Reviews

5 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Wish Upon (2017)
3/10
A Movie Without An Identity
1 November 2020
"Vulgar auteurism" is a thing, right? I don't pretend to keep up with the nuances of modern film discourse or whether or not we're pro-or-anti auteur theory at a given moment (personally I'm deeply ambivalent about the topic), but as I understand it it's usually used to refer to someone who prioritizes visual style and spectacle over thematic content and substance. Well, does it count if the director in question is literally the blandest, least interesting, most by-the-numbers and safe you could possibly get? So much so that it actually loops around and becomes kinda interesting in an ironic, detached way?

Most people would call these people hacks and they're probably right, but I find John Leonetti's particular idiosyncrasies (that being the complete absence of any whatsoever) to be oddly fascinating. This is a man with no style whatsoever, a man with only the most basic sense of visual storytelling (no doubt inherited from a long, fruitful career of cinematography) who stages, shoots, and cuts every single thing in the most elementary way possible. Even the first OUIJA had a messy behind-the-scenes story to keep my attention. WISH UPON had nothing. Absolutely nothing. So much nothing that it started to draw me in.

WISH UPON is a movie made from other (not necessarily better) movies. It's story, characters, setpieces, jokes, locations, and even needle drops are all borrowed from any myriad of films and tv shows of the past 25 years. It's flatly-lit, sterile Toronto locations are every CW show or Lifetime Original Movie of the last decade. It's performances, by good actors who can and have done better, are just repeating gestures and readings done elsewhere by others. It's target audience is that nebulously-defined but highly-profitable 13-19 demographic more in search of something to do with friends than a particularly good horror movie. It's film that's had every single piece of its identity stripped away from it and replaced by something else, creating an incongruent Frankenstein that's less than the some of its parts. And yet...

I think it's the cast, in part. A pre-STRANGER THINGS Shannon Purser in a thankless third-tier supporting part that stands out by how little she's given to do (never has it been more apparent of when a film was shot before an actor got big, but released afterward). Sherilyn Fenn in an equally thankless part that nonetheless seems to recognize that "Hey, this is Sherilyn Fenn, you all know and love her you 15% of our demographic". Jerry O'Connell in a (almost literal) blink-and-youll-miss-it cameo that seems to indicate either a deleted scene or a friendship with a castmate. The sister of Katharine Langford, who doesn't look enough like her sibling for you to mistake her for her, but with enough of a resemblance to trigger some kind of low-key uncanny valley effect.

Maybe it's also the hilariously ungainly MacGuffin, a piece of art direction so oversized and poorly-designed that I wouldn't be surprised if it was just some random prop fished out of a warehouse the day before principal photograph. Note that Chinese wish boxes aren't a thing, that hulking mass the movie decided to make it's Cenobite Puzzle Box was entirely the conscious, deliberate creation of the filmmakers.

Maybe it's how much the film reminds me of an episode of Goosebumps (not the original series, one of the off-brand revivals from the past five years) in its premise, characters, and execution; with any semblance of campy charm stripped away and the threadbare story strung out to a feature runtime.

Or maybe I'm just going stir-crazy from the world falling apart, and I'm grasping at straws trying to cling to something while the overwhelming tide of unimaginable injustice and chaos subsumes everything I or anyone else has ever known. Who knows.

Happy Halloween y'all.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
The Most Deliriously Stupid Thing I've Ever Seen
23 October 2020
Warning: Spoilers
I can't stop watching this. Somehow, someway, this thing has wormed itself into my brain and won't let go. It's just so compelling in how bizarre and misguided and deliriously stupid it is on so many levels (you could write an entire dissertation on this movie's very very very very bad and weird but also complicated views on race).

At one point, during the third act there's a bit where a belly dancer appears flailing a pair of katana around much to the voracious delight of a bunch of drunk Japanese soldiers. I kinda wish the rest of the movie had kept that energy because it would've been a hell of a lot more entertaining, if still not approaching anything "good".

First Yank Into Tokyo is every World War II Allied propaganda cliche and trope distilled down into a sub-90 minute runtime and executed with a B-level budget. Melodrama? Check. Yellowface? Check. Richard Loo? Check. Cheap standing backlot sets only mildly repurposed to try and fit their new exotic setting and stretching suspension of disbelief in the process? Check. (An Imperial Army compound looks suspiciously like a swanky mansion in Pasadena.) A plot constantly having to be rewritten and revised to keep up with the actual progress of the still-ongoing war? Check. Woeful misunderstanding/misrepresentation of wartime Asian governments, people, and culture both allied and enemy? Double check. Just plain old fashioned racism? Check.

