Change Your Image
deathadder-13878
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Rollercoaster (1977)
Holds your attention, but don't get too excited.
A young psycho demolitions expert (Timothy Bottoms) threatens to wreak havoc at amusement parks across America until the proper authorities pay him and leave him alone. Pursuing him is a middle-aged safety inspector bureaucrat (George Segal), who's going through various mid-life crises like trying to quite smoking, visitations with his teen daughter (Helen Hunt) following a divorce, starting a new relationship, and so forth. Also along for the ride are various corporate/government/police officials who naturally often clash over how to best catch the bomber.
The movie starts well enough, with Bottoms slickly planting a bomb on a roller coaster in broad daylight, then biding his time until nightfall when he remotely detonates the charge and sends derailed patrons to their doom. The photography and editing generate some good thrills, and the actors, minor and major, do their parts well.
Now, with these kinds of movies, the real key is the interplay between the nominal good guys (the authorities, usually) and the bad guys. As Segal catches on to Bottoms and then has several conversations with him, it's all pretty involving. Bottoms acts very terse and businesslike, conveying the moral and emotional vacuity of a psychopath, while Segal becomes a wry and incisive analyst trying to crack a terrorist whose true motives are nearly as inscrutable as his emotions. The police think Segal a cocky amateur, but he turns out to be the better judge of criminal character.
Less interesting is the bickering between aging law enforcement leader Richard Widmark and Segal. Widmark seems like a stodgy bully, outside of a few begrudging compliments to Segal. Perhaps the film-makers felt that since the psycho was in his late 20's it made it necessary to caricature the oldest character into a gruff scold, the better to pander to 70's Boomers..
Segal deduces the location of the next attack, and we're left in suspense about several things. Is there a bomb? Where is it? Will they find it? Will they disarm it, before it's too late? Will they catch the perp? This isn't really a disaster movie, as it lacks the scope or spectacle. Had they wanted to, they could've upped these things with more bombings. Overall, though, the emphasis is on character interaction more than well, action. Since Segal and Bottoms make for an effective fire and ice pairing, that was the right choice to make.
Why not a better rating? The movie definitely drags at times; there really isn't enough scale or plot or character depth to justify the running time. The movie wasn't a big hit, and that's probably because the marketing made it seem more epic than it is. And while the acting is good enough, only Segal and Bottoms really give something for the viewer to latch on to. A very young Helen Hunt has some presence, but her character is thankless, as are the women in Segal's life; would Dirty Harry be a better movie if the movie told us about his family? The conclusion has some things worth noting. Craig Wasson appears as an amiable "hippie boy" (that's his credit), and though he only gets about a half-dozen lines, his talent still shines through. A quasi New Wave/punk band named Sparks plays at Magic Mountain, and while their music isn't that hummable, it does have a pretty wild energy for it's time, and one particularly tensely rhythmic song bridge is used to convey the anxiety of the bomb defusing scene.
Batman (1989)
What do people see in this?
Hyped beyond belief at the time of release (1989), highly budgeted, and nerve wracking to comic book fans who did not want the movie to resemble the 1960's Batman TV show (who need to get their priorities in life straight), Tim Burton's first Batman movie leaves a lot to be desired. On the positive side, it looks great with moody cinematography, Gothic/art decoy baroque inspired sets and matte paintings. It also has insistent but generally effective music by Danny Elfman, who impressively succeeds in spite of having no formal training in orchestration.
The actors seem to be earnestly trying, though Keaton and especially Basinger perhaps just are not suited to the material. Keaton isn't terribly persuasive with the angst of his character, and Basinger....Well, she looks good but her delivery and interaction with the other cast members is lacking. Jack Nicholson is charismatic and fittingly for the Joker his mannerisms and line deliveries are quirky and manic, but thankfully they avoid falling into shrill camp. Heath Ledger would go for a more conventionally "dark" take on the character, which in my opinion may be more believable but isn't as entertaining.
The movie's story takes a long time to take shape and the movie overall definitely runs long for a 1980's action movie; you can get up and take a break without pausing the movie at the beginning of a more talky scene and trust me, you won't miss a whole lot. Stretching some of the story and "character" scenes out mostly is a drawback, as it emphasizes the inadequacies of the movie.
The movie presents as stylistically dark, but the situation and behavioral logic of many scenes is not at all sophisticated. Verily, one could argue that the delicious camp of the 60's show was actually more witty than this ostensibly serious but of often poor workmanship movie.
