Maniac Cop - 18th September 2010
It's hard to believe that I have written 22 reviews and this is the first time I have got to a Bruce Campbell movie. I have mentioned Bruce before in the blog and so hopefully folks are aware what admiration I have for the man, if not, then I am sure it will become apparent.
I must have seen Maniac Cop originally in the mid nineties. I had first become aware of Bruce when I watched Army of Darkness at school in '93 and I think Maniac Cop was possibly the next film I saw him starring in. I came across it through some friends I had at college in '97 although, for whatever reason my complete recollection of events is a little hazy but basically it became my gateway film into the little B Movie realm that Mr.Campbell has inhabited for most of his career.
It's difficult to gauge, overall, where Maniac Cop and it's two fairly decent but more action orientated sequels sit in the grand scheme of 80s horror and just how popular it was, is and why it never seemed to reach the success or following of something like Friday the 13th, probably it's closest horror companion in style and content. In fact this film came out just one year before that other knife wielding loony zombie Jason also 'took' Manhattan, Maniac Cop, I am glad to report though, is the far superior movie. It's makers are director William Lustig, who is most famous for his controversial serial killer flick 'Maniac' and writer Larry Cohen whose career started writing some of the more famous Blaxploitation films and whose biggest writing credit to date is on the underrated Phone Booth, if only they'd cast someone other than Colin bloody Farrell. If Raimi, Craven and Carpenter were mainstream horror (as mainstream as horror ever gets) then Lustig and Cohen were certainly secondary or B level players much akin to Don Coscarelli, who was busy making the Phantasm series at the time and with whom Bruce Campbell would later work with superb results in Bubba Ho-Tep.
The film, essentially, is a stalk and slash film but with the twist that the person you'd usually run to help for, a cop, is the one doing the stalking and slashing.
As if that wasn't groovy enough, there's a back story that dares you to almost sympathise with the killer, or at least attempts to explain his actions, complete with the wounded girlfriend who still loves him despite him essentially being a big shambling zombie with a face you wouldn't so much hold in your hands lovingly as scale like a mountain.
There's a sub plot about a regular beat cop, his wife driven paranoid by anonymous calls into believing her husband is really the maniac, when he's actually having an affair but is still framed as the maniac cop later when his wife shows up dead.
There's the detective with the tragic past trying to make sense of a whole heap of loose ends, the hard bitten squad commander a few days from retirement, a ton of pen pushers up in city hall screwing it up for everyone, ably lead by the Police Commissioner played by Shaft himself, Richard Roundtree and all this taking place in a city full of panicky people, mistrusting the cops so much now that one of them even shoots a perfectly innocent one dead.
For a little 85 minute horror this film has a pretty dense plot, even if it does resort to explaining away huge leaps of logic by basically hoping the audience is sitting there thinking, oh yeah it's just a movie.
The plot aside though, you also get to witness a proper horror film on the actual streets of New York in the gritty and seedy 80s and not just some franchise that's run out of ideas and decides to send it's hockey mask wearing killer first to New York, then to hell and finally to space! but a film in which the people and the place feel authentically shabby and where the city plays a part, right down to them filming the actual St.Patrick's day parade for the finale.
For whatever reason, probably the logistics and cost of shooting there, New York does not get used very often in the Horror genre, except apartment horrors like The Sentinel or Rosemary's Baby and that's partly what gives Maniac Cop its edge and slightly unique feeling.
Now, to the cast: The lead, essentially, for the first half of the movie at least, is Tom Atkins' troubled but thorough detective and despite not looking 100% the part and being forced to wear some truly ludicrous jackets, he is solid enough and has enough conviction in the character that he does carry the film nicely. Laurene Landon is mostly awful and I don't buy her as a scream queen or as a, "I can look after myself", tough female cop but I've always just accepted that's pretty much the standard in this genre and while her voice and hair threaten to spoil the movie, they never truly do. Robert Z'Dar, who plays the titular maniac cop, is possibly the most bizarre looking man ever to grace the silver screen, his face looks like a really bad make-up attempt, like a person with a normal sized head wearing a ludicrous prosthetic chin. His jaw line closely resembles the plow and front bumper of an ice moving truck. It is genuinely a wonder that Campbell ever became known for his chin after he starred in a film with Z'Dar whose chin has it's own postal code. That said, he plays the part perfectly adequately but it's not like he has a whole lot to do other than stand on his mark and strangle the right stunt man. He is, after all, a combination of Michael Myers and Jason Voorhees in a police uniform.
So that, finally, brings us to Bruce Campbell. Out of all of the merry band of characters his is the most normal and the least cliche and so, while it may disappoint some fans of his more over-the-top comedy work, Campbell does his best job of playing it straight in this film, which, in its own way, is quite refreshing. The rest of the film is so full of off-kilter, slightly strange or slightly over-the-top genre staples and crazy camera work that it is Campbell's portrayal of the character that anchors the film nicely.
People think I am crazy or just saying it in some tongue-in-cheek way because I am a fan but I honestly believe that the reason Campbell gets the cult attention that he does, or is hailed as king of B movies when there are other character actors who equally tread the same path in sometimes better films, is that he can really act and more than that, genuinely is an interesting screen presence. Everyone knows him as the brash, one liner spouting, Ashley J Williams from Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness, which also fed into his performance of Autolycus in Xena but he is very capable of playing it straight and even subtle sometimes.
Maniac Cop is interesting though because, if you are familiar with his other films, the first time you watch it, you keep expecting Bruce, in the final act, to strap on an enormous machine gun and take the rampaging zombie policeman down. The fact that he doesn't and gets very few 'hero' moments can be disappointing at first glance but once you come to terms with the fact that the real starring role of the flick is the Maniac Cop himself and that the other parts are more or less going to play themselves out as realistically as possible, in a setting like this, it makes for a much more enjoyable viewing experience.
Considering it's relatively short running time Maniac Cop packs a lot in, plot wise, has a good economy of dialogue, where people say what they have to, tag the end with a little quip or one liner and then leave, has some nice slasher moments, the occasional bit of inventive camera work, a good score and manages to get the most from it's modest budget.
There is not much to say on the negative side except that, it's not particularly scary and plays a bit more like an action film in places, the female lead in the film could've been more convincing and, throughout the film, there are moments that completely defy any sort of logic, even phony movie logic. That said, that's probably half its charm.
Maniac Cop is far from the worst movie Bruce Campbell has ever been in, in fact it's not really a "Bruce Campbell" movie at all (in the sense that we have come to expect), and far from the worst horror/comedy/action movie that has ever been made, it is a good little, fast paced romp that really wears its B movie credentials proudly on it's bloody sleeve.
6.5 out of 10 egg benedicts
Points from The Misses 5 out of 10 egg benedicts
It's difficult to gauge, overall, where Maniac Cop and it's two fairly decent but more action orientated sequels sit in the grand scheme of 80s horror and just how popular it was, is and why it never seemed to reach the success or following of something like Friday the 13th, probably it's closest horror companion in style and content. In fact this film came out just one year before that other knife wielding loony zombie Jason also 'took' Manhattan, Maniac Cop, I am glad to report though, is the far superior movie. It's makers are director William Lustig, who is most famous for his controversial serial killer flick 'Maniac' and writer Larry Cohen whose career started writing some of the more famous Blaxploitation films and whose biggest writing credit to date is on the underrated Phone Booth, if only they'd cast someone other than Colin bloody Farrell. If Raimi, Craven and Carpenter were mainstream horror (as mainstream as horror ever gets) then Lustig and Cohen were certainly secondary or B level players much akin to Don Coscarelli, who was busy making the Phantasm series at the time and with whom Bruce Campbell would later work with superb results in Bubba Ho-Tep.
The film, essentially, is a stalk and slash film but with the twist that the person you'd usually run to help for, a cop, is the one doing the stalking and slashing.
As if that wasn't groovy enough, there's a back story that dares you to almost sympathise with the killer, or at least attempts to explain his actions, complete with the wounded girlfriend who still loves him despite him essentially being a big shambling zombie with a face you wouldn't so much hold in your hands lovingly as scale like a mountain.
There's a sub plot about a regular beat cop, his wife driven paranoid by anonymous calls into believing her husband is really the maniac, when he's actually having an affair but is still framed as the maniac cop later when his wife shows up dead.
There's the detective with the tragic past trying to make sense of a whole heap of loose ends, the hard bitten squad commander a few days from retirement, a ton of pen pushers up in city hall screwing it up for everyone, ably lead by the Police Commissioner played by Shaft himself, Richard Roundtree and all this taking place in a city full of panicky people, mistrusting the cops so much now that one of them even shoots a perfectly innocent one dead.
For a little 85 minute horror this film has a pretty dense plot, even if it does resort to explaining away huge leaps of logic by basically hoping the audience is sitting there thinking, oh yeah it's just a movie.
The plot aside though, you also get to witness a proper horror film on the actual streets of New York in the gritty and seedy 80s and not just some franchise that's run out of ideas and decides to send it's hockey mask wearing killer first to New York, then to hell and finally to space! but a film in which the people and the place feel authentically shabby and where the city plays a part, right down to them filming the actual St.Patrick's day parade for the finale.
For whatever reason, probably the logistics and cost of shooting there, New York does not get used very often in the Horror genre, except apartment horrors like The Sentinel or Rosemary's Baby and that's partly what gives Maniac Cop its edge and slightly unique feeling.
Now, to the cast: The lead, essentially, for the first half of the movie at least, is Tom Atkins' troubled but thorough detective and despite not looking 100% the part and being forced to wear some truly ludicrous jackets, he is solid enough and has enough conviction in the character that he does carry the film nicely. Laurene Landon is mostly awful and I don't buy her as a scream queen or as a, "I can look after myself", tough female cop but I've always just accepted that's pretty much the standard in this genre and while her voice and hair threaten to spoil the movie, they never truly do. Robert Z'Dar, who plays the titular maniac cop, is possibly the most bizarre looking man ever to grace the silver screen, his face looks like a really bad make-up attempt, like a person with a normal sized head wearing a ludicrous prosthetic chin. His jaw line closely resembles the plow and front bumper of an ice moving truck. It is genuinely a wonder that Campbell ever became known for his chin after he starred in a film with Z'Dar whose chin has it's own postal code. That said, he plays the part perfectly adequately but it's not like he has a whole lot to do other than stand on his mark and strangle the right stunt man. He is, after all, a combination of Michael Myers and Jason Voorhees in a police uniform.
So that, finally, brings us to Bruce Campbell. Out of all of the merry band of characters his is the most normal and the least cliche and so, while it may disappoint some fans of his more over-the-top comedy work, Campbell does his best job of playing it straight in this film, which, in its own way, is quite refreshing. The rest of the film is so full of off-kilter, slightly strange or slightly over-the-top genre staples and crazy camera work that it is Campbell's portrayal of the character that anchors the film nicely.
People think I am crazy or just saying it in some tongue-in-cheek way because I am a fan but I honestly believe that the reason Campbell gets the cult attention that he does, or is hailed as king of B movies when there are other character actors who equally tread the same path in sometimes better films, is that he can really act and more than that, genuinely is an interesting screen presence. Everyone knows him as the brash, one liner spouting, Ashley J Williams from Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness, which also fed into his performance of Autolycus in Xena but he is very capable of playing it straight and even subtle sometimes.
Maniac Cop is interesting though because, if you are familiar with his other films, the first time you watch it, you keep expecting Bruce, in the final act, to strap on an enormous machine gun and take the rampaging zombie policeman down. The fact that he doesn't and gets very few 'hero' moments can be disappointing at first glance but once you come to terms with the fact that the real starring role of the flick is the Maniac Cop himself and that the other parts are more or less going to play themselves out as realistically as possible, in a setting like this, it makes for a much more enjoyable viewing experience.
Considering it's relatively short running time Maniac Cop packs a lot in, plot wise, has a good economy of dialogue, where people say what they have to, tag the end with a little quip or one liner and then leave, has some nice slasher moments, the occasional bit of inventive camera work, a good score and manages to get the most from it's modest budget.
There is not much to say on the negative side except that, it's not particularly scary and plays a bit more like an action film in places, the female lead in the film could've been more convincing and, throughout the film, there are moments that completely defy any sort of logic, even phony movie logic. That said, that's probably half its charm.
Maniac Cop is far from the worst movie Bruce Campbell has ever been in, in fact it's not really a "Bruce Campbell" movie at all (in the sense that we have come to expect), and far from the worst horror/comedy/action movie that has ever been made, it is a good little, fast paced romp that really wears its B movie credentials proudly on it's bloody sleeve.
6.5 out of 10 egg benedicts
Points from The Misses 5 out of 10 egg benedicts
The Kids in the Hall "Death Comes to Town" - 16th September 2010
When I first heard about this 8 part mini series I was excited but also I was cautious. I have been a fan of comedy far too long to know that when once incredibly funny and innovative groups of comedians get back together after a while, to do something else on film, the results can often be, despite the best will in the world, cringingly shoddy, ill conceived and embarrassing. I'm talking to you Monty Python!
While it can be difficult for fans to accept that there will be no more of something they loved, like Firefly or Evil Dead for example, sometimes, what we learn is it's better to have the memory of something than to have that memory soiled messily by an over aroused skunk of a bad idea or over-the-hill performers.
If I was completely ruthless and harsh I could probably get enough examples together and point to enough of those problems in Death Comes to Town that I could write a fairly scathing but ultimately inaccurate review.
I could also say that having recently, on and off, been watching the old KITH sketch show on DVD box sets, feeling nostalgic and having a genuine love of their work and performing, that Death Comes to Town was great, made me laugh, had a good plot, funny characters and had enough of the old spark and charm that I thoroughly enjoyed it.
The truth, as always I suspect, is somewhere firmly in between these two mindsets.
To put this all into perspective, I first came across Kids in the Hall, along with a couple of my good friends, who I grew up with, probably back in 1993 or 94 when best-of compilation shows of their sketches would air on Channel 4 in Britain around 2am often with no real schedule, rhyme or reason. We would often have to record these onto video and watch them at a later date and, although, I was possibly too young and not Canadian enough to get all of it completely, it was indelibly printed on my brain, along with listening to other Canadian export The Tragically Hip driving round in my friends small beat up old car, as representing a fantastic part of my life growing up.
Probably a while after Brain Candy came out, the same friends, found an ex-rental VHS version of the film tucked away somewhere and it quickly became the thing I often watched when I would stay at their house. I know The Kids went through a rough time filming it and it was badly received when it came out but I think it's just perfectly fantastic and I rate it highly amongst my favourite comedy movies of all time. It's endlessly quotable, the performances and production value is high and it makes lots of good points about the nature of big business, celebrity and pharmaceutical manufacturers power that was way ahead of the curve.
When I first read about Death Comes to Town, as I said, I had mixed feelings but they definitely turned to excitement when I heard it was finally to be screened in the US on IFC over the summer. Good or bad I wanted to see it all, then buy the DVD and watch it all over again, despite the quality. Such was my fandom of The Kids.
