The Shadow (1994).

Review #2575: The Shadow (1994).

Cast: 

Alec Baldwin (Lamont Cranston / The Shadow), John Lone (Shiwan Kahn), Penelope Ann Miller (Margo Lane), Ian McKellen (Dr. Reinhardt Lane), Peter Boyle (Moses "Moe" Shrevnitz), Jonathan Winters (Commissioner Wainwright Barth), Tim Curry (Farley Claymore), Joseph Maher (Isaac Newboldt), John Kapelos (Duke Rollins), Max Wright (Berger), Sab Shimono (Dr. Roy Tam), with Brady Tsurutani (the Tulku), Andre Gregory (Burbank), James Hong (Li Peng), Arsenio "Sonny" Trinidad (Wu), and Ethan Phillips (Nelson) Directed by Russell Mulcahy.

Review: 

There were quite a few folks who really, really, really wanted to make their own type of franchise based on some old books lying around in the latter stages of the 20th century. For every Superman (1978) or Batman (1989) or even Dick Tracy (1990), you would get movies such as Flash Gordon (1980) or Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins (1985) or The Phantom (1996) that just didn't pan out... or this. The Shadow actually arose first as a marketing tool, specifically as a storyteller with a distinct voice to narrate the Detective Story Hour for radio. The voice seemed more interesting than the show, so Walter B. Gibson was commissioned to begin writing stories of the character (with a pen name of Maxwell Grant, as one does) that ran on and off for 20 years. You've got a man clad in black (hat, cloak) as a vigilante (while spending his days as a rich playboy, most of the time) that fought crime starting in 1931. The radio drama apparently was the one that made him invisible when in operation. There were two low-budget films done in the late 1930s (The Shadow Strikes [1937], International Crime [1938]) with Rod La Rocque as the title character while Victor Jory starred in a 15-chapter serial for Columbia Pictures in 1940 and Kane Richjmond starred in a trio of B-movie quickies in 1946. The character did in fact prove an inspiration for both Batman and V for Vendetta* (Batman co-creator Bill Finger stated that his first story for the character was a takeoff of a Shadow story). Martin Bregman bought the rights to the character in the 1980s and had Robert Zemeckis in mind to direct, but this did not come to pass (incidentally, Sam Raimi had pitched an idea but was ignored, but he ended up doing Darkman [1990] anyway). Eventually, it worked out for Universal Pictures to have Australian-born Russell Mulcahy (responsible for the first two Highlander films) as director and David Koepp (who had co-adapted Jurassic Park [1993] as writer. Filmed with a mix of traditional practical and optical effects alongside CGI for a budget of $40 million that was released on July 1, 1994 (right between the releases of The Lion King and Forrest Gump), the movie made just $48 million with audiences.

If you like movies set in the 1930s that just rolls along with any offbeat situation possible for what you might call an aloof type of superhero movie, you might have fun with this film. How many movies do you know where one of the key aspects to the plan of the movie is to hypnotize an entire city to not see a whole building? It's a movie all about atonement and adventure in the most offbeat of ways that I can't help but appreciate for its execution and its style that plays fast and loose for 108 minutes. Koepp had actually listened to the radio shows when he was a kid and he utilized the pulp novels as inspiration for his script and it shows in the charm that comes through and through in pulpy oddness, at least for those who get into it (thin? well, your milage may vary). Baldwin proves to be fairly game as the lead that dazzles in serving as a pulp avenger that occasionally terrorizes folks with a booming voice (as one does when having the mental fortitude to only be detected by one's shadow) or has a ball trying to adjust to the charms of Miller; it's all suave and all spry with these folks, it's hard to not have fun. Lone (playing a Genghis Khan descendant, as one does) makes for a delightfully hammy villain, coasting along with clinical precision for a role that could've easily been cardboard. Plans of world domination and folks fighting crime in the middle of the night work when there is some style to it, and I liked what I saw in splattering of Art Deco that keeps its outlandish stuff right for when it needs its most (a naturally elaborate network of tubes to communicate stuff, bombs that roll around like a ball, a climax involving mirrors, for example). There is a bit of relief with McKellen, Boyle, Winters, and Curry* to provide further bits of charm and curiosity to make this oddball world of shadowy networking and henchmen stuff work without too many hitches. With the way the climax goes, I do wonder how the hell they were going to do more of these, but I love ridiculous endings to see where they can write their way out of it (which, well, you know how that worked out). As a whole, The Shadow is an underrated little gem that has enough charm and look to generally rise with its pulp trappings and offbeat plot to make for a curious recommendation for those who can see past shadows and fog.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*As devised by noted artist and also noted grumpy person Alan Moore. 

*As with Dolly Parton, we'll remember Tim Curry in this life and the next.

*Incidentally, it was nice to have a small role of Ethan Phillips, who played Neelix on Star Trek: Voyager. Why? Because I hate Neelix and Phillips' character in this film gets what Neelix deserved: bipped by the bad guy.

Well, it was a good run for Acknowledged in August Again.

There were many candidates that couldn't quite make the cut due to time or other reasons. These included: 1941, The Plague Dogs, Innocent Blood, Quintet, Sucker Punch, True Colors, Human Highway, Dream Lover, Over the Top, Things to Do in Denver When You're Dead, Bad Timing, Timebomb, Leviathan, Brain Donors, Rent-a-Cop, The Missing, 3000 Miles to Graceland, Cutters' Way, Swing Swift, Captain Ron, Circle of Iron, Keys to Tulsa, The New Age, Speaking of Sex, Powwow Highway, Monkeybone, The Frisco Kid, Twister (1989), Shoot 'em Up, The Phantom, Very Bad Things, Terminator: Dark Fate, The Taking of Beverly Hills, Moment by Moment, Big Wednesday, Let's Get Harry, The 13th Warrior, [Redux of Escape from L.A./Small Soldiers], Striptease

Barring an unforeseen emergency, August 2027 will see Around the World Again in August

Legend (1985).

Review #2385: Legend (1985).

Cast:  

Tom Cruise (Jack), Mia Sara (Lili), Tim Curry (Darkness), David Bennent (Honeythorn Gump; voiced by Alice Playten), Alice Playten (Blix), Billy Barty (Screwball), Cork Hubbert (Brown Tom), Peter O'Farrell (Pox), Kiran Shah (Blunder), Tina Martin (Nell), Robert Picardo (Meg Mucklebones), and Annabelle Lanyon (Oona) Directed by Ridley Scott (#100 - Blade Runner, #530 - Alien, #739 - The Martian, #1076 - Thelma & Louise, #1524 - Gladiator, #1879 - The Last Duel)

Review: 

"I could have taken this script and gone two ways. One would have been dark and Celtic, which would have limited it. The other was the Disney route, and as I made Legend primarily for children, my children to be precise, that’s the avenue I pursued. Having visual references to Snow White, Fantasia and especially Pinocchio were clear cut decisions by me."

Once upon a time, you really could just flop around with a fantasy movie. Ridley Scott's fourth feature film was a dark fantasy movie that he had been cultivating for years. He actually conceived the idea when filming The Duellists (1977) because his plans to do a movie on the medieval legend Tristan & Isolde fell through. However, he went with doing Alien (1979) because of his belief in a lack of audience appeal for Legend. After his time spent developing Dune saw him drop out, Scott went back to that fairy tale project that took inspirations from the Brothers Grimm. Scott met American novelist William Hjortsberg (writer of books such as Falling Angel [1978] and one other screenplay with Thunder and Lightning [1977]). and interested him into writing a fairy tale. Their shared appreciation of Jean Cocteau's Beauty and the Beast (1946) based their working relationship. The script was worked out from a rough storyline by 1981 into further revisions over the years before shooting began in 1984. There exist three cuts (complete with modified endings) of the movie because of audience perceptions. The first cut was 125 minutes long before Scott trimmed it to 113 minutes long for testing in America....that was apparently too long for folks to be entertained by, which saw over 20 minutes trimmed (such as the clockmaker's cottage sequence) to go with replacing the music score by Jerry Goldsmith for music by Tangerine Dream, Jon Anderson, and Bryan Ferry. International audiences in 1985 saw a 93-minute film while American audiences in 1986 saw an 89-minute film that was a flop with audiences, but at least Rob Bottin got an Academy Award nomination for his makeup on the film. In 2002, home video saw the release of a 113-minute Director's Cut that restored cut sequences and the Goldsmith score (which is what I saw; also, for whatever reason, there is a site detailing the road to getting the DVD there). Scott never has returned to the world of fantasy since, although obviously he continued directing, with his next movie being Someone to Watch Over Me (1987).

Part of me can't help but wonder why I found this to be a very, very, very average movie to experience despite the visual interest. For what it's worth, you are reading words from someone who had to look back to recall that I seemed to like Krull (1983) a bit better than Willow (1988). With Legend, you get a bit of a fever dream. It takes a hell of time to really get going but is at least held up with one notable presence to make its strange whims worth a trip, mainly because I can't find myself hating where it all ended up. It goes to the inevitable places that come with big red creatures and attempts at showing an adventure of light and darkness that may very well be fascinating for all of the right and wrong reasons possible, whether one finds themselves in the cult classic argument or not. Is it too murky? Maybe, but I go with murky. It's funny to cast two actors on dueling sides of getting to be known better. You've got Cruise just two years removed from Risky Business [1983] while Sara (five years younger than Cruise, I might add) made her debut before appearing in Ferris Bueller's Day Off [1986]...and then there's Curry being cast because of his film and theatrical experience.* Cruise is probably a bit too green to really make this role anything more than a middling hero (apparently it inspired him to suggest input for his next project with Top Gun [1986]), but his shakiness is somewhat palatable to watch. Sara fares better, mostly because she gets to play with the definition of innocence with the whole other getup worn around the climax. Sure, the chemistry between the two leads is shaky, but we are talking about folks in a strange unnamed land that go around throwing rings in water. I cannot imagine the time spent wearing makeup and iron frame lifts for Curry. But it sure seemed worth it with such a tremendous presence captured here. He oozes a certain type of devilish curiosity that really does seduce one into finding solace in shadows that makes the best type of threat: booming and a great threat in the eyes of eternity. It is kind of curious to have one person voice two characters (Bennent was dubbed over because of his accent), but I like the distinct levels of mischief played in voice/physical performance anyways, so I guess they got me there to accept that one talks in a handful of rhymes. Well, at least the movie is sometimes funny with people such as Barty and Picardo, at least. Its buildup to the big finish (well, a finish, because light, darkness, yeah, get it?) proves to be worth the journey in fun, and saying "oh but the cliche of good vs. evil" seems easy to then say "hey, I like some of those good defeating evil movies". In the end, it basically is the kind of movie you either "hum" with or you just let go by the wayside, but it has a sort of energy to me that I liked enough to accept on its own terms and find worthy to recommend with an open mind, at least.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*See, at least one good thing came from the overrated The Rocky Horror Picture Show, because Scott watched the movie in thinking about casting Richard O'Brien to play the role later played by Robert Picardo. Also, did I miss anything in the last three weeks?

Oscar (1991).

Review #2239: Oscar (1991).

Cast: 

Sylvester Stallone (Angelo "Snaps" Provolone), Ornella Muti (Sofia Provolone), Peter Riegert (Aldo), Tim Curry (Dr. Thornton Poole), Vincent Spano (Anthony Rossano), Marisa Tomei (Lisa Provolone), Elizabeth Barondes (Theresa), Eddie Bracken (Five-Spot Charlie), Linda Gray (Roxanne), Chazz Palminteri (Connie), Don Ameche (Father Clemente), Kurtwood Smith (Lt. Toomey), William Atherton (Overton), Art LaFleur (Officer Quinn), Robert Lesser (Officer Keough), Yvonne De Carlo (Aunt Rosa), Martin Ferrero (Luigi Finucci), Harry Shearer (Guido Finucci), with Richard Romanus (Vendetti), and Kirk Douglas (Eduardo) Directed by John Landis (#328 - Trading Places, #410 - Coming to America, #513 - Spies Like Us, #1114 - Animal House, #1462 - The Blues Brothers, #1465 - An American Werewolf in London, #1699 - Blues Brothers 2000, #1718 - The Stupids, #2026 - Twilight Zone: The Movie)

Review: 

"Oscar is a farce set in 1931, sort of Damon Runyon meets Feydeau. I shot the picture in a deliberately stylized manner, attempting a thirties Hollywood comedy look and feel (Peter Riegart, at one point, actually says, Why I oughta...)"

 

Sure, I had this on my mind for a few years. How could one not be interested in a film with a director and actor passing through different tides of their career? It was the film Stallone appeared in right after the first perceived end of the Rocky series with Rocky V [1990] while for Landis it was the first of a string of, well, six films with little-to-no appreciation in the 1990s (which includes The Stupids [1996], a movie I heartedly defend). The film is a remake of the 1967 film of the same name, as originally directed by Édouard Molinaro (which in turn was based on a play by Claude Magnier). The key difference between the two Oscars is that the Landis one is set in the 1930s rather than being a contemporary comedy of errors; Landis wasn't exactly a stranger to screwy comedies, as evidenced by Trading Places (1983), for example. The film was written by Michael Barrie and Jim Mulholland, who actually had written for the comedy skit anthology film Amazon Women on the Moon (1987) to go with years and years of TV comedy writing. The movie was neither a hit with audiences or critics, with the common remark being that audiences apparently were not willing to go with Stallone in a non-action role (apparently, a test audience member actually wondered when Stallone was going to take off his shirt and start blasting people). Of course, Landis and Stallone do not shy away from talking about the film and its distinct place when it comes to actors trying to play against type (particularly when compared to Stallone in say, Rhinestone [1984] or the film that immediately followed Oscar with Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot [1992])

I don't really understand how people didn't like this film. Was it really that hard to see Sylvester Stallone (who was cast in the film after Al Pacino came and went because Dick Tracy offered more money) do comedy? Really? Sure, the "Around the rugged rocks the ragged rascals ran" bit may have been familiar to some folks, but was it really hard to see how it could be played for worthwhile amusement with Stallone there to say it? Of course, Tango & Cash (1989) was sort of a funny movie that I appreciated with Stallone, so maybe broad It is a gangster film without any violence that confines itself to one location for most of its runtime (109 minutes) with a cast packed to the gills in names to see for later (and those that weren't as much) in support around Stallone that do the type of hit-or-miss comedy that is just about screwy enough to work. It is delightfully manufactured weirdness that contorts itself for a few delightful moments. Stallone isn't asked to do too much broad comedy here, but he clearly is game to play along with the idea of "civility" packed in a suit that handles the ever-growing confusion of daughters and cases with charm (I'm not sure if I agree with his musing that he should've played it "incredibly cynical"). Riegert and Palminteri accompany Stallone at times with their own goofy type of charm (one snide and one in constant confusion), which is delightful in the best ways possible. Go figure that Curry nails his enunciation act right then and there with dignified timing and (wait for it) charm to spare. Tomei is quite amusing in flapper attitude that is fiery in that momentary sparkplug of goofiness. It should be noted that Tomei was cast in My Cousin Vinny (1992) because the filmmakers for that film were invited to the set by Landis and liked what they saw of her acting in a scene, so that's one person who really benefitted from this film. For all the credit one can give to Stallone or others, Spano unfortunately draws the shortest stick, because he isn't particularly interesting enough to keep being in the film to draw attempts at what I think should be humor but is the equivalent of a vacant stare (Muti and Barondes narrowly miss the shortest stick). Others get less to nibble on but are neat for those who like certain faces or sounds in say, eagle-bleary-eyed Smith or the small double act of Ferrero and Shearer. The film drifts in and out with wry enjoyment at being a quirky flashback that I enjoyed more often than not with its dedicated cast engaged to make silly entertainment that is sincere enough to merit a look for the curious at heart.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars. 

Next up: Debt 1, Pirates 0 in Cutthroat Island. 

The Rocky Horror Picture Show.

Review #1449: The Rocky Horror Picture Show.

