Desperately Seeking Susan.

Review #2186: Desperately Seeking Susan.

Cast: 

Rosanna Arquette (Roberta Glass), Aidan Quinn (Dez), Madonna (Susan Thomas), Robert Joy (Jim Dandy), Mark Blum (Gary Glass), Laurie Metcalf (Leslie Glass), Will Patton (Wayne Nolan), Anna Levine (Crystal), Peter Maloney (Ian), Steven Wright (Larry Stillman D.D.S.), John Turturro (Ray), Anne Carlisle (Victoria), José Angel Santana (Boutique Owner), Richard Portnow (Party Guest), and Giancarlo Esposito (Street Vendor) Directed by Susan Seidelman (#1987 - Smithereens)

Review: 

“The city was falling apart and downtown there were aspiring artists because rent was so cheap. So I wanted to populate the film with people who were authentic to that time. I didn’t care whether someone in Kansas would recognize them, but New Yorkers would know they were New Yorkers.” 

Okay, maybe the biggest curiosity isn't the fact that this is the film that followed Susan Seidelman's Smithereens (1982). But I like the films that come after an electrifying debut feature, particularly one that is, well, packed with a few names to recognize from somewhere or another. The film was written by Leora Barish, who had been inspired by the film Celine and Julie Go Boating (1974), which in of itself had references to classic novels such as Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. It was a script that languished for a few years before Sarah Pillsbury and Midge Sanford found it as producers with a new company in tow. After a good deal spent in turnaround trying to get a studio to get behind it (ultimately being Orion Pictures) and a few names tossed around, the "clear visual style” shown by Seidelman with Smithereens was the one that worked to her advantaged. It was Seidelman that had decided on who would be cast as "Susan", which led her to steer away from actresses such as: Ellen Barkin, Melanie Griffith, and Jennifer Jason Leigh (it wasn't the only role with others in the running - more on that later). Instead, she went for a certain presence that lived near her at the time. Madonna had exactly two sorts of experience in film: an indie underground drama A Certain Sacrifice (which had been filmed in the late 1970s) and a cameo appearance in Vision Quest...with each not being released until 1985. As if the stars aligned perfectly, her popularity as a singer (editor note: understatement) was at a fever pitch by the time the film was finished shooting because of the commercial success of her second music album (Like a Virgin). Not surprisingly, "Into the Groove" is heard for the credits, which, well, I dig songs like this. As a whole, the film was a modest hit with audiences upon release and was even turned into a musical a couple of years later. 

Oh sure, the film is a film for Madonna to shine through from time to time, but Arquette is just as adept in proving key to a movie that is a warm tribute to the screwball comedy: mistaken identity and the ever-growing sense of amusement. It touches upon familiar aspects that come through with the experience of someone who craves adventure and finds way more than what they bargained for. Arquette (best known for the TV film The Executioner's Song [1982]) is ideal in that entertaining sense of wonder and befuddlement for antics because the frustration of being a listless housewife that (in the age of newspapers with personal ads that people looked at) we can relate with. That timing is on point through and through for a crisply amusing experience. Quinn was cast after attempts to get a few actors named Dennis Quaid and Kevin Costner to read for the role fell to deaf ears. Go figure, it is probably the best relief the film has going for it, because Quinn and his sardonic charm roll right off with Arquette. And then of course there is Madonna, who practically rolls every little movement and sentence as if it was just a flick of the wrist, one for which Seidelman said was a "variation of herself...bringing her attitude to it". She exudes a certain type of aura that has that rightful sense of fun in the pleasures of charades and half-truths in the ideal apex of one acting without the weight of too much superstar status to handle playing some sort of variation of themselves, which goes hand-in-hand in chuckles when paired with that goofy (but totally believable) Joy. Blum is that ideal sense of the doofus too good for Arquette to set up the inevitable when it comes to screwball mismatches. The film manages to be patient enough for its 104-minute runtime to grant each lead their time to shine in a breezy and fairly engaging trip through a certain lens that goes to its location along with the fashion that makes it practically impossible to forget for its time. It is ultimately a solid second effort for Seidelman, packed with enough fair charm to make for a New York-style delight in screwy entertainment.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem

Review #1849: Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem.

Cast: 

Steven Pasquale (Dallas Howard), Reiko Aylesworth (Kelly O'Brien), John Ortiz (Eddie Morales), Johnny Lewis (Ricky Howard), Sam Trammell (Tim O'Brien), Ariel Gade (Molly O'Brien), Robert Joy (Colonel Stevens), Kristen Hager (Jesse Salinger), David Paetkau (Dale Collins), Matt Ward (Mark), Michal Suchánek (Nick), David Hornsby (Drew Roberts), and Gina Holden (Carrie Adams) Directed by The Brothers Strause.

Review: 

You remember Alien vs. Predator (2004), don't you? The crossover movie between Alien and Predator that ended up being more average than Alien: Resurrection (or perhaps a predicator of further predictable fare like Predators) Well, if you liked seeing Paul W. S. Anderson cobble together a story with Ronald Shusett and Dan O'Bannon, too bad, the sequel just has Shane Salerno, who had given a re-write to the prior movie to go along with his occasional contribution to scripts for films such as Armageddon (1998). Oh, and now the director is a pair of brothers named Greg and Colin Strause. The brothers were born in Waukegan, Illinois but were raised in Chicago. They liked to experiment with computers from a young age, such as with the Amiga computer, and they convinced their parents that a Silicon Graphics Indy processor and software was something they wanted to work on and use for their interests in effects. This led to them moving to California in the 1990s (with inspiration for making movies coming from Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991) along with making their own company with Hydraulx, which did work for 20th Century Fox productions such as Volcano (1997) and The X-Files (1998). They also did music videos (like for the song "Californication") and commercials. So, when it came time to do a sequel of "AVP" without the service of Anderson, it should only make sense that Fox thought the Strause brothers would be suitable to carry an effects show for the sequel, and they were hired in 2006 for an eight-week shoot to direct their first ever feature, and it should be noted that they had pitched their own version of Alien vs. Predator years before that was rejected.

For reference, I watched the 101-minute unrated cut of the movie, although the theatrical release was only 94 minutes (rated R). If you thought that the first film took things a bit far with ridiculous spectacle, the sequel only proves to embiggen the failures present in the prior movie. Now one gets to see creatures in the old familiar format: in the dark, but not as clever as earlier and better movies, where perpetual rain falls down for the climax that might as well make me wish I had a shower less predictable than this movie - even the lead character from the last one would've been a more useful focus to return to. I get having actors that aren't exactly household names, but I just can't get behind a movie that is murky as hell to watch, where the one bright (subjectively speaking) sequence is a scene in a hospital. Yes, the movie actually features people in a hospital (and babies) having an encounter with the creatures. The scene may be disturbing, but it also might be the only noteworthy scene in the movie (complete with a pregnant woman involved), one that has the bright idea of introducing multiple plot threads of people with no sense of depth or interest besides being inevitable creature fodder. You know what would have been better? Throwing your action figures in a box while pouring ketchup all over it. There just isn't anything to draw on with Pasquale or Aylesworth, who might as well be playing broom-sticks when it comes to leads that are there just to engage in action and other things that are possibly too flat for name actors to get going. The focus is on the creatures and the "Predalien", but it kind of just falls by the wayside in generating actual curiosity for these creatures beside saying "well, they look nice, so?" It is like taking a rusty old car (i.e. the equivalent of the first movie) and giving it a paint job that somehow broke all the windows. Honestly, nuking the town in the climax is probably an apt description for what happens in the movie, since plans for a third film (complete with awful sequel-baiting) were scuttled despite its marginal success at the box office. In the end, one would best skip this hodgepodge of boredom.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Waterworld.

Review #1081: Waterworld.

Cast: 
Kevin Costner (The Mariner), Dennis Hopper (The Deacon), Jeanne Tripplehorn (Helen), Tina Majorino (Enola), Michael Jeter (Old Gregor), Jack Black (Smoker Plane Pilot), Kim Coates (Drifter #2), Robert Joy (Smoker Ledger Guy), Robert LaSardo (Smitty), and Gerard Murphy (The Nord) Directed by Kevin Reynolds.

Review: 
Waterworld is a film that lurked on my shelf for years. My father watched this film a bunch of times when I was growing up, but I never had the idea to actually see the film until now in part because I figured it was futile not to. The film certainly seems like something made in an era with experimenting with making a sci-fi apocalyptic film with a big budget and big ambition. At the time it was made, it was the most expensive film ever made (done for $172 million), but it was plagued by production troubles (such as a hurricane destroying the set at one point and bringing in Josh Whedon as a script doctor at point), which certainly played into its reputation. It wasn't a huge success, but it isn't an entire failure, both financially along with as a film. On the one hand, it is nice to watch something based on an original idea with an effort to try and make for a spectacle for entertainment purposes, even if it does resemble Mad Max. On the other hand, I can't say that the movie is consistent enough to qualify as serviceable entertainment. The problem isn't so much with the acting as it is the writing, which at times feels uneven with its characters that gets in the way of really enjoying the action and its set-pieces, which hold up well for 1995. I feel that the film never gets itself into high gear often enough to really make its audience anything other than mildly involving. I can't even get myself to hate it, instead I just have a mild disappointment. Costner can't really elevate this main character into anything that seems compelling, being fairly bland in his gruffness - although his combative scenes with others in the first half could be construed as something to make fun of if you're in the right mood. That, or him peeing into a recycling canister to use for filtering to drink it later - which starts the film off, actually. Hopper certainly looks the part of a crazed villain, and he actually manages to be more entertaining than Costner, but it still is a fairly silly performance to watch at times - but who can blame him? This is a movie that can't find the right sense of captivating characters to go with its moments of adventure. The other members of the cast aren't terrible, but they also aren't too particularly inspiring, with Tripplehorn and Majorino contributing to a few moments that prove amusing instead of moving. In terms of comparison to other action flicks, this is likely the diet soda of action films - it's there along with other films of its ilk but it likely won't be something you go back to often.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.