Now, you'd think but maybe I am naive, that if you were a smaller cable channel that had spent money on this mini series from another country, you would screen the hell out of it and repeat it all the time. Other channels do exactly that with shows that are home grown so it didn't seem like a far fetched hope. Well, they didn't, they screened the 8, about 20 minute episodes over the course of 4 weeks, 2 episodes back to back every Friday night with no repeats during the week. Well the night they were set to debut the first two, I had a birthday party to go to and so that completely destroyed my chances of watching them every week. Then they announced that all 8 episodes would be screened back to back last Sunday. Right, I thought, that's my day, I'll turn the phone off, lock the doors, in-bed myself onto the couch like a flabby whelk, surround myself with junk food and marvel in the beauty of The Kids new show. Well fate, the bitter sweet hell bitch that she is, had other plans and I woke up that morning to find out my cable box had broken. So when I should've been having the most fantastically slobby weekend since Michelangelo finished the Sistine Chapel, told the Pope to bugger off, bought himself a bucket of chicken wings and settled in to watch his favourite soap, I was actually deep in the intestines of the borough of Queens replacing said cable box in a shopping mall filled with the sort of cross-eyed, hunched backed flabbys you normally read about in the Weekly World News from the safety of your own toilet.
So when a friend of mine announced on Farcebook that he had DVR'd it, I pounced on the opportunity and so, after a long and frustrating saga trying to watch the damn thing, I finally got to sit down and take in all 8 episodes, back to back, without adverts, in their silly splendour as, I like to think, they were intended.Initially, on first viewing, as I watched it, I laughed a lot. They did a great job of setting the whole thing up and while this is a totally new venture for The Kids, as it's not a sketch show and it's not a movie, not only does it essentially blend those two mediums by having one continuous story line over the course of 8 loose episodes of television but it also lets you know that you're on familiar turf with their usual brand of bizarrely observed archetypes. Obviously, watching them one after the other, it was difficult to still be chuckling on episode 8 after 2+ hours of lunacy (I was still grinning though) but unlike anything else the Kids have ever done it is the plot that keeps you watching, that and the characters.
Firstly, the plot. Yes it essentially boils down to a slightly contrived and very loose whodunnit in a town full of characters who are all revealed, over the course of the running time, to be engaged in some sort of over the top soap opera but it is written well and each character, far more this time than before, is fleshed out through exposition and amusing flash backs.
The show has obviously been compared to both Twin Peaks and The League of Gentlemen, the latter being a little closer on the mark and I don't think The Kids themselves would deny this legacy but they do make the 'murder in a small strange town' show their very own. The only negative to having obviously concentrated on the plot for each of their grotesque creations slightly more than usual, is that, in the end it is somewhat of a let down that due to the disarray of the slightly weak finale there aren't really consequences to any of it and that counter acts the nice build up a bit.
Secondly, the characters. While each of The Kids gets their chance to shine with a variety of mad, sick or stupid townsfolk, not all the characters hit the mark particularly well. Bruce McCulloch and Scott Thompson come off the best in terms of playing varied, interesting, genuinely well crafted and funny characters and Mark McKinney probably spends the most time on screen as he plays seemingly more main tier characters than the others in the shape of Death, The Judge, one half of The Cops and the News Anchor, this does mean, therefore, that my two favourite Kids and founding members, Kevin McDonald and David Foley seemed somewhat sidelined. Kevin McDonald has a lot of great jokes in the show through a surprisingly small selection of parts and he can still deliver an underwhelming line in such a way that makes it an absolute killer joke but he's been given only one real character that's worth anything, that he can really sink his teeth into, and that's the part of the Defense attorney who is putting all his money into increasingly ridiculous medical devices and means to keep his extremely aged and ill cat alive. I am not sure Dave Foley, on the other hand, elicited one laugh from me the entire time, which sadly must make him The Kids' Eric Idle. He had only one main character and that was of the mayor's drunken wife and she was possibly the least funny character on the whole show.
What has happened, you see, is that when I watched it the first time, all the way through, I enjoyed it, I laughed, it was fun seeing The Kids again do their stuff and I would still recommend it to anyone who is a fan of their comedy but after just a day of having it (and this review) rattling around in my head, it's errors, like a sweet full of chemicals and saccharine, have started to leave a bad taste in my mouth. As I write this and try and organise it in my brain, trying to keep the positive at the forefront, the negative slowly creeps in.
For example, despite filming at a good looking, real location there seems to have been very little attempt made to make the wigs, costumes or make up look good or real. One of the many things that's fantastic about Brain Candy is that it doesn't look like the same guys just threw on silly wigs, dresses, comical bow ties or some glasses and just wandered on to set, they all actually look like people, like proper characters and The Kids play them as such. Here they all look like they literally just ran into the make up trailer, stuck a moustache on and some joke-shop teeth then ran right back out again and played the scene. Also when you think back to Brain Candy some of them played up to 9 parts whereas here we don't seem to get the same diversity with twice the running time.
Then there's the character of Death. They name the show after him, McKinney plays him perfectly well and there is a neat little character arc by the end but with actually very little death in the plot line we are just left watching the character of Death wonder about and take up time.
I would also say that fat jokes and hand job jokes, while maybe a little funny and in one case highly disturbing, seem a little beneath the Kids and the fat suit character especially seems a little old and tired now.
These are all things, though, that niggle me as a fan who had high hopes but also they didn't ruin it totally either. It didn't have quite the inspired weirdness of their previous productions, although the little boy character of Rampop who sees adult humans as brightly coloured, badly rendered butterflies is pretty funny and strange but, on the plus side, it did take the time to actually delve into proper story lines for the characters this time and they did all agree that this time, making it, they all had fun.
A special mention must go out to Scott Thompson who filmed the thing while he was still having chemo for cancer, you'd never know and he is superb in it.
Overall then my summary would have to be that, if you can look past the tv production values and the fact that they probably should've just made it a tight 2 hour TV movie, when it hits, it is as sublimely funny, weird and wonderful as the kids have ever been and when it misses it luckily never gets embarrassing and you know there'll always be something hysterical round the corner, so in that way it is probably more akin with the original sketch show than the somewhat more original Brain Candy.
As a fan - 7.5 out of 10 for old times sake and old crumb cake
As a critic - 6 out of 10 chips, pickles and a valiant effort.
Old School - 13th September 2010
I think it's a good funny film. It's not spectacular or strikingly original, borrowing heavily, as it does, from films such as Animal House and PCU but it sets out its characters, it sets out its premise and then it plays it through in a perfectly decent way.
Watching it this time around though I realised, that while everyone else does their schtick and hits all the right beats, the genius of this movie is how truly dark the story of Will Ferrell's character is and how there is no attempt, by Ferrell, to make the character likable or sympathetic. Take the performance out of a frat boy comedy and it's a clever, fairly subtle (by Will Ferrell standards) portrayal of a genuine lunatic slowly self destructing without the intelligence, memory or perception to pull himself out of his self dug hole.
I have heard SNL writer's say this about Will Ferrell, who now has sort of been relegated to just playing bumbling naive oafs or stupid braggarts, that they loved writing for him because he could always deliver the weird, perverted or black humour in a way that kept the audience on his side laughing and he was never afraid to say or do something shocking.
I think the first couple of times I watched this, and I haven't seen it a lot, I always just let it wash over me, laughed at the right places and just thought the whole thing was silly, good but silly. This time though, I was also happy to see that beneath all the Vince Vaughn jabbering, the Luke Wilson reluctant hero to smug git routine and the cast of obviously wacky characters around them that Will Ferrell was operating on a totally other level.
I know some of you are reading this and you think I am insane and I know some of you don't see and won't see it, which is, of course, fine but I also think it's a shame because I believe in this film, some of his better SNL stuff and most of the work he does with Adam McKay he does some truly inspired acting. Where as I have never felt, even in his better films, that Jim Carrey is ever operating on any other level than just simply, outwardly wacky, Will Ferrell, on the other hand, plays it straight. Even when he's running down the road naked in Old School, he plays it like a guy who honestly believes he's part of a group of guys doing the same thing and is confused, bemused and maybe even a little hurt to find out it's just him.
This is not saying he is playing it realistic either but it's a straight faced surrealistic character that hints at genuine melancholy beneath the surface, although I am sure 50% of people reading this are scratching their heads thinking "you've lost the plot man, stop over analysing this dumb comedy, are you referring to the same guy who rubs his balls on a drum kit in Step Brothers or was in the Bewitched movie?" and that's fine, I don't completely see what is so great about Star Wars particularly, not that I think it's bad, I just don't get the hullabaloo. It's each to their own at the end of the day.
Anyhew, back to the movie. Like I said at the start, I like it and think it's funny. It was right there at the start of all these, so called by some, Frat-Pack comedies before Luke Wilson fell off the face of the planet only to occasionally return to earth to star in bemusingly bad semi-comedies, before Vince Vaughn made sure he only made one film a year and that film, despite being an atrociously unfunny piece of cinematic effluent, would always make tons of cash, before Apatow went big screen and just after American Pie.
Todd Phillips, who more recently made the so-so monster smash of the summer The Hangover, directs well and keeps it all flowing nicely towards it's inevitable, misfits must trump authority ending and speaking of which, it's great to see Jeremy Piven play the crotchety, piece of filth Dean in an amusing role reversal from his laid-back, anti-authoritarian, slacker in PCU.
The weak link in all of this is the inevitable romantic sub plot with bland as beige Ellen Pompeo who could only possibly fall for our 'hero' after her current boyfriend is exposed to be a slimy philanderer but so-what, at the end of a day it was nice to revisit this movie and have a good chuckle.
7 out of 10 guilty pleasure fudge brownies
Points from The Misses 7 out of 10 guilty pleasure fudge brownies
Dead Heat - 13th September 2010
So say what you like about the 80s, the music was mostly awful, the fashion preposterous, the politics was a corporate gang-bang nightmare and the decade started with the gunning down of John Lennon and ended with the world domination of New Kids on the Block, something was clearly amiss.
Yet, despite the cold war, AIDS, Thatcher and Reagan, Exxon Valdeze and neon yellow leg warmers, there is one thing that means I will always have fondest for, what could quite easily be described as, the worst decade in the history of hair and, no, it isn't the sodding Rubik's cube or the collected hits of Spandau Ballet.
To put it simply, movies and the advent of video (although Betamax and VHS both debuted in the 70s, it wasn't till the 80s that these video formats took hold).
Ok, so the Oscar winners of the decade weren't anything to write home about, unless you're an insomniac who has grown immune to strong pills when would you ever sit down to watch The Last Emperor, Ghandi, Chariots of Fire or Driving Miss Daisy?
Looking at the top earners of the decade starts to reveal more of what I am talking about with the likes of Empire Strikes Back (the best Star Wars movie), The Indiana Jones films, Back to the future and Beverly Hills Cop but as great as these pictures are it's not entirely what makes me nostalgic for the era.
Firstly there was the fairly mainstream stuff, such as the best comedy films from the late 70s SNL crew, Stallone, Schwartzenegger & Willis at the top of their game, John Hughes flicks & the brat pack, the classic horrors of The Evil Deads, Nightmare on Elm Streets & Friday 13ths, John Carpenter genius such as Escape from NY, The Thing & Big Trouble in Little China, the good Muppet movies, the not-really-kid-friendly kids movies like Flight of the Navigator, Short Circuit, Labyrinth & the Young Sherlock Homes, American Werewolf in London, the Long Good Friday, Time Bandits, Brazil and Roger Moore and Timothy Dalton as awesome Bonds (I like them!).
I know I am missing so much but I think this list illustrates my point.
Then there were the other films, the weird ones, the creative ones, the ones you would discover on video's distributed by such companies as Vestron Video, Embassy Home Entertainment and New World Pictures. Falling into this category would usually be random stuff like Shogun Assassin, Toy Soldiers or Volunteers and horror/comedy stuff like The Burbs, Maniac Cop, Scanners, The Howling, Wacko, Return to Horror High, Ghoulies, Tremors, Re-Animator and, tonight's choice, Dead Heat.
In fact, looking at those two hefty, yet still fairly incomplete, lists, I wouldn't just say the 80s was good for movies, I would say they were damn near perfect, not a Michael Bay or a Tyler Perry in sight!
The films themselves have an indescribable quality, an inventiveness and a creativity that seems to be fairly lacking in today's CGI heavy, by-the-book, predictable re-treads of previous, better ideas. That may, of course, have a lot to do with the fact I viewed them all first on video.
I don't want to sound like an old fart and I don't have too much against modern home-viewing technology on the whole but video just had something special about it. They also had a weight to them, a certain feel, a pleasing aesthetic and they had a noise to them, the pop of the video case, the rattle of the tape and the whirr and click as you slid it into the machine, to say nothing of the frantic grinding you would hear as you fast forwarded or rewinded them. On the tapes would be loud, bright, neon logos, funny looking warnings and the sometimes lined or blurred picture quality, if watching the right film, would actually add to and enhance the picture. I don't care what anyone says Raiders of the Lost Arc looks better on VHS any day of the week, I don't know why, but it just does and horror films like Evil Dead, Nightmare on Elm Street etc. benefit hugely from video's lesser quality because it adds to the feeling that you're watching something you shouldn't, that the tape itself is evil or haunted.
Say what you like but there is nothing scary or interesting about modern slim, shiny technology, you think the Poltergeist would come out of your big 50 inch plasma or the girl in the Ring possess a blu-ray disc? just sounds crap doesn't it and I would go as far as to say that any film that uses a mobile phone or the internet as a plot device is a big pile of steaming dung.
I mention all of this because it all applies to the enjoyment and somewhat unique brilliance of the film Dead Heat which is an 80s zombie cops & robbers horror/comedy written by the writer of Lethal Weapons' brother Terry Black, starring Treat Williams and the guy nobody talks about or remembers from the not very funny series of SNL in the 80s, Joe Piscopo, it features one of the last screen appearances of Vincent Price and a fantastical, hysterical and disturbing scene in the back of a Chinese takeaway that includes re-animated duck heads.
I first saw this back on video, way back when and thankfully the DVD transfer isn't so pristine that it spoils this rare and bizarre film which definitely falls firmly into the category of films that people just don't seem to have the sense of humour or fun to make anymore.
Ok, firstly and quickly, the things that are semi-wrong with it are that it's not as funny as it could be or thinks it is, which is mostly down to the distractingly weird looking Joe Piscopo, some of the film lacks pacing, there isn't that great 80s synth-pop soundtrack it so desperately craves and, apart from the toupee sporting, hand ringing and suitably manic villain who is excellent, most of the supporting cast are spectacularly wooden and bland looking. Oh and it could do with a lot more zombies.
Apart from those fairly typical B-Movie style complaints, this movie does everything else right. It spends all its money on the over-the-top set pieces which include a street shoot out at the beginning, the previously mentioned, infamous and rather gooey dinner-comes-alive sequence, a clever make-up and special effects piece in which a human decays and the ambulance sequence that leads to the big climatic action scene.
Treat Williams has more and more of a blast as the film continues, including a tremendous tour-de-force revealing-the-villain scene that harks cleverly back to the style of Bogart detective films and the more make-up he's wearing, towards the end of the film, the more he hams it up to great effect behind it.
The film is also directed simply but suitably well with good editing and, apart from the odd joke falling flat and while it's no Lethal Weapon, the script keeps its tongue firmly and pleasantly in it's cheek and never resorts to commenting on or trying to make too much sense of what's going on and instead opts to just go happily with the flow. It, also, isn't afraid to stop the wackiness for a minute and have genuine, serious character moments.
Yes it is ultimately throw away and it's no Maniac Cop but it's an interesting, creative and well intentioned attempt to make something exciting, crazy in the best way, weird, wonderful, different and fun.
If you can, find it in the back of an old junk shop selling VHS, take it home, invite a few like minded friends over, pop it into the old creaky player, switch on your ancient, large, CRT television and sit back to watch a film, the likes of which we may never see again.
6 out of 10 still quacking duck wraps
Points from The Misses 6 out of 10 still quacking duck wraps
Machete - 7th September 2010
As far as I am concerned, the whole problem with this film was that from the moment I saw the 3 minute fake 'Machete' trailer at the front of Planet Terror, which was the better of the two Grindhouse films by a long long way, I had started to construct, in my head, an awesome version of the full length, finished film. When I then found out that a full feature was being made, I was very excited and again began to assemble a wish list of dream scenes that could go into such a revenge epic. Finally, when I saw who was going to be in the finished film - Steven Seagal, Jeff Fahey, De Niro, Cheech Marin and Tom Savini - my anticipation peaked and I couldn't have been looking forward more to this (hopefully) ridiculous movie.
Well, nothing was going to live up to that was it?
So, I recognise, I came to it as a man who, if he was making Machete, would've done things differently.
To go into the plot here would be irrelevant because that's pretty much how it is treated in the film, which ends up being little more than vague extended action scenes to bridge the gaps between the cool bits you remember from the original trailer.
Basically it attempts to set up Trejo as a Mexican Charles Bronson crossed with a Van Damme or Steven Seagal and in that regard it almost succeeds, as he has just about as much acting talent as any of them, maybe even less. Not that you need to act when the lines and pock marks on your face and the tattoos on your body do it all for you. His skin is so bizarre, he looks like he's made of felt and his hair and moustache are stuck on like a muppet. The trouble is, if all you are going to have your star do is stare blankly and occasionally grumble a one liner, write them some decent one liners! All we get here is 'Machete don't text' which is mildly amusing and would remain cool if he didn't break that rule 3 scenes down the line.
Every other member of the cast, except maybe Cheech Marin, is wasted.
De Niro never quite gets the chance to perfect his Bush impression, Fahey flails around sounding like Bale when he does that annoying gravelly Batman voice and pursing his lips way too much, Alba is unforgivably weak, Savini barely shows up and has too few moments of cool, Lindsey Lohan, although obviously parodying herself, looks genuinely like she needs a good meal, a week in bed asleep and to quit every negative vice in her life now before she slips into a coma and finally, Steven Seagal, who acts exceptionally cool here, looks suitably hulking and ridiculous, who is set up to be the big end villain to end all big end villains and who I was genuinely thrilled to see in the film gets a couple of minutes of possibly entertaining sword play and some risible posturing but is despatched all too easily and with no sense of titanic grandeur that he deserves. He gave up a part in the Expendables for this?! silly, silly man.
I am sat here now staring at the poster in the top left hand corner and thinking, ever wish these films would live up to the poster? I remember an experience, while in university, when I was expanding my B-Movie collection, in the video shop a friend and I came across a film called 'A Nymphoid Barbarian in Dinosaur Hell' and how desperately disappointed and swindled we felt when there was no hell and the barbarian in question was neither promiscuous nor particularly barbaric. Instead it looked like some homeless people wandered about in a park while being occasionally assaulted by some laughable use of play dough animated dinosaurs. The same goes for when you see those box sets of old grindhouse or b movies that all have write-ups on the DVD that make them sound like the best damn thing you could ever see, with names that titillate and excite but just like the toy commercial at Christmas with the flashing light show and startling sounds, when you get these films back to your living room they are lifeless, cheap bits of plastic.
While Machete is never that bad and indeed I feel like this whole review is being overly negative, there was a sense, while watching it, of just how home-made it all was and how no amount of 'no it's meant to look like that, it's grindhouse' arguing would ever convince me that this is as good as Rodriguez and his pals clearly think it is.
He does, however, have a set up most people would die for. A huge sand box in a playground of his own building, with a back lot, edit suites, sound recording rooms, green screens and assorted awesome equipment. I am not someone who wants to come in and start knocking people for being self sufficient and making whatever they want but, for whatever reason, there was a lot about Machete that felt lazy and sloppy and not in a 'oh cool how grungy' type of a way but more in a 'come on, sort it out man, you're almost there...' way.
It felt like a missed opportunity.
It only felt like that because there were several good little action sequences which made you wish they had pushed it a bit further. If it had just been flat-out crap then I wouldn't have to work so hard to explain what's wrong with the film but because it showed promise, the music, as always, was good, the blade work choreographed well and the effects suitably fun and gory, it's just a shame the plot was so confused and the last act seemed so rushed and weak.
You can blame government.
While re-writing and prepping this film, Arizona passed a bill that was seen as very negative towards Mexicans specifically and I think it was this that was suddenly incorporated into and threatened to drown out the rest of the film. Not that it wasn't fine to have a point but to have a point well, you have to choose material that best reflects that and I am not sure a discussion about borders and illegal immigration is going to spring from a knife wielding Mexican revenge film as immaturely put together as this one.
I need to go to bed now, these are my thoughts for now. I may edit and add more later.
4 out of 10 dry tacos
Points from The Misses 2 out of 10 dry tacos
MacGruber - 5th September 2010
Good, so with that out of the way I can now go on at length about everything that was so mind staggeringly bad and jaw droppingly awful about this film, which was absolutely everything. I would rather watch a video of some kittens being strangled than ever watch this again, there were more laughs in Schindler's List!
Now, I know what all 7 of you are thinking: what were you expecting? a work of unbridled comic genius? No, no I wasn't, funnily enough I was expecting an action comedy to have some passable action and to make me chortle, maybe... a bit. Too much to ask? apparently so. In fact I set out expecting very little, it's a Sunday night, I have been out and about all day, my wife and her friend are running through the first season of the Vampire Diaries in the living room and so I thought: what the hell, nothing much else going on, I could do with a mild titter or occasional chuckle, I'll see what they have at the video store. I should've taken a hammer to my knee caps instead or tucked into a cockroach salad, either would've been preferable than the last hour and a half that I'll never ever get back.
MacGruber is a film based on an SNL skit which itself is a parody of MacGuyver which was, in-part at least, a rip off of the A-Team also, judging by other SNL movie efforts and the fact that the show now is patchier than Patchy Patrick McPatchy's eye patch store and patchwork quilt emporium in Patchy New Patchshire, the chips were stacked pretty highly against it but I thought at least, like the best of SNL, it would have a certain shoddy charm to it. It doesn't, it's not funny, simply put, it is just not funny.
The running gag of the film, and one that the film-makers seem bizarrely impressed with, is that the villain is called Cunth. They must say it over a hundred times in the film, it wasn't funny the first time and ceased being even bearable the 432nd time they said it! There wasn't a single dead horse unflogged. What is absolutely brain itchingly, flat-out unbelievable and just cocking confusing is, despite the villains name, they didn't use it as part of an innuendo or clever word play.
Oh... wait... I am sorry yes they did, MacGruber said 'I am going to pound that Cunth' (wait for laughter... no laughter? really? what a surprise) and just like the funny name they were oh so proud of, they used that joke till it was worn thinner than a midget's unwaxed dental floss.
Normally in an action comedy the protagonist can either wise crack their way out of anything (see Beverley Hills Cop or Fletch) or they are a bumbling idiot, who, with the help of extraordinarily good luck, or a cleverer-than-they are sidekick, foils the villain's plan and saves the day (Naked Gun or Return of The Pink Panther). MacGruber attempts, I guess, to be the second one of these except he's not bumbling he's a willful, incompetent liability, a full blown, solid gold, highly polished arse head and quite possibly mentally ill (sadly not in a funny way). Without the innocence or ignorance of a Frank Drebin or the comic genius to pull off the misplaced ego of an Inspector Clouseau you find yourself not only completely unwilling to give to bronzed turd about the character but actively despising him and hoping beyond hope that the one-too-many-pies figure of Val Kilmer swaggers into view and mashes his stupid wigged face into a sloppy pulp.
None of this is really the fault of the cast, although Will Forte did co-write it and the others signed up to dance and splash about in this effluent (we'll let Kristen Wiig off because, as she was in the original skit, she probably had no choice), the fault must be laid firmly at the, no doubt, withered and clubbed feet of the script.
The people who coughed up the whole thing seemed to deliberately replace any hint of a joke with swearing, gratuitous nudity, callous sexual references, unpleasant sex scenes, gory violence, sudden deaths, occasional homophobia, endless repetition and even going as far as to smash you over the head with explanations of obvious, not very humourous, jokes after you just watched the whole sorry mess unfurl.
Now I am not a prude and I was not offended by any of the above, if used correctly and cleverly any one of those things can be tremendously effective and very funny but in the case of MacGruber each attempt at, I suppose, what was meant to be edgy, rude humour fell like a whole bunch of lead balloons onto the head of cute puppy right in front of some happily playing children.
Apart from the odd bit of music, the mullet and the filming style they completely wasted the opportunity to make any 80s references or even directly parody MacGuyver at any point. The film also completely short changed the audience when it came to the lead character building anything inventive or fixing anything with common household goods, which was such a staple of the TV show, hell even Axel Foley knows how to use a chewing gum wrapper! Instead the movie opts to make repeatedly unfunny and weird comments about ripping throats out, which I don't remember Richard Dean Anderson ever doing.
It was just such a waste, such a worthless pile of heavily pungent animal excrement that it actually made me sad. If given even a third of that budget, I know some people who could make a flick 50 times funnier, in fact everyone I know, even if they were bound and gagged to a chair could make a funnier film than MacGruber.
Thankfully there shouldn't be a sequel, what a pile of old Cunths!
1 out of 10 spat in, moldy green salads
George A Romero's Survival of the Dead - 2nd September 2010
I hate to say this, as I am unapologetically a huge fan of the (slow) Zombie genre, but it maybe time to go up to ol' Georgie and scream 'Enough with the damn dead already!'
Ok, so that's not entirely fair, there were things that I liked about Survival of the Dead but you got the impression from the sloppy, lazy use of CGI to the unlikable, thinly drawn, lackluster characters that the enormous spectacled, beardy one's heart just isn't in it anymore.
The trouble is, they won't give him money to make anything else it seems.
Back before Resident Evil (the movie) and a certain remake of Dawn of the Dead, that everyone else tripped over each other to praise but which I thought stank like a trolley filled with rancid pickled fish, there wasn't much happening in the world of the Zombie. The 90s had come and gone without the usual, once-a-decade offering from Romero and they had re-started every other type of horror film from slasher to monster movie but the undead, it seemed, were yet to poke their gnarled hand through the earth of a graveyard. All that changed of course with the release of the three big hits, the aforementioned, Resident Evil and Dawn remake and Shaun of the Dead. After that, all manner of movies featuring the brain hungry hordes spewed forth on to the screens, ranging from the sort-of good to the spectacularly awful. That was until, all of a sudden, the fans were left standing around scratching their collective noggin thinking, whatever happened to George A Romero? In fact apart from Wes Craven and the success of the Scream trilogy, on the big screen at least, the other horror directors were decidedly absent.
Then word must have filtered through Hollywood that any studio to be the first to drag Romero, really now at the height of his fame, back to the genre he invented, would not only be able to claim an original superiority over the others but also would, hopefully have a walloping great hit on their hands.
Sadly life doesn't work like that because while Land of the Dead, I thought, was pretty damn good (and actually improves the more you think about it), anticipation for it rose way too high, it was badly marketed and the clever allegory that Romero's films usually carry were lost on a mainstream audience used to mindless crap like the Dawn remake.
I remember that the critics were not kind to it and seemed to hold it up to an impossible standard. That's not to say it wasn't financially successful, just a quick glance on BoxOfficeMojo shows it to have trippled it's budget in takings worldwide and it did pretty good on DVD too. Quite why George Romero didn't get the chance to continue a studio career is a mystery, maybe he didn't want to, but what he did get to do was to continue his Dead series on smaller budgets up in Canada.
Possibly realising that he couldn't really take the story of the evolving flesh eaters much further than he had in Land or possibly realising it would be cheaper another way, he started a whole new series of films with Diary of the Dead, the premise being that it's the 21st century, digital HD cameras and the internet exist and what would happen if a zombie outbreak happened right now.
I avoided Diary for a long time because I didn't like the idea of the first person camera perspective, as it sounded wholly unoriginal. That was, actually, a mistake. When I finally saw the film I actually liked it a lot more than I thought I would and there were some genuinely good ideas, some creepy situations and the usual band of Romero characters.
So that, pretty much, brings us up to date and Survival of the Dead.
The basic premise is there is an island off the coast of Delaware where two rival Irish families are dealing with the zombies in their own way. One, an old sea-dog looking crazy believes you go round killing as many as you can, even if it means shooting any humans standing in the way and the other who believes zombies can be cured, or at least chained up and put to good use. Both of them are quite obviously barking mad.
The bald one finally kicks the bearded sailor one off the island and banishes him to the mainland where, meanwhile, a group of soldiers, we first encountered in Diary, are still milling about indiscriminately robbing people and often killing them too, just for good measure. Through a series of contrivances they end up at the dock where the old beardy islander has set up a thievery post of his own, in a security van, with a safe full of cash, zombies all around (even in the water) and Captain Birdseye, with his rag tag band of miscreants, taking pot shots at them from their cunning hideout, which appears to be a shed. The survivors of shoot out at the dingy docks all wind up back on the island, where through a series of events, everyone ends up out for each other's blood (in the case of the zombies, literally).
Now the idea of the humans struggling with petty vendettas while the world goes to hell or turning into psychopaths in the name of continuing the race, some trying to solve the problem and others trying to kill it dead are all themes which Romero has dealt with before and, in many ways, hark back to the original Night of the Living Dead. There are also overtones of the struggles that take place in Day of the Dead which is probably Survival's closest cousin out of all the films, albeit better written, more original, better acted and with a more kick ass soundtrack. The difference, however, this time around is that the zombies play fourth fiddle to three different groups of grotty humanity, each despicable in their own way, and a tacked on after thought about whether zombies can be taught to eat animal instead of human flesh seems redundant and out of place without someone like a Dr.Frankenstein type character from Day of the Dead walking around muttering quotable dialogue, rolling his eyes and generally being madder than a box of luminous cheese graters.
