Change Your Image
kgwrote-854-104240
Reviews
Cast a Deadly Spell (1991)
Great concept, mixed result
I saw this when it came out on cable tv and key scenes do stick in the memory (the gremlins, the ending) and yet it is virtually forgotten (like most HBO movies of the time).
The concept is very clever, a Roger Rabbit-inspired film noir universe involving the supernatural, Lovecraft is the perfect name for a private eye. We only get glimpses of that such as unicorns or vampire hookers. There could have been more background activity to sell this universe but I understand budget limits.
Fred Ward looks the role but his voice is often muted compared to the other cast members--it was distracting at times. Richard Boone did a tv noir film spoof in the 1970s--playing a burned out detective, but his voice was powerful by comparison.
Also, the weakness of the male lead (in actions) shows this film suffers from a state of political message insertion which now seems so obvious when you look back at older productions like this. His office neighbor helps him a little too much, even providing a lawyer as well as a magic bracelet which undermines the theme--a man who doesn't want or need magic. Well he needs a lot of diversity support.
Lovecraft spends much of the movie reacting to things and although he does initiate the turn of events which leads to the outcome of the story, it is so indirect and unintentional.
Compared to Sam Spade or Philip Marlowe or even Eddie Valiant, he's not doing anything important in the story which is a big strike against it in being memorable as something other than a clever gimmick and homage to horror films such as Night of the Demon and The Haunted Palace.
Pit and the Pendulum (1961)
The best of the Poe Corman Price films
I know some-including Price himself-rate Ligeia the best Poe adaptation he did-but in terms of taking the Poe original and altering it into a feature film, this has the most brilliant original screenplay by Matheson. He took various Poe ideas such as hereditary madness and premeditated sadistic murder and fashioned a story that is dramatically effective on a few levels. Price gives a wide-ranging performance--going from neurosis to a fit of weeping which Corman pointed out was unusual for a leading man to do, to over the top sinister mania. His transformation towards the end, revealed by his uttering of the name Isabella, sends a shiver up the spine. It is a reminder how a horror film used to rely so much on performance.
And special mention of the great title sequence with the paint running across the screen. What an inventive idea using a low tech method of creativity.
The only Poe AIP production which I think showcases Price even better is the tv special he did where he performs four Poe stories alone. Which also had Les Baxter providing the music.
Prince Valiant (1954)
Remade as Star Wars
A farm boy goes off on an adventure to find his destiny--and he encounters an older warrior who takes him under his wing to train him to be a knight. He has to battle a mysterious figure garbed in black, using a magic sword that belonged to his father. Also, there's a rescue mission on a fortress controlled by the usurpers of the true government. One of those rescued is a princess.
Hollywood is not much for honesty and so I can only assume the story we are told about how Star Wars came to be is not true. Lucas was instructed by Fox to use this film as the template for the 1977 film. He may have borrowed ideas from Flash Gordon or the Hidden Fortress, but this was the story that formed the basic premise.
It also ends with an award ceremony.
And now we know Indiana Jones was taken from the Paramount film The Secret of the Incas. This isn't advertised either.
Compared to Luke, Prince Val is far more pro-active. He does a lot of the fighting and problem-solving.
I do not know how it compares to the strip but I gather it is considered lacking in some ways.
As a 1950s Hollywood adventure film about knights it is watchable, although I prefer the 1955 film The Warriors starring Errol Flynn for its knight fights.
The musical score by Waxman is great and if you listen carefully you will hear some melody ideas that got used in Star Wars.
Night Gallery: The Caterpillar/Little Girl Lost (1972)
Earwig and the Angry Itch
A recurring theme in Night Gallery and also true of the Twilight Zone was a deconstruction (some might say attack upon ) traditional social norms and injecting a subversive alternative.
True of the Night Gallery pilot where wealthy or powerful corrupt characters have their greatest desires become their destruction.
The Caterpillar is a particularly strong NG story which follows this theme.
The painting which introduces the episode is memorably appropriate. A raging face with primitive style giving way to a benign female face--the object of desire and destruction.
But the first shot in the story is also ironic and appropriate--the horn of the gramophone (the episode ends with a close up of someone's mouth as he screams).
What I noticed in repeat viewing is that Tommy Robinson is the one who first whispers in the ear of Macy to suggest he can help him get the wife. It was his idea. He coaxed Macy into it.
