Reviews

My endless search for baseball movies led me to a beat-up VHS copy of NIGHT GAME purchased off Amazon for 1¢. A serial killer flick with a baseball connection? This I had to see.

The plot, or at least the motive of the killer, was intriguingly unique: a reliever cut from the team exacts revenge by using his hook (which replaced his throwing hand lost in a bus accident that occurred when he was going back to Triple-A) to slash blonde women who resemble his replacement's new wife, striking when the new star pitcher posts a win. Cool, right? Like the movie BLINK, this killer's motive is unlikely but plausible; it could have made a decent movie (like BLINK).

But NIGHT GAME --um, don't want to go there...but..okay -- strikes out with poor directing, most notably in the complete lack of suspense during the stalk sequences. This is one of those movies where the female victims do nothing to defend themselves, actually putting themselves in unnecessary danger. The worst offender is the last victim. Question for the ladies: If you were being followed by a creepy truck in the middle of the night, would you run into a construction site, up the stairs, with your shoes off? Suppose you would; after stepping on a nail, would you cower on the edge of the floor begging for mercy, or pick up a 2x4 and defend yourself?

One other attack doesn't make much sense either. Two young ladies are murdered inside a carnival's house of mirrors. Now, wouldn't you think somebody would notice a guy with a hook for a hand enter/exit the attraction? With a serial killer on the loose who already killed an employee of the carnival, security would be stepped up just a bit, don'tcha think? One expects these lapses in a Jason flick, not a supposedly serious movie starring the man who killed Jaws. These scenes (actually, every scene in the movie) are directed with the minimum amount of energy required, and so forty minutes into the movie you're wondering how much longer 'til the end.

There's not enough bloodshed here to satisfy the gore crowd, only one gratuitous boob shot to please those looking for gratuitous boob shots, and not enough actual baseball intertwined with the plot to make those like me recommend it on those grounds. In fact, the only things I got out of this movie are some shots of the Astrodome and some movie-geek trivia: here's a movie with actors from Jaws 1-2 (Scheider) and 4 (Karen Young I think her name is, possessor of aforementioned boob). Too bad Dennis Quaid or Lea Thompson didn't make an appearance.

Oddly juxtaposed with the French home-invasion suspenser "Them" at the Philadelphia Film Festival (what, is Philm Phestival too clichéd?), "Like Old Times" is the brief reunion of a married-but-separated alcoholic and his boyhood bully. Visually competent but unremarkable, it's well acted and written, with a cute gag at the end I didn't see coming. (I thought the bully would rob the drunk again, y'know, like old times.) What else to say about a seven-minute movie? The bully's t-shirt is good for a chuckle. The conversation itself seems natural and spontaneous, providing enough background to wonder whether the alkie's troubles originated in childhood.

A pleasant enough short but I'm guessing the only reason the PFF attached it to "Them" is due to that movie's brief running time. Or maybe since both deal in some way with child malcontents?

I was one of the few who paid to see this in theatres. Twice, in fact. Big things were, I assume, expected of it, since it opened on two screens. That's not uncommon nowadays with today's huge multiplexes screening every decently-marketed movie on multiple screens the first two weekends. But in the 80's only the biggest blockbusters (like INDIANA JONES movies) shipped duplicate prints to moviehouses, and then it was rarely, if ever, more than two. (In contrast, INVINCIBLE opens this weekend on three screens at my local 'plex.)

MDM was unspooled on two of my local theatre's five screens, and I went that first Saturday afternoon for the matinée in the bigger of the two houses. I was one of less than thirty people there. I went again the following Saturday, and the film had already been demoted to just the one, smaller house. And it was even less in attendance.

What went wrong? I thought it was pretty funny (I was 13), laughing loudly a good bit of the time. The open ending was intriguing, which is why I went a second time. I seem to remember solving the mystery of the missing millions' whereabouts, or at least hearing the common consensus. If it entertained this junior-higher, why not millions of others? Oh, I see: checking IMDb's release schedule, I discover this movie opened a week after HARRY AND THE HENDERSONS (a small success that catered to a similar demographic) and directly against PREDATOR, which was a big hit (and was--we can all pretty much agree--a better movie). Either or both of those movies may have eroded MDM's audience.