This movie is weird. It's plot is about an American Air Force ace (Tom Neal of Detour fame) who gets what can best be described as yellowface surgery to infiltrate a Japanese prison camp to rescue a scientist with the Manhattan Project. We're told that our all-American hero (he plays football and everything) is uncannily good at imitating Japanese language and mannerisms to the point of being able to fool any native. Said chameleon-like ability involves Neal speaking in a bizarre pseudo-racist caricature of what a stroke victim with dementia and a speech impediment thinks a Japanese person sounds like. It'd be offensive if it wasn't so damn weird, whatever Neal's trying to do it just sounds like he has a bunch of cotton stuffed between his gums. Even weirder, it's a put-on that almost none of the other "actual" Japanese characters (most of whom are at least played by actual Asian actors) attempt; they just sound a bit stilted and day "excellency" and "honorable" a lot.

"More weird than offensive" is really an aphorism that can apply to this whole movie. The movie has such a strange take on race that one wonders if it was an attempt to be avant-garde, however unlikely that is. We're told repeatedly that Neal's surgical procedure is irreversible, a fact that is treated as some great tragic sacrifice, that this handsome square-jawed Caucasian will have to spend the rest of his life looking Japanese. Not "being" Japanese, but just "looking" Japanese is a fate worse than death - Neal chooses to die an extremely avoidable death and effectively abandon his true love to fate just because he can't stand the idea of going back to America looking Asian. "Whenever she looks at me, she'll just think of the other Japs, the ones who hurt her," he says with all the gravitas he can muster, as she is literally begging him to shut up and come with her.

Of course Neal isn't ACTUALLY Japanese, as the movie is quick to remind us. Again. And again. After all, what gives him away to his fellow whites is not his obviously fake forehead or eyelids, but his air of compassion and humanity literally all other Japanese are devoid of. The movie reiterates again and again how the Japanese are soulless, lecherous, ruthless monsters who will stop at nothing to conquer the world and can't be reasoned with even by superior American post-secondary education. That the film ends in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (the first time said event had ever been discussed or shown in a movie) and a heroic overture with a narrator declaring that "man can once again live in peace", this film just screams the exterminationist rhetoric most other WW2 films just hint at. Funny how as much America (somewhat rightfully) lambasted Japan for its racial supremacist and genocidal tendencies, it seems more than happy to coopt that very same rhetoric for its own ends.

Which brings us to possibly the film's only real artistic or historical significance; the character Haan-Soo (played by the ever-underrated Keye Luke). Haan, a Korean black marketer and secret agent of la resistance, is the film's only real positive Asian presence, insofar as he's the only significant non-white character to not be characterized as "kill this person, they are insane and irredeemable, kill them all". Haan deliberately plays on racial stereotypes as a willfully subservent, bootlicking handyman to cover for his clandestine activities. Like Neal, he's wearing a racial mask, hiding his true intentions behind broad stereotypes to ingratiate himself among his enemies. Haan is a million times more interesting a character than Neal, least of all because he's one of the only on-screen, wartime acknowledgements of Korean involvement in the Allied cause, albeit in a roundabout and heavily fictionalized way. It's also the one place where the movie's racial politics approaches some degree of nuance, possibly unintentionally. To the average American (especially pre-war), there was no meaningful difference between a Japanese or Korean (assuming they even knew there was one), they were all just "Oriental" and "foreign" and lumped together. But in this movie, where to be Asian is a fate worse than death, Haan is an unambiguously positive presence. The fact that the Japanese characters are played by exclusively non-Japanese actors, effectively one massive act of racial masking, just adds to this unintentional metatext.

Speaking of Japanese characters played by non-Japanese actors, Richard Loo is someone who really gets the short end of the stick in retrospect. An actor known for playing precisely one very specific type of character in one very specific circumstance, the man just oozes character actor charisma. "Sleazy Japanese officer" might've been his type, but damn if he wasn't good at it. Self-assured, menacing, treacherous and completely devoid of sympathy; he leans on every stereotype and beat you'd anticipate and you end up kind of loving him for it. It's kind of telling that along with Keye Luke, he ends up giving the most compelling performance in the whole movie. Our "heroic" leads might be blander than soggy saltines, but at least we have Loo and Luke there to ham things up and actually, y'know, act.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Beckman (2020)
6/10
Serviceable B-Movie Actioner With a Refreshing Lack of Proselytizing
23 September 2020
BECKMAN is weird. It's weird in concept, and it's weird in execution. Not because of the filmmaking or anything, but because of precisely how...normal it all is. Unless you knew David A.R. White on-sight or were a Pure Flix obsessive (I'm sure they exist), nothing about this film would indicate that it's from the same people that brought you such classics as GOD'S NOT DEAD and GOD'S NOT DEAD 2: THE QUICKENING. By all measurable standards it just seems like another one of those DTV action flicks that, in this particular instance, apes JOHN WICK. Frankly I think that's kind of an achievement in and of itself, a Pure Flix movie that just seems like...a movie.

The story, of an hitman-turned-preacher (David A.R. White) struggling to escape his violent past after his adopted daughter is abducted by a monologue-loving cult leader (William Baldwin) and his mercenary army of assassins and human traffickers, isn't terribly original (obvious nods to TAKEN, JOHN WICK, and MAN ON FIRE abound), but those are fairly solid potboiler plots and they're effectively recreated here. The inescapable hand of evangelical Christianity that normally pervades Pure Flix's output is kept to minimum here, and the film's much better for it. Sure you could argue that its message of forgiveness and nonviolence is at odds with the unending stream of violence and mayhem, but then again this isn't a movie that you should think about too hard. The religious themes aren't any more pervasive than, say, MEAN STREETS; which might be Pure Flix's attempts at securing a more mainstream audience, but also could be a sign that they've learned the art of subtlety (I hope it's the latter).

Action, performances, cinematography, score, editing, directing. All of these things aren't really that much more than average, but I think when the bar's set so low that has to count for something. My brain still refuses to 100% accept David A.R. White as a gritty action hero but he does give a solid, if somewhat one-note, performance and is fairly believable in his plethora of set-pieces. William "No Not That" Baldwin, Jeff Fahey, and Burt Young (whom I'd hitherto thought had passed away years ago) are all tasked with little more than making glorified cameos, but they're all consummate professionals and Baldwin is at least an effective baddie. The rest of the supporting cast are likewise uniformly solid.

There's a pseudo-DIY quality to the low-budget filmmaking that's rather endearing. Clearly these people didn't have the same money or resources that Chad Stahelski and Co. have, but dammit if they don't try. The fights are well choreographed and staged (and surprisingly bloody in places), and director Gabriel Sabloff has a strong sense of style that helps elevate the otherwise unremarkable material in many places. It helps that Sabloff is no stranger to these things, a veteran of both low-budget action movies and Pure Flix dramas, he clearly knows how to stretch a low budget. His love of DSLRs and gimbals might take a little getting used to, but it never detracted from the viewing experience and actually gave the film a bit of a (possibly unintended) personal touch. Will Musser's score, with its clear overtures toward Vangelis and Jóhann Jóhannsson, is an effective mood setter and helps set the film out from the rest of the DTV crowd.
25 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Bay Goes BLACK HAWK DOWN
9 January 2020
Entertaining enough for what it is and reasonably sober-minded, but Michael Bay is absolutely the wrong director for this kind of film. Even his attempt and gritty, claustrophobic realism is seeped in all of his signature high-contrast, saturated, fast-cutting slow-mo chaos that he's so excels in, replete with the iconic bottle rocket explosions. In other words, exactly the opposite sort of vibe you want in your "BIG SERIOUS MOVIE ABOUT BIG SERIOUS THING". In other words, it's PEARL HARBOR all over again, except even more burdened by politics but thankfully free of ineptly-drawn love triangles.

The cast all perform with remarkable aplomb, but these characters aren't particularly deep or complex, and the only reliability seems to come from the actors' natural charisma rather than a particularly good script. Technically everything is equally on-point; Dion Beebe's grainy and nerve-wracking nighttime cinematography has shades of MIAMI VICE '06 and Lorne Balfe's pounding score keeps the tempo up, but it's all stuff that's been seen before and that's been handled better. Like it's direct predecessors BLACK HAWK DOWN and LONE SURVIVOR, 13 HOURS can't seem to decide whether to be a solemn, moment-by-moment documentation of a situation gone horribly wrong, or a CALL OF DUTY speedrun. It's a problem that exists in many war movies, but here Bay's direction just emphasizes the dichotomy with the subtly of a sledgehammer and takes away from what could've been something so much better.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Entertaining, Off-Beat Disaster Schlock
3 January 2020
George P. Cosmatos seems better remembered today as the father of MANDY auteur Panos Cosmatos (admittedly an admirable accomplishment), rather than the often-idiosyncratic helmer blockbuster spectacle that he was. This film is likewise a perfect encapsulation of his style, an off-beat, one-of-a-kind mix of slick post-TOWERING INFERNO Hollywood disaster schlock and European genre cinema. No better is this reflected in the film's incredible ensemble; with A-listers like Sophia Loren, Richard Harris, Burt Lancaster, Ava Gardner, and Martin Sheen acting alongside Italian B-movie stalwarts Ray Lovelock, Lionel Stander, John Philip Law, Alida Valli, and Lou Castel, along with a random celebrity (hi O.J.) thrown in for good measure. Jerry Goldsmith's score likewise has heavy shades of Ennio Morricone, and the film's soft-flitered cinematography recalls similar work from the period by Lucio Fulci and Tinto Brass. It's such an odd mix of contrasting styles, wrapped up in an absurd and strung-together plot motivated more by potential setpieces than logic, but it's all so entertaining and weird that it's hard not to like.
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed