underfire35's Reviews

A History of Violence (2005)

10/10

24 March 2006

There are very few filmmakers that I trust. I count David Cronenberg amongst them, which is good because in his latest film, A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE, it is required. On the surface the film seems to be fairly ordinary. The storyline is pretty much by the numbers, there are no great twists or revelations. To many, it may be an easy film to dismiss as just another violent action film. I suppose it helps to have a knowledge of Cronenberg's past films: SCANNERS, THE FLY, DEAD RINGERS, CRASH (not the recent Oscar winner), NAKED LUNCH, SPIDER. All these previous projects act as a kind of mission statement and give some insight to what Cronenberg is attempting to say with A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE. In this one film, he brings into play many of his past themes: violence, sex, death, identity, hidden lives, troubled interpersonal relationships, the decay of morality, the attempt to retain morality even after it has proved to be a chimera.

Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) is a peaceful family man. He owns a small diner in a small town in Indiana. One day two men enter the diner intent on robbing Tom, when the smoke clears, nothing will be the same for him or his family again. Not soon after a slick mobster with one dead eye walks into the same diner claiming to know Tom, to have a dark connection to him. Stall's wife Edie (Maria Bello) believes that the strange man is mistaken, that there is no possible way that Tom could have ever known this person. She supports him fully, but even she falters in her own mind. Tom's son, Jack (Ashton Holmes), is in many ways effected by the events. A cycle has started; at one point, after a showdown with the mobsters, Tom looks at his son and it seems clear that it was only a matter of time before Jack would be born into violence. The events that follow shed light on the mystery and so I will stop here. The plot outline is deliberately brief; to give too much information away would be to undercut the effect of the film. A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE is Cronenberg's critique on the specifically American love of violence and death. Being a Canadian, he can view it with a certain closeness, but still be able to stand back and look at the whole picture. I think his observations are spot on.

The focus, as the title suggests, is violence and in the film it is always sudden. It almost always is though. Whether unexpected like the Kennedy assassination or as inevitable as a beach front landing during WWII, there is always that one moment when force is applied to the human body resulting in injury or death. Once that happens, everything has changed. Like blood sprayed across one of Edward Hopper's more idyllic paintings, A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE both engages the audience in the gruesome acts, then repels them. In one scene where a character is shot in the top of the head, everything leading up to that point is choreographed in an "action movie" style. Where Cronenberg differs from many directors is that following the initial moment, there is a scene of the same man struggling to suck air through a mouth and jaw ruined by the exit wound. We, as the audience, have watched the thrill of the violence, but Cronenberg also makes us view the very real aftermath, he forces us to watch that character die.

The performances are another thing that brings a certain edge to the story. Viggo Mortensen brings with him the heroic stature of the LORD OF THE RINGS films, something that Cronenberg then toys with. Maria Bello brings strength to Edie, but also vulnerability as she faces a situation, and inward desires, that she cannot understand. Bello is fastly becoming one of my favorite actresses, between this film, AUTO FOCUS, and Permanent MIDNIGHT she has become one of the more underrated female leads working today. Ed Harris is always great and here is no exception. He does quite a lot with the small part of the mobster in creating menace and backstory. The standout, however, would have to be William Hurt, who shows up in the third act and simply dominates the story. Again, with brief screen time, Hurt creates a wonderfully oily, posturing, and completely incompetent villain. It is one of the most organically strange characters in recent memory. It could be stated that both Harris and Hurt are over the top, becoming almost caricatures, but I believe that was the intent of Cronenberg. The contrast between Tom Stall and these looming figures is pointed. Much like the setting of peaceful rural Indiana serves well as a backdrop for moments of shocking brutality. The juxtaposition of the two extremes is what Cronenberg wants to emphasize.

There is much first rate work behind the camera as well. The cinematography by Peter Suschitzky is understated though sharp, capturing all the nuances of Cronenberg's vision. Composer Howard Shore's music plays on the Americana of the setting, but slowly introduces darker undercurrents suggesting that all is not what it seems. The screenplay, adapted By Josh Olson from a graphic novel, while fairly mainstream in its construction, offers the perfect framework for Cronenberg's dark sensibilities. A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE seems to be a film that people with either "get" or dismiss. It is lumped together under the "action/thriller" category, but remains neither. It is instead a study of the elements that make up such a genre. Very rarely do action films deal with the consequences of violence, how it effects those whose lives that it touches. David Cronenberg has always been a challenging presence in film and A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE is no exception. His message is more subtle this time around, but that in no way lessens its impact. 10/10

3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Little Shop of Horrors (1960)

8/10

Great Oddball Stuff From The Master Of Cheese..........

31 July 2005

THE LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS is notorious in the "biz" for being shot in two days. This may be apocryphal, although I don't know because I wasn't there. The fact that it's a Roger Corman "quickie" that is actually good makes it all the more legendary. Corman is renown for making fast cheap exploitation pictures, but in recent years he has become a veritable icon in the world of independent film. He made movies his way, outside of the constraints the Hollywood system (although he would often copy successful formulas from industry projects). He has also launched the careers of countless well known actors and directors (Joe Dante, Ron Howard, Jonathan Demme and Francis Ford Coppola have all given him small parts in their films). If you average it out Corman has been involved, in some capacity, with about seven film projects per year, for the last fifty-one years. Being prolific does not necessarily equal greatness however and very few of his films have gained critical or financial success. In his respective field he moves what is known as quantity, but every once in a while things come together and something great emerges. This is the case with 1960's THE LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS.

The story opens on a "skid row" flower shop that is barely making the rent. The store is run by Gravis Mushnik (Mel Welles) who is at wit's end with his incompetent employee, Seymour Krelboyne (Jonathan Haze), who can't seem to even cut flowers right. Audrey (Jackie Joseph) is the only other person who works at the shop and Seymour spends most of his time silently pining for her. One day Burson Fouch (Dick Miller) walks in, orders flowers, and begins to eat them in the middle of the store (he adds salt, of course). Now this is a guy who has probably been tossed out of every other flower shop for thirty miles around, but Mushnik tolerates him (mainly because he's buying) and it is Fouch that offers up some sage advice. What they need is a gimmick, something to draw in the high-paying customers. Seymour sheepishly states that he has been growing an exotic plant at home. Mushnik demands a success or Seymour will lose his job. The plant, which he names Audrey Jr., becomes the talk of the town and the cash comes rolling in. There's only one problem: the botanical beast must be fed human blood in order to survive......

THE LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS was meant to be a pseudo-sequel to the Roger Corman picture A BUCKET OF BLOOD (which also starred Dick Miller), but that idea was abandoned (or I fail to see the connection). What Corman, along with his screenwriter Charles B. Griffith, has created, is a strange and fast paced black comedy. They get a lot of help from the actors who have great comedic timing, especially during scenes in the flower shop where everyone is talking over the other person. The writing for these scenes is sharp, but the cast really pulls it off (considering that most of the sequences were done in one take). The characters are another asset: there is the flower eater, a perpetually grief stricken old woman, and two coppers who exchange tragic dialogue in "Dragnet"-esque monotone (Cop#1: "My son just died."/Cop#2: "Those are the breaks. Let's role."/Cop#1: "Ok."). There is also Seymour's factitious disordered mother (played by Myrtle Vail) whose eyes light up when her son brings her a nerve tonic that is "ninety-eight percent alcohol." When Seymour brings Audrey over to the house, his mother prepares not "health food" but food prepared with health care products (epsom salts, caster oil, etc.). There is also Dr. Farb (John Shaner), a dentist who "extracts" revenge on deadbeat customers. And, of course, Jack Nicholson in an early (and oft mentioned) role as a masochistic dental patient. The fact that Corman and Griffith throw just about everything into the mix (the plant having hypnotic powers for example), and that they still manage to pull the whole thing off walks a thin line between skill and luck.

Although the fact that there was a Broadway musical based on Corman's project is well known, I'll quickly retread it here. When the stage production became a hit, the story was recreated for the screen by Frank Oz in 1986. These large scale productions lose some of the oddball humor of the original though, and some of the best things are missing (the mother, the cops, the cheesy production values). The reinterpretations do fail to fully capture the manic seat-of-your-pants energy of Corman's film, but they are fun in they're own right. THE LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS is a film about a talking plant who eats people, but somehow the cast and crew elevate the material above camp, above cult, above inspired, to masterpiece....Alright, maybe not that far but it's still pretty good. 8/10

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

House on Haunted Hill (1959)

7/10

Weird And Effective.........

31 July 2005

Warning: Spoilers

***No Spoilers Now, Read On.*** Six people have been invited to spend one night in a haunted house (don't worry it gets better). If they do, they will each receive ten-thousand US dollars. The house is rented, and the event orchestrated by, the eccentric kagillionare Frederick Loren (Vincent Price). Or is it, in fact, his wife Annabelle (Carol Ohmart)? The film keeps you guessing at the true purpose of the gathering and who is behind it. Those who accept Loren's invitation are: Lance Schroeder (Richard Long), a test-pilot, or racecar driver (I forget, something masculine and dangerous though); Nora Manning (Carolyn Craig), a "pretty" young thing who must provide for her family; Watson Pritchard (Elisha Cook), a drunk, who has murky familial ties to the true owners of the house; Ruth Bridger (Julie Mitchum) is a society page columnist who is known to over imbibe on games of chance; Dr. David Trent (Alan Marshal) has a particular interest in the psychology of hysteria (dark humors in the bile and what not) and views the event not just as a payday, but as an opportunity to gain insight into his area of study. They all need the money, for some reason or another, and willfully follow Loren into the imposingly Gothic house. He explains, over drinks, the rules of the night and that the doors will be locked at midnight.....from the outside! Nobody can get in or out, the windows being barred like a prison or.....a tomb! Anyway, they get a guided tour of the mansion from Pritchard who points out interesting features like the ceiling that drips blood, the pit filled with flesh dissolving acid in the wine cellar, and the spacious breakfast nook. Before everyone retires to their respective rooms, Loren presents them each with a "party favor": a small coffin containing a handgun. As the night proceeds, strange and unexplainable things occur, causing the guests to grow suspicious of one another and their hosts. The bumps in the night draw successively closer and then, out in the hallway, there is a scream........