As the movie gains steam (at a glacial pace....), the film-makers start piling up one coincidence or defiance of common sense after another. Why isn't the Joker arrested? This isn't Robocop where the police are protecting the crime lord villain. Why don't other Gothamites run shrieking away from the Joker, or try and take on the Joker who must be widely hated by the last third of the movie? Why does the Joker have a massive supply of goons conveniently dressed in the same uniform, who also have a large supply of Joker themed vehicles? It's clear that Burton likes the aesthetics of the enterprise, but whether he's capable of handling a large scale action movie is debatable. Some of the problems are script related, but the script isn't primarily responsible for pacing, acting, action choreography , and the like, which are all lacking in the movie; it's really odd that an a year with some spectacular action scenes (the 3rd Indiana Jones, Lethal Weapon 2, Back to the Future 2, The Abyss, Black Rain, License to Kill, Roadhouse, etc.) the public would somehow not notice that the film's fight scenes are dull and the vehicle action scenes are mediocre (with the bat plane stuff being more goofy than Roger Moore era bond). The action often is lacking in both internal logic and a reasonable connection to the surrounding scenes.
This might seem shocking, but I've yet to see a Batman movie that fully sells me on the character. And I'm not hard to impress. I grew up loving Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Rambo, etc. I'm not a snob and I'm not that hard to please. Perhaps it's that, oddly enough, I still find Adam West to be the most appealing actor in the role. Keaton lacks a heroic presence, a good actor all the same but not right for the role. Christian Bale has a cold and smarmy presence that suited him for Patrick Bateman, but is totally wrong for an action hero. Film-makers seem to think Batman is a complex, "dark" character and as such shy away from casting alpha males in the role. Dumb. Stallone hit a grand slam with Rambo, who in the first movie is a scarred loose cannon. Highly masculine actors can do dark as well as anybody.
Nightmares (1983)
Worth tracking down.
Nifty little anthology horror flick that was under seen at the time, though in my opinion it's a better ride than the similar but more campy Creepshow (1982), which suffered from pacing problems and actors camping it up to varying degrees.
The first story is about an average couple, one of whom needs her smokes. She learns of an escaped mental patient, but ignores this and her concerned husband because she's dying for a cigarette which leads her to venture out, at night, to the store. Not a whole lot here, but there's nice direction and photography as she encounters various individuals lurking in the middle-American evening gloom. The actors are naturalistic; this is an earnest movie that aims to build suspense and give you a few jolts. It's not the type of cheap movie that makes you cheer against annoying caricatures. No lulls or missteps in this one.
The second story, the one that some people seem to remember and talk about, deals with Emilio Estevez as an arcade ruling video game expert who becomes obsessed with beating a very difficult game. This being the 80's, arcades are shown to be a popular hangout for unruly teenagers. We get a bit more depth and interaction with the characters in this one, and the acting is pretty good given the mostly young cast. Estevez, as the story progresses, gets more unhinged in his mania to beat the game at any cost. Breaking into his favorite arcade, he manages, through the sweaty palms and eye strain, to get to the last level.....Some people might laugh at the old video games and how they're merged with the real world, but frankly, I think the F/X people did a good job of making things aesthetically interesting. I'm not sure how much of this was done with actual CG (which would've been difficult and expensive in 1983) vs old-fashioned animation, but I think it still works pretty well and old-school video game fans should really like this one.
The third story has a neurotic priest, Lance Henriksen, leave his desert parish out of frustration and self-doubt, only to have a malevolent black truck with an unseen driver challenge him. It plays out in a naturalistic fashion, like the first story, before elements of fantasy and surrealism suddenly appear at the very end. Henriksen, and the other actors, give this story a somber and obscure tone. This story is less about the pure thrills, and more about putting you in Henriksen's shoes as he first battles his personal demons before fighting a real demon.
The fourth, and weakest, story is about an upper middle class family fending off a giant rat. The actors here are more plainly unlikable compared to the other stories. The initial suggestions of the rat's presence are creepy and gross enough, but the moment the rat is revealed you will be shocked by how lame the F/X are. It looks like they took footage of a real rat, blew the photo resolution up, and then superimposed it on the set. If the F/X weren't bad enough, the story resolution is a bummer, too: the other stories didn't tell you any more than you needed to know, but in the rat one we're told that the rat was out for revenge! That weakens the impact even more than the effects. The ending really is like a bad mid-Century sci-fi/horror flick. Generic characters, nerdy plot, and bad F/X that look even worse in 1980's color film than they would in 1950's black & white.
Supposedly, the stories were put in order of how well test audiences like them, with the best reviewed being put first. But the rat story is by far the worst of the bunch; I guess every anthology has a dud, as though it's tough to ask filmmakers to develop and execute every story well. I think the filmmakers knew how bad the rat story was, and put more money and time into the first three. The first three stories, though, are on par with anything comparable released back then or since. Let's be grateful when movie makers and actors take this kind of material sincerely, and put in a good effort.
Humanoids from the Deep (1980)
Nothing special
Not much to say about this one. It seems better on paper than it ultimately did in execution. The plot's as trite as you'd imagine. Bad guys have poisoned the earth and literally created a monster (typical for the 70's) while yuppie/corporate scum is in denial about it and/or outright covering it up (as in Jaws).
The actors were passable as for the most part they play things straight. James Horner puts way more effort into the music than he should have, strange that such a talented guy got stuck doing some of Corman's worst movies. Oh well, at least he graduated to scoring real movies eventually.
I feel that the film's biggest flaw is listless point and shoot direction. Corman's notorious cheapness, by the 80's, was keeping talented directors away. And even if they had talent, Corman's relentlessly cynical approach to filmmaking made it very difficult to achieve anything creative or even interesting. That being said, Humanoids can't even reach the mediocre heights that Corman's early 80's highlights reached. Ya know, stuff like Slumber Party Massacre and Galaxy Invaders.
The monster attack scenes are particularly lame. Lit much too bright, men in rubber suits visibly struggling to perform physical tasks with grace or menace, ineptly staged and edited as well. It's so amateurish that it fails to even offend in spite of the rapes and nudity. Like some death metal band that strives so hard to be shocking, it's too childish and inane to be worthy of one's further attention or lasting feelings. A low budget is no excuse. Halloween didn't need a big budget to be polished, creatively sophisticated, and original.
Lamentably, Corman would actually get progressively worse after the early 80's. To the point of churning out bland remakes of his back catalog in the 90's.
As for the director being a woman, big deal. Corman wasn't fooling anyone. Junk is junk, doesn't matter what the director's gender is.
Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth (1992)
The nineties: when horror died.
Hellraiser 3 is one of those lame attempts at continuing a horror franchise that audiences were subjected to in the 90's. Child's play, Friday the 13th, Halloween, etc. These movies just got silly and poorly produced by the early 90's.
As for the movie at hand, it's almost totally lacking in the relatively sophisticated mood and creativity of Hellraiser (1987) and Hellbound: Hellraiser 2 (1988). These were movies about the dark aspects of the human condition, about authentic human beings falling prey to lust and temptation. Their misadventures opened the door to the Cenobites, those sinister BDSM icons. Besides punishing sinners, the more innocent also would end up drawn into the mess.
In the 3rd film, we instead get unpleasant and shallow characters that we just don't care about. The compelling thing about the earlier movies was how seemingly ordinary and unpretentious people were seduced by their base impulses. We didn't hate or ridicule these people. The guy who brings the Cenobites back in this movie is a twenty-something L.A. club owner who looks, talks, and acts likes a total jackass. With his shaved and toned chest, he seems like some kind of G.Q. or Playgirl reject who inexplicably got cast in a series which had established a seriousness and maturity with the first two movies. The heroine of this movie is played by a fairly likable actress, but her character isn't interesting and her dialogue/character building scenes come off as flat, like the director couldn't wait to get to the "good" parts.
Also, the first two movies had a kind of stately British vibe to them. Part 3, on the other hand, is very obviously a lowest common denominator L.A. B movie. It tries hard to be "hip" (e.g. now very dated) with it's locations, rock music, and young cast. Sure, some of the 80's hairstyles of the first two films haven't aged all that well, but besides that the first two movie were not about fashion, they were sincere and moody explorations of sinister things. In part 3, the excruciating club scenes are shot and edited frantically, like a music video complete with mediocre 90's hard rock. Not even scary, odd that a "horror" movie would have long stretches that are not even tense, let alone scary.
Being "fashionable" is something that badly hurt 90's horror. Jamie Lee Curtis wore J.C. Penney in Halloween; Tommy Hilfiger got his logo in the credits of The Faculty (1998). Another element to this is the dialogue content and delivery in 90's horror; in 70's and 80's horror characters even when teenage were more low-key and unpretentious. By the 90's it seemed like every script writer and actor came off as trying way to hard to make characters "witty" or "clever". In practice this led to snarky and shallow characters that were hard to relate to.
The movie climaxes with an orgy of mass-violence (shot and edited in an overactive way, just like almost everything else in the movie) that reinforces the notion that overuse leads to boredom. Pinhead and his new cast of Cenobites (that are more poorly designed and acted than the earlier Cenobites) murder more people at a faster rate than any other "slasher" villain ever did. I'm sure it seemed cool at the time, but it's not scary and it destroys the credibility of the villains who were more restrained in the first two movies. Also, having everything be on "Earth" (or at least a theatrically flamboyant early 90's version of Earth) means that we don't get the ambitious Hellscapes that were well-realized in the 2nd movie. The stop-motion wonders of that film's climax are gone too, as for this movie it's just Pinhead and his new boring crew giving the F/X crew opportunities to hone their make-up wound skills. After you see a neck slash or head gouge for the tenth time, who cares? So it's a three for me. It isn't as aggressively sloppy as some of the other "efforts" of it's period, so if for no other reason than that, I'll give it credit.
Beyond the Mat (1999)
Insightful.
I'm a casual wrestling fan, who's more interested in occasionally watching a YouTube clip out of nostalgia then in regularly following the sport. This documentary still was very compelling, though, because it examines some very fascinating and charismatic people. You don't need to know a thing about the business; the narrator himself doesn't refer to the more technical aspects and the doc. doesn't resort to the sports movie cliché of an athlete perfecting a move or style.
The focus is primarily on several men who've achieved iconic status in wrestling. Their upbringing, their current status in wrestling, and the way they relate to family, fans, and other wrestlers. Terry Funk gets the lion's share of attention, understandably so since he's a rare example of a wrestler performing capably well into middle age (he was over 50 in the late 90's when this doc. was made). Funk helped pioneer a very gritty style. The fans grew to appreciate his spirit and skill (he and his opponents don't get seriously hurt, an essential part of being a good wrestler is making things look dangerous without getting hurt). Just the same, the years of competing have taken their toll on both Funk's body (a doctor says that he should barely be able to walk) and his family's patience. We're presented with his farewell match, in which he graciously loses to the younger but more famous Bret Hart, only to be told near the documentary's end that Funk found the paycheck, and the fan cheering, too tempting as he made a comeback just 3 months after the B. Hart match.
More haunting is Jake the Snake Roberts. An enigmatic figure with an unforgettable gimmick (a python wrapped in a bag, ready to be unleashed on frightened opponents), his drug addiction and obviously stricken psyche have relegated him to the lowest level of wrestling. A performer known more for his personality than his athletic feats, he still can mesmerize a crowd and build a good rapport with his opponent. Out of the ring, he often speaks of the bleak loneliness of life on the road without any kind of steady relationships. We see him struggle through a meeting with his estranged daughter who fears that Jake will never fulfill his fatherly duties. Jake matter of factly relates his shocking background; being conceived in a rape, his sister being murdered, among other things. Will he overcome these things? No way to tell, especially after he goes on a drug binge and the concerned doc. crew can't find him.
Amiable and somewhat spaced out, Mick Foley is a rather odd case. A top level performer for the biggest wrestling company (the WWF), his gimmick of being a glutton for punishment has led to the company pushing him harder and harder, eager to excite the fans and boost ratings. Foley himself encourages this push as we see youthful footage of Foley performing stunts. Bearded, missing several teeth, and with a thick mane of curls, he seems much older than he really is. A doting husband and father of several young children, it's quite distressing to watch his family endure a match in which Foley's head is lacerated open. In a post-match haze, Foley and the company boss reassure each other that the fans got what they wanted. Later on, when Foley watches his family's reaction to the match, he admits that for the first time he's concerned about his profession and the way it batters him. Unlike the majority of performers, Foley went on to retire (and stay retired) at a fairly young age. Several successful auto-biographical books helped him do it.
We see shorter segments on other, less notable performers. A black wrestler named New Jack, with obvious tattoos and scars, who brags about being violent, goes to a Hollywood casting agency. We see him reciting a script with a male agent. Said agent enthusiastically praises New Jack. A woman agent is more grounded, saying that New Jack might be better cast as a "best friend" type. Well, have you seen New Jack in any big movies lately? A performer is signed by the WWF and given the gimmick of "puke", who is slated to be promoted based on his ability to vomit. Ultimately this didn't really go anywhere but the performer did go on to have moderate success as "Droz" (an abbreviation of his real name). Liked by his peers, his career was cut short after being paralyzed by a clumsy performer.
Another study is two products of a California wrestling school which puts on amateurish shows. These two fellows are invited to perform and be evaluated at a WWF show. One is a soft spoken, rather thin and young black wrestler. He's told by the WWF to upgrade his build and get a better costume. The other wrestler, a very muscular and older white guy who is an airline mechanic when not pursuing his dream, fares better. The WWF and the crowd likes his aggressive attitude and technical skill. We're not told if the WWF ever signed either one, leaving us with uncertainty as is often the case in wrestling. The wrestling school manager tells students upfront that pay is minimal outside of the biggest promotions and few ever make it big.
After examining the ups and downs of the business, the director, a life-long fan of wrestling, admits that he's still drawn to the spectacle but still can't explain why. Perhaps it's the sincere admiration that both crowds and performers have for the best competitors. The backstage footage of wrestler camaraderie and of the efforts put into shows by so many down to the crews that put rings together, string up the lights and speakers, and choreograph and evaluate the way that wrestlers are used are a testament to a thankless profession.
Predator 2 (1990)
Rushed and busy
After the unexpected success of part 1, Fox to no one's surprise green lit a sequel. Rather arrogantly not wanting to make a movie on Arnold's terms, Fox slapped together a contrived sequel without Arnold. What little chance this sequel had to equal the original is obliterated without him.
The original was a very macho, tribal movie. An almost ridiculously rugged (but likable) cast faces off against a powerful monster in the jungle. This time with no Arnold, the cast is more generic and the tone is more "urban" or "edgy". Part 1 is a product of Reagan, Part 2 the product of the rather confused state of pop culture in 1989-1991, when the 80's were dying but the 90's weren't established yet. More PC too, what with just one of the four main cops being a white guy
Plot? A "futuristic" version of 1997 L.A. (the weapons are a bit more tricked out, the subway has gotten more popular, the clothes and hair styles mostly in keeping with very late 80's fashion) is beset by a nasty heat wave and drug fueled crime waves. Danny Glover is a maverick cop dealing with smarmy superiors and sleazy reporters. Along for the ride are his fellow cops: A butch lady officer, a forgettable Hispanic guy, and Bill Paxton overdoing his cocky poseur shtick that worked much better in Aliens. He's hardly the only one overdoing it here; virtually everyone is, though the bombastic and vulgar script, and the movie's overall manic feel probably make the actor's performances seem even worse.
The Predator starts off by killing criminals. The action is pretty well shot, violent too though the MPAA apparently toned it down. But we don't really care since they're just generic criminals. The original wisely had the Predator killing American soldiers from the get-go. Eventually the cops realize that something ain't right about the killings, with the Hispanic cop retrieving the Predator's harpoon type blade from the crime scene. The FBI's closing in, too. Glover meets the head of the FBI unit (Gary Busey, giving a typical performance that I found entertaining) while the FBI is planning a trap. Lure the Predator to a controlled warehouse in which the Predator's infrared won't work. Glover watches on closed circuit monitors as Busey and his team attempt to capture the monster. It's a steal from Aliens, with each guy's suit outfitted with a camera to capture their POV as they're picked off one by one while a shell shocked superior goes numb. This director is no James Cameron, though, as the scene has about 1/10 the suspense that the Aliens scene had.
Glover chases the Predator throughout the city. Some good stunts, the make-up work on the monster holds up pretty well as we get to see a lot of in the last 20-30 minutes. They should've spared us the lame humor involving naive bystanders, though. The Predator makes his way back to his mother ship that's hidden below the city. Glover soldiers on. Here we see an attempt to match the first film's showdown. It just doesn't work this time. In the first, Arnold barely won in spite of his muscles and his traps, against a wounded Predator. Somehow Glover, after furiously chasing the Predator to his HQ and having no time to prepare, successfully fends off Predator 2.0 with the help of a Pred. disc weapon which presumably would be a clumsy weapon in the hands of a normally built man. Other Predators suddenly appear, impressed by Glover's cunning. They spare Glover who must frantically escape the area as the ship blasts off.
What reason does this have for existing? The characters are largely shrill stereotypes, the setting doesn't really make much sense. "The Predator's attracted to heat and disorder." Why?. And much of the Earth is hot and violent. What makes L.A. special? I guess you could be cynical and assume that the writers were lambasting SoCal by saying that it's so wretched it would attract killer aliens. Besides, setting it in an urban area requires contrivances to keep the Predator near the cast. L.A.'s a big place, how come Glover and his buddies keep running into the Predator? The movie takes on a very episodic, check-off-the-boxes feel. Whereas the original felt like a ride that gradually gained speed and momentum.
I'll give a 5 for technical merits (good stunts, make-up, and adequate photography/editing/music). But it's basically a cash-in, and Fox should've waited for and listened to Arnold.