And on first viewing I had assumed (as others have suggested) the earwig going to the wrong room was a deliberate act by Robinson because he was insulted by Macy's class snobbery but it's not entirely clear that he was offended (especially since he was so used to it from everyone he encountered). I think he could have been envious of Macy which was why he kept saying "young gentleman." It's a great ambiguous performance by Don Knight--you can't be totally sure--he may have just screwed up which was his nature according to what we heard about him, and his visit to apologize could have been perversely genuine.
I saw nothing in the story to suggest Macy was mean to anyone local and asking for it.
But he represents the alpha male in the story- and that usually ensures he is destined for a fall.
Macy longs for companionship, especially female--and he gets it.
As for "Little Girl Lost," William Windom-- a very reliable character actor--memorable in Star Trek and other roles, portrays a sad character (once again a female is the center of focus and the instrument of destruction).
Nuclear annihilation was more of a fear in 1972 than today so it feels antiquated, especially when we get the dialogue about a world of bad men and Richard Nixon's portrait is visible on a wall.
Hired to Kill (1990)
Surprisingly good
When I heard Brian Thompson had starred in an action movie I was very interested in checking it out.
As others have noted, he has a manner of speaking lines which is either unintentionally amusing or brilliantly sardonic. You can't be sure but that is what makes it so enjoyable.
The movie plot is absurd and yet played serious.
The first half hour or so is a barrage of ridiculously funny lines spoken without jest.
There's a mercenary with a UK accent who gets some of the best lines like: "Ladies! Ladies! You're behaving like trashy tarts in a hair salon."
The later half is along the lines of a standard action film and it is well shot and choreographed with some big explosions. There is a stunt man hanging from a helicopter scene which looks very dangerous.
The notable guest stars like Jose Ferrer and George Kennedy do their standard professional effort with what they have--but the highlight as others mentioned is the scene between Thompson and Oliver Reed. I think it shows Thompson is very savvy with performance--it reminds me that it was him in the Terminator who first notices a naked Arnie walking towards them and says: "what's wrong with this picture?"
Masters of the Universe (1987)
Better written than its carbon copy Transformers 2007
When this came out I did not think much of it. The story almost completely ditches the cartoon and the toy story line. Looking back on it now, and comparing it to similar movies of today, one appreciates the effort much more.
Given the limitations they had (no easy to use CGI back then), deciding to graft a Back to the Future-inspired framing story onto it showed some creative ingenuity. They even bring James Tolkan from that series to appear in a larger role. They also took the Eternia side of the story seriously. Skeletor and Evil Lyn are playing it straight without any self-aware humor. Thank goodness, because in our post- MST3K culture, the expectation is for Disney-style jokes to dispel any possible suspension of disbelief. Flash Gordon 1980 might be entertaining, but it is ultimately a joke. The fantasy has no serious weight. You are meant to laugh at it.
So credit Cannon and co. That they did treat He-Man seriously. Lundgren's voice is not ideal, but he is doing the role straight as can be and considering how Hollywood shuns or mocks such characters (fat Thor)--it's rather amazing that he got respectable treatment.
And then there is Langella. At the time it came out I did not pay attention to his performance, he simply was not the cartoon Skeletor. But it has aged well, since he played the role without a joking attitude. As others have said, he acts as if he is Richard the Third. What Disney/Marvel bad guy in their comic book movies conveys that kind of performance?
Which brings me to Transformers 2007. The plot of that movie is two alien forces coming to Earth to quarrel over an object of great importance in the possession of teenagers who are caught in between them and pursued by legal authorities. John Turturro is doing the James Tolkan part but with much weaker dialogue.
If Cannon could manage a decent B-movie script on limited money then what excuse does Paramount and Spielberg have for such their dim-witted toy movie?
I give it a 7 for the effort and 1 extra point for Langella, probably the best performance by someone playing a toy.
Tales from the Crypt: And All Through the House (1989)
Not as good as the Amicus version
Although Larry Drake makes a scary-looking Santa Claus (and is the spitting image of the EC comics illustration), suspense is undermined by things like the woman being able to fight off her attacker a little too successfully. In the Amicus cinematic version there is no jokey overtones and the surprise ending comes off better.