***Be Warned, (Mild) Spoilers Start Here.*** THE HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL starts out as a standard "haunted house" picture until we realize that the only "ghouls" in this creaky old mansion are the people themselves. Greed, lust and betrayal are no match for ephemeral specters. However, the film never addresses whether the house is really haunted or not. Strange things do happen which defy explanation. The apparition outside of the second floor window or the rope that moves of its own volition would seem laborious to fake even for seasoned snake-oil peddlers like the Lorens. Could it be that they don't know or that perhaps they don't care, preferring another layer of confusion to mask their intentions? I have a feeling that director William Castle put these scenes in to keep people guessing, or confused, or scared, but ultimately entertained. Castle is infamous as the guy who put buzzers in the seats at movie theaters to shock people during THE TINGLER (1959) and at the end of THE HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL he reportedly hung a plastic skeleton from wires, sending it dancing above the audience (it was a simpler time then, when mild electrical shocks did not result in angry lawsuits). Castle was renown for such gimmicks and would become the unofficial inspiration for 1993's Matinée (which features a great performance by John Goodman). In THE HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL, the cast and crew never take the story too seriously and the film has a kind of tongue-in-cheek camp charm. Yeah, there's holes in the plot and stuff that doesn't make sense, but it's got Vincent Price and vats of acid. What more could you want? 7/10

4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

White Zombie (1932)

7/10

Explore The Origins Of "The Living Dead"..........

31 July 2005

A couple of years ago I saw the 1931 version of Dracula as part of a live performance for the new musical score composed by Philip Glass. Even in this refined setting, the film was met by laughter from the audience during several sections. This seemed rather odd to me, but I suppose older horror films cannot help but lose some of their initial impact over time. The black and white photography and performance techniques became antiquated, hence humorous to some. As time went on, filmmakers begin to spoof the broad overacting and dramatic music of the vintage horror picture. It is impossible today to view a film like WHITE ZOMBIE and fully understand the impact it may have had in 1932. It does, however, escape (for the most part anyway) the mirthful reactions described above.

Director Victor Halprin's telling of this tale is often cited as the genesis of the "zombie picture." There is some debate about this, but WHITE ZOMBIE is certainly one of the early films to deal with the Haitian legend of "the dead that walk." The story revolves around a young couple who have traveled through Haiti to meet with their friend and benefactor Charles Beaumont (Robert Frazer), at whose villa they plan to be married. He has designs on the young bride, Madeleine (Madge Bellamy), and enlists the help of Murder Legendre (the name kind of says it all) played by Bela Lugosi. After the wedding, Legendre performs some "witchcraft" rituals and Madeleine falls into a death-like state. Believing that she has in fact died, the newly minted groom (John Harron) spirals into a drunken maelstrom, eventually seeking out the learned missionary Dr. Bruner (Joseph Cawthorn) to help solve the mystery. All paths seem to lead back to Legendre as the plot thickens and Beaumont's true motives are discovered.

It is fascinating to watch these type of films, some of which, like WHITE ZOMBIE age well with time. This is partly due to the fact that it has been largely forgotten in the wake of the more successful Universal horror flicks. The main drawn here will be the performance by Lugosi. He essentially "vamps" his role in Dracula, but manages to fashion a fairly distinct and unsettling screen presence. It would be roles like this however that would lead to his rigid typecasting; as time went on, he was all but discarded by the film industry (see ED WOOD [1994] for his later years). Halprin's direction focuses on atmosphere and gloom. He is well paired with cinematographer Arthur Martinelli and together they create a suitably shadow-laden backdrop for this macabre story. WHITE ZOMBIE is ambitious in camera angles and editing. At one point there is a diagonal wipe edit, which stops midscreen to reveal the actions of two separate characters. This type of effect is effortless to achieve now, but must have been laborious in 1932. Observe also the unusually large transitional set of the plantation interior, or the framing of Lugosi though the ornate stone work during certain shots. These small details help set WHITE ZOMBIE apart by creating a realistic environment and aid in visually representing the pathology of the characters.

Since the 30's there has been countless movies about killer zombies run amuck. The concept predominantly became fodder for B-grade schlock productions. The genre would experience something of a renaissance in 1968 with George Romero's NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD which created quite a stir at the time and resulted in zombies becoming, once again, fashionable. The Haitian setting of WHITE ZOMBIE would also be revisited in THE SERPENT AND THE RAINBOW (1988) and the "undead" as a means of cheap labor subtext would be exploited for darkly comedic effect in the underrated HBO film CAST A DEADLY SPELL (1991). In recent years, there has been such a boom of these "living dead" productions that it is hard to keep track of them all. WHITE ZOMBIE, as an early example of this current trend, but should be seen as more than just a footnote in the ever growing history of film. It is not a great movie, like Dracula, but will prove to be of interest to film buffs at least. It has more to offer, though, and I hope that it will continue to be rediscovered by successive generations. 7/10

34 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Bat (1959)

5/10

Tepid Mystery Yarn..........

28 July 2005

THE BAT (1959) will probably seem, by today's standards, somewhat tame. Yes, there is a deranged killer who wears a glove barbed with razors, but he does not hack through his victims as is seen in recent times. In fact, he kind of bungles about like a clumsy spider trying not to scare away the flies. He begins to stalk a woman mystery writer, Cornelia van Gorder (Agnes Moorehead), who has, of course, rented the spookiest dang house in the county. She is joined by her spunky housekeeper (Lenita Lane) who plays much of the comic relief in the film. There is also the chauffeur (John Sutton), the doctor (Vincent Price) and the cop (Gavin Gordon) who enter and exit scenes at a rapid pace. We are told that there has recently been a spate of crimes involving (the aforementioned) murderous fiend known as "The Bat." We also learn that a recently deceased bank owner has hidden $1,000,000 in the creaky old mansion. This prompts the cast to run from room to room searching for the loot. All the while "The Bat" lurks in the shadows and everyone becomes a suspect as the story becomes increasingly convoluted.

THE BAT has such a jumbled "who's-on-first" type of pace that it inadvertently proves that nobody in the entire film could possibly be the killer. I watched it anyway, though not really caring too much about the outcome, and when the secret was revealed I was nonplussed. THE BAT is also a classic example of the "red herring" mystery. It is meant to keep you guessing, but leaves little time for the viewer to actually think about what's going on. The story throws out so many clues (like each character showing up with a bump on the head when a bump on the head would solve the case) that the whole thing feels staged. That could also be because THE BAT is based on a play by Avery Hopwood and Mary Roberts Rinehart (the earliest screen version being 1915). It could also be that looking at this film now, forty-six years after it was made, reveals how complex films have become. Take the contemporary example of THE USUAL SUSPECTS, it's the same type of story, the more recent film simply has more intricate twists and turns. The outcome is just as illogical, but it is the style that keeps the viewer's attention averted. This is what THE BAT attempts to do in a somewhat more limited way. It is not an altogether bad flick: the female leads are strong and it has just enough atmosphere to keep you from changing the channel. But whether watching it now, or comparing it to other productions from the same time period, THE BAT remains an average film. 5/10

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

March of the Penguins (2005)

8/10

A Beautiful Film.......

27 July 2005

It is becoming increasingly rare to find nature documentaries shown on the big screens of corporate-owned American theaters. And judging by the scant few people in attendance at a Saturday night showing of THE MARCH OF THE PENGUINS, I can see why. With the draw of so many garish productions offering the viewer an escape from the real world, films that actually do show the complexities and beauty of that world are marginalized. It would seem to me that the decision to release a US version of the french film LA MARCHE DE L'EMPEREUR (with different narration, performed here by Morgan Freeman, and a new musical score by Alex Wurman) was based on the success of the animated film MADAGASCAR, which features plucky talking penguins. I'm sure that this was not the sole reason, but I would guess it played a part in the minds of the distributors who were looking for a return on their investment. What MARCH OF THE PENGUINS shows, however, is that even without the power of speech, the emperor penguins in this film are intelligent and complex. It should also help reinforce the truism that animals do not have to talk or sing to be interesting.

THE MARCH OF THE PENGUINS follows the intricate and grueling migration rituals of emperor penguins as they cross the vast extent of the polar ice sheet to mate. Literally thousands make the miles long trip in a single-file formation. Having completed the voyage, we then see the busy process of choosing a partner and how the fertilized egg is exchanged to the males so that the females can make the return trek to feed. They will not return to the starved male penguins for about four months. In that time the eggs have hatched and the chicks take their first look out at the Arctic landscape. This frigid environment is unforgiving and not all the young penguins survive. The film handles these scenes gently. There is an inherent sadness in the idea that the world is hardest on those that can bear it the least, but it is, and the filmmakers do not sidestep the reality of the situation. The babies that do survive, frolic and prance about as the camera lovingly follows them in their antics. They grow strong, amidst peril, and ultimately return to the ocean to begin the cycle anew. This material will be familiar to avid readers of National Geographic magazine (the motion picture arm of which helped produce this film), or those who watch nature films on a regular basis. Actually, THE MARCH OF THE PENGUINS doesn't really offer any fresh or groundbreaking insight into the study of these animals. It is, however, one of the few films that captures, in such a stunningly picturesque way, the full scope of their journey.

In what must have been a harrowing ordeal in itself, the film crew coexists with the penguins in the harshest conditions (with temperatures falling to seventy degrees below zero and exacerbated by viscously high winds). The director, Luc Jacque, who also acts as cinematographer along with Jerome Maison, seems to have a deep respect and fascination for these animals. These feelings come through as his camera lingers on the birds, at times in close-up, capturing only colors and graceful movement. These delicate moments are well accented by Wurman's lovely music. The aerial shots of a huddled black mass of male penguins against the stark white landscape are striking and relay the enormity of the adaptive gathering. One detraction is that the narration often tries too hard to graft the equivalent human emotions onto the actions of the penguins. They may feel emotion, but it is different from the way that we do; there are parallels in the behavior that can be drawn, but Jordan Robert's script (reportedly a vast improvement over the surreal french version), which is mostly informative, does becomes heavy-handed at times. That aside, THE MARCH OF THE PENGUINS is a wonderful alternative to the daily grind of hyperactive theatrical outings which ignore the unique characteristics of the creatures that we share this planet with. 8/10

7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Swamp Women (1956)

1/10

Oh Yeah, It's Bad..........