Cast: 
Tim Curry (Dr. Frank-N-Furter), Susan Sarandon (Janet Weiss, a heroine), Barry Bostwick (Brad Majors, a hero), Richard O'Brien (Riff Raff, a handyman), Patricia Quinn (Magenta, a domestic), Nell Campbell (Columbia, a groupie), Jonathan Adams (Dr. Everett V. Scott, a rival scientist), Peter Hinwood (Rocky Horror, a creation, with Trevor White as singing voice), Meat Loaf (Eddie, an ex-delivery boy), and Charles Gray (The Criminologist) Directed by Jim Sharman.

Review: 
"For me it was, I think, the most joyous time of my life. You know, I was still very young, it took me to Hollywood and to Broadway and into a kind of very peculiar immortality, and I'm very grateful for that."

It was inevitable to cover a film like this at some point. Some movies are born to be cult favorites, and this sure has proven to have a life of its own 45 years after release. It wasn't a big hit with initial releases, but it proved a winner with midnight showings, and the lingering success of doing these screenings have meant that it has not completely left the theater, the longest-running release in film history. When it comes to screenings nowadays, audiences usually are encouraged to say certain lines and practices for scenes or engaging in dressing up as the characters. It was based on The Rocky Horror Show, a stage play written by Richard O'Brien that was first performed in London in 1973. He wrote it as a combination of the unintended comedy of B-horror films with fifties rock and roll alongside his love of science fiction that hit in a time where glam rock was a hit within the United Kingdom. Curry, O'Brien, Quinn, and Campbell reprise their roles from the play into the film. 20th Century Fox wanted to make the film on a bigger budget with contemporary musicians of the day, but a compromise was made to use American leads with a cheaper budget instead. A follow-up film (of sorts) was made six years later in Shock Treatment, which retained Sharman as director/writer alongside O'Brien as writer again while retaining actors such as Campbell and Gray but without Curry, Bostwick, or Sarandon. Funny enough, it was a bigger failure at the box office than the first film (complete with being a midnight movie flop) although it has a small cult following of its own.

Perhaps I wasn't in the right mindset when I watched the film. How many horror and musicals can you watch before they all seem familiar? Of course how many films have a DVD that offer numerous versions to watch involving audience participation? Is it really something to make a film where you can exclaim a reference? The answer to these questions for me is simple: I don't care. Seriously though, while I can acknowledge that it may be an interesting film deserving of some sort of following with an audience (there are many mocking things one can say about encouraging yelling at the screen, but I'll let my bile pass), I cannot say that this was a winning film to enjoy wholeheartedly. Maybe it is the manner of its parody of horror and comedy, where making a hodgepodge of the two with mediocre songs is meant to be something to really laugh at as some sort of camp. You know that song "Science Fiction, Double Feature"? Most, if not all of those films mentioned in that song are probably better than this film. "Sweet Transvestite" may very well work as a song, but that don't help slop like "Dammit Janet" get much better. It proves exhausting to try and keep up with the film's supposed charms, where it proves to be one of the most infuriatingly mediocre films to ever run under two hours at 100 minutes. It may prove iconic for its era, but that sure doesn't mean it is any sort of high-end achievement either. There are basically five simple zones of defining a film's quality: awful, bad, average, good, and great to me, with no substitution or weaseling out of. Simply put, this falls completely in the average pile, with a sort of refusal to ever move towards being good or bad at any point where Curry isn't there.

If anyone proves to be a great highlight, it is surely Curry. A 1968 graduate of the University of Birmingham (studying English and Drama), he debuted on the stage (alongside television) the same year he graduated with the London production of Hair, where he met O'Brien. It isn't hard to see why this was the role that helped him to prominence, since one never really seems to take their eyes off such a daring performance, filled plenty of strange allure of grisly reality and parody. In a more-improved mediocre movie, one might actually just let the Curry performance sweep the other flaws aside and make it truly enjoyable. Bostwick and Sarandon nearly get lost in the entire shuffle, although the latter seems more suited for songs (of sorts, at least with that high voice). O'Brien and Quinn make some sort of duo, while Meat Loaf is sorely wasted here. The straight-laced Gray works only to deliver redundant explanations at times and occasional lyric contributions, which I guess is fine. Of course we are dealing a campy film filled with quietly ridiculous fellow acting, where everything is obvious for the sake of being obvious, where one is almost tempted to spray them with a water bottle to stop it. Patience wears thin when you start to grimace at the idea of yet another song, as if the true horror is actually how many times they can do a string of songs, since the horror-sci-fi pastiches only can so far. If anybody is going to claim the title of affectionate tribute to horror with comedy for the 1970s, it sure isn't going to be this film, since Young Frankenstein (1974) did every aspect with better style and better execution, whereas this just falls short of really resonating with me as a film (perhaps it just worked better on stage). Perhaps another time of watching it could provide some levity, but there are simply too many films to go forth and watch once before even thinking about revisiting stuff that didn't quite click the first time around. No sir, I will not in fact do the Time Warp again any time soon. It may not be a winner enough to make me like it, but it has its own following for a reason and it may prove just fine for those into what it tries to do in camp value.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Home Alone 2: Lost in New York.