Nicholas and Alexandra (1971)
Expensive but terribly dishonest
Tom Baker makes a great Rasputin, however the lead actors bored me terribly, so I suppose it doesn't matter that the script was often filled with hokey banal dialogue. The big sin with the film as Hollywood propaganda is that it put all the blame for Russia's problems on the Czar and ignored the treachery and vicious Old Testament-inspired violent sadism of the Bolsheviks, who were not thinking about the good of the Russian people at all, but how they could suck the country dry and use it to further other ambitions (like the globalism which has now led to the present immigration crisis). According to Mark Twain and others, Russia's problems with "usury folk" date back to the 1870s, with assassinations and bad dealings, it had little or nothing to do with Christian intolerance as we have heard.
If Hollywood and the Western media was to be believed, Lenin and his friends wanted to help workers, yet we know that perhaps millions of ethnic Russians were killed after the Bolsheviks took control (this was later blamed on Stalin even though he was not in power). The deaths tied to the Czar pale by comparison. Who was the real tyrant? We also learn that George Patton felt so strongly that Communists were the greatest threat, he concluded the US should have sided with Hitler against them! But he died from an "accident" before he could return stateside.
The movie serves as an example of how Hollywood sought to portray history in a way that slants it with less than noble aims.
Seems like the Rolling Stones song Sympathy for the Devil was hinting at it too:
I stuck around St. Petersburg When I saw it was a time for a change Killed the Tsar and his ministers Anastasia screamed in vain
Inside Story: Animals in War (1989)
Horrible ways humans exploit other species
This documentary showed once on the Arts and Entertainment channel in 1989. I remember host Jack Perkins said that the documentary might be too strong for children. He should have added too strong for anyone with compassion.
It was narrated by actor Ian Holm and shows the various ways that other animal species have been viciously exploited in combat since the first World War. We see archival footage of horses being shot and blown up on battlefields, dogs with bombs stitched inside their stomachs let loose in trench warfare, pack mules who have had their vocal cords removed to keep them from giving away their position trying in vain to call out to other mules. Russians are shown driving cows over land mines in World War 2.
There is mention of Walt Disney and a secret program to find ways to use sea gulls as aerial bombers.
News reel footage with the title "Animals on Atom's Ark" is shown--we see farm animals being placed on ships (a young pig is held up to the camera as the narrator says "its understandable that this little fella does not want to be a guinea pig." ). We then see a nuclear detonation--the famous shot of an A bomb going off inside a ring of ships--there were animals on the decks to test the effects of radiation (the soldiers who helped wrangle the surviving animals ended up with radiation sickness themselves).
The trainer of Flipper is also interviewed--speaking about the time US military personnel visited the set and got the idea of using dolphins as underwater demolition recruits--with drugs and brain surgery.
The most disturbing scene might be military test footage of a rhesus monkey with shaved head strapped to a miniature version of a cockpit--electrodes are connected to the victim's feet and emit a violent shock. The aim, we are told, is for the monkey to hold onto a mockup of a control stick--when the animal removes his or her hand, they are given a shock. The helpless monkey is then bombarded with radiation from above. We see the monkey raise arms in futility and look around in terror while being doused with the radiation.
They also interview scientists associated with the research. A cold psychopathic man dismisses concern for the victims by saying he has a son in the Air Force.
A German or Dutch doctor reacts to a question about pigs being shot in the legs and then dumped in garbage bags to teach medics about gunshot wounds with the remark that it is good training for becoming a pediatrician.
One scientist tells a story about a Spanish scientist who placed wires in a bull's head so he could stop the animal in mid charge.
The viewer is left to question the morality of the practices though it really needs no reflection. It really makes you wonder if the human species is the spawn of some maniacal devil.
The closing credits includes a remarkable image of a German shepherd leaping across a trench with soldiers huddled below.
Undivided Attention (1987)
Painful experimental film
Had to watch this in a Canadian film studies class as the filmmaker responsible for it was on the faculty (and a most unpleasant fellow I might add). It is a series of disconnected sequences that seeks to disorient the viewer and offend them in different ways.
In one shot a camera is placed on the handle of a shovel and we get a close up of snow being shoveled. In another manure is being shoveled(literally and figuratively). In another scene we see a ferris wheel and the camera moves in sync with the wheel (probably the only shot in the film that was interesting for a few seconds).