25 July 2005

Warning: Spoilers

SWAMP WOMEN opens and closes with profuse thanks to the city of New Orleans and the state of Louisiana for help in making this film. If any of the people who are mentioned actually saw SWAMP WOMEN they may have insisted that the filmmakers thank Florida instead. The truth is, there seems to be few shots set in New Orleans; the rest of the film takes place in unidentifiable swampland (and various swimming pools). The basic story involves a gang of women, hidden diamonds and, of course, catfights. The woman in this film (after having cut the legs off their jeans) roll around in mud, water, and dirt, often times going from one to the other in the same scene. When their limbs are not entangled in heated female rage, the women sit around and talk, or sometimes dock a boat. It's all about the "bling" for these girls, so when they become stranded ashore they "boat-jack" two young lovers who are out admiring the fettering malaria-infested bayou locales. The girlfriend gets eaten by a shark (or something) along the way, but they keep her hunky boyfriend (Mike "Touch" Conners) tied up as an insurance policy. Considering all four of the girls are sweet on this guy, being a hostage does not seem like such a bad gig. Anyway, the plot of SWAMP WOMEN floats along like a flip-flop caught in the "lazy river" ride at your local waterpark. Towards the end, I just kind of advanced through most of the scenes unless there seemed to be some integral plot revelation (catfight) that could not be overlooked. Some stuff happened, I think, and then the film ended.

SWAMP WOMEN was produced and directed by B-movie maestro Roger Corman, which explains quite a lot. He is of course famous for giving just about everyone in Hollywood their "big break." It is true that he has fostered (or exploited) many young filmmakers and actors; the list would be far reaching and hard to compile. However, as a director, he seems to be only as good as the material he is given. Now this is the same guy who directed THE LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS, which is considered a classic in the "cheapie" genre, but was based on an inventive and outlandishly bizarre screenplay by Charles Griffith. Corman does not seem to be a director who interprets a writer's work, but simply puts to film every page he has in hand. Here, working with a script by David Stern, Corman fashions a no-budget fetish fest. SWAMP WOMEN lacks any style, vision or logic. Yes, I know, the film was a financially anemic early effort by Corman, but c'mon, the integration of different shooting locations and the obvious stock footage is embarrassing at best. I'm also fairly certain that they killed an actual rattlesnake in the making of SWAMP WOMEN. If this is true, then, as viewed through the looking glass of time, that snake's brave and noble sacrifice was ultimately in vain. 1/10

5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

UHF (1989)

5/10

Just As Bad After All These Years, But I'm Not Sure If That's Good Or Not...........

25 July 2005

I was about thirteen, or so, when I first saw UHF on that crazy thing called "videotape." It was a more innocent time then, when words like "spatula" and "fish" were funny. When the music of novelty act "Weird Al" Yankovic seemed fresh and original. Lamentably, those days are gone now. It is impossible to view UFH and obtain the same reaction as I had then. Seeing it now only brings me to the conclusion that it is an uneven comedy with some amusing gags thrown in.

The story is fairly thin and functions mostly as a clothesline to pin jokes on. "Weird Al" plays George Newman, a day dreaming half-wit, who inherits a failing television station from his uncle. He is helped along by his friend, and fellow dunce, Bob (David Bowe), as well as the mixed bag of oddballs who work at the station: There is Pamela Finklestein (Fran Dresher), the abrasive news "broad"; Noodles (Billy Barty) the dwarfish cameraman; Philo (Anthony Geary) the station's engineer who also hosts a science show and explains how to "make plutonium from common household items", amongst other things. George also enlists his neighbor, Kuni (Gedde Watanabe), for the gameshow 'Wheel of Fish', and who verbally assaults the contestants when they lose. There is also a subplot involving George's long suffering (how long depends on the length of time she has been dating George) girlfriend Teri (Victoria Jackson). When George decides to turn over 'Uncle Nutsy's Clubhouse' to the spastic janitor, Stanley Spadowski (Michael Richards), the show becomes a smash hit in the ratings. This raises the ire of the local network affiliate headed by requisite lout R.J. Fletcher (Kevin McCarthy). Wackiness ensue as R.J. orders the kidnapping of Stanley during a desperate fundraiser to save George's station from ruin. Will George triumph over adversity, or will the big/evil network seize his assets and drive him to suicide? I will personally send $.37 (US) to anyone who cannot answer this question correctly.

The outcome is of little importance anyway, it's about the jokes. The humor in UHF ranges from painfully obvious to sophomoric. There are few real laughs in the film and most of those are from the quick asides or transitional material. A good example of this is the 'Wild Kingdom'-esquire program where Raul Hernandez (Trinidad Silva) shakes the ant farms and teaches poodles how to fly. There is still something funny about throwing dogs out of a window (I can't explain it) and these scenes are helped along by Silva's delivery. The 'Conan the Librarian' sketch and the GANDHI spoof are both funny (if on-the-nose), accented by Monty Python type bloodshed. The overlong RAMBO sequence near the end has its few fleeting moments as well. In fact the jokes seem to work best when they do not involve Yankovic at all. His performance here conjures about as much humor as watching someone have a seizure in a public place. I still have a special space in my heart for "Weird Al", but he is hard to take for an extended period of time. This is not helped by the flat camera work. The director, Jay Levey, seems to just turn the camera on, leaving the room afterward, perhaps for noon cocktails at the catering truck.

But enough talk; it would seem nearly impossible to write a "serious" review of UHF. The film has achieved somewhat of a cult following and the DVD presentation is lavish. I figure this is because there will always be fourteen year old boys (and girls, though less of them) who will like UHF. "Weird Al" is still out there doing his thing, which means that this film will be perpetually rediscovered. Looking back, I don't find as many things as funny as I once did, but if UHF is on I'll watch it. It will also remind me of a time when I didn't demand so much from a movie; when stupid charm and ridiculous characters were enough. Those were the days I guess. 5/10

2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Last Man on Earth (1964)

6/10

It Has Moments of Interest..........

25 July 2005

THE LAST MAN ON EARTH is a slow, lumbering film that is elevated by inventive photographic techniques and a strong performance by Vincent Price. As the film opens we are told that the world has basically ended, that a plague has swept all the lands. The bad news is that the quickly spreading germ cloud turns the exposed people into vampires. We meet, whom the film suggests, is the only survivor on earth, a Dr. Robert Morgan (Price). Now Morgan has taken it upon himself to rid the planet of as many vampires as he can. He goes out during the day to track and stake the long-toothed badies, discarding them into a large fire pit. Morgan also collects garlic, crosses, and mirrors for the defense of his decaying home. It is revealed, through a stylishly book ended flashback, that Robert was a scientist who lost his wife and daughter in the madness and even now, three years later, he is haunted by the fact that he was not able to save them. Morgan is immune to the disease, although he seems to combat morbid self-pity more than the forces of darkness. One day he is shocked when he finds a woman (Franca Bettoia) out alone in the daylight. I'll stop here only to say that the situation may not be what it seems and that Morgan may discover that he is not, in fact, THE LAST MAN ON EARTH!

As I mentioned above, Price is (mostly) effective in the lead role. During the present day scenes, he is convincingly worn-down and harried. However, during the flashbacks, he struggles somewhat to paint a portrait of the normal family man; the writing here is not the best, and Price's persona as an unctuous villain counteract these scenes. I kept expecting the Morgan character to kill his wife and child, burn down the house and then flee to Mexico, where he would kill some Mexicans, then burn down some churches. Typecasting in movies was much worse during the first half of film's history and Price became known for his darker roles as time filtered out much of his other work. It would be into the "other work" category that THE LAST MAN ON EARTH would heavily fall. The story is a hybrid of science fiction and horror elements which, however, never really finds a workable balance on screen. The film is overlong and many of the sequences become static or pointless as the events slowly progress towards the increasingly surreal conclusion.

THE LAST MAN ON EARTH is mostly overlooked in favor of Price's more straightforward genre work (THE HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL, THE FLY, various adaptations of Edgar Allan Poe stories) and the story fails to be either good enough, or bad enough, to be memorable. It is worth viewing if one wants to glimpse the origins of films like THE OMEGA MAN, LIFEFORCE, or 28 DAYS LATER; although there are several screen versions of this same story that predate the 64' incarnation. It is also a fine example of that postwar "altered world" genre that film historians are always on about and which, they contend, reflect the fears of an impending nuclear threat that was prevalent at the time. THE LAST MAN ON EARTH will be useful as trivia (or as an erudite reference) at least. It should also prove mildly engaging if you happen to catch it on late-night television and are not expecting too much anyway. 6/10

6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Hotel Rwanda (2004)

10/10

An Important Film About An Often Ignored Subject.......

22 July 2005

When it became apparent, in 1994, that genocide was impending in the African nation of Rwanda, much of the west deemed the people of that impoverished country "unworthy" of aid or resources. On the part of the United States, Rwanda was low on the list of priorities; fresh from the Bosnia conflict, and interventions in Haiti and Somalia, the US did not want to risk involvement there. A small unit of UN peacekeepers were deployed, but suffered under heavy restrictions. They were given little money and outdated equipment. When Rwandan president Habyarimana's plane was shot down in April, the dam broke and Hutu flooded the streets out for blood. The minority Tutsi were considered the enemy and were targeted by roadblocks and constant radio broadcasts calling for their extermination. Moderate Hutu also came under the blade of the machete (the preferred weapon of the masses). What started as essentially a social conflict, or what most thought a prelude to civil war, erupted into chaotic slaughter amongst a poor and uneducated populous. Bodies lay strewn in the streets, in the houses and rivers. Even before the violence reached its apex, and the term genocide became unavoidable, the world powers seemed to have forgotten Rwanda and left the country to burn.

It is in the city of Kigali, during this period, that the film HOTEL RWANDA takes place. It focuses on the real life story of the manager of a five-star resort named Paul Rusesabagina (Don Cheadle), who has found himself integrated into the "style" of the west. He procures fine cigars and expensive whiskey for his foreign visitors and for the military elite who frequent the hotel. He is a Hutu married to a Tutsi woman, Tatiana (Sophie Okonedo), their children being of mixed blood. When the violence of April 1994 reaches his doorstep, he does everything he can to save his family, but finds himself a part of something larger. As the situation worsens, and the UN forces diminish, Paul uses his money, limited resources, and social contacts to protect the hundreds of people who sought the hotel as a refuge. He quickly realizes that there will be no intervention; the scenes involving Colonel Oliver (Nick Nolte), the frustrated UN peacekeeper, are pointed as he explains to Paul that the world does not care about him or his country. It is hard to deny that elements of racism played a part in the decisions of world powers and Paul feels betrayed by the false prophet of the west. In one of the most poignant scenes, Paul watches as foreign nationals are evacuated from the hotel. A busload of white faces pulls away, and with them the security forces, leaving the defenseless group of Africans to meet their fate. But events leave little time for self reflection, as there are almost hourly threats against the hotel and the people inside. Eventually the payoffs and bribes no longer work and Paul is left only with words, which he uses to play on the fears of men like General Bizimungu (Fana Mokoena), creating a sense of power he does not really have. After words fail, only hope remains.

Don Cheadle, who plays Paul Rusesabagina, is truly memorable. It is an important performance, and rare, where the actor ceases and only the character remains. Observe the scene when, having returned with supplies, Paul is overcome by what he has viewed on the roads. Cheadle is mesmerizing here, but he is just as nuanced in the smaller moments which makes his breakdown all the more effective and real. He does not falter for a moment. Sophie Okonedo is just as good; she is strong and avoids the "woman in peril" clichés so prevalent in film. It is Nick Nolte who reminds us here that he can be an actor of great depth when given the opportunity, and the entire supporting cast helps immensely. HOTEL RWANDA marks a departure for director Terry George, who is from Northern Ireland, and has worked almost exclusively with Jim Sheridan on stories about that region. Here he creates tension without gimmicks and allows the characters to develop. He puts a human face to the abstract bloodshed of Rwanda during the massacres, but avoids preaching or over sentimentalizing the harrowing subject matter. The cinematography, production design and music help George in recreating the time and place. HOTEL RWANDA seems effortless in its portrayal of the events, but these are, in fact, the hardest films to make.

It was difficult for me to imagine a film about the genocide in Rwanda as having a PG-13 rating. In a way it is good because the film will reach a wider audience and shed light upon a recent atrocity which was ignored at the time and has been largely forgotten since. Having seen various documentaries on the subject, read participant's accounts and seen chilling photographs of rivers choked with corpses, the true scale of violence was staggering. HOTEL RWANDA does not quite capture the brutality and horror of the events where mobs of people used sharpened car parts and bicycle handles to kill Tutsi as well as Hutu "traitors." It instead chooses to focus on the personal story of Paul and his efforts. He is a brave man who saved the lives of many through his efforts, although chance seems to have played a large part. The film should also help us look ahead to the events in the Darfur region of the Sudan where many of the same things are happening today and which has been obscured by other world events. The message of HOTEL RWANDA seems to be that something like this can happen at anytime, in anyplace, and that each instance is as worthy of our attention as the next. I hope this film will continue to have an impact but in the long term it is people, not films, that will make a difference. 10/10

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

People I Know (2002)

6/10

Kind Of A Letdown Considering The Talent Involved.......

22 July 2005

PEOPLE I KNOW centers around the character of Eli Wurman (Al Pacino). Wurman is an interesting guy, a civil rights advocate turned jaded New York publicist who has fallen out of favor with just about everyone, including himself. In the past he is said to have marched with Dr. King, but presently he finds himself trying to manufacture positive reviews for bad stage productions. He is aware that he has sold out, but is helpless to resist as the machine moves along relentlessly. He remains in the shadows, doing the things that need to get done and hustling everyone he knows, using all his juice to move things along in a society based on patronage and appearances. This is the situation when Eli's single remaining client, Cary Launer (Ryan O'Neal), sends him to rescue a wayward starlet (Tea Leoni) from jail. The unease is palpable as Eli follows the girl through a maze of intrigue and opium. His brother's widow (Kim Basinger) is also in town, looking for some salvation, and hoping that she has found it in the rumpled publicist. He is also in the midst of planning a large-scale liberal fundraiser. The event becomes an obsession for him; it seems one way to keep a link to his past which has become hazy due to failing health and a vice-filled lifestyle (he is not sanctimonious, imbibing in as much booze and narcotics as anyone in the film). He is selfish for the cause, but the cause is not, and it is unclear whether he still really cares about the civil rights aspects or if he fears losing his small role in the back-room power deals. He seems sincere, though his pleas become increasingly laced with rhetoric. There is mounting frustration at how much work it is to get people to do the right thing. Much of this subplot involves Eli courting a controversial black reverend (Bill Dunn) and a powerful member of the Jewish community (Richard Schiff). Both men like Eli, but neither likes the other and Wurman approaches each with the veracity of a used car salesman. He needs them at the benefit to make a "statement", knowing full well that without "big names" nobody will notice. The movie is at its best when swirling through the names of those people, both past and present, that Eli intends to manipulate. However, as his life begins to unravel, the film fails to move itself towards an organic conclusion and shortchanges the character of Eli Wurman in the process.

I watched PEOPLE I KNOW with my fiancée, who thought the film was dull until the quasi-thriller elements appeared. I, on the other hand, felt cheated by the odd turn of events which moved the plot into familiar territory. The first act is great, but PEOPLE I KNOW slowly descends into events that do not feel natural. The character of Eli is fascinating and it is a shame that the director and writer chose to opt for such a murky and dissatisfying conclusion. During the second half of the film, for example, there are many interesting individual sections, but they do not add up. Pacino is quite good however, although his southern accent does falter a bit (mostly during his rants). Basinger and Pacino have very little chemistry, but then again they have very little screen time together. The whole subplot between them seems forced, machinated for the purposes of the plot. She seems to be there to supply the viewer, not Eli, with hope and to add another layer of superficial drama to the film. Another drawback is that the dialogue continually reminds the audience what Eli is doing; saying, instead of implying, his motivations. If handled in a more subtle way, this would have allowed Pacino to simmer and not boil (see GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS and THE INSIDER). PEOPLE I KNOW is a small scale production that follows in the footsteps of films like SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS and THE PLAYER but lacks the energy, or insight, of either. It should be worth it for fans of Pacino, at least, and is well photographed (by Peter Deming), with a good supporting cast. That said, PEOPLE I KNOW fails to focus on a single set of ideas and ends up being abstracted and confusing, hardly a fitting fate for a guy like Eli Wurman. 6/10

2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004)

7/10

One May Have To Test The Water Before Swimming With These Guys..............

22 July 2005

As THE LIFE AQUATIC WITH STEVE ZISSOU opens, we meet famed oceanographer Steve Zissou (Bill Murray), who is premiering his latest "adventure" to an audience in France. During this recent expedition, a member of the crew, Esteban (Seymour Cassel), is killed by what Zissou contends to be a "jaguar shark." When asked if he will continue to seek this mystical creature, he states that he is going to find it and kill it. From the brief description above, it may be hard to imagine these opening scenes as being humorous, but they are. They also serve as the spark point for the "plot" of THE LIFE AQUATIC, which is the latest surreal comedic drama from director Wes Anderson, who has taken as his inspiration the films of Jacque Cousteau. Now I have put the word plot in quotation marks because most of the sequences in AQUATIC serve as vignettes, each with distinct internal stories, that in an indirect way advance the actual story (the quest for the shark). This is made all the more apparent by brief interludes of a crew member, played by Seu Jorge, performing David Bowie tunes in french. These scenes with Jorge (who also translated the songs) serve almost like a curtain in a play, something that obscures the transition to the next act. This theatrical tone is also present in the large cross section mock-up of the ship which Anderson uses for more lengthy tracking shots (which would have been impossible on a real ship). This is the technique that is employed as the ship is explored and the crew introduced: Eleanor Zissou (Angelica Houston), Steve's wife and the "brains of the operation"; Klaus Daimler (Willem Dafoe), a German seaman with emotional problems; Vladimir Wolodarsky (Noah Taylor who was great in SHINE) is the communications/radar operator who also composes the music for the Zissou films using two small Casio keyboards (AQUATIC's actual score, by Mark Mothersbaugh, is wonderfully cheesy); various members of the underwater camera crew and the ship's "interns" who are put to manual labor and other unpleasant tasks. There are also many subplots: one involving Zissou's producer, Oseary Drakoulias (Micheal Gambon), who continues to have problems generating funds for the antiquated cinematic adventures of the fading oceanographer. There is also Zissou's rivalry (both professionally and personally) with a well financed "corporate" explorer (Jeff Golblum). Jane (Cate Blanchett), an attractive reporter, joins the crew to write a story about the ship's exploits. She ends up falling for Ned Plimpton (Owen Wilson) who may or may not be Zissou's biological son.

As you can probably deduce, THE LIFE AQUATIC has a vast array of story lines and characters. It is for this reason that the actual plot (shark revenge) is kept open and abstract. Anderson is more concerned with the interplay of the large cast than with any linear progression of the story. It is this fragmented style that allows the film to diverge in many bizarre directions. The humor of AQUATIC is very dry and self-effacing, which helps in the transitions from wacky physical humor to warmhearted drama to fairly graphic violence. It is actually the scenes involving foreign pirates who hijack Zissou's ship, and the subsequent resolution during a rescue operation, where I laughed the most. I'm not sure what that says about me, per se, but it is to Anderson's credit that such episodes do not sabotage the entire film. That said, the unevenness of the events feel somewhat disjointed at times and if a viewer does not accept Anderson's sly tongue-in-cheek humor, THE LIFE AQUATIC could give the aesthetic of a jumbled mess. One has to, in a certain sense, "dive" into AQUATIC, suspending disbelief and rolling with the choices the director has made. I do respect the film for taking chances and not pandering to popular taste, but for a production that received such a large theatrical release it would seem to have somewhat limited appeal.

THE LIFE AQUATIC seems to be continuation of director Wes Anderson's overall vision. The one thing that it does suffers from is that his previous film, THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS, was damn near perfect. To make such a film so early in one's career, means that all others will be measured against that high-water mark. Now this is, admittedly, unfair but I am going to do it anyway. AQUATIC lacks the chemistry in the cast of THE ROYAL TENEBAUMS (or RUSHMORE for that matter), which makes this large ensemble piece feel a bit clunky. Anderson seemed more sure of who to use and when for the right effect in TENEBAUMS. This was helped by an extraordinary central performance by Gene Hackman who was much more giving and low key in contrast to Bill Murray. Murray is good, but has a performance style that is somewhat distracting. Actually many of the leads (Murray, Defoe and Goldblum included) each have such a distinct presence that they don't blend as smoothly into the larger work. Wilson, Blanchett, Gambon, and particularly Angelica Houston, seem to understand the dynamic better. They downplay their parts, which is especially crucial in the oddly sweet relationship between Jane and Ned. THE LIFE AQUATIC takes a while to get going, but in the end, I enjoyed the film. There are many memorable moments and clever asides and I applaud the filmmakers for using stop-motion animation (produced by Henry Selick of NIGHTMARE BEFORE Christmas fame), not CGI in the creation of the film's many whimsical sea creatures. It is Wes Anderson's knack for character design and ultimately his (borderline obsessive) attention to the smallest details that continue to make his films a rewarding experience. 7/10

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Predator 2 (1990)

4/10

The Predator Moves To A Lakefront Apartment.............