There were two differences between the theatrical and home video versions that stick in my mind. The first is the ending. Originally the movie ended with the two detectives talking about where the rest of the money might be and then breaking the fourth wall to allude to the real-life contest. The video release, however, had the detectives talking about the characters on their wild goose chase, along with some kind of coda about destiny or futility or something (it's been a while).

The second concerns not the film exactly, but rather the different ways I saw it. It's a 2.35 widescreen movie and I remember a shot of a row of eggs with a word on each that, when unscrambled, revealed a clue to where a portion of the money was hidden. (The final egg, which contained the most vital word, was broken to check for the presence of a bomb, or something. Again, I'm going back years here.) The eggs made a long line that the director showed in a single static shot. When I later viewed the movie on TV this shot was now a slow pan. I didn't know at the time why this was, but looking back now it was my first conscious sighting of panning-and-scanning. (My eyes weren't truly opened about the necessity of letterboxing until a few years later when I saw a widescreen version of HALLOWEEN.)

As for the merits of the movie itself, it's a distant third behind MAD MAD WORLD and RAT RACE (and I'm not a fan of either). Certain images linger in my memory: a Volvo melting in a pond of toxic waste; a K-car with really bad rear shocks; a slapstick encounter with a Murphy bed; a hot-air balloon (see Ebert's Little Movie Glossary for what that signifies); and a car stolen from a lot. The characters I remember are Eddie Deezen as a newlywed, a ginger waitress in a pink(?) uniform, a rock singer(?) with two groupies, and a yuppie family headed by Rick Overton, I think. Gotta check the cast listing here, hold on. Yeah, it was him, and, hey, I forgot Rich Hall was in this movie. It doesn't get any more early-late 80's than Rich Hall.

The $4M in the movie was hidden in four different locations in identical amounts. Let's see if I can recall. One was of course the final quarter up for grabs in the Glad Bag contest (revealed in the Trivia section). One was under or inside a bridge in Arizona, maybe. Another may have been connected in some way to a well. As for the fourth, I have no idea.

Is there enough consumer interest to warrant a decent DVD release (or any release)? I'd buy it if it were priced under $15, and I can't be the only one. It deserves at least a no-frills release as an interesting cinematic curio, along the lines of the bare-bones DVD for LEONARD PART 6 . Like that infamous Cosby turkey, MDM bombed badly in the 80's, but Hollywood doesn't seem to want its embarrassments from that era digitally remastered for excavation today (note the absence of HOWARD THE DUCK and ISHTAR on DVD). It's certainly less dated than MAD WORLD and more child-friendly than RAT RACE.

Not much to say about THE MAN (well, not much positive), but there's a really odd, homo-erotic moment when the bad guy offers Levy to check him for a body mic. When the villain makes Levy pat down his crotch he (the villain) gets this proud, pleased look on his face, like "Yeah, I'm packing a big somethin' somethin' down there, ain't I?" (There are a few other, smaller h.e. moments too, like when Levy checks out Jackson's back tattoo, and is there some sort of subtext with all the talk about being shot in the butt?)

The movie itself is poorly directed, blandly photographed, and the illegal-gun-running plot would be confusing if either the audience or the writer cared. And Sam Jackson's I.A. agent character was really unpleasant some of the time. Are we supposed to like him, or at least think he's a good cop? I dunno. It's not funny to see him repeatedly beat on the informant with garbage can lids and phone books and hit him with his car again and again, or the way he treats the local cops when they pull him over.

Some big, isolated laughs (highlight: Levy's "He's my bitch" bit), but it's less of a movie than an experiment to see how Jackson and Levy play off each other. Levy gets most of the laughs (is it an inside joke or typecasting that he's in the dental field again after WAITING FOR GUFFMAN?), but they ain't no Riggs and Murtaugh.

Oh, and would you believe the movie contains the most played-out scene in action movies: the one wherein the cop's superior demands his gun and badge. Can this please be retired, please? Since the movie looks really cheap I assume the producers got a bargain deal for it--and others--at the Movie Cliché Store. (Like, has anyone ever had their vehicle commandeered by a cop? According to cop movies, it happens all the time.)

I love horror movies, foreign films and baseball. So when I came across BATTLEFIELD BASEBALL at my rental store, I was elated. A Japanese zombie baseball flick? Excellent!

Or so I thought. For a horror movie, there's disappointingly little gore. For a foreign film, little insight into its land of origin. And why does a movie with "baseball" in its title have virtually no baseball action in it? (The "battle" mostly uses bats, while the "field" is in dire need of a grounds-keeper.) Is it wrong to complain about what a movie should have been, instead of what it is? I was curious to see the myriad ways one could defeat the undead on a baseball field generally within the games rules: Anticipating a line drive decapitating the pitcher, or a base-runner sliding into second with razors on his cleats, eviscerating a middle infielder while breaking up a double play.

But there's nothing like that here. There's also little sense of the game how it's played and revered in Japan, and the tiny differences I did notice I'm not sure I believe. Do they really employ cheerleaders? (Outside of the Florida Marlins, who should be ashamed of themselves, that's unheard of here in the States.) Do their umps really use whistles? Do they really score points instead of runs?

Apart from the lack of actual baseball and blood & guts, the movie offers little to recommend it otherwise. There are a few small, funny moments, but most of the movie is shot through a sickly pea-green filter, the characters substitute nuance for monotonous yelling (just like DAY OF THE DEAD, the most disappointing American zombie movie I've seen), the zombie makeup is embarrassingly bad (they've got more pancake than IHOP), and, for some reason, the lead ghoul is dressed in vaguely Old-West fashion, resembling the elderly zombie from HOUSE II (*not* a movie one should be reminded of).

And the humans keep coming back to life. Why care about what happens if there's no doubt everyone will be around at the end?

Oh well, burned again on another bad baseball flick. Hope BALL OF WAX, when I get around to buying it (my store doesn't have it to rent), is at least watchable - a low-expectation descriptive that certainly does not apply to BATTLEFIELD BASEBALL.

I rented this movie many months ago and took notes, but haven't been motivated until now to post them. First, here's a random list I started with:

glaciers

dismemberment

reclusive nun

car chase

avalanche

mountain climbing

Nazi lore

fatal highway accident

eugenics/genetics

secluded private school

mausoleum

ice caves

eyeballs

acid rain

Olympians

dog breeding

rainy nights

twins separated at birth

I seem to have at the time made an attempt to compare this movie to JENNIFER 8. A tense mood starts it off but the plot becomes overly convoluted. I followed most of it at the time but damned if I can explain everything afterward.

Random note. The Jump the Shark moment: the video game fight sequence that was dropped in from some lesser Jet Li flick.

More JENNIFER 8: The wintry setting, but instead of a dismembered hand kicking things off, it's a corpse minus its hands.

And there's the blindness.

And the killer in shadow pointing a gun at a cop.

And then there's SMILLA'S SENSE OF SNOW. The same intriguing setup but the longer it goes the sillier it gets.

And there's the ice caves.

And -- I don't remember what this note means -- the "crucified" victim. This must have meant something to me at the time.

Cool chase scene. Nice to see the killer escape for no other reason than being able to outrun the cop. No obstacles or anything.

Also like the story structure - how the viewer follows two cops working on two seemingly unrelated crimes, then meet up when their investigations merge.

But, whose body was photographed after the '82 accident? Triplets? Where did the body go?

Completely absorbed in the mystery at first; when the school files were discovered missing, I was anticipating the best thriller since SEVEN. But the clues and red herrings started piling up like an accident at the screenplay factory, and disappointment set in when the car chase started. Why not a vehicular action sequence? By that point the movie already contained nearly everything else except a long-lost twin and a bag of chips.

Reminiscent of any number of serial killer thrillers from the past decade or so, from good (SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, BLINK) to not so (again with SMILLA AND JEN8).

Why so many thoughts of JEN8?

1st half: 10/10 The rest: 6/10

Why did the sister impose self-exile? The possibility of a supernatural/demonic element in the puzzle was such a distraction, so was sacrificing her old life don to keep her secrets? And don't nuns have to be virgins? How much did she know about the murders? I'm not sure why she did what she did, if she did what she did, which I'm not sure about either.

That's about it. The more I think about what I think I know, the more questions I have.

----

So, there are my notes from many months ago. Yes, they're ridiculously incoherent, but that's what I wrote at the time.

I had no interest in seeing JEEPERS CREEPERS II, but lately I've been in the mood for some horror containing thinly-disguised homoeroticism. Another spin of FRIGHT NIGHT wasn't gonna do it for me this time, so I rented THE BROTHERHOOD. But that's possibly the cheesiest, most boring horror movie of the last five years, so I looked for something else.

I didn't care for the first (I hesitate to say "original") JC. It had a terrific opening, but when the Creeper revealed himself, the movie sunk into a morass of tired horror clichés and incredulous plot points. No way would I sit through a sequel, I decided at the time. But when JC2 was released, I read all about the manflesh on display, which was not surprising considering who the director was. So I decided to give it a shot someday.

That day came yesterday. (I was in the mood for a newish horror flick, but CABIN FEVER--my first choice--was out.) But last week I finally got around to checking out FINAL DESTINATION 2, a sequel better than I expected (though inferior to the original). So, judging by that, I thought maybe JC2 wouldn't suck.

But I shouldn't have been so hopeful. Sure, the setup--kids trapped and isolated in the middle of nowhere with no means of escape (reminiscent of the best segment in CREEPSHOW II)--held promise, and there's plenty of male eye candy to go around, but the mediocre acting and wretched dialogue make it impossible to care about any of these teenagers (who, in grand cinematic tradition, are played by actors in their 20s). Their reactions to the horrors around them are maddingly mild; coaches and teammates are knocked off, but these kids barely whimper. There was one scene of honest emotion (one character begs for forgiveness about some racial nonsense), but this moment was frustratingly brief. And this movie seems to beg for mocking backtalk and helpful advice to be shouted at it. Examples: One character tries to become top dog by saying, "It's time to stop being polite..." I'm sure I'm not the first one who had a "Real World" flashback and responded with, "...and start getting real!" Other moments have been done to death in other similar movies, like when characters stop to stare at the bad guy instead of moving their asses. In JC2 a few kids find an abandoned truck in the middle of nowhere, but take a moment to watch the Creeper, um, creep toward them. Get in and get the hell outta there, ya idiots!

I'm tired of bad movies, but never get tired of bitching about them. So allow me to wonder where the law enforcement is where the Creeper stalks. A group of high school students fails to return from an out-of-town game, yet nobody comes looking for them. (And where are their parents?) Guess the movie's too chintzy (and too aware of its target audience) to hire any more adults than necessary. Which is too bad, since the bus driver--the only character that commanded my attention--was a grownup. At the time I didn't know what about her appealed to me, but a simple IMDb search made it clear. Aha! She was the faux stewardess ("it's my sister's uniform") in MIRACLE MILE, a movie I've always liked. (Since she was my favorite character in JC2, of course she wouldn't survive long.) And it was nice to see Laura Palmer's killer get work again, although this won't be a movie Ray Wise will happily include on his resumé. Near the end of JC2, during his final confrontation with the Creeper, he goes all Young Tommy Jarvis on the bat man, repeatedly stabbing his torso while wailing, "Die! Die!" Not a clip that'll be shown in the future Oscar Death Montage eulogizing him, I imagine.

But what about the Creeper? Forgive me for not remembering if this was covered in the first movie, but what is this creature? Where does it come from? How does one explain its physiology, or its ability to elude documentation of its existence? Doesn't this rural area think it's strange that there are a wave of missing person reports every twenty three years? And does this movie take place twenty three years after the first one? If so, then why are people still driving cars from the 1950s? (Maybe they're just supremely crafted American machinery, since the last scene in JC2 definitely takes place twenty three years later, yet these vehicles are still around.)

A less important question I had was what sport these kids played. It was never revealed, but, with the prevalence of black students on the team, I'm assuming it was basketball. Forgive my ignorance, but are there many black families in the rural farming communities of the northern plains (where I presume this movie is set)? Are high school hoopsmen this physically developed? And why are there only three cheerleaders along for the ride home?

I guess none of this matters to the filmmakers, since for some reason there's no title card affixed to the movie. Anyone seeing this movie without knowing it's a sequel would have no clue what it was. This inexplicable omission implies that this could be any random Dead Teenager movie, which, it turns out, would be the right call.

No way am I gonna see the inevitable JC3, unless, of course, there are more athletic, bare-chested young men to ogle.