In another scene a naked woman is sitting on a park bench and the camera records her while upside down. In another shot we see a sequence from King Kong on a TV screen while someone is doing bar bell curls and another person is replaying the Kong scene over and over. The camera is doing 360 spins as we watch. Possibly the most nauseating scene in the film.
There is also a scene where the sound from Bambi's birth in the Disney film is heard but a taxidermy display is shown.
This film is around 2 hours. 5 minutes would have been tolerable--but after a half hour becomes obnoxious, much like the man who made it.
The Severed Arm (1973)
Forgotten slasher film prototype
I am given this an 8 because for a low budget film made in 1973 it shows skill and deserves an extra point for being the first out of the American gate with a few slasher movie plot points and sequences.
I expected this film to be totally amateurish but was pleasantly surprised when familiar names of 60s movies and TV showed up in the cast. One of them even fought a Ray Harryhausen skeleton! Another reviewer described it as an American giallo film and I can see the relationship, but what struck me was how so many familiar giallo/slasher elements are present in this US film released before Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Black Christmas, Halloween, Happy Birthday to Me, Saw, Body Parts. There's even a closeup in a door that reminds one of the Shining.
The cast is unfairly criticized by other reviews. With the exception of the male star, the others are veterans to 1960s-70s TV and film. Not big stars but competent enough to have long resumes.
Maybe it was the fading of the print I watched but the deep blacks made the story all the more creepy, as well as the synthesizer score.
For those interested in horror movie history--I recommend it.
The Ghost and the Darkness (1996)
Morally bankrupt--something the NRA and Walter Palmer would praise
There's no question that this film was inspired by Jaws which morally speaking, was pretty feeble. A great white shark is doing what it does naturally-eat to survive, and humans are taking the fish and leaving it with no choice but to eat humans who leave their natural habitat and go in the water. Asking for it. We have a shark hunter Quint, whose mates were left to die by the US military, and instead of directing his anger at them-he directs it at sharks.
This film is in the same vein. You have two lions who we now know were not being maniacs but just seeking to survive. Humans come along and build an unnatural structure-a railroad--which provides them with easy access to a food source.
The movie shows some semblance of morality by not making Patterson into the old fashioned big game hunter--but that is what he was. Now let's look at reality. As of 2015, great white sharks are near extinction. Lions also, are dwindling thanks to hunters and loss of habitat. There are more lions in zoos and canned hunting ranches than in the wild.
Who are the real monsters? The film presents the lions as if they have the malicious maniacal spirit of humans which is just slanderous and false--not to mention morally obscene given the state of the wilds.
Another oddity is that the Muslim and hindu workers are not presented equally. The hindus are anonymous-and made subject of ridicule because of their sacred cow beliefs. The muslims are presented as the sensible ones. Obviously this wouldn't have survived the script stage after 2001.
If you want to see real lions and how they are not like humans, check out the 1981 film Roar--which is far more entertaining.
Pin (1988)
Weird and sterile = Too Canadian
I heard of this film when it was released but it didn't get much word of mouth, as often happens with Canadian films. Pin is too restrained to be a true horror film and not deep enough to be a good psychological drama as often happens with Canadian films. The opening makes one speculate how the story might go--and a supernatural explanation seems possible--but the film ultimately goes with the mundane option as often happens with Canadian films.
It has competent performances by the main leads--and has an interesting/weird first act that might compel or repulse viewers, but as it goes on, it starts to show strains and the ending felt bland to me. The ho-hum aspects of the film may be explained by the fact that it is funded by the Canadian government, and in the 1980s, following a decade where it had an anything goes policy--which launched the career of David Cronenberg and allowed for the funding of just about anything-even a porno film, they radically cut back in what they would give money to. Among the restrictions was that serious criminal activity and homicidal violence could not be shown. The movie follows that rule closely. We see some beatings, and there is a few deaths, but they do not happen in violation of the government rules. Even a scene near the end involving an axe is ambiguous. One might notice that in one scene the boyfriend is shown studying french for a foreign trip--this is likely to follow rules on bilingual content! In the end the film is really about dysfunction and illness--which is once again a feature of Canadian filmmaking. The real question--and the most disturbing aspect of the film, is how anyone could think it would be commercially viable, even with the attempt at an Anywhere USA setting. There are elements in it that reminded me of the UK films Peeping Tom and the Psychopath but unlike this film, they did not face such restrictions in content thus they could go deeper into psychological and horror elements and leave a stronger viewing impression.