17 July 2005

After the success of the original PREDATOR in 1987, a sequel was bound to show up sooner or later. In 1990, PREDATOR 2 hit the movie screen to lackluster response. As with most sequels, it failed to capture, or duplicate convincingly, what had made the first film so popular. The first PREDATOR was a violent, well produced action film starring Arnold Schwarzenegger as the leader of a band of army commandos who are hunted by an alien creature in a South American jungle. The film remains a holdover from my formative adolescent years and I have come to appreciate it as a tight, suspenseful action thriller with inspired makeup design by Stan Winston. Well, in the sequel (as the tagline would suggest), the scene has changed from the actual jungle to the "urban jungle" of L.A. Where, during a heatwave, the city is beset upon by another malevolent visitor from beyond the stars. The hero this time is the tough L.A. cop (is there any other kind?) Mike Harrigan (Danny Glover). He is surrounded by mainly disposable characters who are designed to be threatened or avenged: Danny Archuleta (Ruben Blades), Leona Cantrell (Maria Conchita Alonso), Jerry Lambert (Bill Paxton, still in his screeching whine period; see also ALIENS), as well as various captains (Kent McCord, Robert Davi) who repeatedly tell Harrigan he is a "loose cannon" or that he is "officially off the case", etc. There is also a subplot involving a gang war between the Colombians and the Jamaicans, the turmoil being covered by a tabloid journalist (Morton Downey Jr. [!]) who adds bits of editorial insight into the various happenings. Adding to the cluttered attic that is the plot of PREDATOR 2 is a group of military researchers, lead by Peter Keyes (Gary Busey), who are out to capture and study the Predator; it is through them that Harrigan gains a more formative knowledge of what he is dealing with.

PREDATOR 2 is one of of those sequels that fleshes out the "mythology" of an enigmatic concept. We get insight on what the creature eats, various medical gadgets it uses, a brief glimpse at a "trophy case", and lengthy conversations on numerous behavioral patterns. In PREDATOR 2, we learn, for example, the actual "physics" of the creature's cloaking device, which is great trivia, but much of the mystery is explained away. The result of all these explanations is that the Predator becomes mundane, a bit of a bore. In the preceding film, many of these questions are left unanswered or implied, focusing on the tension and isolation of the events. Gone also is the juxtaposition of the original storyline: the soldiers are professional killers who encounter something that is even more dangerous than themselves. They are not heroic in any real sense, but highly skilled men on which the tables have been turned. In PREDATOR 2 we get the more straightforward good cop versus the evil alien scenario which is not as satisfying. Black and white is not as interesting, to me anyway, as the varied shades of gray that the original film created.

The fact that PREDATOR 2 has many well produced action sequences, but very little character development, should come as no surprise considering that it is directed by Stephen Hopkins (LOST IN SPACE, JUDGMENT NIGHT, BLOWN AWAY, THE GHOST AND THE DARKNESS). The first PREDATOR did not exactly have the most dynamic characters, but John McTiernan, and his actors, did much with narrative shorthand in creating a functional situation in which the viewer was, at least, concerned about the ultimate outcome of the commando's plight. In the sequel, however, the cast is mainly B-list, and those who aren't are wasted. Danny Glover steps into the lead role, but seems out of place as an action film tough guy (his character in the LETHAL WEAPON series, the closest comparison, had much more nuance). I would guess he was cast to lend some credibility to what is, in essence, an attempt to produce the same financial return as the original. It would also seem that the filmmakers expected a veteran actor like Glover to carry much of the human drama of PREDATOR 2 without much help from the supporting cast. Not to be overly critical here, the film does have some good points: Hopkins has a flare for explosions (forgive the pun) and gunfights and PREDATOR 2 is fun to watch for those reasons. Alan Silvestri returns as composer, adding layers of aggressive rhythm to his themes from the first film. The film looks good and the production design, particularly the interior of the Predator's ship, is impressive. I can't really say that I like PREDATOR 2, but it has enough action and goofy sequences (the scene in the subway were every passenger carries a gun for example) to make it a mildly entertaining guilty pleasure. 4/10

12 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Batman Begins (2005)

9/10

A Better Beginning...............

17 July 2005

I did not want to want to see BATMAN BEGINS. Viewing it in the theater required the temporary lifting of my boycott of mainstream American films. I've been dragged to far too many "blockbusters" in my day and have dished out ten hard-earned dollars for disappointment in return. Hollywood does not make films that very much interest me, but when I saw the credits block for BATMAN BEGINS (the cast, the director, the crew) I was intrigued. I eventually broke down and went to a matinée showing of BATMAN BEGINS and was greatly impressed. This however does not make me wrong about Hollywood. It simply shows that if you have a strong creative force behind a film, not even the devil himself can suppress it completely.

BATMAN BEGINS begins at the beginning of the Batman saga. As the film opens we meet a younger, more troubled, Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) who, while imprisoned in Asia, is approached by the mysterious figure of Ducard (Liam Neeson). Ducard represents the League of Shadows, a cultish organization of men who have extreme views on what is right and what is wrong. Wayne trains with them, but ultimately cannot accept their philosophy and returns to Gotham City where, as a small boy, his parents were murdered. We discover that it was a failed attempt at revenge for the death of his parents, as well as a fateful confrontation with a powerful crime lord (Tom Wilkinson), that drove him east to live the life of a criminal. In Gotham he reunites with his family's trusty servant Alfred (Michael Caine) and his childhood friend Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes). He also reunites with his family's vast fortune and resources. Troubled by his demons and the moral decay of Gotham City, he begins to fashion the alter ego of Batman. Under this guise Bruce Wayne starts to take back the the streets of Gotham and purge his own feelings of remorse over his parent's demise. He makes a connection with "one good cop" Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman), and builds up his armory under the watchful eye of Alfred and Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), who is head of the Wayne Enterprises warfare technology department (which answers the question "Where does he get those wonderful toys?" from 1989's BATMAN). When Batman disrupts a routine drug sale, he discovers that there is a deeper conspiracy that threatens the whole of Gotham City. I'll stop there, although the plot should be pretty familiar to those who followed the comic book/graphic novel series.

BATMAN BEGINS adapts a much darker tone than the previous films. The psychological profile of Bruce Wayne, as well as the other characters in the film, are explored with much more depth and care than one would expect. Director Christopher Nolan (MEMENTO, INSOMNIA) who, along with writer David S. Goyer, has fashioned an exciting, yet observant , story in which to place their well executed set pieces. Nolan is a young filmmaker who seems to have a firm grasp of technique. He treats the characters not as pawns in a video game, but conflicted people who do things for a reason. In a field that is dominated by CGI effects that make the impossible seem implausible, the action sequences in BATMAN BEGINS have a certain gravity to them. The fight scenes are murky and tight; the chase sequences are ruled by the laws of physics and not by the laws of the cheap thrill. This film also moves away from the comic book bad guy as such. The characters set against Bruce Wayne are not "bad" in any clear sense, but fragmented individuals who have adopted misguided ideals. They have no quirky deformities, brightly colored hair, or freeze rays and it is because of this fact that the foils of BATMAN BEGINS are all the more frightening because we can identify with them on a certain level.

I don't think that I've ever made specific mention of any casting agents before, but they deserve special mention for BATMAN BEGINS. John Papsidera and Lucinda Syson have assembled an amazing group of actors. Christian Bale seemed an unlikely choice to play the lead role; the chance pays off, as Bale plays on Bruce Wayne's inner conflict and creates a character that is more than just a rugged jaw line under a mask. Liam Neeson is perfect for the role of Ducard, as a man who is more comfortable issuing sage advice, but can still fight masterly if provoked. Michael Caine does wonders with his limited screen time, as does Morgan Freeman, Katie Holmes, Tom Wilkinson, and Cillian Murphy. It is great to have an actor like Rutger Hauer in a film like this and even better to see Gary Oldman in an important supporting role. It would be interesting to see the whole Batman saga restaged with this same cast and crew, but it seems unlikely that another film would be made, seeing that BATMAN BEGINS leads directly into Tim Burton's BATMAN. As a stand alone work BATMAN BEGINS is a strong film, and it is easily the best of the series. 9/10

6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Tiptoes (2002)

3/10

Um....Ah....Well, I Don't Know.....Hmmmm....... --or-- Searching for Gary Oldman.......

17 July 2005

TIPTOES is a film that attempts to deal with the largely unexplored subject of dwarfism, but quickly becomes convoluted and saccharine. The story is centered around Steven (Matthew McConaughey) who has been told by his fiancée Carol (Kate Beckinsale), that she is pregnant. What he has not told her, is that his twin brother, as well as his whole family are dwarfs, and that their child will more than likely be a "little person." We meet Steven's brother, Rolfe (Gary Oldman), who prompts Carol to discover more about what this means and in the process discovers important things about herself as well, etc. She becomes involved with an organization (modeled after the Little People of America, or LPA, group) whose aim is to promote understanding in the world at large. There is also a subplot involving Rolfe's friend Maurice (Peter Dinklage) and his relationship to Lucy, a "normal sized" woman (Patricia Arquette). Maurice is something of an anarchist, who rejects the politically correct nature of the "little person" label (as does Dinklage), has extreme views of the government, and drinks too much. He is one of the most interesting characters in TIPTOES, but is given little screen time and becomes more of a figurehead for the "little people are just people" subtext of the story (Dinklage would be given much more to work with in THE STATION AGENT). As the film progresses, the relationship between Steven and Carol becomes more melodramatic, and in the the end very little is resolved.

TIPTOES, as a film, seems to be more interested in delivering a warm-hearted message than creating a cohesive story. The film presupposes that the audience has a very narrow view of dwarfs: that they don't lead happy productive lives, that they aren't promiscuous or enjoy parties or drink to excess. All the "little people" in TIPTOES become exaggerated in order to dispel these notions, and are rarely given the opportunity to be simply characters in the story. The "normal sized" characters suffer from underdevelopment however and both McConaughey and Beckingsale fail to register as they are put through the motions of the uneven plot. TIPTOES rarely shows the prejudice that it constantly refers to. Observe the scene, when renting a motel room to Rolfe, Maurice and Lucy, the man behind the counter makes the comment "one adult and two children." No response is made by any of the characters, which seems unlikely considering Maurice is a gun-toting malcontent. The term "midget" is referenced as a derogatory epitaph, but little explanation is given (the word is a holdover from the "freak show" era). TIPTOES decides to sidestep many of these issues with well intentioned portrayals of normality, but generates little enlightenment into the specific social experience of dwarfs. Furthermore, the film fails to find the right tone for the material, going from bouncy to lachrymose in brief intervals; the subtext of Carol's pregnancy is also unsettling. The word 'abortion' is never used, but the capsulated plot detail on the packaging states that after she finds out her child will be a dwarf "Carol decides to have the baby anyway..." This line is used in a fluffy quasi-charming context and would be unthinkable to print if the unborn child was mentally handicapped or paralyzed.