Review #310: Home Alone 2: Lost in New York.

Cast
Macaulay Culkin (Kevin McCallister), Joe Pesci (Harry Lyme), Daniel Stern (Marv Murchens), Brenda Fricker (Bird Lady), Catherine O'Hara (Kate McCallister), Tim Curry (Mr. Hector), John Heard (Peter McCallister), Eddie Bracken (Mr. Duncan), Rob Schneider (Cedric), Dana Ivey (Mrs. Stone), and Devin Ratray (Buzz McCallister) Directed by Chris Columbus (#038 - Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief, #117 - Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, #118 - Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, #304 - Home Alone)

Review
In a way, I could be generous to this film given that originally I was going to review Santa Claus Conquers the Martians, but I backed out of sheer horror 15 minutes in. But then I realize, this film deserves no special treatment, not one bit. Is it horrible? I'll tell you this much: It won't continue the unintentional unlucky streak ratings in the past reviews (From 8 to 7 to 6 to 5 to 4 to 3), but it isn't as good as Home Alone either. While this film does have some of the Christmas spirit as Home Alone, my problem is that it feels too phoned in. It doesn't feel warming, it feels forced at times. The acting is decent, Culkin does a fine job, and Pesci and Stern do fine as well. The scenery sometimes looks nice, and it does have some decent laughs. But then the main glaring flaw comes in. It's a bit too...cartoonish. It may sound weird to say it, but it really isn't as funny, with one scene involving one of the bandits getting hit in the head with a brick...four times. I may be no doctor (just a reviewer), but I'm pretty sure that might hurt a whole lot more than it looks. They fall down ladders, they get slightly electrocuted (For a few seconds you can see a skeleton face as one gets electrocuted), they get hit with paint cans and more, and etcera and etcera. It goes on a bit much, and it feels weird the second time around, even though some of the gags are repeated and some are funny, it is a slightly weak sequel.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Hunt for Red October.

Review #080: The Hunt for Red October.

Cast
Sean Connery (Captain 1st Rank Marko Aleksandrovich Ramius), Alec Baldwin (Dr. Jack Ryan), Scott Glenn (Commander Bart Mancuso), Sam Neill (Captain 2nd Rank Vasily Borodin), James Earl Jones (Vice Admiral James Greer, CIA Deputy Director - Intelligence (DDI), Jeffrey Jones (Skip Tyler), Joss Ackland (Ambassador Andrei Lysenko), Richard Jordan (Dr. Jeffrey Pelt, National Security Advisor), Tim Curry (Dr. Yevgeniy Petrov), Peter Firth (Senior Lieutenant Ivan Putin), Ronald Guttman (Senior Lieutenant Melekhin), Stellan Skarsgård (Captain 2nd Rank Viktor Tupolev), Fred Dalton Thompson (Rear Admiral (Lower Half) Joshua Painter), and Courtney B. Vance (Sonar Technician Submarines Second Class Ronald Jones) Directed by John McTiernan.

Review
This film is great. Simply put, it has everything someone needs to be entertained, but learn something at least. Sean Connery is the main lead, overshadowing Baldwin, and he does a great job. Connery makes the film more big by his prominent preformance, taking some if not at least 70% of the film. The plot is good, not messed up or too hard. The film is the parallel to Top Gun, bringing light to submarines, yet this one is a better film, that would inspire sequels, but played by a different actor...

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.