever reason, former Adam-12 star McCord and Davi having bit roles in the usual "cop, you're being too rough" spiel). You get plenty of grimy and intense things within sequences in the city, a massacre in the subway, stuff in a slaughterhouse that probably cribs a bit from Aliens and finally some time spent with an alien ship for a showdown of who really deserves a trophy for their mettle. You know what you're getting early on and if you like where it looks to be headed, well, you'll like it just as much by the end. As a whole, it's a fun average movie that I appreciate more and more because of its sheer energy and willingness to just go where it wants in hunting on a concrete jungle more than thinking too much about its effectiveness when compared to its predecessor. Good ol' sweaty gooey fun, check 'em out.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Yes, I finally decided to give a redux to a movie I saw over 10 years ago. A few more things to cover come up to end August...

*Post motorcycle accident Busey. Remember folks - always wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle.

*It wouldn't be a proper Movie Night if I didn't share his attempts to do novelty songs around this time - Morton Downey Jr. - Sings [1989]. 

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.

The Goonies.

Review #1700: The Goonies.

Cast: 

Sean Astin (Michael "Mikey" Walsh), Josh Brolin (Brandon "Brand" Walsh), Jeff Cohen (Lawrence "Chunk" Cohen), Corey Feldman (Clark "Mouth" Devereaux), Jonathan Ke Huy Quan (Richard "Data" Wang), Kerri Green (Andrea Theresa "Andy" Carmichael), Martha Plimpton (Stephanie "Stef" Steinbrenner), John Matuszak (Lotney "Sloth" Fratelli), Anne Ramsey (Mama Fratelli), Robert Davi (Jake Fratelli), Joe Pantoliano (Francis Fratelli), Mary Ellen Trainor (Irene Walsh), Keith Walker (Irving Walsh), Steve Antin (Troy Perkins), and Lupe Ontiveros (Rosalita) Directed by Richard Donner (#075 - Scrooged, #355 - Lethal Weapon, #356 - Lethal Weapon 2, #547 - Superman, #619 - Maverick, #731 - Lethal Weapon 3, #734 - Lethal Weapon 4, #1452 - The Omen, #1542 - 16 Blocks)

Review: 

Richard Donner was a director that managed to channel a long career in film through his versatility and consistency. He honed his craft through television in the late 1950s and the 1960s while making his start in film with X-15 (1961) before having his breakthrough with The Omen (1976) that continued with the film that defined superhero adaptation for a generation with Superman (1978). He directed twenty films from 1961 to 2006 alongside taking time to produce films with his wife Lauren with the Donners' Company before his recent passing early this month. The Goonies was the eighth feature directed by Donner, and it certainly serves as one of the most interesting collaborations between filmmakers, if you think about it. Steven Spielberg contributed the story (which was his last story credit until A.I. Artificial Intelligence in 2001) while also serving as executive producer with Amblin Entertainment as the main production company, while Chris Columbus (best known for his work on Gremlins the year before) wrote the screenplay (the second of three collaborations as writer to an Amblin production, which closed with Young Sherlock Holmes the same year). I will admit that the curiosity for watching this film has varied wildly over the past few years, although some movies slip by the cracks when you grow up past being a kid (which happened about over a thousand reviews ago). But hey, I guess one needs imagination now and then, whether that involves riding bikes with friends, them telling you about big events in their life so you don't hear it second-hand, saving the community, or pirate treasure involving dead pirates. It depends on how much one can dwell on the adventure and the craftsmanship taken to get to that point in the guise of a movie for kids with plenty of syrupy tone to go around. If you thought E.T. the Extra Terrestrial (1982) was too odd to try and experience for oneself in terms of "connected" aliens for the kid at heart, why not go a different direction with a tilt awhirl of feel-good adolescence? At least one can't say that the vision of the director isn't consumed by the habits of their producer (this is more true for other features with Spielberg as a producer with Tobe Hooper's Poltergeist (1982) or Joe Dante's Gremlins (1984), for example). While there were rumblings of a potential follow-up for a number of years, no sequel has come from it (or even a remake), which seems to be appropriate no matter how much one likes the film (because, really, who needs to break the illusion?).

This is one of those movies that could be thought of as "classic-proof" to those who like it. For me, I just call it "okay-proof" and shrug my shoulders. The level of enjoyment depends on the level of patience one has for the contrivances displayed on screen (maps in the attic that happen to lead to treasure, the amount of booby traps in the road to the ship, finding jewels right before a big signing moment, et cetera). It likely hasn't aged as well as other highlight films that grabbed the attention of its audiences in the 1980s, but it does manage to have an appeal within a game cast and some interest in maintaining adventure after a sluggish start that will surely leave one satisfied enough with the concoction brewed by Donner. The kids are kids, really. I think at least one of the kids will remind you of yourself, so I suppose that is more of a compliment than if I was instead bored by syrupy sentiment or self indulgency, and this is for a film where four of its main seven kid actors are making their film debut (Astin, Brolin, Green, Cohen) and the most experienced actor is Feldman. In that sense, Brolin stands out the best among the fresh folks, mostly because his beleaguered elder presence is the most refreshing to see through the film, which is then followed by Plimpton, who provides fair timing to accommodate a mild Green (with milder chemistry shared against Brolin). Astin is fine, in the sense that he holds well to the quivering balance of adventure and goofball folks without seeming like a slam brand of bland man (of course, the scene at the well is hit-and-miss for me, but hey, if it is indeed your time, go ahead). Cohen did exactly one feature film before eventually deciding to study law, so I think it all makes out well for some decent comic relief that is more than just "haha Truffle shuffle". Feldman maneuvers fine in mouthy charm, while Quan gets to have a few chuckles with the gadget sight gag cycle. Sure, the kids are fine and all, but I find the adult trio of Ramsey-Davi-Pantoliano to be far more curious to view from time to time, particularly if one views them as a prototype for the foils in Home Alone (1990; Columbus did co-write the script for the film, after all). Ramsey generates a few chuckles for what is needed in that friendly balance of cartoon and cruelty that results in plenty of curiosity and moments to view with brazen warmth. The same goes for Davi and Pantoliano, each of which clearly had bigger and better roles to come when it comes to cultivate distinct presences beyond just "the heavy" (which works when using a trained singer doing opera for a joke). Football player-turned-actor Matuszak plays the heavy with the right balance of strength and timing to not become just an effects-show. Honestly, the best parts of the movie come out best when the film doesn't turn on the hokum full blast; it is nice film to look at when it comes to its trek across the water for a ship, and seeing a bunch of skeletons around does at least make the danger seem apparent to make sure one isn't too lost in syrupy antics for gold. It can be fun for those who want to have fun with it, and that will surely work enough for those who buy into the execution of a few gags of humor to go with its eventual end shot, which I admit is a nice touch. I can't quite go so far as to label it as a refined classic, but the lasting appeal has been there in the 36 years that have followed its release for those in need of movies with "heart", if you will.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night Redux: Licence to Kill.

Redux Review #290: Licence to Kill.

Cast
Timothy Dalton (James Bond), Carey Lowell (Pam Bouvier), Robert Davi (Franz Sanchez), Talisa Soto (Lupe Lamora), Anthony Zerbe (Milton Krest), Frank McRae (Sharkey), Everett McGill (Ed Killifer), Wayne Newton (Professor Joe Butcher), Benicio del Toro (Dario), Anthony Starke (Truman-Lodge), Pedro Armendáriz, Jr. (President Hector Lopez), Desmond Llewelyn (Q), David Hedison (Felix Leiter), Priscilla Barnes (Della Churchill), Robert Brown (M), and Caroline Bliss (Miss Moneypenny) Directed by John Glen (#281 - The Living Daylights)

Review
PART ONE: A Little History
I first reviewed this film back on November 23, 2012, having already reviewed The Living Daylights, Dalton's other Bond film. Was it good? It sure was memorable, and that was one of the main reason I decided to watch again more than two months later. I said a good deal of statements in my original review, such as this: "Honestly, the title Licence to Kill emphasizes the darker, edgier attempt at Bond. But another question is does that work? Yes...and no.", "The story is more back in reality, more then the last one, and even more then in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, which is admirable", "The violence is more prevalent, and it sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. It's a give and take kind of thing.", "Dalton is more improved here, more darker and yet still interesting" "While it isn't a great Bond film, it is still one of the stronger Bond films" Nevertheless, the film would be the last for six years, due to legal wrangling, with Dalton leaving during the hiatus. But does this rewatch help the film?

PART TWO: The Actors
Timothy Dalton once said this of the Bond films before him: "I think Roger was fine as Bond, but the films had become too much techno-pop and had lost track of their sense of story. I mean, every film seemed to have a villain who had to rule or destroy the world. If you want to believe in the fantasy on screen, then you have to believe in the characters and use them as a stepping-stone to lead you into this fantasy world. That's a demand I made, and Albert Broccoli agreed with me." Dalton was right, and it shows in his performance as James Bond, especially in this film. He read the books to try to more like the actual novel version of Bond, and I do like his efforts here. He is especially convincing in the action sequences, and he even did some of the stunts for this film. He sets his mark on the franchise, in a good way. Carey Lowell is our leading lady, and she is excellent. She manages to level with Bond and not being some lady to be rescued, which is a good thing, especially in this age. Then there's our villain, played none other by Robert Davi. He is a gem of a villain, and while he is evil, he manages to be memorable and very suave somehow. He works well with Dalton, which is a good thing. Talisa Soto is our other leading lady, and she is relatively okay. She has less to do than Lowell, but she does manages to work out well. But the actors I remember from this are David Hedison and Desmond Llewelyn. Hedison had already played Leiter in Live and Let Die, so he naturally has some experience than the other Leiters before him. He does convey the character more than just an ally of Bond. Llewelyn works here more than most of the films because his role is expanded a bit, which means more of Q, which is always fun. Zerbe and Newton aren't as great,but they manage to have enough skill to be passable. Robert Brown does a good job, reminding me of Bernard Lee's M, which is a good thing. McRae and del Toro are memorable in their own ways. The actors do a fine job overall.

PART THREE: Conclusion
John Glen directs his fifth and final Bond film, which he did from 1981 to 1989, the most by any director (the films being For Your Eyes Only, Octopussy, A View to a Kill, and The Living Daylights). He had a style that conveyed action and an attempt to change Bond to fit the 80s. Previously, Glen was the editor for three previous films, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker. The action works well, especially in the truck sequence, which manages to be triumphant in its approach. It is double edged sword on Bond film on whether you like brutal Bond films without as much silliness or slightly silly Bond films with more of a lighthearted tone. The former works mostly and the latter works most of the time. But oh well. It's a shame that this is the last Dalton film as Bond, but at least he comes out on top. The story works for what it's worth, Dalton is excellent, the villain is good and the leading ladies work well enough. Take it for what it's worth.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.