Matthew Bright, the director of TIPTOES, has seemingly carved out a niche for himself by making odd-ball low budget films that have become cult favorites. Both THE FORBIDDEN ZONE, which he wrote, and FREEWAY, wrote/directed, have gone on to find a small, but faithful, audience on the fringe of modern film. The fact that the end result of TIPTOES was a soapy, romantic drama was apparently against Bright's wishes and he claims that the producers marginalized his input as the production went on. He went so far as publicly shun the finished film at the Sundance Festival. Even so, Bright is not a director whose work I would have sought out intentionally, but I was drawn to TIPTOES by the glimmering lure of Gary Oldman. Not only that, but Gary Oldman playing a "little person." After viewing the film, I am uncertain of what his motivations for choosing this film might have been. It could have been for the complicated technical aspects, or that it was a leading role that allowed him to show off his versatility. He does, however, create a fairly interesting, nuanced character (one of the few present in TIPTOES) considering the fact that he is playing a character roughly half his actual height, who walks with a cane (to mask the uneven gait while on one's knees I presume), and has a thick southern accent, all this while performing in heavy make-up (well done by Greg Cannom). That said, casting a person of "normal" size to play a dwarf (I'll let the reader draw their own comparisons) only added to the negative reaction the film received upon its' initial theatrical release (which was limited, basically going straight-to-video) from critics and the LPA. As other reviewers have noted, the methods by which the filmmakers accomplish the "dwarfing" of Oldman, cinematic ally speaking, are somewhat distracting. I would guess that the limitations in budget and time did not allow Bright and his crew to integrate the special photographic techniques as seamlessly as in a film like DEAD RINGERS. It is somewhat refreshing for a film to be relatively free of CGI effects, but the stand-ins and limited camera angles are obtrusive in sections and ultimately hurt the film. 3/10

30 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Alien Nation (1988)

4/10

Alien Notions better than ALIEN NATION..........

25 June 2005

The genre of science fiction, or more broadly speculative fiction, can be a very powerful medium. We can adventure through space in the distant future, or imagine alternative views of our own world. One is free to dwell in a universe free from time or place; to escape the modern world or discover a deeper meaning to that very same world. Review the literary works of Huxley, Orwell, Heinlein, Dick, Herbert, Sturgeon, Ellison, Bradbury, Vonnegut, Le Guin, and others, each adept at propelling the reader into strange, parallel, or wildly disparate realities. Keeping in the spirit of this topic, let us picture the arrival of an alien race to earth. After a lengthy quarantine, they are released to dwell amongst the inhabitants of America. There is, of course, an inherent level of racism that develops against these new members of society. The narrative ideas are vast: this ancient race struggling against a government where they are not represented; pointed social commentary on the civil rights struggle and of race relations since; these foreign beings coping with the garish culture of the United States; examining the class structures of immigrant populations; something, anything..........

What we end up with, however, is ALIEN NATION, a film that is essentially a cop/buddy flick starring James Caan and Mandy Patinkin. They are out to stop a drug lord and avenge the death of Caan's partner before they retire (or something to that effect). The point is is that ALIEN NATION, other than having Patinkin in outlandish makeup, offers nothing new to the tired clichés of this genre. Caan plays a veteran detective named Matthew Sykes, who after the death of his best friend/partner sets out to solve the crime himself. He is teamed with Sam Francisco played by Patinkin. Now Francisco is a "newcomer", a member of an alien race, bred for slavery, and whose native language closely resembles the peaks and valleys of a heart monitor. They learn at an incredible rate (hence they speak English) and get silly on sour milk. Salt water can disintegrate their flesh (a popular contrivance in late 80's cinema, WARLOCK being another example) and have bald spotted heads. At first Sykes is harsh and unwelcoming, but after a night of booze and rancid dairy products, he warms to the good natured Francisco. It would seem that the "slag" that killed Sykes' partner is involved with a scheme to distribute a drug that was rationed as a reward for hard labor on the slave ship. They begin to suspect the involvement of a wealthy "newcomer", William Harcourt, played by Terence Stamp (who, alas, had several more years of films like this before he made a comeback with THE LIMEY). This drug, in normal doses, produces enhanced strength, and in larger quantities causes a kind of gigantism. I'll stop there, but you can see where this is going.........

The frustrating thing about ALIEN NATION is that so very little of the "newcomer" culture is explored by the writers. We get bits here and there, but they are mainly used for comic effect or as plot devices. They have two hearts, but why? In the obligatory morgue sequence (replete with a coroner eating a sandwich), the aliens are shown to have no genitals, but a "stripper" in a later scene is shown to have breasts. Do they nurse their young? Are they warm blooded? I may be over analyzing these points, but they are valid in creating a plausible alternate race. The actors do what they can: Patinkin, an odd choice for a role such as this, is pretty good at bringing a sort of wide eyed innocence to the character of Francisco. On the other hand, James Caan seems to have a hard time taking this material seriously; his performance is functional, but he seems on the verge of breaking out into laughter during certain scenes. The direction, by Graham Baker (THE FINAL CONFLICT), is somewhat uninspired and there are few memorable sequences to speak of. The musical score by Curt Sobel (who replaced Jerry Goldsmith, after his lively, though weird, music was rejected) adds very little to creating an aural signature for the "newcomers." Stan Winston contributes fine creature makeup, although the incarnation towards the end appears almost identical to the monster from PUMPKINHEAD which Winston directed the same year ALIEN NATION was released. The film is, admittedly, mildly entertaining, in a goofy sort of way, but I couldn't help wanting more development from the narrative. There were several made for television movies and a series spawned by the film, but from what I understand these continuations offer little in the way of expanding the scope of the original concepts. To make a long story short, ALIEN NATION generates many interesting questions, but instead of answers, there are car chases. Oh well.......4/10

6 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Grudge (2004)

2/10

Read The Label Before Viewing.........

21 May 2005

THE GRUDGE:

Type: Slick Hollywood remake of a (better) foreign horror film (see also THE RING).

Ingredients: A cast featuring Sarah Michelle Gellar, Grace Zabriskie, Bill Pullman, Ted Raimi, Yoko Maki, William Mapother, Ryo Ishibashi who seem out of place in a Tokyo setting, most of whom converse in English. Confused characters who basically stare at the camera and continue to walk into a house where horrible things happen on a constant basis. A disjointed adapted screenplay by Steven Susco. Aloof direction by Takashi Shimizu who made the original foreign language film called JU-ON: THE GRUDGE (see also THE VANISHING for similar poor results of a director translating his own interesting thriller to the American screen). A decent, though derivative, musical score by Christopher Young. Flat lifeless cinematography by Lukas Ettlin and Hideo Yamamoto. A whole lot of cheap thrills, unpleasant images, musical stings, loud sound effects, poorly integrated special effects, implausible situations and an ending that seems to have been added after multiple test screenings.

Side Effects: May cause drowsiness, fatigue, rolling of eyes, nausea, regret at having paid to see the film. Do not operate VCR or DVD equipment in the event that THE GRUDGE is present in home. Viewers may experience a certain feeling of "sameness" if they have seen any horror films prior to THE GRUDGE. Confusion pertaining to what this film is about would not be an uncommon reaction either. A complete lack of interest in the characters (performed by a cast that has very little to do) may cause boredom, or a sense of detachment from the on-screen events. Avoid if relentless gore and violence (in place of any real plot) has a negative effect on you....In fact, my recommendation would be to simply avoid THE GRUDGE altogether.

Refills: No thanks.

2/10

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Quick and the Dead (1995)

5/10

Spaghetti Pastiche, Served Raimi Style........

14 May 2005

During the early 90's, the western genre saw something of a revival. DANCES WITH WOLVES won best picture in 1990, two years later the prize was claimed by the film UNFORGIVEN. Two versions of the Tombstone legend were produced at about the same time, TOMBSTONE (1993) and Wyatt Earp (1994), which varied greatly in tone and success. The trend was towards a revised, and, for the most part, more honest form of storytelling. UNFORGIVEN, Clint Eastwood's bleak masterpiece, attempted to dispel the stereotypes of the "old west" and bring to the screen a gritty and realistic portrait of violent people during hard times. This was not a new idea by any means (see Peckinpah's THE WILD BUNCH), but it was especially pointed coming from Eastwood who, thirty some odd years earlier, became an icon as the ambiguous central character in Sergio Leone's DOLLARS trilogy.

It is the style of Leone's "spaghetti western" that Sam Raimi seems to take as inspiration for his 1995 film THE QUICK AND THE DEAD. Raimi, at this point, had developed his own style of film making (THE EVIL DEAD films, DARKMAN) and the resulting integration of Leone's ideals results in some of the most satisfying moments in THE QUICK AND THE DEAD. It is also a film that embraces the western clichés, becoming more of a homage to previous cinematic renderings of the time period, which it relies on heavily. This is evident during the opening credits sequence where we see images of the prototypical western (buried gold, dusty landscapes, a graveyard) which sets the tone. Into the town of Redemption rides The Lady (Sharon Stone), who, drawn by revenge, enters the quick-draw competition that is held by the resident warlord named John Herod (Gene Hackman). The contest (and the prize money attached) draws a colorful array of supporting characters: Ace Hanlon (Lance Henriksen), Scars (Mark Boone Junior), Spotted Horse (Jonothan Gill); a hired gun named Clay Cantrell (Keith David); Dog Kelly (Tobin Bell), who has his own score to settle, and The Kid (Leonardo DiCaprio) who is a local with strong ties to the town. Herod has also brought Cort (Russell Crowe), a former member of Herod's gang turned preacher, to the event as an unwilling participant. What follows is a protracted series of gunfights, most timed to the strike of a giant clock which serves as a passing bell for the fallen contestants. Theses scenes represent the more entertaining elements of THE QUICK AND THE DEAD: swirling extreme camera angles, fast wide-angle pullbacks, bullet P.O.V. setups; at one point the camera looks straight through a hole in a character's head. The best and, oddly, the earliest major showdown, which occurs between Herod and Ace Hanlon, is the high point of the film. After the final revelation, and ensuing (illogical) climax, the viewer is, however, left with a slick package but very little content.