The zombies, too, have always been a reflection of ourselves, some metaphor for society and also have always been fairly sympathetic, comical even in some cases. There is none of that here. Nondescript shuffling figures in the shadows, presumably because they couldn't really be bothered to make most of them up, are dispatched quickly with ridiculous sound effects, poor CGI and little or no regard. It's almost like they have nothing to do with the film Romero is trying to make but because, I imagine, they have to be there in order to get funding for the film, they end up being a confusing and sometimes, even, annoying distraction.
There are great satchels filled with suspension of disbelief needed to get over some of the convoluted plot points that are only there because of the zombies, it feels like the whole thing could've been a different and maybe better film if it just played out as a strange rival-families-go-psycho-from-too-much-inbreeding-on-an-island-movie. Sometimes you get the feeling or the hint that Romero is trying to make a point about humanity or something but hasn't quite decided what that point is and if he has, he isn't telling us clearly enough it seems.
All of this is not to say there aren't enjoyable moments in the film, there are and maybe on a second or third viewing, like Day, these will grow on me and shine through. The acting, by a cast of complete unknowns, isn't awful and when the cinematographer eases off the blue night filters, it's on real locations and George focusses on the plot for a moment it doesn't look and sound half bad either. The script is not particularly strong though and there are not many of the trademark one liners that Romero likes to write.
It is definitely the weakest of six films but when you think of other series or franchises that lost steam way before they reached film number six, that's not a terrible thing to say.
George A Romero remains a master and innovator of this genre and if he makes a 7th then, yes, I'll watch it but I can't help wandering that, despite my love of zombies, it is the hordes of shambling corpses that have kept him down, kept him from making varied, interesting films about a whole slew of topics and if studios had a little more guts (them undead get hungry!) they could've got more from this true original.
a disappointing 5 out of 10 macaroni cheeses
Points from the Misses 3 out of 10 macaroni cheeses
I avoided Diary for a long time because I didn't like the idea of the first person camera perspective, as it sounded wholly unoriginal. That was, actually, a mistake. When I finally saw the film I actually liked it a lot more than I thought I would and there were some genuinely good ideas, some creepy situations and the usual band of Romero characters.
So that, pretty much, brings us up to date and Survival of the Dead.
The basic premise is there is an island off the coast of Delaware where two rival Irish families are dealing with the zombies in their own way. One, an old sea-dog looking crazy believes you go round killing as many as you can, even if it means shooting any humans standing in the way and the other who believes zombies can be cured, or at least chained up and put to good use. Both of them are quite obviously barking mad.
The bald one finally kicks the bearded sailor one off the island and banishes him to the mainland where, meanwhile, a group of soldiers, we first encountered in Diary, are still milling about indiscriminately robbing people and often killing them too, just for good measure. Through a series of contrivances they end up at the dock where the old beardy islander has set up a thievery post of his own, in a security van, with a safe full of cash, zombies all around (even in the water) and Captain Birdseye, with his rag tag band of miscreants, taking pot shots at them from their cunning hideout, which appears to be a shed. The survivors of shoot out at the dingy docks all wind up back on the island, where through a series of events, everyone ends up out for each other's blood (in the case of the zombies, literally).
Now the idea of the humans struggling with petty vendettas while the world goes to hell or turning into psychopaths in the name of continuing the race, some trying to solve the problem and others trying to kill it dead are all themes which Romero has dealt with before and, in many ways, hark back to the original Night of the Living Dead. There are also overtones of the struggles that take place in Day of the Dead which is probably Survival's closest cousin out of all the films, albeit better written, more original, better acted and with a more kick ass soundtrack. The difference, however, this time around is that the zombies play fourth fiddle to three different groups of grotty humanity, each despicable in their own way, and a tacked on after thought about whether zombies can be taught to eat animal instead of human flesh seems redundant and out of place without someone like a Dr.Frankenstein type character from Day of the Dead walking around muttering quotable dialogue, rolling his eyes and generally being madder than a box of luminous cheese graters.
The zombies, too, have always been a reflection of ourselves, some metaphor for society and also have always been fairly sympathetic, comical even in some cases. There is none of that here. Nondescript shuffling figures in the shadows, presumably because they couldn't really be bothered to make most of them up, are dispatched quickly with ridiculous sound effects, poor CGI and little or no regard. It's almost like they have nothing to do with the film Romero is trying to make but because, I imagine, they have to be there in order to get funding for the film, they end up being a confusing and sometimes, even, annoying distraction.
There are great satchels filled with suspension of disbelief needed to get over some of the convoluted plot points that are only there because of the zombies, it feels like the whole thing could've been a different and maybe better film if it just played out as a strange rival-families-go-psycho-from-too-much-inbreeding-on-an-island-movie. Sometimes you get the feeling or the hint that Romero is trying to make a point about humanity or something but hasn't quite decided what that point is and if he has, he isn't telling us clearly enough it seems.
All of this is not to say there aren't enjoyable moments in the film, there are and maybe on a second or third viewing, like Day, these will grow on me and shine through. The acting, by a cast of complete unknowns, isn't awful and when the cinematographer eases off the blue night filters, it's on real locations and George focusses on the plot for a moment it doesn't look and sound half bad either. The script is not particularly strong though and there are not many of the trademark one liners that Romero likes to write.
It is definitely the weakest of six films but when you think of other series or franchises that lost steam way before they reached film number six, that's not a terrible thing to say.
George A Romero remains a master and innovator of this genre and if he makes a 7th then, yes, I'll watch it but I can't help wandering that, despite my love of zombies, it is the hordes of shambling corpses that have kept him down, kept him from making varied, interesting films about a whole slew of topics and if studios had a little more guts (them undead get hungry!) they could've got more from this true original.
a disappointing 5 out of 10 macaroni cheeses
Points from the Misses 3 out of 10 macaroni cheeses
Temple Grandin - 31st August 2010
As I am finishing the chore, I see my wife is flicking through the HBO movie section and by reading the titles from where I am standing I can see that there's nothing there I particularly care for.
By the time I have finished the washing up and I am heading through to the living room I see what I think looks like a tedious, rural, set on a farm, 'real' Americans type movie. I sort of stick films like The Bridges of Madison County, The Horse Whisperer and Legends of the Fall into this category, you know, anything where the predominate colour is yellow and I am sorry but, for me, they are a one-way ticket to sleepy-town. There's only so many over-the-top, deep southern accents done by Californian of New York actors that a man can take before he wants to carve his own ears out. It didn't take me 2 seconds to see how wrong I was by the way Claire Danes was acting and I asked my wife if her character had autism.
I pick up bits of information and news from a hundred different internet searches or articles that I may read or skim in a day. Invariably I'll briefly notice an advert on a site containing an article completely unrelated to said advert, you know something about the latest Bruce Campbell vs. the Pinocchio Demon comic book or something, and later that week someone will say something or ask a question and I'll be able to say "Oh yes that's the one starring Josh Hartnett, about the deaf and dumb man who sailed to China on a milk crate, based on a true story, set in the 50s I think, comes out Friday". That's where advertising works, where it fails however is that I will never ever go see that movie for all the spanners in Norfolk, doesn't matter how many shots of Judy Dench looking stern they use.
Anyway, I digress, the point I was making was that just from the way Claire Danes was acting and the way the scene was shot, I knew the character she portrayed had autism and from knowing that bit of information I made the leap to assume that this was the made for TV movie about the autistic woman that picked up all those Emmys yesterday. The one with the funny name who went on to be a world authority on autism. I know this, not because I watched the Emmy's, read educational articles in magazine or care particularly about special need children but because I happened to see a picture next to a headline: 'Mystery star at Emmy's explained' as I went to log in to yahoo mail. I glanced at the article and remembered one word from it: autism and the information that a TV movie had been made about her. 'I'll never watch that', I thought to myself, 'it sounds about as cheery and as interesting as an afternoon spent in a sales management seminar on an industrial estate outside Luton' and I've already done that once in my life (that's hours of my precious time I'll never get back).
So as I sat down next to my wife to struggle through this, no doubt, depressing tale of trials in the face of adversity and hammy nasal acting, I really didn't know how much I could take.
When a film bares the 'made for tv' AND the 'bio-pic' tag it usually means some overly sentimentalised and over simplified heap of owl crap, starring actors who once spent one season on LA Law and with all the production values of a bus-station cafe's all-day breakfast. As if that wasn't bad enough then you add a physically fit actor doing a 'disability' and I am about ready to start screaming 'get me out of here!' like a claustrophobic escapologist.
Well, I think it was Socrates who once said, the mark of an intelligent man is to realise you know nothing and I, folks, know absolutely nothing.
Instead of becoming restless or disinterested, quite the opposite happened and the pacing, the acting and the directing carried me along making me feel happy in some moments, sad in others and even intrigued by it all at once.
Yes of course it was the usual 'true' story about a person with a problem who overcomes that problem by using it to her advantage and yes it was a whole life condensed into 100 minutes and therefor some of it felt too easy but it was done with such charm, occasional fun and great performances that you just went along for the ride, letting it emotionally effect you and engage you.
Yes, ok so its simplification lead to the usual cliched scenes where, despite her awkwardness, fixation on detail, lack of social skills, weird loud voice and slightly jarring appearance there was always someone in the crowd who understood her straight away and gave her the opportunity time and time again to succeed and, yes, of course there were also the ones who didn't understand and bullied her but these scenes didn't come off as too horrible and Danes was so mesmerising in her performance, surrounded by a great supporting cast that you didn't mind being some what emotionally manipulated at times.
The second best thing after the performances was the direction. They came up with this great little technique of using clips of fantasy, flash-back and still photographs to establish what was in Temple's head the whole time. This was a neat gimmick to pull out and use every time she had a Eureka! moment but it also helped to inject some humour, some art and some unusual and striking images into the film.
I would say that you have, if you've watched day time TV, seen this sort of plot before, I know for a fact Bruce Campbell is in a story about a blind man who climbed Everest, and I would certainly say that you have to be in the sort of mood where you're not really in the mood for anything to fully enjoy it (because it'll surprise you pleasantly) but thankfully due to the lack of horrendous Forrest Gump 'you-can-do-it' moments and because the cast and director are not just clearly passionate about telling the story but all in fine form, this film was genuinely heartwarming, thought provoking, exciting and funny without ever getting pretentious or so over the top it was unbelievable.
One point though, who names their kid Temple? and who teases a kid for being autistic when you could tease them about being called Temple?
7 out of 10 rotisserie chickens
Points from The Misses 8 out of 10 rotisserie chickens
Double Impact - 28th August 2010
Many of the greats in the action world, Jackie Chan and Arnold Schwarzenegger for example, get to the point where fighting endless streams of large shoulder padded grey suited and faceless guys named Mr.X gets old and there is nowhere left to go but to fight themselves.
JCVD waited just 8 movies and then said, right, get me a script where I get to play a camp kick boxer and a cigar chomping reprobate with a penchant for hair gel and black clothes.
After a few minutes of this fairly standard flick I was feeling the impact alright, I was unfortunately feeling the impact of the ridiculous and horrendous sight of a highly camp Van Damme in blue lycra doing the splits. Never underestimate the midget Belgian's willingness to utterly embarrass himself for a paycheck.
For those who have not splashed about in the jolly pool of Double Impact I will quickly explain that the film centers around two twins separated at birth, when their parents are gunned down in Hong Kong by a suitably evil yet fairly nondescript triad gang. Really this was all a hand-rubbingly sinister ploy by token Brit villainous businessman to keep all the profits of some tunnel or other. Cut to 25 years later and despite one being in Hong Kong and one being in LA (due to reasons far too convoluted to go into here) both speak in a stilted Belgian accent. This has something to do with one of them being raised in France, (they don't say why) and the other being raised by French Nuns in China, which all makes just about as much sense as it needs to. Neither of them has particularly learnt how to dress without looking completely ridiculous but at least one of them grooms their hair different so we can sort of tell what's going on. Their parent's old bodyguard brings them together to take down the evil Brit and his Chinese henchmen. Cue a series of explosions, gun fights, silly slo-mo kick boxing bits, showdowns and, of course, the obligatory scene where, because of the most ramped up and elaborate jealousy ever witnessed in a movie, they have to fight each other.
Overall the movie is ok. The direction is fine and Hong Kong is always a vibrant and interesting location for films. The supporting cast, including the highly wrinkled, unusually shouty and fairly hopeless Geoffrey Lewis and a totally vacant, not particularly attractive, viking porn star, are mostly rubbish save for an eye-bulgingly psychotic turn from Bolo Yeung. In fact the villains are suitably chin strokingly evil and are all played pretty well including the usual band of menacing henchpersons complete with a scary looking, random lesbian with thighs like a bulls tanned rump that could make a man whince at ten paces. Van Damme isn't totally atrocious either and clearly has a ton of fun playing the gruffer and slightly more manly of the two brothers, Alex as he chomps purposefully on his ever-present cigar and acts his little Belgian muscular heart out.
As the film progresses, however, it's incredible how over the top it all becomes with every scene played out like a Norweigan melodrama. The aforementioned jealousy scene, that is only really in the thing as an excuse to include a Van Damme on Van Damme fight, is utterly tremendous and where the film reaches some sort of absurd pinnacle.
To set the scene briefly, Chad (the wetter of the two brothers yet with awesome kick boxing skills) dashes back to Hong Kong from their island hideout to pick up superfluous blonde lady because she's in trouble with the bad guys and in danger of being violently felt up by the ugly lesbian. Alex (Van Damme as the 'serious' brother) doesn't know where they are and is suddenly, outrageously tortured by pink and blue lit, completely over-the-top, soft-core porn images of Chad schtupping his leggy blonde bit of tail and, despite this never actually happening, resorts to bellowing loudly, chugging and gargling whiskey like it's apple juice and punching random walls until Chad and the breasty one get back and Alex decides to punch him instead. It all ends with Van Damme, as Chad, having a ludicrous strop and storming off to the beach claiming he's going to swim to the mainland. Hysterical.
All in all the action is pretty decent and well choreographed, although not one set piece stands out, except maybe the previously detailed, JCVD vs himself fight. The plot is easy enough to follow, the pacing holds up nicely and it all looks professional enough, even if the special split-screen effects do date it somewhat.
Still, perfect for a weekend afternoon when you have nothing much else to do but watch a Belgian go slowly mad.
6.5 out of 10 warm buttered croissants
Points from The Misses 8 out of 10 warm buttered croissants
Dr.Horrible's Sing-A-Long Blog - 28th August 2010
There honestly isn't a bad word to say about this internet mini series (except, of course, that there isn't enough of it - I could watch a hundred more) everything about it is wonderful. It just feels so good that something like this exists.
As you know, from the previous Dollhouse review, I am a Joss Whedon fan and I think this is some of the cleverest, funniest stuff he's ever done. The acting, while knowingly over-the-top in some cases, is fantastic and they all have singing voices that are great to listen to and not poppy or whiny at all. For something which was made for relatively little the whole thing looks great and suitably comic book. As for the plot and characters, that they manage to pack so much into three 15 minute episodes is incredible and even with the overall goofy and knock-about nature of the thing, it is genuinely shocking and touching when the end comes around. It's funny that the only real innocent and do-gooder is punished and the egotistical Hammer and megalomaniacal Dr.Horrible get to live and yet you still go with it. The songs are also tremendously catchy and memorable without ever becoming annoying, like, for example, the Timewarp.
On the DVD as well as an informative and fun making of you also get a musical commentary which contains songs and humour almost as great as the film itself. It's a genuine treat and ensures that this DVD never gets old.
10 out of 10 delicious ice cream and brownie deserts
Points from the Misses 8 out of 10 delicious ice cream and brownie deserts
Dollhouse - August 2010
Right, so between Abrams and Whedon (not that it's a fight particularly), I am firmly in the Whedon camp. Especially as I don't trust anyone who doesn't reveal their first name, what's with the J.J. ? hmmmmmm? Seems pretentious as hell if you ask me.
I have the fondest memories of watching Buffy at university with my housemates. They used to be released in 2 VHS boxsets a few months apart and each time my friend would purchase a box set we would have a Buffy marathon. A ton of sweets and munchies would be purchased, duvets would be brought down to the sofa, curtains would be drawn, eyes would be glued to the screen, laughs would be had and lectures would be missed. I would later buy them and Angel on DVD myself and with my wife, who I introduced to them, I would watch every episode again back to back. Then Firefly and Serenity, which I consider Joss Whedon's finest hour, would prove to me that Whedon seemingly can do no wrong and also introduced me to Nathon Fillion who could prove to be the next generation Bruce Campbell.
Joss Whedon firstly writes good characters and then secondly gives them interesting and unexpected things to do, not like M. Night Shamalawhotsit where it became a twist for twists sake (although Joss does terrific twists) and not like Lost where the unexpected things happened because the writers seemed to be scrabbling around for any old 'cool' idea but because it makes sense within the parameters of the plot. In every Whedon show you get the distinct impression it's actually building to a genuine climax and that you won't be disappointed, I never feel like I am being taken down a blind alleyway he can't get us out of and you also get the feeling that he has thought this through, you are in safe hands and he cares. Also he is funny, really funny, you only have to watch Dr.Horrible's Sing-Along-Blog to see that (review coming soon because I watched that again this weekend).
So, to Dollhouse then, the show that before I'd even seen a frame of it I knew it had been cancelled, reviews had been mixed and I had heard from friends that they didn't really like it either. This was a challenge then because I wanted to see it and judge it for myself but I also didn't want to watch the first Whedon show that I might not like. I was also on the fence about Eliza Dushku as well because the Faith character in Buffy she played could be 50% exciting and sassy and 50% annoying (but then again so could Buffy).
I am just going to say that I loved it and no it didn't have the pop culture attitude of Buffy, the class (or cast) of Firefly or anything like the humour of his previous work but it was still one hell of a complex, adult, interesting and exciting show.
I could go into each episode and the overall plot of the piece but honestly all I want to say about it is that both my wife and I were on the edge of our seats and happily plowed through the 14 episodes on the DVD (including the original pilot) in no time at all and despite the negative and unfair reviews I have read about her, I thought that Eliza Dushku showed incredible range and versatility in all of the roles she is required to play in this show.
I also have a theory about why it wasn't so popular on TV. Watching each episode without adverts on DVD, the in depth, dense plot line develops quickly and cleverly. I couldn't imagine watching it week after week and having to wait each time, it would lose its carefully crafted nuance. Also this is a TV show without, really, any heros or villains. It's the first TV Show I have watched where everyone is in a grey area, which is just terrific. My wife and I had long discussions about whether we sided with the Dollhouse characters or the FBI agent and who in the Dollhouse would turn out to be good or evil. There was a lot more moral ambiguity than ever before and that doesn't sit well with audiences used to the black n white weekly soap opera/entertainment show where the labels are clearly defined. I did think, at some point, you had to accept what the Dollhouse was and not judge it in order to go along with the ride. By the time Alpha showed up we were completely hooked!
Thank goodness that Season 2 comes out in November because we are both hankering for more time in the Dollhouse. Now who's going to give Joss some money to resurrect this and Firefly simultaneously hmmmmmm?
8.5 out of 10 glorious steak and fries
Points from The Misses 9 out of 10 glorious steak and fries
Above The Law - 27th August 2010
This is meant to be the stuff I would say if we sat down together in a diner afterwards and just spewed forth with how we felt. Sure, maybe if I watched these films in the future a second time I would change my opinion slightly or completely in some cases, some movies can depend heavily on how you first see them, and in that case if I have more ideas on a film, maybe I'll throw them up on the blog.
I am finding myself, since I started this, occasionally thinking during the movie, what am I going to write about this? This is, if I am honest, usually when the movie isn't up to much and on occasion when the movie is so good I can't wait to praise it.
During 'Above the Law' I wasn't thinking about what I was going to write at all. I started watching it at midnight last night (27th), fueled by a friday night's rum and bison burger, and finished the last 15 minutes this morning (28th). I am still not sure what I am going to write so this truly is a 'from my brain to the screen' review.
My initial reaction is to say I genuinely liked it. It was as polished, looked as good and was directed as well as any other 80s action film from Commando to Cobra (by the guy who would go on to direct one of my favourite Harrison Ford movies, The Fugitive). Despite it actually being Seagal's first movie, it is a vast improvement on his second film, Hard to Kill (see the review below). It actually made me want to watch more Seagal movies in the hope that at least one other would be good like this. It also had a plot that while I never knew 100% exactly how it all tied together, something to do with war, drugs, immigration, politics and the assassination of a priest and a senator, it, at least, had a suitably evil, flat faced villain who surrounded himself with equally ridiculous rent-a-goons and even, in the final moments attempted some sort of message or point.
The action, too, was fantastic. It wasn't as infrequent or as slow moving as some of the other so-called action movies I have seen lately and there were also some genuinely impressive stunts. The bar fight, the machete fight, the scene in which Seagal destroys some suitably mono-browed thugs and a grocery store in the process, much to the dismay of the comical Indian store-clerk and even the end show down with the cheap-suited, odd faced, head villain with the maniacally evil sounding name were all directed well, choreographed well and were fun and exciting to watch.
It left me scratching my head thinking what the hell went wrong between this and the highly amusing but overall sloppy Hard to Kill? Budget? Director? what?
It's good to see the likes of Pam Grier and character actor Chelcie Ross in the cast as well as the usual round of 'how-do-I-know-that-guy?' amongst the various be-suited CIA, FBI and PD officials, but the weak link in the acting stakes is still Seagal. Although, in this movie his acting and range of emotions, just like the fighting, is a damn sight more animated and active than in Hard to Kill. Did this one really come first? I just don't get it! How do you get worse with practice rather than better?
His overall look, body and stance remain a problem too. He doesn't yet have the ridiculous and horrendous wardrobe of future films, although it's still pretty bad, but he does have this tall, lumpy, lumbering and slightly flabby looking body, with arms that actually swing sometimes, limp and lifeless, from his extended mis-shapen torso and he can't run properly for all the Adidas in the United States. Whenever he is filmed at full height from his shoes to his greased back, pony-tail-in-the-making hair atop that Cro-Magnon forehead it actually caused involuntary laughter from me, which I suppose, at least, made the film even more enjoyable.
Overall then a pretty good watch and I would definitely sit through it again. It certainly confirmed my point at the beginning of this review that each film, even as part of an actor's body of work, must be taken individually and on their own merits because while Hard to Kill was laughable and in places fairly dull, Above the Law was a great little 80s action film and means I will certainly give Seagal a chance again in the future.
7 out of 10 Scrabbled eggs
7 out of 10 Scrabbled eggs
Silent Rage - 25th August 2010
Hello, my friends, hello.
Right, now, I have agonised over how to review this film because, well, quite frankly, questioning the Norris is not what someone like me should do without a decent argument but I am afraid boys and girls, thanks to the poster for the movie (see left) I think I have my argument.
Let me explain.
I have two very dear friends who are worshipers at the alter of Norris, I have heard film makers I like mention this film, Silent Rage and I have, like everyone else, read the Chuck Norris facts.
In these recent years, with geekdom and fanboy culture reaching it's zenith and with DVD and film streaming websites bringing the quirky, the strange and the B movie to more and more people, a certain cult has grown up about certain things, films and people.
For example, I have been a fan of Bruce Campbell and Army of Darkness since I first saw a VHS rental version of the film in 1993. I can remember searching through endless independent VHS stores, that dealt with rare or quirky films, finding bigger films in which Campbell had a cameo and the few Bs in which he starred. This was before IMDB and amazon allow you to search for some random si-fi flick shot in a warehouse in Michigan and buy it 2 minutes later on pristine DVD. Since then and due in part to the rise of conventions and the internet, Campbell now has a cult fan-base some A-listers can only dream about. No fickle, screaming teens here, these folks are lifers. The buy the merchandise and proudly wear the t-shirt.
Now action stars like Seagal and Norris don't have such a rabid fan-base but it is fun and popular to get some friends together, some alcohol and some munchies and kick back to films with ridiculous titles like Invasion U.S.A. and Marked for Death.
I used to like doing that too, with B movies, horror movies and whatever else I could pick up off a market for a quid. The only action stuff I was really into, though, was studio stuff, like the Die Hards and Leathal Weapons, or the odd B-action comedy, usually starring someone like Jim Belushi. For some reason the world of Van Damme, Seagal and Norris had sort of eluded me, I said this in an earlier blog and so I am, now remedying that.
What I am trying to say with that long winded intro is I can really appreciate a good B movie and I really WANT to like this stuff.
This is where the poster for Silent Rage comes in.
That tag-line is incredible: 'Science Created him. Now Chuck Norris must destroy him' not Sheriff Dan Stevens, the character he plays in the film but actually Chuck Norris himself. This is because, no doubt, the cunning marketing people know that that's what people want to see, some scientific mutant getting the beat down from Mr.Norris. It's like Army of Darkness really being called Bruce Campbell Vs. the Army of Darkness, it's the man not the character you care about. Sadly, I think, the real reason that's the tag-line is because Chuck Norris plays Chuck Norris and what Silent Rage teaches us is, Chuck Norris has all the acting ability and charisma of a pickled egg.
Now look, I know what you're probably saying "nobody tunes into a Norris picture looking for acting" and you're right, I wasn't expecting acting I was expecting, as the poster says, destruction. This begs the question why, if acting is not at the forefront of a Norris picture, is so much of the plodding 1hr 40 running time of this film devoted to just that, Norris acting!? or any of them acting for that matter because they are all awful. We know the premise, it's basically Halloween with Norris rather than Pleasance, so why does it take so long, at least an hour, for the super-fast-healing killer to get off his gurney in the spooky basement laboratory and start killing?!
Which also begs the question what small rinky-dink hick town in America with shabby biker bars and roach infested diners has a big laboratory testing facility? but anyway...
Before the main killing spree all we get, action wise, is a fairly crappy scene at the beginning, a bar fight which was so badly staged it would be put to shame by most semi-drunk slap-fests at a rowdy Bar Mitzphar and then nothing again until the laughable finale. Even the mad scientist and his tall drink of gormless partner weren't crazy, evil or funny enough. Once the killing does take place, each kill is either tediously predictable, unimaginative or down right dull.
Even Kent Dorfman can't provide enough comic relief to save this bilge.
Listen, I could go on and on about the bad direction, the terrible script, the shocking cinematography, the laughable montage, the ridiculous love scenes, the ludicrous premise and the constant, ill advised and incorrectly executed hand held Halloween rip offs but they would all be fine, expected even, if this movie either:
A) didn't take itself so seriously or B) at least did what it said on the tin and contained some genuinely thrilling, gloriously violent action.
My complaint with Silent Rage is that the poster is better than the film. The poster, is more exciting and all together funnier than the film. The poster claims that the film includes a show down in which Chuck Norris gets pushed to his limits and beyond, what it actually includes is one of the most ponderous and lumbering fights ever committed to celluloid with one greasy, wide eyed, stilted fella wrestling the shorter, blonde moustachioed Norris in the dirt. When he does attempt something remotely exciting like a run and jump kick, as if the fight wasn't boring and slow enough, the director slows it down to a near stop and then Norris falls over, a lot.
Even the supposedly, Carrie/Friday 13th, surprise ending isn't a surprise.
I have attempted to watch two other Norris movies in the past and didn't make it all the way through either of them, one was Lone Wolf McQuade which I felt, after about 10 minutes, the title was going to be better than the film (although I openly admit I didn't give that one a chance) and Delta Force which I got about an hour into before I gave up. Yes the acting and direction are a little better in that one but again, where was the action? Where did Norris get this image of the one man unstoppable army from? Why didn't he board the plane in the first 30 minutes of Delta Force and eat all the terrorists? At least someone like Stallone keeps the action coming thick and fast and in Rambo 3 does face an entire army wounded and single handed, where's his website full of hard man facts?
Look, if you're a Norris fan, I fully accept that I may not 'get it', that watching it with a bunch of blokes is a better time and that I haven't seen the best films of his yet, all I can do is watch something, form an opinion and state it, for what it's worth. I know a lot of the fandom of Norris is sort of tongue in cheek and I know that when you love something, even for fun, that you'll sit through anything to watch them do their stuff. I am like that with Bruce Campbell although I am serious, I think he is genuinely charismatic and a fantastic actor albeit admittedly goofy sometimes.
One more thing, I have seen the trailer for Invasion U.S.A. and read the back cover of the DVD and they both seem awesome, I would hate to watch it though and find the Russians don't invade until the end and the rest of the film is just Norris strutting about in cowboy boots looking vacant and hollow. Maybe, one day I might give him the benefit of the doubt again and watch it but, for now, I will leave Norris to his fans and go on my way.
1.5 out of 10 disappointingly weak hot chocolates
The Misses chucks disappointingly weak hot chocolates at Norris
Right, now, I have agonised over how to review this film because, well, quite frankly, questioning the Norris is not what someone like me should do without a decent argument but I am afraid boys and girls, thanks to the poster for the movie (see left) I think I have my argument.
Let me explain.
I have two very dear friends who are worshipers at the alter of Norris, I have heard film makers I like mention this film, Silent Rage and I have, like everyone else, read the Chuck Norris facts.
In these recent years, with geekdom and fanboy culture reaching it's zenith and with DVD and film streaming websites bringing the quirky, the strange and the B movie to more and more people, a certain cult has grown up about certain things, films and people.
For example, I have been a fan of Bruce Campbell and Army of Darkness since I first saw a VHS rental version of the film in 1993. I can remember searching through endless independent VHS stores, that dealt with rare or quirky films, finding bigger films in which Campbell had a cameo and the few Bs in which he starred. This was before IMDB and amazon allow you to search for some random si-fi flick shot in a warehouse in Michigan and buy it 2 minutes later on pristine DVD. Since then and due in part to the rise of conventions and the internet, Campbell now has a cult fan-base some A-listers can only dream about. No fickle, screaming teens here, these folks are lifers. The buy the merchandise and proudly wear the t-shirt.
Now action stars like Seagal and Norris don't have such a rabid fan-base but it is fun and popular to get some friends together, some alcohol and some munchies and kick back to films with ridiculous titles like Invasion U.S.A. and Marked for Death.
I used to like doing that too, with B movies, horror movies and whatever else I could pick up off a market for a quid. The only action stuff I was really into, though, was studio stuff, like the Die Hards and Leathal Weapons, or the odd B-action comedy, usually starring someone like Jim Belushi. For some reason the world of Van Damme, Seagal and Norris had sort of eluded me, I said this in an earlier blog and so I am, now remedying that.
What I am trying to say with that long winded intro is I can really appreciate a good B movie and I really WANT to like this stuff.
This is where the poster for Silent Rage comes in.
That tag-line is incredible: 'Science Created him. Now Chuck Norris must destroy him' not Sheriff Dan Stevens, the character he plays in the film but actually Chuck Norris himself. This is because, no doubt, the cunning marketing people know that that's what people want to see, some scientific mutant getting the beat down from Mr.Norris. It's like Army of Darkness really being called Bruce Campbell Vs. the Army of Darkness, it's the man not the character you care about. Sadly, I think, the real reason that's the tag-line is because Chuck Norris plays Chuck Norris and what Silent Rage teaches us is, Chuck Norris has all the acting ability and charisma of a pickled egg.
Now look, I know what you're probably saying "nobody tunes into a Norris picture looking for acting" and you're right, I wasn't expecting acting I was expecting, as the poster says, destruction. This begs the question why, if acting is not at the forefront of a Norris picture, is so much of the plodding 1hr 40 running time of this film devoted to just that, Norris acting!? or any of them acting for that matter because they are all awful. We know the premise, it's basically Halloween with Norris rather than Pleasance, so why does it take so long, at least an hour, for the super-fast-healing killer to get off his gurney in the spooky basement laboratory and start killing?!
Which also begs the question what small rinky-dink hick town in America with shabby biker bars and roach infested diners has a big laboratory testing facility? but anyway...
Before the main killing spree all we get, action wise, is a fairly crappy scene at the beginning, a bar fight which was so badly staged it would be put to shame by most semi-drunk slap-fests at a rowdy Bar Mitzphar and then nothing again until the laughable finale. Even the mad scientist and his tall drink of gormless partner weren't crazy, evil or funny enough. Once the killing does take place, each kill is either tediously predictable, unimaginative or down right dull.
Even Kent Dorfman can't provide enough comic relief to save this bilge.
Listen, I could go on and on about the bad direction, the terrible script, the shocking cinematography, the laughable montage, the ridiculous love scenes, the ludicrous premise and the constant, ill advised and incorrectly executed hand held Halloween rip offs but they would all be fine, expected even, if this movie either:
A) didn't take itself so seriously or B) at least did what it said on the tin and contained some genuinely thrilling, gloriously violent action.
My complaint with Silent Rage is that the poster is better than the film. The poster, is more exciting and all together funnier than the film. The poster claims that the film includes a show down in which Chuck Norris gets pushed to his limits and beyond, what it actually includes is one of the most ponderous and lumbering fights ever committed to celluloid with one greasy, wide eyed, stilted fella wrestling the shorter, blonde moustachioed Norris in the dirt. When he does attempt something remotely exciting like a run and jump kick, as if the fight wasn't boring and slow enough, the director slows it down to a near stop and then Norris falls over, a lot.
Even the supposedly, Carrie/Friday 13th, surprise ending isn't a surprise.
I have attempted to watch two other Norris movies in the past and didn't make it all the way through either of them, one was Lone Wolf McQuade which I felt, after about 10 minutes, the title was going to be better than the film (although I openly admit I didn't give that one a chance) and Delta Force which I got about an hour into before I gave up. Yes the acting and direction are a little better in that one but again, where was the action? Where did Norris get this image of the one man unstoppable army from? Why didn't he board the plane in the first 30 minutes of Delta Force and eat all the terrorists? At least someone like Stallone keeps the action coming thick and fast and in Rambo 3 does face an entire army wounded and single handed, where's his website full of hard man facts?
Look, if you're a Norris fan, I fully accept that I may not 'get it', that watching it with a bunch of blokes is a better time and that I haven't seen the best films of his yet, all I can do is watch something, form an opinion and state it, for what it's worth. I know a lot of the fandom of Norris is sort of tongue in cheek and I know that when you love something, even for fun, that you'll sit through anything to watch them do their stuff. I am like that with Bruce Campbell although I am serious, I think he is genuinely charismatic and a fantastic actor albeit admittedly goofy sometimes.
One more thing, I have seen the trailer for Invasion U.S.A. and read the back cover of the DVD and they both seem awesome, I would hate to watch it though and find the Russians don't invade until the end and the rest of the film is just Norris strutting about in cowboy boots looking vacant and hollow. Maybe, one day I might give him the benefit of the doubt again and watch it but, for now, I will leave Norris to his fans and go on my way.
1.5 out of 10 disappointingly weak hot chocolates
The Misses chucks disappointingly weak hot chocolates at Norris
Hard To Kill - 25th August 2010
This is my plot synopsis, as I saw it:
Steven Seagal plays Mason Storm who is the worst cop in the world. It's not just his ludicrous moniker that has hindered him his whole adult life, he is also a bumbling fool, heavy set from too many dainty bowls of rice, has a ridiculously twatty pony tail and dresses like a bad synth band's bass player.
One night while on the docks, trying out the cheapest and flimsiest surveillance equipment known to man, he spies a gang of time traveling gangsters from a 1930s film. It's never made 100% clear why they are bad but we know they are bad because they are not Seagal, they are all shrouded in shadow and have secret group meetings down at the docks after dark. What more evidence does this klutz of a cop need.
Just so the bad guys know that they are being watched, Seagal talks to himself on a stakeout loudly about the fact he's missing the Oscars and then stands out in the light to fiddle with his poor equipment making sure to drop bits and bang it against some scaffolding. The bad guys give chase but Seagal, always prepared, has a car.
Next we see Seagal trying to buy champagne from a scruffy, wise cracking liquor store clerk who berates Seagal for his expensive choice of beverage. He also explains that he hates the Oscars, he doesn't need them, he has surveillance footage of violence, sex and all manner of debauchery. Oh No, thinks Seagal, maybe this comedy alcohol shop isn't as safe as it first appeared (not that you'd know what he's thinking though because Seagal is still mastering his Frankenstein's Monster impression). As soon as the store owner starts waxing rhapsodic about the dregs of humanity that he gets in his store, sure enough a few turn up and shoot him in the chest with a shotgun. That'll teach him to make fun of my champagne and stuffed monkey thinks Seagal (again we can only guess what he's thinking because, despite being a cop, Seagal, with his beady eyes and huge flabby face, just stands there and watches all this jolly nightlife unfurl). Once the shop keeper is well and truly dead only then does Seagal spring into action. Well, spring is probably a kind word, he more or less just shuffles in amongst the crowd of hoodlums and watches slack jawed and dull brained as they bounce off his rotund girth and hideous, looks-like-a-magic-eye-poster, waistcoat.
At this point the audience are either in fits of laughter or wandering why they are still watching.
Next Seagal turns up at a quiet little suburban home where we meet his fake wife and kid. He disturbingly mumbles a Christian prayer to his kid, despite expounding Eastern philosophy later in the film, and then proceeds to molest is wife as if he was picking out ripe fruit at a deli. Suddenly, as if to save the audience from more Seagal based rumpy-pumpy, a bunch of ski-mask wearing clowns burst in and shoot Seagal in the arm. Seagal, however, is made up of random body parts stitched together and filled with pig fat and so is able to stand up and lunge at the bad guys. He is shot again, in the torso this time but still he is back up (I know this film is called Hard to Kill but I didn't think to take that literally). They shoot him one more time and his wife for good measure before planting obvious bags of drugs everywhere and making their exit, narrowly avoiding killing Seagal's kid, despite having big and noisy shot guns, meaning that we now know Seagal's kid to be Damien from the Omen.
Of course within 30 seconds any blind and confused cousin of a forensics' expert would be able to tell you what's wrong with this picture but this is a Seagal film, we are in the realm of the laughingly ridiculous.
Seagal then goes into a coma and wakes up 7 years later to find out that he's really Jesus and his real wife, Kelly Le Brock is coincidentally working as his nurse (it's not until she oggles his penis that Seagal's fingers twitch into life).
Then begins the hilarious farce portion of the film as a semi-concious, Jesus bearded Seagal is wheeled about on a gurney mumbling 'get me out of here' while nobody listens to him and then an assassin shows up and shoots a security guard and a hospital worker in a seemingly patient-less hospital. The laughs keep coming as the Seagal Messiah with a mop manages to escape his would-be killer by wheeling himself into a lift. Despite only just showing up, the obvious telepathic Le Brock also manages to evade the trained gunman (who looks like a 1970s music producer), find Seagal's floor and wheel Fu Manchu down to her car, smashing hysterically into every obstacle on her way.
As I wipe the happy tears from my eyes I am thankful that films this fantastically erratic and bizarre exist.
Le Brock and the Seagal badger are lucky enough to have a country mansion decked out in Eastern regalia to escape to and from there, slowly but surely the film grinds to a halt as it scrabbles about for a plot. The laughs come from watching an extended training montage where the badly put together, cumbersome and lumbering Seagal (now free from the shackles of his glue-on face fuzz) totters about the Californian countryside smacking bits of wood while The Le Brock (who was not the block of wood in question) gazes longly at him and shuns her nursing duties in favour of enormous hair and stupid 80s dresses.
The film goes on like this for what seems like days, Seagal's old partner, who is even more out of shape and shambling than Seagal, turns up and blathers on about the kid while the Frankenseagal gruffly whispers lines like -
"We're outgunned, and undermanned. But you know sumpin'? We're gonna win. You know why? Superior attitude. Superior state of mind."
and the classic
"I'm gonna take you to the bank, Senator Trent. To the blood bank!"
All this pretentious waffling and the creepiest acupuncture scene this side of a Chinese snuff movie leads us to the not-so grand finale in which we get to watch The Seagal Monster roam around Chinatown, like a ponytailed, potbellied Godzilla, shoving people into things. It does dawn on me at this point that, in this film at least, Seagal doesn't really fight, apart from the odd kick he barely moves! Yes he brakes a few rubber arms but really he just sort of shoves people around. All this and a miniscule amount of 'detective' work leads our hero to Senator Trent's mansion which has an outdoor hot-tub, a games room like something out of Big and a giant pop-art painting of the senator. It's all about as believable as I can't believe it's not butter.
Thankfully it's all over pretty quickly and without too much excitement. Despite not really being a cop anymore and having killed tons of people without any actual evidence, Seagal gets away with it, the kid excepts his new step-mum, the senator is shamed on live television and the credits roll with more of that terrifically perfect 80s synth score punctuating the soundtrack once more.
Seriously - 4.5 out of 10 warm and flat lemonades
For Laughs - 6.5 out of 10 warm and flat lemonades
Points from The Misses - 6 out of 10 warm and flat lemonades
The Switch - 21st August 2010
Ok, if you've seen the trailer to this then you know the story and you know the outcome.
You know that single late 30s woman wants baby. Her improbable best friend is a neurotic, hypercondriac, commitment-phobe who gets humourously drunk one night, implausibly swaps sperm with the original donor and 7 years later when the kid's all cute and inquisitive, it's up to the man to grow up, learn, change, tell the woman his mistake and win her back after the inevitable argument, resentment and realisation that really she loved him all along.
To say nothing of the old chestnut that, because of alcohol, he conveniently 'forgets' what he did for 7 years!
Going into these types of formulaic rom-coms time and time again you get to recognise the patterns very quickly and so the film becomes less about the destination and more about the ride. You also find your tolerance for complete and utter nonsense that borders on inane crap is made higher if either the performances, or the actors trying to give those performances, are watchable.
In the case of The Switch a couple of them are but it's not the couple in question, it's Jason Batemen and, the always wonderful, Jeff Goldblum. Without them this film would've been unrivaled agony to sit through. The kid in question is very good as well considering what a precocious little turd we could've been lumbered with and all in all, and I hate to say this as I would love the women to be good too, but if you're watching the three boys then you're ok. The film is funny enough, quirky enough and has enough little interesting ideas and scenes that you just about forgive it all its failings.
Let me start this next section of the review by saying I have no problem, usually, with Jennifer Aniston. Yes she has made some horrendous choices of late, The Bounty Hunter and Love Happens, but we should never forget she's also in Office Space, The Good Girl and The Break Up. She's a very competent comedienne and when given the right script she can shine. The totally mad and bonkers thing about The Switch is actually how little she is given to do. The film focusses, quite surprisingly, on Jason Bateman's quite complex character Wally and then later on his relationship with his son.
Jennifer Aniston's character, sadly, doesn't have a character.
Yet again in a major Hollywood film they haven't bothered writing a part for the actors beyond pieces on a board being moved around to fulfill whatever idiotic plot device they need to speed this bland train towards it's predictable and thoroughly beige finale. For example:
1. We are not sure why she wants a baby, except the inevitable tick tocking of her biological clock, which we have to assume because we are never even told her age!
2. We are never told really how or why her and Wally are best friends (especially as soon as she gets pregnant she leaves Wally and disappears for 6 years with apparently very little communication - what? in these days of e-mail, Facebook and cheap long distance calls!),
3. Except for a throw away scene and the odd line, there is absolutely no explanation of her career status. If you were in TV wouldn't you have the person, I don't know, exhibit some passion for the career? or at least mention it in passing
4. It makes little to no sense that she would have a whacked out, crazy, new agey friend like the annoying, grating and hideous Juliette Lewis character (seemingly thrown in there to give the film that thin veneer of boiled anus the studio execs so clearly thought it lacked)
5. Despite not wanting Wally's sperm at the beginning of the film because he is so neurotic and crazy, she happily raises a kid who is absolutely nuts without batting an eyelid and, although you can forgive her slightly for never expecting foul play on Wally's part (because it's so ludicrously far-fetched), when she ends up dating who she thinks was the donor (now conveniently divorced) she never stops and thinks, wait a minute this man is absolutely nothing like my child at all.
In fact she has so little character that the kid only seems to display Wally's personality traits and none of hers.
This lack of character or fitting characters to suit a scene extends to her beyond-irritating female friend played by the why-doesn't-she-just-give-it-up-now wrinkly mess of Juliette Lewis who, as I said earlier, is there literally to be annoying (because irritaing = funny, right?) and to the donor who goes from a handsome, nervous, married professor of Feminine Studies to a grinning chump and simple man-child who is into rock climbing and hanging out at manly cabins by the lake because Wally's the sensitive one, remember...
None of it really makes any sense and the only reason to watch this is for the Jeff and Jason show which yields the films funniest moments in the film and also to be pleasantly surprised that a character as seemingly messed up and occasionally dark as Wally's character exists in a throw-away rom-com of this type.
6 out of 10 french toasts
Points from The Misses 7 out of 10 french toasts
Double Bill - The Transporter & Kiss of the Dragon - 20th August 2010
Well, after the wonder that was The Expendables (read my review below if you haven't already), whilst browsing through the DVD section or our local retailer we came across this DVD double bill from two of the stars. I had heard good things about The Transporter but never got round to seeing it and Kiss of the Dragon I had seen before and liked but not in a long time. I have to say that despite being a big fan of action, b movies and straight to DVD fair, I haven't seen and I don't own many examples of it. I would like that to change though because really it's obviously where all the fun is being had. The action films I have mainly seen tend to belong to Stallone, Schwarzenegger and Wilis and of course I had come across Van Damme, Segal and even Norris in the past. Since websites like Hulu and Crackle have been set up I have been able to watch a few more of these types of films along with more Eastern fair with Jackie Chan, Jet Li and Chow Yun Fat. I am aware there is still a ton I need to learn on the subject and hopefully I can make this a goal for the future.
Now, to the films in hand. We watched the films as a double bill and first up was The Transporter, which I really enjoyed. The action, in particular, seemed inventive and varied, the plot, and this is usual in this sought of hokum, seemed particularly but gloriously contrived and the production values were pretty amazing considering the modest budget. They even quite effectively blow up a lighthouse in one ridiculous but fantastic scene.
Jason Statham, despite is beginnings with Guy Ritchie (who is not my favourite person) is incredibly watchable and a tremendous fighter, I am just not sure what accent he is doing in this film. The few long periods of talking he does have it seems to veer all over the place from cockney, American, Australian via Irish and back again. Considering his back story is not explored hugely does it matter? They should've had him talking normally. The other stand out member of the cast is the police officer played by François Berléand, who is splendidly French in everything he does and a surprisingly welcome all for our hero. The woman is annoying though and you don't fully buy their romance or her story but that's fine, for these sorts of things we suspended disbelief. Overall I really liked this movie and will definitely watch Transporter 2.
Luc Besson has been churning these little France based action flicks out for some time (more recently Taken and From Paris with Love) and all of them seem to be just tremendous fun, the one thing you have to sort of tune out is the soundtrack. The soundtrack for The Transporter is abysmal and Kiss of the Dragon is not much of an improvement.
So that leads us, quite nicely if I do say so my damn self, to Kiss of the Dragon. Out of the two movies I still preferred this one but not by a huge margin (and I think that's mostly to do with how bad the soundtrack was to The Transporter). Again the plot is pretty ludicrous but it's nice to see all the chop socky action play out with Paris as a back drop and despite not having much to really do but play your typical prostitute with a heart of gold in distress, it's always nice to see Bridget Fonda in something.
It's also incredible that in a French produced movie there is not really one nice French person in it, they are all scumbags. The lead scumbag of course coming in the form of the gloriously over-the-top, Gary-Oldman-in-Leonesque Inspector Richard. His tremendously craggy face, like an Easter Island head come alive, dripping with every ounce of venom and malice he can muster. Also, it is wonderful to see Burt Kwouk in this film. The action, of course, is first rate and Jet Li is a captivating screen presence. The video game/Enter the Dragon ending where he must face one foe after another, each more menacing and hard to beat than the last, is terrific and features an entire room of karate black belts and some enormously muscular, white haired twins.
The reliance on his magic little acupuncture pins may seem a little far fetched for some but, I think, anything like that just has to be accepted and gone along with.
So while neither of these would ever make my list of top 10 action movies of all time (a list I have yet to compile actually but I will one day) they are both really enjoyable; throw away yes but well worth a look, or a second look.
The Transporter - 7 out of 10 cups of coffee
Kiss of the Dragon - 7 out of 10 cups of coffee
Points from The Misses:
The Transporter - 6 out of 10 cups of coffee
Kiss of the Dragon - 8 out of 10 cups of coffee
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World - 19th August 2010
Ok, did it finally happen? Did I finally get old?
I have noticed my waistline expanding, a growing disinterest with groups of people, noisy bars, the word 'trendy' and have begun to immediately assume that anyone under 21 doesn't have a clue about anything. So, yes, maybe I am finally old.
I have never felt so old, however, as watching Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World.
What a depressing cinema experience.
The news, my friends, is not good. The welcomed geek invasion of the last few years may finally have gone too far, over baked itself and this sunken flan of a movie might be the beginning of the end.
It is particularly devastating to me that I didn't like this film because, on a normal day, I love Edgar Wright's stuff. Being a Brit of a certain age I was extremely fortunate to see Spaced on television; as a budding movie geek and student making his first video shot zombie feature I didn't mind being beaten to the idea of a British zombie film by Pegg, Frost and Wright; also, as a fan of Dalton era Bond as well as awesome old British actors in general, I couldn't have been happier with their choice of cast and overall class in Hot Fuzz. As well as liking him, I am a fan of the things that Wright is a fan of: Sam Raimi, Peter Jackson, George A Romero, Clint Eastwood etc. and I also love innovative directors, people who really explore their craft and technique, of which I feel Wright is definitely one. As for the cast, Michael Cera, from Arrested Development on, has proved to be a watchable, funny actor albeit one with very little range who I did think that one day, just maybe, his schtick would gradually get old.
These are just some of the reasons that I wanted to see this film.
So, for his first film without Simon and Nick, Mr.Wright picks to adapt a series of quirky Canadian comic books that aim to physicalise the internal battle young adults go through while dating into actual superhero duels inspired by the early beat-em-up video games. I was never much of a serious gamer but I like comics, Canada, Wright and Cera and I thought the metaphor was pretty clever, something along the lines of Pretty in Pink meets Street Fighter. I was willing to go with it.
So throughout production I followed Edgar Wright's picture blog and the odd video he threw up onto the web, I read articles and eagerly awaited the trailer. Now I don't know how much stock I put in trailers but I thought the Scott Pilgrim ones looked pretty awful. I was a little disheartened. It looked like a lot of gimmicks that would get tired quickly punctuated by the odd, not-very-good joke. I chose to ignore the trailers and think 'I bet it's one of those occasions where the studio doesn't know how to market something so they put any old thing together in the hope of it appealing to someone'. I was trying to give Edgar Wright the benefit of the doubt, 'he can't have made a bad movie' I kept telling myself. The irony with all this was that the film was exactly like the trailer multiplied by a thousand and not in a good way.
I should have listened to Bruce Campbell. His saying is that a movie that's fun to make is hard to watch. Well it looked like making Scott Pilgrim was probably an absolute ball. How telling is it that Edgar Wright has hooked up with one of its stars, the so-far-has-yet-to-really-prove-herself-as-anything-but-an-annoying-person-with-a-whiny-voice Anna Kendrick, sorry Edgar old chap but you should've kept your eye on the film you were making (saying that I do hope he's happy).
Within 10 minutes of the film starting the Misses and I were very close to leaving and I haven't thought about doing that since I saw the Blair Witch Project. I was used to the crash bang editing and sound effects from Spaced and Shaun of the Dead but the first 10 minutes of this film were like that in overdrive, like someone juiced up Mr.Wright and his editor with speed, cocaine and high fructose corn syrup and this is why I say, maybe I am getting old but the whole thing started to give me a headache.
I am not sure really why we stayed, maybe it was the $26 we'd paid to get in, but I had a feeling that all this rushing about, jump cutting, knowingly clever graphics and stupid sound effects would all ease off once Scott met Ramona. In a way that bet paid off, the film does calm down just a little on the hectic nonsense once the 'plot' is underway. However, and this appears to be a running theme through movies lately, even once the so-called story did start to move forward, I really can't say I knew anyone's characters beyond their obvious nerd cliche restraints.
For example, who is Ramona Flowers? Why does she like Scott Pilgrim? Why is she worth fighting for? (Her interchangeable-stolen from Eternal Sunshine hair colour??) none of these things were answered, neither did anyone seem to care at all. So why should we?
The film is a mess, the jokes, the fights, the acting, the editing and especially the directing, it's all a mess. If a director's bag of tricks was a purse then this film is the scene in The Breakfast Club when Ally Sheedy dumps her purse all over the couch. There is no denying that Edgar Wright has incredible technical skill but he has to learn when to use what trick and not just throw every magnet at the fridge hoping one of them sticks. I love Sam Raimi, old pre-For The Love of The Game Sam Raimi when his spectacularly inventive use of the camera would jolt and excite you throughout a scene, yet even he knew when to film something normally for one impact and crazily for another. There are moments of the first frenetic and frantic Evil Dead that are completely silent and the set up in that movie is slow and builds atmosphere, maybe the lessons and techniques Edgar Wright should've taken from Raimi was not the crazy ones but the delicate use of calm.
Everything but the kitchen sink film-making of the worst possible kind and with absolutely no character development. Sometimes a comic book should be a comic book and a film should be a film and very often there is a fine line between cool and annoying. On one positive note I will say that after the terrible first 15 minutes the film did settle in to at least being watchable and this was due, in part, to the fact that there was the odd funny bit here and there; including a whole bizarre section about a vegan which was totally bizarre and which I didn't completely get but contained some genuinely humourous moments.
It's all irrelevant anyway, I could go on and on about what's wrong with this film from here until Christmas 2013 and it still wouldn't matter. What I ultimately got from all this was that this film wasn't for me. I am not meant to understand it, I am getting old. I am the Christian parents of the Alabama teenager who don't understand why she likes the Beatles in 1965. I am the old man on the street wandering why all the barber shops have been replaced by chain hair salons blaring out offensively loud pop music and feeling oh so alone. I don't care about what fashion (or lack of it) is important, what industrial complex the latest so-bad-they're-good garage band is playing at, what hobbies are hip and what's not, which retro computer games are cool to mention and exactly how nonchalant about everything you have to be in order to be excepted by all the other members of Generation Whatever. I may not know much about art in the end but I know what I like, I know what I think is watchable, listenable to and classic and although it pains me to say it, Scott Pilgrim is not it but then, for me, I don't think it's meant to be.
Get back to the grown ups Edgar, we miss you.
2 out of 10 bowls of creamed spinach
Points from The Misses 2 out of 10 bowls of creamed spinach
Eat Pray Love - 15th August 2010
Now, let me explain. When you're married, or some girl's boyfriend, you have to occasionally make a concession and go to a movie that you would normally have rather wrenched your own tongue out with some rusty pliers than patronise with so much as a slightly damp sneeze. Hopefully, if it's a good relationship, they in turn will go see some gun-toting, pony-tail sporting, loud-mouth movie and if it's a great relationship some really disturbingly graphic porn.
I am one of the very lucky ones as my wife loves zombie films and introduced me to the true joys of Stallone. Most of the time when we see a movie we generally agree on the major parts of it and just occasionally she likes tat that I wouldn't waft my anal emissions at, usually featuring Patrick Dempsey or something.
Luckily with Cough Fart Snooze, sorry Eat Pray Love, we were more or less on the same page.
Ok, so, where to begin? First of all this movie is 17 hours long. It would be quicker to personally travel to Italy, India and Bali on the back of a wheezing dromedary than watch Julia Roberts do it in the cinema. I had seen the trailer for the film a handful of times and had thought "ok, so I am going to get dragged to this and that's fine, I like Roberts and there's bound to be some interesting shots of exotic countries I can enjoy" but unfortunately that wasn't really the case because instead of making the most of each of these fascinating locations she goes to and at least giving us the odd montage of Julia gayly skipping amongst the ruins of Rome, enjoying the incense of India and basking on or bathing off the beaches in Bali, what we in fact get is a lot of self important whiny folk blathering on and on about their home-spun, knocked-off, mosaic philosophies while Roberts, with a seemingly endless supply of cash stuffs her face or blubs her eyes out, self-importantly.
Which segues beautifully into my second point and that is why on earth, mars and the moon should I give two shakes of a bison's doo-dah about this woman's life?
Which segues beautifully into my second point and that is why on earth, mars and the moon should I give two shakes of a bison's doo-dah about this woman's life?
The film begins and she's married, apparently unhappily but it's never fully established why, something to do with him wanting to do some more education and her wanting to swan about in designer clothes drinking a lot of fancy foaming beverages while she selfishly bleeds her friends dry of all of their love and support. She then quickly hops into bed with the first vacuous, odious, eastern-religion spouting, scruffy wanna-be, hemp chewing teenager she can find (James Franco disappointingly back in glassy eyed annoying as all hell mode) before quickly realising he's not right either, again it's not established or explained why, and deciding out-of-the-blue to travel to three different places in the world but not because she has any genuine or apparent passion to do so but just because some toothless, ancient, barmy Bali dweller gave her some hokey palm reading months back and that's as good a reason as any.
Glossing over for the moment how the hell an unemployed writer can afford such a ridiculous trip after an expensive divorce and the fact that I am meant to, but couldn't possibly, care for this directionless bimbo who whines about things most people would sell their aunties and parakeets to have long enough to become that disenchanted with, the real crime here is that this movie got made at all.
From all that I have heard the source material is even more devoid of human tact and understanding than the film is and I know in times of crisis people want escape but who thought anyone, when in the depths of the current recession, would want to watch this self-involved millionaire writhe around in linguine, hindu and Javier Bardem for 100 hours!
Maybe I am weird, old before my time, particularly bright or just plain perceptive but the so-called lesson that she apparently learns on the beaches of Bali with Mr.Perfect Bardem and his predictable past with trust issues, I knew and understood about 10 years ago and it didn't take an all expenses trip around the world, a lot of naval gazing and some waffly eastern mysticism to achieve either.
The sad thing is I have met these whining sorts for whom the discontinuation of their favourite colour of lip gloss is a suicide-worthy event and so this movie will probably appeal to quite a few, also the trailer makes it look possibly watchable and interesting so some will be fooled like us.
The one thing I would say is that if you started to watch the film from half way through (about the time that Richard Jenkins shows up - never a disappointment) and she's in India trying to get her ducks in a row then the film would be almost enjoyable, some of the scenes in Bali make you wish you had a bottomless pot of gold so you too could flounce about the street markets full of mad fruit, the bamboo huts and billowing white sheets and gaze out at the fishing boat bombing sea. Javier Bardem also acts the hell out of a cliche but occasionally genuinely emotional role.
Finally, because of all of that, by the end of this whole hideous debacle I did leave the cinema feeling good, smug and in dire need of something containing soy milk and guava so I guess, it sort of did its job.
2.5 out of 10 Turkey clubs
Points from the Misses - 4 out of 10 Turkey clubs
The Blues Brothers - 14th August 2010
The thrill of living in New York, for me, can be summed up in the recent bunch of midnight screenings I have attended at The Sunshine theatre on the Lower East Side. Everything from old classics to newly restored B Movies are screened there every Friday and Saturday night and it makes for a great evening in the big apple.
The last one I saw was the Blues Brothers. This falls in to the category of one of my favourite films that I have never seen on the big screen and what I am learning about that, having seen a handful of them recently (Evil Dead 1&2, Dusk Till Dawn, Taxi driver), is that until you see these films the way they were meant to be seen you really haven't seen them at all.
Now at the risk of beginning to sound like one of those seriously annoying and hunt-down-and-garrote-with-their-own-hair worthy Blu-Ray commercials that appear repeatedly at the start of DVDs, I mean to say that the soundtrack is incredible, the stunts phenomenal and the direction wondrous when you can see the whole damn thing in big-screen-a-thon and hear it in glorious sound-o-rama.
This was never more true than with The Blues Brothers and after the ecstatic reception I'd had to The Expendables not 2 hours earlier I seriously doubted my ability to be wowed again, especially by a film I must've seen a hundred times by now but I was and it was a perfect way to end the night.
My wife, who had also seen the film on DVD but had been underwhelmed at the time, completely realised how terrific it all was when she saw it up there, projected large. It is like watching baseball on television and then going to the ballpark. The ballpark wins hands down, everytime.
9 out of 10 slices of streaky bacon
Points from the Misses - 8 out of 10 slices of streaky bacon
The Expendables - 14th August 2010
The night I saw this film started with The Expendables, ended with a midnight screening of The Blues Brothers and wedged between these two fantastic yet fairly different films was a trip to Lombardi's for some of the best calzones I have ever had. To describe this as a perfect night would be an understatement.
Not sure I had grinned that much in a long time.
I think it was at the point when Sly Stallone, flying an enormous cargo plane with front mounted machine guns and Jason Statham, controlling those guns, his little bald dome, complete with shades, sticking ludicrously out of a hatch in the nose of the plane took out the entire port of a small South American island in an eruption of flames, noise and manly air punches that The Expendables instantly became my film of 2010 and that wasn't more than about 20 minutes into the movie.There aren't enough joyous swearwords in the world to exclaim how BRILLIANT this film is. Yes, ok, so the film looks like what might happen after a severe accident at a plastic surgery clinic, run by a seriously deranged ex-wrestler, if they suddenly gave all their patients ridiculously enormous artillery and despatched them to the Gulf of Mexico but that is entirely part of the exuberant joy of this movie!Plus Mickey Rourke does more acting with a clay pipe and his hideously deformed lips than De Niro has managed in a decade.
The Expendables is seriously the sort of film that I miss because they hardly ever make them like this any more. It was so refreshing too. Apart from the odd guilty pleasure like Taken, I feel like I haven't seen a seriously good action movie since maybe Kill Bill 1 and even that was over hyped. Superhero movies don't count, I'm sorry, I know they have action in them but they also have ridiculous, over-the-top angst engulfed, soap operatic, preachy stretches about the nature of humanity and all that whiny, emotional plodding about. That's not to say The Expendables doesn't have character development, it does, more, dare I say it, than Inception or Avatar but it is done by the people involved actually acting their characters (which is a novel idea) and in fact the only person who says more than a handful of comically mumbled one liners is Mickey Rourke and it's a genuinely affecting and awesome scene.
On a quick side note, considering they are based on 'comic' books it's litteraly amazing how seriously most comic book movies take themselves. Mind-blowingly staggering now that I think about it. This is not a crime that The Expendables can be accused of as every line visibly drips and reeks of tongue-in-cheek, lads-own adventure tomfoolery and a healthy sense of irony dashed with a yearning for former glory days.
But enough of all that analytical mumbo jumbo, what about the violence and the action I hear you cry! Well it is some of the most inventive, frantic, exciting, funny, fantastically over the top and watchable violence possibly of all time.
Made me realise just how atrocious other movies are in general at the moment and also made me realise just how god awful Tarantino is these days.The action and dialogue in this was better than Inglorious Basterds and the car chase better than 50 Death Proofs combined. (I honestly can't believe Kurt Russell turned this down! his agents should be dragged out to a field and beaten to death with a frozen chicken for not thrusting this into his hand and screaming 'Do this now or never eat lunch in this town again!')I stick this film in with the likes of Rambo 3, Cobra & Tango & Cash as some of the most enjoyable Stallone has EVER been. It doesn't have the classic stature of a Rocky or a First Blood but it doesn't aim for that. This is a classic of a different kind, one that, like Taken, I will get out and watch time and time again to feel good and have a blast.
Now about the cast, it is a bit of a hodge podge of old action stars, Stallones old fast food buddies and ex-wrestlers all of whom are fine, if not occasionally underused. Thinking about this film again (and reading about Kurt Russel declining to be a part of it) there are any number of other people that some may have on their wish list for a man-fest such as this. Bruce Campbell, Fred Williamson, Kurt Russell, Keith David, Steven Segal and Van Damme would be some of mine, with a Charlie Sheen cameo because, well, every film needs a Charlie Sheen cameo. (who would you pick??)I think, considering the sheer size of the cast (both in number and bi-cep size) I actually feel Stallone did a good job of giving each of them their moment to shine. Yes, some had a shorter time to shine than others but as ensemble movies go I didn't feel short changed by any of them. My big applause goes out to Mickey Rourke, Jason Statham and Eric Roberts as particularly good in their roles.I have been racking my noggin trying to see if there was anything about this film that I didn't like and apart from the fact that he used the same song twice on the soundtrack, when there are any number of heavy country rock anthems he could have used, I don't think there was. It is going to take some special film to knock this off my top spot for the year and the year is almost over. I am so glad it's doing really well at the box office, it shows, more than Inceptions success shows, that people are sick of the same old child-friendly, spoon-feeding bilge that we've been showered in lately.Bring on The Expendables Two: Mission to Moscow!!
10 out of 10 freshly squeezed orange juices
Points from the Misses - 9 out of 10 freshly squeezed orange juices
The night I saw this film started with The Expendables, ended with a midnight screening of The Blues Brothers and wedged between these two fantastic yet fairly different films was a trip to Lombardi's for some of the best calzones I have ever had. To describe this as a perfect night would be an understatement.
Not sure I had grinned that much in a long time.
I think it was at the point when Sly Stallone, flying an enormous cargo plane with front mounted machine guns and Jason Statham, controlling those guns, his little bald dome, complete with shades, sticking ludicrously out of a hatch in the nose of the plane took out the entire port of a small South American island in an eruption of flames, noise and manly air punches that The Expendables instantly became my film of 2010 and that wasn't more than about 20 minutes into the movie.There aren't enough joyous swearwords in the world to exclaim how BRILLIANT this film is. Yes, ok, so the film looks like what might happen after a severe accident at a plastic surgery clinic, run by a seriously deranged ex-wrestler, if they suddenly gave all their patients ridiculously enormous artillery and despatched them to the Gulf of Mexico but that is entirely part of the exuberant joy of this movie!Plus Mickey Rourke does more acting with a clay pipe and his hideously deformed lips than De Niro has managed in a decade.
The Expendables is seriously the sort of film that I miss because they hardly ever make them like this any more. It was so refreshing too. Apart from the odd guilty pleasure like Taken, I feel like I haven't seen a seriously good action movie since maybe Kill Bill 1 and even that was over hyped. Superhero movies don't count, I'm sorry, I know they have action in them but they also have ridiculous, over-the-top angst engulfed, soap operatic, preachy stretches about the nature of humanity and all that whiny, emotional plodding about. That's not to say The Expendables doesn't have character development, it does, more, dare I say it, than Inception or Avatar but it is done by the people involved actually acting their characters (which is a novel idea) and in fact the only person who says more than a handful of comically mumbled one liners is Mickey Rourke and it's a genuinely affecting and awesome scene.
On a quick side note, considering they are based on 'comic' books it's litteraly amazing how seriously most comic book movies take themselves. Mind-blowingly staggering now that I think about it. This is not a crime that The Expendables can be accused of as every line visibly drips and reeks of tongue-in-cheek, lads-own adventure tomfoolery and a healthy sense of irony dashed with a yearning for former glory days.
But enough of all that analytical mumbo jumbo, what about the violence and the action I hear you cry! Well it is some of the most inventive, frantic, exciting, funny, fantastically over the top and watchable violence possibly of all time.
Made me realise just how atrocious other movies are in general at the moment and also made me realise just how god awful Tarantino is these days.The action and dialogue in this was better than Inglorious Basterds and the car chase better than 50 Death Proofs combined. (I honestly can't believe Kurt Russell turned this down! his agents should be dragged out to a field and beaten to death with a frozen chicken for not thrusting this into his hand and screaming 'Do this now or never eat lunch in this town again!')I stick this film in with the likes of Rambo 3, Cobra & Tango & Cash as some of the most enjoyable Stallone has EVER been. It doesn't have the classic stature of a Rocky or a First Blood but it doesn't aim for that. This is a classic of a different kind, one that, like Taken, I will get out and watch time and time again to feel good and have a blast.
Now about the cast, it is a bit of a hodge podge of old action stars, Stallones old fast food buddies and ex-wrestlers all of whom are fine, if not occasionally underused. Thinking about this film again (and reading about Kurt Russel declining to be a part of it) there are any number of other people that some may have on their wish list for a man-fest such as this. Bruce Campbell, Fred Williamson, Kurt Russell, Keith David, Steven Segal and Van Damme would be some of mine, with a Charlie Sheen cameo because, well, every film needs a Charlie Sheen cameo. (who would you pick??)I think, considering the sheer size of the cast (both in number and bi-cep size) I actually feel Stallone did a good job of giving each of them their moment to shine. Yes, some had a shorter time to shine than others but as ensemble movies go I didn't feel short changed by any of them. My big applause goes out to Mickey Rourke, Jason Statham and Eric Roberts as particularly good in their roles.I have been racking my noggin trying to see if there was anything about this film that I didn't like and apart from the fact that he used the same song twice on the soundtrack, when there are any number of heavy country rock anthems he could have used, I don't think there was. It is going to take some special film to knock this off my top spot for the year and the year is almost over. I am so glad it's doing really well at the box office, it shows, more than Inceptions success shows, that people are sick of the same old child-friendly, spoon-feeding bilge that we've been showered in lately.Bring on The Expendables Two: Mission to Moscow!!
10 out of 10 freshly squeezed orange juices
Points from the Misses - 9 out of 10 freshly squeezed orange juices
The night I saw this film started with The Expendables, ended with a midnight screening of The Blues Brothers and wedged between these two fantastic yet fairly different films was a trip to Lombardi's for some of the best calzones I have ever had. To describe this as a perfect night would be an understatement.
Not sure I had grinned that much in a long time.
I think it was at the point when Sly Stallone, flying an enormous cargo plane with front mounted machine guns and Jason Statham, controlling those guns, his little bald dome, complete with shades, sticking ludicrously out of a hatch in the nose of the plane took out the entire port of a small South American island in an eruption of flames, noise and manly air punches that The Expendables instantly became my film of 2010 and that wasn't more than about 20 minutes into the movie.
There aren't enough joyous swearwords in the world to exclaim how BRILLIANT this film is.
Yes, ok, so the film looks like what might happen after a severe accident at a plastic surgery clinic, run by a seriously deranged ex-wrestler, if they suddenly gave all their patients ridiculously enormous artillery and despatched them to the Gulf of Mexico but that is entirely part of the exuberant joy of this movie!
Plus Mickey Rourke does more acting with a clay pipe and his hideously deformed lips than De Niro has managed in a decade.
The Expendables is seriously the sort of film that I miss because they hardly ever make them like this any more. It was so refreshing too. Apart from the odd guilty pleasure like Taken, I feel like I haven't seen a seriously good action movie since maybe Kill Bill 1 and even that was over hyped. Superhero movies don't count, I'm sorry, I know they have action in them but they also have ridiculous, over-the-top angst engulfed, soap operatic, preachy stretches about the nature of humanity and all that whiny, emotional plodding about. That's not to say The Expendables doesn't have character development, it does, more, dare I say it, than Inception or Avatar but it is done by the people involved actually acting their characters (which is a novel idea) and in fact the only person who says more than a handful of comically mumbled one liners is Mickey Rourke and it's a genuinely affecting and awesome scene.
On a quick side note, considering they are based on 'comic' books it's litteraly amazing how seriously most comic book movies take themselves. Mind-blowingly staggering now that I think about it. This is not a crime that The Expendables can be accused of as every line visibly drips and reeks of tongue-in-cheek, lads-own adventure tomfoolery and a healthy sense of irony dashed with a yearning for former glory days.
But enough of all that analytical mumbo jumbo, what about the violence and the action I hear you cry! Well it is some of the most inventive, frantic, exciting, funny, fantastically over the top and watchable violence possibly of all time.
Made me realise just how atrocious other movies are in general at the moment and also made me realise just how god awful Tarantino is these days.
The action and dialogue in this was better than Inglorious Basterds and the car chase better than 50 Death Proofs combined.
(I honestly can't believe Kurt Russell turned this down! his agents should be dragged out to a field and beaten to death with a frozen chicken for not thrusting this into his hand and screaming 'Do this now or never eat lunch in this town again!')
I stick this film in with the likes of Rambo 3, Cobra & Tango & Cash as some of the most enjoyable Stallone has EVER been. It doesn't have the classic stature of a Rocky or a First Blood but it doesn't aim for that. This is a classic of a different kind, one that, like Taken, I will get out and watch time and time again to feel good and have a blast.
Now about the cast, it is a bit of a hodge podge of old action stars, Stallones old fast food buddies and ex-wrestlers all of whom are fine, if not occasionally underused. Thinking about this film again (and reading about Kurt Russel declining to be a part of it) there are any number of other people that some may have on their wish list for a man-fest such as this. Bruce Campbell, Fred Williamson, Kurt Russell, Keith David, Steven Segal and Van Damme would be some of mine, with a Charlie Sheen cameo because, well, every film needs a Charlie Sheen cameo. (who would you pick??)
I think, considering the sheer size of the cast (both in number and bi-cep size) I actually feel Stallone did a good job of giving each of them their moment to shine. Yes, some had a shorter time to shine than others but as ensemble movies go I didn't feel short changed by any of them. My big applause goes out to Mickey Rourke, Jason Statham and Eric Roberts as particularly good in their roles.
I have been racking my noggin trying to see if there was anything about this film that I didn't like and apart from the fact that he used the same song twice on the soundtrack, when there are any number of heavy country rock anthems he could have used, I don't think there was. It is going to take some special film to knock this off my top spot for the year and the year is almost over. I am so glad it's doing really well at the box office, it shows, more than Inceptions success shows, that people are sick of the same old child-friendly, spoon-feeding bilge that we've been showered in lately.
Bring on The Expendables Two: Mission to Moscow!!
10 out of 10 freshly squeezed orange juices
Points from the Misses - 9 out of 10 freshly squeezed orange juices
Points from the Misses - 9 out of 10 freshly squeezed orange juices