There are moments of development: Observe the scene where, after his daughter has been raped by one of the duelists (Kevin Conway), the barkeep (Pat Hingle) reaches for the man's gun, hesitates, then goes about his business; or the way Herod's hand shakes before one of the gunfights. But in a word, THE QUICK AND THE DEAD is about style. Raimi's vision for the film is helped considerably by several contributors: The cinematography, by Dante Spinotti, captures the dust, rain and the setting sun perfectly. Spinotti also remains flexible, adding his own mark to many of Raimi's outrageous techniques. Alan Silvestri, taking his cue from Ennio Morricone, fashions a score replete with whip cracks, trumpets and flamenco guitar. His work during the gunfight montage is particularly noteworthy. Pietro Scalia's editing (which must have been laborious considering the amount of cuts) and Patrizia von Brandenstein's production design add another level of depth to the story.

Gene Hackman can play a character like Herod in his sleep by now, and the film relies on Hackman's persona to backstop a character with limited screen time. He is one of the few actors that can handle a line like "...you better scuttle your butt out of town..." and retain a level of humor and menace. As Cort, Russell Crowe (in a very early American film role) also goes a long way with his conflicted preacher in a short period of time. The weakest link is Sharon Stone. Her character is wildly uneven; tough as nails one second, the next, weeping like a child. In all fairness the writing does not help the situation, placing, as it does, almost all of the film's emotional conflict on Stone's shoulders. It would be a hard part to play for anyone, but her performance is disjointed and she delivers many of her scenes far to straight (gender lines aside, an actor like Hackman would have internalized some of the melodrama). The supporting cast, filled in by many wonderful character actors, end up being nothing more than colorful cardboard targets. On a whole, THE QUICK AND THE DEAD does not live up to its lofty influences, but if the you chose to gloss over the film's weaker points, it is an mildly entertaining production in the mold of the western matinée. 5/10

2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1997–2003)

Simply Great Television (As Rare As That Is)........

13 May 2005

Warning: Spoilers

I remember seeing BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER, the film, during the early nineties. It was, if memory serves, a fairly affable B-movie spoof. Remembering the film not so fondly, I did not make a conscious effort to watch the series. I did however catch up with the show when all seven seasons were released on DVD. It seems fortuitous now, looking back, that the film was such a flop; if the movie had been successful we may not have had the series in its present form. "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", the series, is some of the best television ever produced and, during the creative high-points, some of the better work to be put on film.

Seasons:

1.) Sunnydale, California: We meet Buffy, a young high school student who is also "the chosen one", destined to fight evil in all its forms. Xander is the class clown; Willow the nerd with a heart of gold. Rupert Giles is Buffy's "watcher", who goes on to become her mentor and father figure. Angel, the love interest with a dark secret, rounds out the cast. The characters are filled in and high school conventions explored ('The Pack', 'Witch'). Also, the gang is challenged by The Master, an ancient vampire; the conclusion of this story line is the highlight of this season.

2.) After her confrontation with The Master, things heat up between Buffy and Angel. In 'Innocence' the consequences of their actions become clear; this is complicated by two vampires, Spike and Drusilla, who come to Sunnydale looking for the slayer. It is about midseason where the show takes a turn towards darker, edgier material. The writers begin to take chances and move in a direction that produces some of season's best episodes. Highlights include: 'Passion' and 'Becoming' a two-parter which concludes the season.

3.) As a result of prior events, a new slayer is summoned to Sunnydale. Faith, a "bad girl", is in many ways the antithesis of Buffy. The interplay is fun, as Buffy is seduced by Faith's take on the world, only the realize that power can be a dangerous thing. The gang is set against Mayor Wilkins, a charming and insidious villain who you can't quite bring yourself to dislike. This demonstrates another strength of the show: the characters are hardly ever played to type. The bad guys aren't all bad, nor the good guys good; the writing avoids the usual traps of television where it is seemingly easier to acquiesce to stereotypes than to add dimension to a character. 'Lover's Walk', 'The Zeppo', and 'Earshot' are standouts. The season ends on a whimper instead of a bang, however, and is somewhat of a letdown.

4.) High school behind them, the series moves to the local college. Spike returns, only to be captured by a mysterious government agency that is conducting experiments on the creatures of Sunnydale. One of these "projects" backfires creating Adam, the foil of the season. Although there are some great moments, the storyline gets weighed down by the military subplot and a somewhat flat villain. 'Hush' is the strongest episode of the season (and one of the strongest of the series as a whole). The finale ('Primeval') as well as the surreal coda ('Restless') end the season on a high note.

5.) The best season of the series, it features some of the strongest individual episodes ('Fool for Love', 'Checkpoint', 'Family'). Giles opens a magic shop and Spike joins the cast full time (the transition to ally is aided by a behavior modification microchip). The main protagonist is Glory, an exiled god looking to reclaim her seat at the expense of the world. Tied to this subplot we get the surprise addition of Dawn. Suddenly conjuring a character in an established series such as "Buffy" may seem like a cheap move (the explanation is quite convoluted), but the writers integrate Dawn amazingly well under the circumstances. By the the season's concluding episode ('The Gift') the viewer has come to an acceptance (or at least a suspension of disbelief) of Dawn in the narrative. 'The Body', vampires and demons aside, is the most frightening individual story of the series.

6.) The weakest and most melodramatic season, which features what, for me, is the highlight of the series: 'Once More with Feeling', a musical, is a wonderful example of what the medium of television can offer. More than simply a novelty show, 'OMWF' progresses the series along and allows the viewer a glimpse of character motivations (Giles' song is particularly moving). The rest of the season suffers from this early highpoint however, with much of the story told (and the season's budget spent), the viewer gets a run of tepid, soapy episodes. The overall tone of the season is dark and unpleasant. The absence of Giles does not help; although having him leave was the right choice, it still leaves a void that the writers have a hard time compensating for. The addition of a trio of "super nerds" adds some drama, as well as levity, but not until the last three episodes ('Villains', 'Two to Go', 'Grace') does season six begins to show signs of life again.

7.) The final season leads back to the Hellmouth as the reopening of Sunnydale High creates a gateway to the underworld. The viewing of all the previous seasons is almost a prerequisite; as the series winds down, constant references are made to prior story lines and many characters (including Riley, Angel and Faith) show up for closure. In 'Conversations with Dead People' we discover that the gang must battle not only the undead, but evil itself. Tension begins to build as evil forces, human emotions, the past and future collide to form the final episodes of the series. 'Chosen' is the powerful conclusion which brings the battle between good and evil (both metaphorically and literally) to an epic finish......10/10.

7 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Saw (2004)

3/10

At Least I Didn't Pay To See It...........

1 November 2004

Since when did the prerequisite for being a serial killer require a BA in graphic design and an extensive knowledge of spot welding? The murderer in SAW seems to have a flare for the dramatic and time on his hands, never a good combination. As the film opens we find two men caught in the thinly constructed web of said psychopath. They are Adam (Leigh Whannell, who co-wrote the script) and Dr. Gordon (Cary Elwes, THE PRINCESS BRIDE), and they are chained to the walls of an abandoned bathroom. There is a dead man in the middle of the floor and a clock on the wall, it's a pretty nice clock. Anyway, they each listen to a micro-cassette on which the voice of the killer explains his wicked hedge maze of deceit and horror. They are given clues and begin to piece together what little they know about the situation they find themselves in. Oh, and there are pointless flashbacks to the killer's previous crimes and of two cops (Danny Glover[?] and Ken Leung) who hang around because a movie like this needs cops who do that. We learn more and more about the two men as the clock runs down towards the hour of our killer's ultimate evil crescendo.........

I blame several previous modern films for the the likes of SAW and its ilk. SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, for creating the hyper-intelligent icon of killer as genius; THE USUAL SUSPECTS which launched the "twist ending" that doesn't have to make sense as long as the movie is stylish; and SEVEN, which spawned the serial killer as moralist avenger. SAW uses all these conventions and mixes them all together and adds some irritating MATRIXesque CGI set-ups for, seemingly, no reason because they undercut the tension by speeding up scenes which, if played straight, would have been grueling and dramatic.

Truth is is that SAW is just another film entry in a group that includes such films as MINDHUNTERS and THE CELL, where whatever loosely constructed plot gets buried in a wash of the screen writer's own prescient cleverness and some production designer's fetishistic vision of the "mind of a killer". SAW isn't as bad as either of the two films mentioned above (a movie has to have ambition for that, which SAW doesn't), but I can't help thinking that Hollywood dragged the fetid lake of quickie psych-horror flicks so they could make a few bucks on the Halloween crowds marching through the theaters over the weekend looking for knee-jerk thrills and high volume musical stings. And if SAW is sold out there is always THE GRUDGE. 3/10.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Bubba Ho-Tep (2002)

9/10

A Strange Kind Of Masterpiece..............

29 July 2004

BUBBA HO-TEP is a wonderful example of the unfettered creativity of independent film. This story would not have been filmed within the cloistered dank ruins of the Hollywood assembly line, whose job it is to churn out formula productions, bloated with CGI effects and devoid of any original concepts. So it is certainly refreshing that we have an alternative market where a film like BUBBA HO-TEP can get made. The film is full of odd characters, surreal situations, off the wall humor, and a surprising amount of depth and warmth. The film creates a specific atmosphere of realism; all I can say is that if an elderly Elvis, aided by a black man who thinks he is JFK, had to fight an evil spirit in a Texas rest home, it would probably happen just like this.

As the film opens we find Elvis (Bruce Campbell), now pushing seventy, laid up in an old folk's home with various infirmities. Through a series of flashbacks we learn that Elvis had switched lives with an impersonator, which allowed him to step out of the limelight. Well, the faux Elvis dies on a toilet in 77' and the real Elvis breaks his hip while on stage. All this he explains to the head nurse (Ella Joyce), who dismisses the old man's story as delusional rambling (which would be a common reaction for a rest home orderly). The only friend Elvis seems to have is Jack (Ossie Davis), who thinks he is JFK stowed away after surviving the assassination. Jack is a real crackpot, who reads tabloid psychology books and skin mags; he gives his dubious sage advice with a deadpan conviction. This knowledge comes in handy, however, when the two elderly men are faced with a soul sucking mummy whose spirit has escaped during a bus crash in the small Texas town where they live. This "Bubba ho-tep" is draining the life force from the occupants of the rest home, until Elvis and Jack decide to take a stand and attempt to vanquish the foul creature once and for all......

Okay, a movie like this could go either way; in this case it goes the right way. The makers of BUBBA HO-TEP find the perfect tone for the material. The writer/director Don Coscarelli, adapting a story by cult writer Joe R. Lansdale, wisely focuses on the characters. Elvis and Jack are given a proper treatment, detailed and quirky. Consider the scenes in which Elvis reflects on his past life, his daughter and his wife. They are sad and poetic, above the standard fare of your run-of-the-mill horror flick. In fact the story isn't really about the mummy at all, it's about two old men who reclaim their freedom and rebel against a dark force that is closing in on them, something that they cannot control. They find in this conflict with the unknown something to fight for, a reason to live.

Bruce Campbell delivers the best performance of his career, and quite possibly of 2003 (as well as compounding his cult hero status). He doesn't overplay the accent or the in-jokes, it is not just an imitation, but a wonderfully organic representation of an icon past his prime. Ossie Davis is just as good, a fine actor with a sly sense of humor. Daniel Vecchione's production design is also worth noting, as well as Brian Tyler's eclectic musical score which adds another layer of quiet emotion to many scenes (and also diverts attention from the fact that the production could not afford to use a single Elvis song). Sure to be a cult classic, BUBBA HO-TEP transcends the genre and should be explored by those seeking an alternative to the mind numbing assault of Hollywood product. 9/10.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Xtro II: The Second Encounter (1991)

1/10

Hot Garbage...........

27 July 2004

XTRO II: THE SECOND ENCOUNTER is a truly dismal film. It is about as subtle as a thief in the night wearing a suit made of pots and pans. XTRO II is such a blatant rip-off of the ALIEN films (ALIENS mostly) that it becomes somewhat embarrassing. The pacing is just as bad. There is so much walking, searching and waiting for the "alien" that I fast-forwarded through much of the film. There's just nothing happening. The few times the creature decides to show up, I was extremely nonplussed. The downtime, and there is plenty, is occupied with washed up actors and soon to be washed up actors who deliver their lines based on dubious scientific precepts badly. It has been a long time since Jan Micheal Vincent has been on 'Airwolf', and has seemingly carved a niche for himself in bad science fiction and soft-core porn flicks.

In conclusion, skip this film. Do anything else: learn another language, smash your toes with a claw hammer, watch the original ALIEN. Laying in an empty bathtub staring at the ceiling is more productive than actually viewing this film. I have not seen the first XTRO, nor have I seen XTRO 3 (!), nor do I plan to. How do films like this get made? And if given the chance, wouldn't most people make a better film? I don't know and I don't care. XTRO II is an abject waste of time. 1/10.

3 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Blind Fury (1989)

8/10

Not As Good As I Remember, But Still..........

17 May 2004

BLIND FURY is one of those guilty pleasure films. The late Chicago film critic Gene Siskel cited it as such during a broadcast of the show he co-hosted with Roger Ebert several years ago. It is not a great film, but has real moments of warmth and humor that are hard to ignore. It's difficult to explain, but what could have been just another vapid action film, is fleshed out by good performances, a self effacing sense of humor, and solid direction.

During the opening credits, we meet Nick Parker (Rutger Hauer). Having been blinded during a firefight in Viet Nam, he is taken in by a local hamlet and nursed back to health. The villagers also teach Nick the art of the sword, we get several scenes of his progress in which he becomes a master. Jump ahead twenty years, as Nick wanders down a country road, walking stick in hand. He is on his way to visit an old friend from the war. After a silly scene involving switched hot sauce, Nick arrives to find that his friend, Frank Devereaux (Terry O'Quinn) does not live there anymore, having left for Reno. Well, Nick meets Frank's wife and son Billy (Brandon Call). Enter Slag (the Randall 'Tex' Cobb), who has come to kidnap Frank's son, to force Frank into making designer drugs, so that an evil Reno casino owner can pay off his debts. Anyway, after a especially violent debacle, Nick is sworn to protect Billy, and off they go to Reno to rescue Frank.

Admittedly, BLIND FURY is plot heavy, and a lesser film would have sunk under the weight. But the film never gets overly involved with the story, never really takes it to seriously. This is director Phillip Noyce's follow up to DEAD CALM, a tense thriller that put him on the map (he would go on to helm PATRIOT GAMES, SLIVER, THE SAINT). It is a campy ode to samurai pictures and westerns, war movies and ninja chop-em-ups. Noyce sets the right tone and keeps the action moving. Observe the scene, near the end of the film: there is a tense moment when Billy throws a sword to Nick. The sword sails in the air, in slow motion, the music builds and the sword slips right through Nick's hands. It is a wonderfully funny moment.

Another important aspect is the character of Nick Parker. As played by Rutger Hauer, Nick is a simple man, not a super hero. He reacts through instinct to the situations he finds himself in, and uses mostly evasive techniques (similar to Jackie Chan), to defend himself. Hauer does a good job blending the realities of blindness with the Hollywood clichés, which makes scenes in which he drives down one-way streets, and the like, very entertaining. The film makers also keep the violence in a backlit, comic book style, never becoming overtly graphic (the antithesis of something like KILL BILL, where the characters dance through geysers of arterial spray). BLIND FURY is an enigma, it is not wacky enough to be considered cult, it does not deal with important subject matter, yet it is still somehow affecting. It will be cast into the discount bins at your local mall, left to languish in obscurity. But for those who will give it a chance, you may be surprised by this standard action fare raised to a higher level by a talented cast and crew. 8/10.

56 out of 64 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Road House (1989)

3/10

A Tawdry, Violent, Mullet Fest..........

10 May 2004

ROAD HOUSE would be a better film if there weren't so much of it. It is a long violent, pointless film; its purpose is to distract rather than comment or create. At the start of the film, we meet Dalton (Patrick Swayze), a renowned bouncer who has taken a job to clean up a local Texas dive, the Double Deuce. Dalton is a deeply spiritual man, who has a degree in philosophy ("Um, man's search for faith, that sorta...s***") and a heart of gold. After a tough night, Dalton finds himself getting stitches from an attractive blond doctor. Later, when she shows up at the Double Deuce (in a dress that makes her look like a picnic table), Dalton drives her home, and well, you know. Meanwhile, our hero has become the target for the wrath of the local eccentric psychopath, Brad Wesley (Ben Gazzara), who drives around in a monster truck blowing things up. As Wesley's attacks become more personal, Dalton is forced into many fight scenes that go on for too long. As tensions mount a final showdown plays out, and only one man will be left standing. There is few innovations in ROAD HOUSE, every character fits nicely into the formula of the genre. Dalton, is the stoic gunslinger who comes to town and ends up saving it. Another good example is the chthonian character of Wesley, who, you'll notice, never works, just scowls and abuses the help. Denise (Julie Michaels), exists for the sole reason of wearing tight dresses and eventually bares her breasts to everyone in the bar (on this point, I have no specific contention). Jeff Healy acts as a kind of Greek chorus who supplies revelatory details as the plot demands. The only interesting character is Wade Garrett, Dalton's mentor and friend, who shows up for no apparent reason. Sam Elliott plays Garrett as a tough guy past his prime, he fights while favoring his bad leg, and gives the sense that ten years ago he was the toughest guy around. The audience connects with Garrett, more than Dalton, and I can't help but wonder how much better ROAD HOUSE would be if it were about him. Rowdy Herrington directs this picture with all the deftness of a fourteen year old boy. It's all about breasts and monster trucks, but he does not realize that those elements can play a part in a plausible narrative. The film is cheesy and poorly paced, even small moments of entertainment are lost in the unpleasant events of the film. The fight scene between Swayze and the local churl Jimmy (Marshall Teague), near the end of the film, is more concerned with the detailed choreography than with the conflict between the two characters. It goes on for far too long and fails to capture that spark that makes you shadow box along with it. It simply goes through the motions. In fact very little connects in ROAD HOUSE, and by the ridiculous ending I had stopped caring about any of it. 3/10. By the way, how does one become a renowned bouncer? Is there a annual convention in Munich or something I don't know about.

14 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Spartan (2004)

10/10

Mamet Painting On A Larger Canvas.......

14 March 2004

As SPARTAN opens, we learn that the president's daughter is missing, presumably abducted. Val Kilmer plays Scott, a Special OPS pro, who comes in to handle the details of an operation that may have to extend beyond the letter of the law. In the end, finding the girl is the most important thing, how it is done will be mostly forgotten. Scott enlists Curtis (Derek Luke, ANTWONE FISHER), to be his cover man. Meanwhile, the White House has sent in Stoddard (William H. Macy) and Burch (Ed O'Neill) to act as liaisons and advise the Secret Service and the OPS crew on the investigation, while, of course, keeping the interests of an election year President in mind. Layers of intrigue begin to build, but the one question that the characters continually ask is, "Where's the girl?"

So the stage is set for SPARTAN, an ambitious new film by Chicago playwrite David Mamet. It expands the playing field from the rather intimate tales of con men and thieves Mamet has become known for. Mamet is increasingly becoming one of the most interesting writer/directors in film, and with SPARTAN, he tries his had at the suspense/thriller genre. The great thing about the film is that it is both suspenseful and thrilling. Mamet creates such a level of tension, while using such a lean style, that it is a real joy to watch. This is augmented by the realism of the situation. The audience is plunged into the sub-basement of this operation; the characters inhabiting loading docks, make shift command posts, dank military quarters, and dirty hotel rooms. Most films would have focused on the emotions of the first family (we never see them once), but instead gets down to the nuts and bolts of what these highly trained individuals must do to accomplish their mission. All of this allows Mamet to keep his action tight, much like a stage play, but without compromising his story.

Another asset is the cast. Val Kilmer goes along way in creating a character that we care about. I cannot stress how important that is, if a film puts a character that the audience is indifferent to in danger, the film is less effective. We come to support Scott and his mission, if he is shot at, we are concerned. The dialogue he is given is direct and smart, he speaks like an experienced professional, not an action hero. The character is given no back story, nor a detailed explanation of his experiences. Kilmer observes all these angles and turns in a strong central performance that the rest of the film works off of. The supporting cast is great as well, the standouts being Derek Luke, Ed O'Neill and William H. Macy (a Mamet regular from way back), helping to add another layer to the complex plot.

SPARTAN avoids the quick editing and wall-to-wall pounding musical score that cripple most modern action thrillers. Mamet interpolates the set pieces into the story so that at the other end the story has been moved forward, instead of being interrupted. The musical score by Mark Isham is a washed out elegy, slow string movements over dissonant churnings. It never calls attention to itself and is a good example of how music can be used effectively in this genre of film. What really shines in every frame of SPARTAN is the thought, care and restraint that went into making it, something that most films these days could certainly use more of. 10/10.

3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

underfire35

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed