Damn Your Eyes! Damn Your Ears!

Ten Statements About....THE FATE OF THE FURIOUS (2017)

2017-04-17T07:23:00.000-07:00

Yep...that's what it's all about....

“Why are they shooting at me?"
“I don't know. Maybe because you're in a orange Lamborghini..

1) It is such a pleasure to see Michelle Rodriguez smiling at points in this film, which I hope reminds people she’s quite beautiful, and it’s her pissed off expression that hides this fact.

2) Charlize Theron sure is having fun as the villain of the piece, deadpanning her lines and reveling in her ability to sow chaos.

3) I’m not very taken with director F. Gary Grey’s effort here. He seems to rely at inopportune times on stylistic ticks popularized by previous entries in the series. Every time he does a ramping moment or a slow-then-fast motion moment, it just reminds you of the earlier films without enhancing this one.

4) Look, I know her character makes sense in the world of The Fast and The Furious, but it still

What worries me is that Vin Diesel's evil face is the same
as his good face....

doesn’t stop me from going, “Who the Hell let Helen Mirren in this movie?”

5) After seeing this, I would watch a film where Jason Statham and a baby going around having adventures every damn day.

6) I’d also pay to watch Tyrese Gibson’s Roman being humiliated repeatedly.

7) The one regular who seems to suffer is Nathalie Emmanuel’s Ramsey. She spends almost her entire screentime with her nose in a laptop clacking on the keys without any indication why. And the return of the not-really-romantic triangle subplots between her, Roman and Ludacris’ Tej at the very end seems like an afterthought.

8) I appreciate how, as with the previous Fast films, the script manages to cram into it every possible character we’ve seen in these movies so far--even one who was in a persistent vegetative state when last we saw him.

The Rock has the reach, but The Stath is wiley....

9) I’m pleased by the fact that the Furious series continues to give us something that we may not have seen before--or at the very least something that we haven’t seen to that extent. There are a couple of things like that in the movie, including something involving a submarine that is gobstopping.

10) I’m kind of hoping that this marks the end of the series. It’s not that I am tiring of them, or that they aren’t keeping up the quality. It’s just that the stakes in this one are so high that I don’t think they can top it unless they send the crew into outer space.

Overall...it’s a Fast and Furious film. You should know if you will like it or not by now. But for what it’s worth, I had fun.

Ten Statements About....A VIEW TO A KILL (1985)

2017-03-25T07:19:00.000-07:00

Oh, Steed....what they have planned for you....

“Killing Tibbett was a mistake.”
“Then I'm about to make that same mistake twice.”

1) Perhaps the major problem with the basic fabric of this film is that since all the major characters are noticably younger than Roger Moore, it emphasizes how much older he is, and how he’s too old to be playing an action hero.

2) I never thought it’d be possible to make San Francisco look boring. I guess you showed me, movie.

3) We can add Tanya Roberts’ Stacey Sutton to the list of unconvincing female scientists. Sure, she’s pretty to look at, but she is incapable of delivering geological exposition in an effective way.

4) Shame on you, movie, for misusing Patrick MacNee so badly. He deserves more than to be used as comedic relief for a long stretch of the film and then killed off.

5) Boy, is Christopher Walken...vigorous as Max Zorin (a role turned down by Sting and David Bowie, incidentally). Grinning to beat the band, giggling at his own villainy at spots, and strutting

She looks as bored as I am....

like a peacock, he could have been more entertaining in a better film. As it is, he seems out of place given the scheme he’s hatching. And speaking of Zorin....

6) Why does he have so many henchpeople? There are so many that none of them get any sort of development to make them come alive. Even Grace Jones’ May Day is cardboard, and relies on her physicality and striking features to carry her along in the picture.

7) While John Glen for the most part dispenses with the sight gags that marred his previous efforts, there is one chase scene involving a fire truck that is truly winge-worthy in the way it’s played for laughs. It also doesn’t help that Moore is allowed to run rampant with his lame puns.

8) As I’m sure Dean Martin would tell you, when you’re shooting so much of your fight scenes in long shot, you’re trying to hide how tired your star is.

I'd throw the screenwriters off the bridge...

9) What is up with that long, boring stretch of film in and around Stacey’s house. It kills what little pathetic momentum the film has had up until that point. And speaking of killing the film dead....

10) That whole sequence involving the female Russian spy and the bath house contributes literally nothing to the film save to give Walter Gotell a little bit more screen time. If the rumors are true and they wanted Barbara Bach to reprise her role in that sequence, I’m not surprised she turned them down. It could be cut whole and not affect the film one bit.

Overall...Maybe not the worst Bond film (that one’s coming up), but arguably my least favorite, as it’s so boring it leaves me numb.

Ten Statements About....SCREWED (2000)

2017-03-19T07:34:00.000-07:00

You all should seek out the scriptwriters and get revenge...

“Sweet Jesus! We kidnapped a turd!"

1) Norm MacDonald is way out of his depth here. Shorn of all the schtick that made him a presence on Saturday Night Live, he’s a monotone deer in the headlights, unable to muster anything that engages the audience. His Willard is just painful to watch.

2) But to be fair, no one--not MacDonald, not Dave Chappelle, not Elaine Stritch or Sarah Silverman, is helped by this tin-eared script that gives them all nothing to work with. This is the type of script that doesn’t give the actors characters; it doesn’t even give them types. There is literally nothing to any of these personages. They just float in space with no background, no emotional life and no nuance whatsoever.

3) After seeing Silverman struggle with the role of Hillary--not because she’s not a good actress, which she is, but because it’s a whisp of a character (we don’t even get a hint of what she is in relation to Willard until halfway through the film, and even that is hastily sketched out)--I perfectly understand why she refuses to take girlfriend roles any more.

4) The gruesomeness of some of the gags detract from what little humor is inherent in them. Having

This...is not...FUNNY!!!!

MacDonald’s hand chewed up by a tiny dog so badly that he’s spraying blood on the walls is winge-worthy. And the whole ‘you’d be surprised what you can find in a dead body’ sequence is not only too gross to laugh at, but goes on far too long.

5) What did they give Danny Devito to disgrace himself as Grover? This detestable ‘character’ is only there to come up with gross out joke after gross out joke revolving around cadavers. There is nothing funny about him sorting through corpses to find one that resembles MacDonald or allowing another to fall down the stairs or using a big hose to suck....something...out of another. It’s just painful to watch.

6) You know, don’t try to ground a film in an actual location if you’re not going to show any of said location. This film could take place in Bohunkville instead of Pittsburgh, and it’d be unchanged.

I'd book a flight out of this movie too....

7) I thought it was a given that you don’t ever introduce a major character--a co-conspirator in one of the kidnapping plots, for example--well into the third act. Well, I guess I know better now.

8) The problem with Elaine Stritch’s Mrs Crock’s face turn is that it’s not earned. She’s portrayed as such a one note horror that we never see the seeds that prompt her to change her spots in the last few minutes of the film. It’s as if the filmmakers did it because they felt it had to be done.

9) What is Sherman Helmsley’s Chip even here for? I know he’s Mrs. Crock’s boytoy, but why does he take over operations of her bakery the second she’s missing?

10) I dunno...I’m pretty sure it’s illegal to own a rocket launcher...so why is Grover still free at the end of this film.

Overall...I think the filmmakers were trying to create a funny black comedy. And considering I spent the running time wincing instead of laughing, I’d have to say they failed.

Ten Statements About....BLACK DYNAMITE (2009)

2017-02-16T14:28:00.000-08:00

"Stare at my crazy face! STARE, I say!

“Now Aunt Billy, how many times have I told you not to call here and interrupt my Kung Fu?"

1) Here is the major problem with this film--while comedy should be played straight, the cast plays it so straight that the humor dissipates, leaving just a sad copy of 1970‘s blaxploitation cinema. For most of its running time, before the story finally gets silly, it’s just dull.

2) I get it that this is a vanity project of Michael Jai White (you say labor of love, I say vanity project). That doesn’t mean that Jai White is any good in the role. He never gives us a sense of Black Dynamite as a character, his overtly earnest delivery never rising above being a guy playing dress-up. He never gives us a sense of the character and his relationship to the world is (unlike, let’s say, Leslie Neilson’s Detective Drebbin in the Naked Gun movies).White aims for Richard Roundtree but ends up hitting a second rate imitation of Dolemite.

3) Even though he also gives us the sense of a guy playing dress up, I appreciate how Tommy

"I swear the talent in this movie is down here somewhere..."

Davidson’s Cream Corn is patterned so closely on Antonio Fargas that he inadvertently adds a hint of veracity in the proceedings.

4) Seeing Nicole Sullivan playing Pat Nixon mainly makes me wish I could see more of Nicole Sullivan, well, pretty much anywhere.

5) Even though this film is only 83 minutes, there are scenes that just go on forever. One sequence, set at a version of The Pimp’s Ball, is obsessed more with introducing the actors doing cameos than advancing the story.

6) Yes, there have been blaxploitation films where the soundtrack plays as a Greek chorus, but they never repeated exactly what we’ve seen like this one does...and it’s not funny, it’s annoying.

So is that ‘Din-o-myte/Din-o-myte’ riff you play every time Jai White walks into a room.

7) I will admit that things do pick up once the script embraces the inherent silliness it obviously wants to be known for--but since that happens with only fifteen minutes left in the movie, it’s kinda too late.

President Nixon will kung-fu your ass!

8) I wonder who thought it was funny to have Black Dynomite’s back story contradict itself--first he’s promising his mother he’ll look after his brother, then he’s an orphan when the actor is obviously meant to be younger--but it only serves to make the viewer question the world the film is set in.

9) I didn’t realize that Kevin Chapman was the same one who played Detective Fusco on Person of Interest until he was cut down in a hail of gunfire. Which I guess says something about his chops.

10) I’m sorry, but that make-up effect of a fat guy displaying...something that ties in with the film’s MacGuffin...looks nothing like the thing it’s supposed to be.

Overall...An awful film that seems to be congratulating itself about how clever it is, yet is anything but. It actually makes me yearn for an appearance by Creeper The Hamburger Pimp (look it up)....

Ten Statements About....AMERICAN HUSTLE (2013)

2017-02-06T05:53:00.001-08:00

Ooooooh....double-plus purty

“I think the name of this operation is offensive. What, Abscam? "Arab-scam"? It's racist!"
“Are you fucking kidding? What do you care? You're Mexican.."

1) I don’t know, but for a film that’s supposed to be a period piece, it doesn’t feel like a period piece. Hell, you could do this film more modern-day with only a little tweaking. The whole sense is that these are not 70‘s people, but people playing dress up.

2) That being said, I appreciate how the bulk of the actors are made to look distinctively different from their normal look--thus giving us more of a sense of veracity and allowing us to immerse ourselves in the story.

3) David O. Russell must really love Good Fellas, because so much of the structure and the way the film handles music is lifted from that film.

4) I really don’t understand why this is considered a comedy, as the tone is more grim than humorous.

"Hey, Jeremy...move your hair. It's blocking my sightlines..."

5) I was really taken with Amy Adams’ Sydney--and not just because she’s purty (and show quite a bit of cleavage throughout). When she’s masquerading as the very British ‘Edith,’ Adams allows her natural intonations slip through at key points, reminding us that she’s new at playing a role. And the fact that she’s manipulating Bradley Cooper’s Richie is very well handled. That being said...

6) ...I really think it was a mistake to give Adams a narration sequence in Act One. It disappears fairly early on in the proceedings and dilutes the fact that this is Irving’s story.

7) Boy, Jeremy Renner’s hairstyle should get its own credit considering how it seems to dominate the proceedings every time it’s onscreen.

"No, dammit...I won't play Pattycake with you!"

8) I love how Russell’s opening title card--’Some of this stuff is true’--allows him to embellish the story to his heart’s content.

9) I get that a pop music soundtrack is now essential to any period piece movie (and that Russell is trying to emulate Good Fellas’ usage of the same), but the songs seem chosen haphazardly and placed in the film obtrusively.

10) The resolution of the story arc of Sydney’s and Christian Bale’s Irving seems forced. It seems like they’re made to do what Russell wants them to do and not what’s organic to the story itself.

Overall...painfully flawed but with some interesting performances, it’s mildly worth a watch. I can’t see why it was nominated for Best Picture, though.

Ten Statements About....THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN RIDE! (1972)

2017-01-31T05:13:00.000-08:00

"I know I look nothing like George Kennedy or Yul Brynner.
Just go with it."

“Well, should we bury 'em?"
“The living need us more."

1) Maybe it’s because Lee Van Cleef is a different kind of actor than either Yul Brynner or George Kennedy, but his Chris Allen is a lot more ruthless and near-unfeeling in his deadpanedness. At times, his attitude is downright offputting.

2) Even though it all happens off-screen, this film is awful rapey. Not only is it implied strongly that villain Del Toro and his men have had their way with the women of Magdelena, but it’s explicitly stated that Mariette Hartley’s Arietta was violated before she was killed.

3) And speaking of Del Toro--because the character doesn’t appear until literally the last moment, we’re never given the sense of him the previous films gave us of their bad guys. As a result, he’s a paper tiger, a target for the seven to shoot at.

4) I don’t care how hard you try, it’s impossible to make the sight of our heroes’ horses strolling along around an uncovered wagon look majestic.

"Watch it...critics right around this corner. And they ain't
pretty!"

5) For a village of Mexican farmers, the women are all uniformly white.

6) By having the kid Chris holds partially responsible for Arietta’s death killed (off screen) by someone else, it sort of blunts the character’s arc. If they had allowed the kid to be a part of Del Toro’s gang and confront Chris in the climax, the film would have had a more satisfying spine.

7) This film is so...drab. The main characters are dressed not in the easily definable, colorful outfits of previous films in the series, but in dark, lookalike clothing.

"You gals are mighty white..."

8) I miss the ‘getting the band together’ sequences the previous films had. The remaining five members are literally picked up in one fell swoop at the prison.

9) You know what would have made it easier to tell the seven apart? Saying their names more than once, and even then in an offhanded way.

10) Gee, it’s nice to know that Chris gets over the death of his pregnant wife quick enough to take up with Stephanie Powers. Good way to engender character sympathies, writers.

Overall...a tired, dull and lackluster last entry in the series with just enough of a scuzzy edge to it to make it unappealing.

Ten Statements About....OCTOPUSSY (1983)

2017-01-25T05:42:00.000-08:00

Yes, he's dressed like a clown...but the scene is actually
quite tense...

"Mr. Bond indeed is a rare breed...soon to be made extinct."

1) As if overcompensating for the soberness of For Your Eyes Only , this film sees the return of the broad Roger Moore humor. It can be difficult to see past the double-taking camels, swamis complaining about people lying on their bed of nails, Tarzan yells and other annoying gags...especially the seeming endless stream of lame puns coming directly from Moore’s mouth. That being said...

2) We still get hints of the Bond we could have gotten if Moore had taken things seriously. There is one moment in particular, involving a circus and a bomb, where Moore conveys some real emotion.

3) One of the clever things about casting Maud Adams as...*ahem*...Octopussy is that, because she is a mature woman, Moore’s advancing age is not an issue. As such, the romantic moments aren’t as creepy as they could have been (and as they’re going to get soon).

4) As for the other Bond girl, Kristina Waybourne is an odd personage as Magda--and not just

Somehow, this version of Charlie's Angels didn't catch on...

because she looks very striking from one angle and frighteningly weird from another--because there’s no clear sense of her loyalties. Supposedly she’s part of Octopussy’s organization, yet she behaves as if she is Louis Jordan’s Kamal Khan’s right hand doxy. The script needed to take a more forceful stand on her.

5) Wait a minute...a Roger Moore Bond film that actually has some connection to an actual Bond story? Say it ain’t so!

Well, I can’t. I find it satisfying that the story the title is derived from is summarized at one point and connected to the film, making it a sequel to the Fleming short.

6) Much like Hugo Drax in Moonraker Louis Jordan underplays Kamal Khan. Unlike Drax, however, it works for him. There’s an icy sort of self-assuredness to Jordan’s presence that makes him an effective Bond villain.

That weird-looking girl is looking over my shoulder again,
isn't she?

7) Steve Berkoff, a New York stage actor, is certainly...vigorous as General Orlov. This serves to balance out Khan, but also provides the sort of playing-to-the-rafters grandiosity that is expected of a Bond film.

8) Go away, crocodile sub. Just...go away.

9) There is an extended sequence beginning on a train that, even with some questionable fast changes and another broad bit of humor with The German Sausage Couple, should have been the film’s climax. It is extremely tense, full of great fighting, and manages to skillfully conceal the age discrepancy between Moore and his stunt double. This could have been a satisfying ending, but instead we get a silly assault on the Monsoon Palace by the circus and a sequence on a plane where the discrepancy between Moore and his stunt double is all too evident.

10) Unfortunate name to the contrary, Adams’ Octopussy is a surprisingly effective, willful and competent Bond girl...until the last ten minutes, where the script suddenly decides it needs a girl’s school screamer and have her kidnapped and menanced.

Overall...nowhere near as bad as some will lead you to believe--pretty good, actually. If you block out the broad Moore/Glen humor, you’ll have a great time.

Ten Statements About....FANTASTIC FOUR (2015)

2017-01-15T06:48:00.000-08:00

"Hey, guys...I built one of those motors you used to
find in your toys!"

“You're counting on these guys? A guy who can stretch, a girl I can't see, a human torch...I don't even know what he is.”

1) Man, this is one dark movie--not dark as in somber, but dark as in dark. The film seems to take place in a continual twilight, and there are moments when you literally can’t figure out what is going on.

2) I’m sorry, but I don’t believe Miles Teller’s Reed is one of the smartest boys in the world. There’s something...petulant about his performance that makes his Reed unbelievable.

3) You know what is the major problem with this film? It’s that the leads are exactly the same person. They’re all teens-to-young-adult geniuses who can easily see how to build a gate to another dimension. With the exception of one brief sequence depicting Michael B. Jordan’s Johnny loving speedy cars (an aspect that is dropped immediately after it is introduced), they’re given no indication of a life outside of the lab.

4) Boy, is the sight of a pantless Thing disturbing.

"Sir, I've seen photos of Doom. I've read about Doom. You, sir,
are no Doom."

5) I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again...when you change enough of the backstory of a property, it no longer is that property. And this should probably have been named something else to divorce it from the property it claims to be.

6) The pacing of this film is truly out of whack. It take almost half the film for our heroes to gain their powers, about three quarters before the menace is introduced, and it can be argued the film is almost over (counting the credits, which had to eat up seven or eight minutes, there was twenty minutes left) before the actual conflict arises. I know director Josh Trank has done one good super-hero-y movie before, so I can’t understand why he lets this one get all lopsided.

7) Yeah, a sinister government organization looking to weaponize our heroes. Because we haven’t seen that before...

This is as brightly lit as this film gets...

8) Why isn’t being super-smart enough for directors when it comes to Doctor Doom? Giving him ill-defined abilities does not make him more menacing; it makes him more generic.

9) I swear, it seems like Trank is more interested in making a horror movie. The trip to the alternate dimension and the sequence where the Sinister Government Organization is testing/examining our heroes is played out as something disturbing.

10) Okay, so Reed escapes from the Sinister Government Organization before they give the other three the suits that control their powers, right? Then why is Reed wearing one of these suits when they track him down to South America?

Overall...dark, dismal and tedious, this is a Superhero Movie That Doesn’t Want To Be A Superhero Movie at its worst. Avoid.

Ten Statements About....10 CLOVERFIELD LANE (2016)

2017-01-11T06:07:00.000-08:00

"You're going to play Barrel of Monkeys Giant
Size Edition or else!"

“People are strange creatures. You can't always convince them that safety is in their best interest."

1) Mary Elizabeth Winstead owns this movie, and not just because she is the main character. A lesser actress would be subsumed by John Goodman’s performance, but Winstead is able to keep the viewer’s attention, and gain his or her sympathy.

2) That’s not to take away from Goodman, who manages to walk a fine line between being creepy and being...well, sort of melancholic. He keeps the suspense in this film running smoothly because he creates a character with different facets, so that when we’re sure he’s one thing we get some indication he might be something else.

3) That being said...there’s something that Winstead discovers towards the end of the second act that is pretty much unnecessary. It adds nothing to the narrative, and diminishes Goodman from this interesting character to a cliche. The whole subplot can be excised whole.

And up there you might find Roseanne's career...

4) You know what else can be excised whole? John Gallagher Jr.’s Emmett. I get that he’s there so that Winstead’s Michelle has someone to explain things to, but Winstead and the director are talented enough to convey the things that need to be conveyed without Regulation Expository Dialogue.

5) Maybe it’s because it’s not used to punctuate violence like it’s used so many other places, but the use of 50‘s and 60‘s pop music here manages to be creepy, emphasizing the situation without slipping into the parodic.

6) I dunno...if you introduce an acid supposedly so toxic it’ll strip human flesh to the bone, you should show someone who falls into a pool of it has more than just a crispy temple....

7) Give ‘em credit...they introduce something, they use something.

8) The big revelation...I’m not sure about it. Yeah, it’s there to cement the connection between this film and the original, but the way it’s shot is confusing and manages to obscure more than it reveals. However...

Not time for a selfie, Mary Elizabeth....

9) This revelation does manage to throw Goodman’s Howard into a different life. It makes you wonder how different the film would be if it concentrated solely on Howard’s survivalist tendencies and didn’t stray into the cliches it embraced earlier.

10) The ending seems to promise a sequel, which really isn’t necessary. My hope is that J.J. Abrams follows through on his original intention of making the Cloverfield franchise into an anthology of unrelated stories set in the same universe.

Overall...worthwhile for the excellent performances by Winstead and Goodman. If you’re looking for something else, well...shrug.

Ten Statements About....PASSENGERS (2016)

2017-01-07T07:06:00.000-08:00

"Boy the commissary has gone all to crap..."

"Who planted a tree in the middle of my ship?"

1) Boy, Jennifer Lawrence sure is purty.

That is all.

Wait, you want more? Well....

2) What does it say about your movie that the most sympathetic character is an android that spends most of its time polishing glasses?

3) There are moments in this film that work as set porn--scenes such as the ones in The Observatory, the space just outside the ship and The World’s Coolest Swimming Pool are pretty damn good looking, and give you a hint at what was going through the creator’s mind instead of, you know, logical character development and the like.

"I am so serious about safe sex!"

4) While it’s obvious that the film expects you to identify with Chris Pratt’s Jim, it’s hard to have sympathy with him when he does something truly heinous to bring Lawrence’s Aurora into the film. And when that heinous thing is exposed, the film refuses to let Jim have the comeuppance he deserves. Hell, the script rewards him for this supremely dickish act.

5) This is a film that forces one of the main characters to do a total 360 in attitude because the third act wouldn’t work without it...and that sudden about-face sours said third act.

6) Gee, Laurence Fishburne--thanks for waking up from suspended animation long enough to serve as Captain Exposition and hand our protagonists a (literal) magic ticket before dying of Mysterious Movie Illness.

Yep...best special effect in the film....

7) And speaking of that magic ticket...we’re told, in no uncertain terms, that the protagonists cannot return to suspended animation. But once they get that magic ticket, they find out that’s not the case. Good job keeping your own rules straight, movie.

8) Why can our protagonists (no way I’m calling them heroes) survive such hazards as a vacuum, decompression, and nuclear freakin’ fire with little or no ill effects? Well, because the script needs them to...

9) I give the movie credit for coming up with a unique starship design. There’s something elegant in the way it moves forward that’s quite attractive.

10) I don’t know about you, but if I was the ship’s captain, I’d be pretty pissed at the way our protagonists leave the Grand Concourse for them.

Overall...while there are a few grace notes that almost let us forget about the shoddiness of the script, it’s hard to get away from the fact that it’s a sloppy little entry. Add in a really awful, nonsensical third act, and you have something that’s Not Very Good A’Tall.

Ten Statements About....CRIMSON PEAK (2015)

2015-10-25T08:55:00.001-07:00

"Hello. I am your designated scenery chewer for this
evening

"Ghosts are real. This much I know."

1) Mia Wasikowska’s Edith does not work as a heroine. She is set up as a self-reliant, progressive and clever woman only to--almost literally at the flip of a switch--become a weak-kneed softie for the duration of the film. We’re supposed to think it’s because of her feelings for Tom Hiddleston’s Thomas...except that she is resistant to him with no hint of her weakness for a stretch of the first act.

2) ...of course, it might be because Wasikowska and Hiddleston have no chemistry whatsoever, which especially makes Thomas’ story arc nonsensical. We don’t believe in his change of heart because we have no faith in his feelings for Edith.

3) This film is way too long, and is rife with scenes that could be cut, especially in the first act. I suspect the story would flow much better if it lost fifteen minutes to a half hour.

"I know we have no chemistry, but the script demands it, so..."

4) Perhaps the most frustrating thing is that the ghosts that are supposed to be a major crux of the film...don’t do anything essential to the plot. They’re incidental to the point where you could cut them out whole and, with very slight re-jiggering, still have a movie. This might have worked better, given that the ghosts’ presence in the film makes Edith come off as rather dim.

5) In a film where so many of the principles underplay their roles. you gotta give Jessica Chastain credit for so vigorously biting into the scenery. She’s wound so tightly that your eyes are drawn to her even when she’s in the background.

6) I’m with Ian Loring and Mark Foster on this--Guillermo del Toro has it in for faces. Even butterfly faces get mangled in this movie.

Mia doesn't want to look at the reviews inside that bucket...

7) Seeing and enjoying Burn Gorman in a small but pivotal role makes me come to the conclusion that it was the writing on Torchwood that made me hate his character and not him. Or that del Toro knows how to use him.

8) Given that del Toro’s script he collaborated on with Matthew Robbins was trying to re-create a 19th century Gothic, I wonder if they should have dispensed with any supernatual aspect whatsoever and focused on the madness and machinations that the film wants to revel in.

9) What was the point of the scene where Charlie Hunnam’s doctor shares his passion of spirit photography with Edith? It never comes into play again. But then, for a character who shows up in the third act simply so Edith has someone to walk into the snowstorm with, it’s not surprising he has little in the way of characterization.

10) Even though I didn’t care for the ghosts’ presence in the film, I do appreciate the look of them, especially the way you can see flashes of the ghost’s human forms when light hits them.

Overall...a vast disappointment from del Toro which suffers from a lack of chemistry between its two leads and a script that doesn’t know what it wants to accomplish.

This time I went to the UA Midway, the first time I had been there for close to two decades. It’s the last theater standing in the main shopping district of Forest Hills, which once played host to five in walking distance of each other. The staff was uncommonly friendly, but the projectionist screwed up the tracking for the dreaded Firstlook. When this was brought to the staff’s attention, we were informed that the picture will stabilize at the time the feature started. Horror films dominated the trailers with the exception of The Night Before, which focused on one character barfing in a church.

Ten Statements About....SSSSSSS (1973)

2015-10-23T06:37:00.000-07:00

"I'm your boyfriend now, Christine...."

“You are a real and a bona fide genius. First one I ever met."
“It's rare to be appreciated for one's failures."

1) What makes this film effective for much of its running time is the understated performance by Strother Martin. We know this man is a mad scientist from frame one, and yet he’s so mild and laid back that you almost forget how sinister his intentions are....

2) ...at least until that third act (get used to this phrase). Once we hit that last twenty minutes or so, the actors start behaving irrationally. It’s almost as if the script is hurrying the actions along because they know their time is up.

3) Wow...Reb Brown was broad even in his youth. At least he dies without screaming his character’s name.

4) The use of real reptiles throughout the film does give the movie a creepy feel. Although the creepiest thing in the movie aren’t the snakes but the mongoose Strother keeps around for....whatever.

This is a snake drinking booze. Your arguments are
no longer valid.

5) Not surprisingly, there is a romance between Dirk Benedict’s David and Heather Menzies’ Christine that doesn’t work. There’s no organicness their coupling, and seems to be there because, well, the script requires the two to make like a couple.

6) Bernard Kowalski does something very effective when Benedict starts changing. Instead of solely shooting the actor from behind (although there is some of that), Kowalski does show him from a slight distance so that we know something’s...off about him. This creates a sense of unease that culminates in a great shock cut.

7) I don’t think the film needed the deaths-by-snake in the late second and third acts. They contribute to the disintegration of Martin’s performance, and seems to be there solely to give the viewer some violence to keep them engaged.

"You haven't thought of a coherent ending? Nooooooooo!"

8) There are some really disquieting make-up effects in this film, beginning with the ‘shedding’ and carrying through to the appearance of the monstrous characters themselves...at least until the third act, where we learn what Strother Martin’s real intentions are. And speaking of that third act...

9) What. The. Hell. was that ending all about? No, really, the last ten minutes makes so little sense it almost serves to tear down the hour and a half that came before it. And you’re telling me that Christine could recognize what Dick has become instantly?

10) Why do they make such a big deal about this rare Amazonian snake--Christine mentions it a couple of time, goes to the shipping station and waits for its arrival--when there’s no pay off to this aspect?

Overall... until the third act just wrecks everything, this is a very low-key, creepy at times, little mad scientist throwback.

Ten Statements About....TREMORS (1989)

2015-10-20T08:09:00.000-07:00

"I smell BACON!"

1) This film knows one of the great secrets of making an effective creature feature--Keep It Simple. The script sets up the situation, doesn’t dwell on such unnecessary things as back stories and rationales for its creature and just goes. And knowing the momentum and tension has to keep ratcheting up makes it easier for us to get caught up.

2) There’s a great chemistry between Kevin Bacon’s Val and Fred Ward’s Earl, and that helps to give the film a gravitas and forward movement it might not otherwise have. Nowhere does these two give us much in the way of their history, but we still know what we need to know about these two from their banter and rapport that we can identify with.

3) I find it highly amusing that this film uses bad reception as a rationale for not getting help long before such an explanation was needed due to cell phones.

Just another NRA Saturday Night....

4) Another benefit from the film’s plot being so simple is that it allows us time for character moments with everyone in the cast so that no one, not even Michael Gross’ and Reba McIntire’s survivalist couple comes off as a cardboard cliche.

5) It’s a breath of fresh air that Finn Carter’s resident scientist doesn’t have knowledge of all sciences. She does give us insight into the creatures’ nature, but only the insight specific to her specialized knowledge. And speaking of that scientist....

6) I thoroughly don’t buy the romance between Carter and Bacon. The script gives us absolutely no hint of an attraction at any time, and just drops the coming together as a coda of the story. It also doesn’t help that Bacon has more chemistry with Ward than he does with Carter....

7) I will always applaud a film that has faith in practical effects. In this case, said practical effects gives the monsters a weight and sense of life that I can’t see them having with CGI.

8) I’m pleased that the final resolution of the monster problem is one that the residents of Perfection could come up with by themselves. There’s no macguffin, no scientific hocus pocus, just a bunch of
people with a knowledge of their land and a couple of homemade explosives.

9) Being just a shade over ninety minutes helps this film immeasurably. It’s just long enough for the script to give us some dimension to its characters and give us a couple of creepy portents before the monsters come and it becomes a bit of a thrill ride. Once we get the creepy crawlies (literally!), it’s hyperfocused on the plot at hand.

"I've heard of blockages before, but..."

10) I don’t know if the film’s country western soundtrack works. Sure, the dissonance between old timey cowboy songs with being swallowed by a monster works in one scene, but the other songs seem obtrusive, especially the closing credit ditty, which seems there solely to let Reba sing something.

Overall...an effective, entertaining creature feature that does what it says on the tin, buoyed further by some good chemistry by its leads and an excellent, well-designed and grimy monster.

Ten Statements About....THE MAN FROM U.N.C.L.E. (2015)

2015-08-25T07:44:00.000-07:00

Sometimes these fights for top billing can get hairy...

1) I’m ready to call it; Guy Ritchie should only do period pieces from now on. Just as with the Sherlock Holmes films, Ritchie is able to catch the feel visually and aurally of the 60‘s in this movie. Such things as the frequent use of split screen only emphasizes this.

2) I like the use of a variant of the trick Ritchie used in the Holmes film, this time rewinding time to show us information we didn’t originally have.

3) Of course, the most 60‘s thing about this movie is Alicia Vikander’s Gaby. Given her modest figure and impeccable poise, she’s able to rock those Mod fashions something fierce. Hell, she even makes those overlarge sunglasses work for her. Granted, I would have preferred they named her April Dancer, but that might have tipped the movie’s hand as to what her role was in the

"Why yes, I know how to rock these Carnaby Street fashion..."

plot.

4) This is another film that suffers from a lackluster set of villains. Neither Elizabeth Debicki’s Victoria or her husband make much of an impression, and their motivation could use some work. Even their main henchman is ruined by the way he blabs it up so readily when the tables are turned on him.

5) I wonder if we really needed an origin story for the two leads. One being a thief and the other having anger issues doesn’t really contribute anything to what is, at its core, a very simple high concept. We don’t need that level of depth in this context.

6) Boy, Henry Cavill is...earnest in his portrayal of Napoleon Solo. It’s the kind of performance where I don’t know if he’s being serious or taking the piss out of the spy genre. Considering that Armie Hammer plays his role straight, it sets up a weird vibe between them.

"No, really...we ARE so villains!"

7) While I think Ritchie’s urge to do a chase scene on three different planes of location was intriguing, I don’t think it quite works. The fact is, even with the shots showing where the planes were in relation to each other, I found it quite hard to follow.

8) There are a couple of interesting sequences which use two focuses, both for comic effect. And both seem to benefit from Cavill’s comic timing.

9) Even though an argument could be made that he’s underplaying it, it does seem that Hugh Grant is having fun playing Waverly...and I like how the movie foreshadows his appearance a couple of times before he makes his full debut.

10) While it was nice to see the distinctive UNCLE guns in one sequence, it would have been nice to get a clear shot of them (no pun intended).

Overall...Yes, it’s flawed, but it’s also great eye candy and further proof that Guy Ritchie knows his period pieces.

Ten Statements About....THEY LIVE (1988)

2015-08-10T08:18:00.000-07:00

"We wear our sunglasses at night..."

“Brother, life’s a bitch...and it’s back in heat."

1) For a first time actor, Rod Piper does pretty well. His John Nada manages to be fairly low-key and almost melancholy at times throughout the first act...until he puts on those sunglasses, at which point he keeps switching from Nada to Rowdy Roddy Piper, and those moments tend to detract from the main story.

2) Man, does this film move slowly. There are long stretches where pretty much nothing happens, especially at the beginning and end of the film. There’s none of that increasing speed of storytelling we see in some of Carpenter’s other films like Escape From New York or Big Trouble In Little China. As such, the story crawls, making it seem longer than its ninety-five minutes run time.

3) One of the many slow moments Carpenter could have cut to liven the pace? That third act ‘tour’ of the alien’s facility. All we really need to know about the aliens is that they are the ultimate capitalist exploiters--they see humanity as chattel and are altering the planet to suit their industrial needs. We don’t need to see every. single. thing. about how things work with them.

So a skinless man walks into a bar....

4) Even though her role is so wispy it could fly away with a good strong breath, Meg Foster does nothing to give any life to Holly. She’s just not a good actress, delivering every line in a soporific monotone that, if anything, serves to reveal a major portion of her character arc way too early.

5) This films relies so much on coincidence in moving its plot that it’s ridiculous. Even though Nada is surprisingly proactive for a Carpenter hero, he would be just sitting with his thumb up his butt if he didn’t happen to meet the right people who happen to be wandering by at the right time.

6) Hello, primitive CGI flying thingie. If only you hadn’t flown apart so awkwardly when shot....

I've heard of simplifying articles, but this....

7) Okay, that fight scene--I really don’t think it works as a parody of wrestling (as my buddy Derrick Ferguson claims; I’ve always thought it was Carpenter’s tribute to the legendary Rod Taylor fight scene in Darker Than Amber) even if Piper does break out a couple of wrestling moves. It doesn’t work because it stops and starts. The killer isn’t the fight itself but the constant pausing we get throughout it. Those pauses disrupt the flow and make us impatient to get the scene over with. That being said....

8) It’s really refreshing to see a lead who obviously isn’t being doubled for his stunt work and fights. This is where Piper’s experience as a wrestler works for him rather than against him.

Something for the ladies....

9) If you ask me who this film’s MVP is, it’s Keith David. David is given a character whose arc literally changes in mid-stream, is made to work opposite an actor he really has no chemistry with, and goes out like a punk...and yet he makes this character work. It’s a testament to his skill that Frank has any dimension at all.

10) One of the things that bugs me the most about this film is how it doesn’t so much end as stop. Maybe Carpenter thought a sex gag (which makes no sense given how the aliens claim humans are repulsive to them, but that could just be me reading too much into a throwaway line) was a fitting capper to this story....but it, well, isn’t.

Overall...a messy, sloppy film that probably has its reputation due to a handful of--well, okay, a single--memorable line. Its slowness and tendency to work in fits and starts blunt what could have been an effective little satirical thriller.

Ten Statements About....ANT-MAN (2015)

2015-08-04T08:14:00.000-07:00

Ant-Man gives this shower curtain thumbs up....

“The world sure seems different from down here, doesn't it, Scott?"

1) It’s refreshing for once to have a Marvel movie where the stakes are not on a city-destroying level. Because this is a more personal story, there’s not any of the ‘collateral damage fatigue’ that some of these later entries have suffered from. And it makes us easier to accept the explodey parts in Act Three. Although...

2) ...I wonder if the fact that this is many ways a kinda, sorta remake of Iron Man struck anyone at any period of time. There are moments in the film--especially in the third act, it comes down to our hero and a bald guy in a more aggressive version of his suit throwing down in a major metropolitan area--where the connections are inescapable.

3) There is a moment where a character asks ‘when did this happen?’, and I had to agree. That development comes way out of nowhere given how the relationship between the two characters being referenced had been prickly-to-friendly up until that point.

4) It’s surprising how the film still has Edgar Wright’s fingerprints are on it, even after that acrimonious split. There are moments (especially whenever Michael Pena goes into flashback mode) that are pure Wright, giving this film a different sheen than other Marvel films.

That's right...Mole Man is already taken!

5) Maybe it’s me, but Michael Douglas’ Hank Pym comes off as a dick, even after he gets a moment where he explains his angst by borrowing some of comic book era Captain America’s. It’s not so much a character arc as a character line.

6) Similarly--and this may be because I’m comparing him to Obediah Stane--I find Cory Stoll’s Darren Cross sort of one-dimensional and broad. At no point do we doubt that he’s Pure-D-Evil, here only to hiss and make us appreciate how honorable Scott and his crew are.

7) Okay, those television spots spoiled the big surprise, but I did enjoy the throwdown between Scott and The Falcon. It’s a very Marvel moment, having two heroes fight over a misunderstanding.

8) As someone who hates CGI, I have to admit that the use of it here gives the action scene a sense of three-dimensionality I enjoyed. The way the camera swoops and slides as Scott and Cross are battling both in miniature and enlarged (am I the only one who thinks the Yellowjacket outfit looked silly in its enlarged state?), changing perspective a number of times in novel ways while never losing sight of what’s going on

"Follow me, because I'm like...evil and stuff."

9) Even though the light hearted nature of this film required a comedic actor like Paul Rudd at its center, I appreciate how he keeps things more or less low key. There’s no mugging, no out-of-place quipping, no winking at the camera. In fact, Rudd manages to keep Scott seeming very ‘regular joe’ while still giving us a hint of charisma. It’s a rather commendable performance.

10) So you set your film in one of the most photogenic cities in the country....and yet you manage to make it so generic that you don’t even notice the setting until it’s mentioned in the third act?

Overall...while it has its flaws, this is a non-offensive time waster with some nice moments.

Ten Statements About....FOR YOUR EYES ONLY (1981)

2015-07-22T16:28:00.000-07:00

"Did I tell you about the time I was a rich man, James?"

"The Chinese have a saying. When preparing for revenge, first dig two graves."

1) Oh, Lord...the sequences that bookend this film are brutal to watch. They’re so bad, so broadly performed, and so transparent in their purpose (particularly the big ‘Fuck You’ Broccoli throws to Kevin McClory in the pre-credit sequence) that they actively work against the mood this film is trying so hard to maintain...

2) ...as is, for that matter, the disco-fied score by Bill Conti. It’s woefully out of place in a Bond film, and actually actively reduces the tension in what are some effective action sequences. Imagining how the centerpiece ski chase would feel with a John Barry score only emphasizes how unsuitable these synth-heavy, rhythm propelled pieces are.

3) Even though there are still moments where the John Glen we know and loathe shine though (particularly the gratuitous slapstick and animal noises), his direction is uncommonly focused here. The choices he makes are more subtle and nuanced than the ones he makes in other films, and he shows a restraint that fits this film’s more grounded and, for lack of a better word, realistic orientation. It adds to the refreshing feel of the production as a whole.

4) Even though we are at a point where Roger Moore looks noticeably--some would say alarmingly--older than his leading ladies, the relationship that develops between him and Carole Bouquet’s Melina makes sense for a number of reasons. The script makes certain that Melina has plenty of screen time with Bond (more than a lot of other Bond Girls before and since) and gives her roles in both the plot and the theme that are integral. On top of that, Bouquet and Moore do have something of a chemistry that makes their relationship seem organic.

There's no jokes about birds in this moment, no sir....

5) This is one of the performances of Moore’s that gets me angry, as it gives us a hint of the Bond that could have been. Moore plays it more or less straight here, and it gives Bond a little bit of a harder edge. It’s the darkest Bond’s been since Moore threatened to break Maud Adams’ arm in The Man With The Golden Gun, and seeing this more serious interpretation welcome.

6) I like Topol’s Columbo quite a lot. In many ways he reminds me of Kerim-Bey in his lustiness and good humor. More importantly, he’s the most effective ally character we’ve had in a long time.

7) Go away, Lynne Holly Johnson. Just...go away.

"Go away, little girl...."

8) I know they’re not going to kill Bond, but the climactic set piece is extremely tense, most likely because of the lack of scoring. Because the music is at a minimum, we focus on Bond and his enemy and hear the creaking of the pitons and cord as Bond dangles miles in the air. It’s a show of restraint in an era that didn’t know what restraint means.

9) You know, when you’ve got Charles Dance’s Locke, who is an effective killer and, more importantly, somewhat anonymous-looking...why do you farm out your murders to a crazy-eyed, balding Cuban who might as well have ‘mad dog killer’ stamped across his forehead.

10) Considering how much I derided Thunderball for being scuba-tastic, I find the underwater sequences here rather engaging. Granted, part of that might be because they don’t take up all of the third act, and part of it might be because the script uses a lot of cutting edge (at the time) tech that gives them a particular flavor.

Overall...a pulling back from the excess of Roger Moore’s era, this film is actually pretty dark and engaging.

Ten Statements About....KINGSMAN: THE SECRET SERVICE (2015)

2015-02-15T20:03:00.002-08:00

"...a man with an umbrella is always prepared..."

“Manners maketh man. Do you know what that means? Then let me teach you a lesson."

1) In spots, this is the Avengers (the TV show, not the comic/movie franchise) movie that I always wanted, and so much of that is because of Colin Firth’s Hart. He is the best John Steed never named John Steed, and is made all the more remarkable by the sense that Henry was as much a rebel as Taron Egerton’s Eggsy is when he was younger. If only the Mark Millar-isms didn’t keep creeping into the film....

2) And speaking of Egerton, thank goodness the film doesn’t shy away from Eggsy’s, well, dickishness. While he has aspects that are admirable, he’s never too far away from his chaviness right up to the payoff in the, ahem, end.

3) What is up with Samuel L, Jackson’s performance as Valentine? It seems all mannerisms and quirks, and that lisp he affects bugs me the fuck out.

I've heard of wet dreams before, but this is ridiculous.

4) For a film that wears its love of spy culture on its sleeve, quoting and referencing everything from James Bond to Maxwell Smart to Jason Bourne, its got some sincere disconnects that can be laid at the feet of Millar. When the good guys gleefully blow up the heads of major world leaders, the feel Vaughn is going for is lost.

5) While I have no problem with the film’s comedic coda given the James Bond formula it’s aping, the thing that makes it not quite work is that there’s a painstakingly created potential love interest in Sophie Cookson’s Roxy. The script does a lot to forge this bond between the two only to have her discarded towards the finale without any resolution to their arc.

6) One of the spy tropes this film gets a hundred percent right is the henchman, Sofia Boutella’s Gazelle. Grotesque but graceful and a formidable presence, Boutella gives this film her all, and her presence livens up the proceedings while also giving us a Hell of a ‘final boss’ for Eggsy to fight during the climax.

"I'm gonna introduce you to this chick with a machine
gun for a leg. You two would get along great!"

7) Given that this is a film based on a Mark Millar comic, it’s excessively violent--so violent it almost doesn’t fit into the superspy movie genre the script gleefully wants to emulate. Every time a human being gets sliced in half, or we sit through a horrifyingly brutal sequence where Hart slaughters a church full of people gone mad with bloodlust, we’re tossed right out of the spell this film weaves throughout its narrative.

8) I’m not surprised that Michael Caine is cast as Kingsman head Arthur given Caine’s position in the canon of superspy movie culture. But I was surprised at how Arthur’s story arc ends up--although I shouldn’t have, given Mark Millar’s involvement.

9) Given the nature of the MacGuffin, I have to ask...did somebody watch too much Russell T. Davies era Doctor Who?

10) While I may not appreciate the way the storyline involving Eggsy’s mother was handled, I do appreciate that it is given a payoff in the post-credit sequence.

Overall...A peculiar film that is a very good pastiche of superspy movies, but becomes a mess whenever it hews closely to the Millar original and revels in its low sexuality and high brutality.

I was at the Atlas this time--maybe for the last time, given I’m moving at the end of this month. Among the trailers were ones for The Man From U.N.C.L.E. (which, to my pleasant surprise, is going to be a period piece), Ant-Man (which could have benefitted from not having that goofy comedy sting at the end), and...shudder...Paul Blart Mall Cop 2, which proves than Kevin James can’t be funny in an unfunny Die Hard parody.

Ten Statements About....THE SILENCERS (1966)

2015-01-30T17:52:00.001-08:00

This is the perfect illustration of this movie...because it
certainly looks like ass....

“Mr. Helm, now do I look like an enemy agent?"
“Well I dunno, I haven't seen the latest models yet."

1) I wonder if a film ever started as slowly as this one. The seemingly endless sequence showing Matt Helm’s lazy morning routine drags the film down even before it’s started.

Of course, some people would claim it never gets started.

2) It’s really hard to avoid the conclusion that Dean Martin is way too old for this--at 49, his face even more weathered due to his alcoholism and hard living, his love scenes with women twenty-plus years his junior comes off as uncomfortable to watch rather than sexy. But speaking of those women...

3) ...easily the best thing in this film is the divine Dahliah Lavi. One of the most beautiful women to grace spy films of the 60‘s, she has grace, poise and actually forces a playful chemistry with Martin’s Helm. She’s a joy to watch, which makes her disappearance for a long stretch of time one of the true crimes of the film.

I wouldn't look half asleep if Dahliah Lavi was rubbing
my shoulder....

4) On the other hand we have Stella Stevens’ Gail, who is more typical of a Helm Girl--clumsy, awkward, unintelligent and there primarily so Martin can make fun of her and expose her body. Her performance is downright painful to sit through, doubly so as you can’t decide if this is her fault or Martin’s.

5) What is up with that singing Greek Chorus Dean Martin commenting on the plot? It’s not funny, and actively interferes with the flow of the story.

6) Unlike with The 2nd Best Secret Agent In The Whole Wide World, the film attempts to match the Bond films in terms of sets, gadgets and the like on a limited budget...except that the sets are chintzy and the mini-grenades and ‘reversible gun’ make little sense. The acrobatics which Helm and Gail go through to get their opponents to shoot themselves with the reversible gun only draws attention to how silly the weapon is.

7) This is one of those films that dated the second it came out. The bulk of the gags seem to reference old commercials, while some are simply impenetrable (why is Victor Buono’s Tung-Tze sipping Diet Egg Fu Yung?)

"What's there to understand? It's a Big O--like our organzation!

8) It’s obvious that ‘The Big O’ is meant to be an Asian organization--although there are no actual Asians on its payroll, and seems to be the chinziest evil organization ever. Hell, they seem to run the majority of their operations from a converted moving van! Of course, Matt Helm seems to operate solely out of a Nash Rambler, so it’s not like they have to spend a lot of money to oppose him.

9) Did anyone tell Victor Buono that this was supposed to be a spy spoof? It certainly does seem like he’s playing it painfully straight, which gives many of his scenes a discordant tone.

10) Perhaps the weirdest thing is that the script does sometimes remain faithful to the two Helm novels it purports to be based on; strip it of the humor and the first act is very much from Death of A Citizen.

Overall...a painful film to watch for spy fans, no matter how much Dahlaih Lavi in cute outfits we’re given.

Ten Statements About....WHERE THE BULLETS FLY (1966)

2015-01-27T11:05:00.000-08:00

1) While this film is still painfully low budget--like The 2nd Greatest Secret Agent In The Whole Wide World, this Charles Vine adventure confines itself to London and its environs--it’s obvious more money was spent on this film. There are more elaborate set pieces, including several multi-person gun battles, and a number of sets that seem more spy movie-like.

2) This film also learns from what its predecessor lacked by providing an actual villain in Michael Ripper’s Mr. Angel. Now granted, Angel is a strange creation with an indeterminate accent and appearance, but at least he’s someone we can focus our animosity on.

3) It amazes me that the film was directed by veteran film and television director Lewis Gilling, because there’s a frequent sense of amateurness to the whole thing. Particularly alarming is the way the camera is constantly shaking and readjusting itself as if we’re experiencing a very, very slow version of Shaky-cam.

4) I have to wonder if Tim Barrett’s Seraph was meant to be a parody of John Steed in the same way that Charles Vine is supposed to be a mockery of Bond. It doesn’t quite work, but I will admit that his sudden exit from the film is one of its bigger shocks.

5) While Dawn Addams’ Felicity Moonlight is an upgrade from the previous film’s female lead by, you know, actually being a female lead as well as a spy-movie girl, it’s weird how the film doesn’t introduce her until the third act. But then....

6) ....there are long stretches where Vine himself doesn’t appear, including a painful ten minute stretch where a ‘comedic’ minister and his secretary visits the air base where the film’s MacGuffin is stored. It’s a peculiar choice in a peculiar franchise.

7) You know, I don’t think James Bond, even in the Roger Moore era, would stop in the middle of a running gun battle to watch the world’s most awkward stripper.

8) There are moments where Gilling is trying to be too artistic for what, at its core, is a bread and butter spy film. The sequence where various actors in a room are reflected in a cat’s eyes is particularly jarring.

9) Boy, you guys got the most out of the cooperation of the Royal Air Force, didn’t you?

10) While the jokes about Tom Adams’ resemblance to Sean Connery is gone, they’re replaced by some forced comedy. Besides the minister scene, there’s an interminable one with Sidney James as a cranky mortician.

Overall...only a marginal improvement over the original, and still a curiosity that might be of interest to fans of 60's spy culture.

Ten Statements About....MOONRAKER (1979)

2015-01-25T17:07:00.000-08:00

"I feel like I should apologize for your name, Holly..."

“At least I shall have the pleasure of putting you out of my misery. Desolate, Mr. Bond?”
“Heartbroken Mr. Drax."

1) You know, Bond films have recycled plots in the past--but never have they done the same exact film twice in a row.

2) While I understand Michael Lonsdale’s choice in underplaying Hugo Drax as a counterpoint to the more vigorous Curt Jergens’ Stromborg, his subtle performance tends to contribute to the film’s lackadasial pace. Which is kind of a pity, because he has some very good lines that aren’t given the impact they could have had.

3) It’s dismaying to see Richard Keil’s Jaws--who is treated as a serious threat throughout The Spy Who Loved Me--being frequently treated as a goof in this film. From his first appearance falling through a circus big top to the running gag of his romance with a tiny pigtailed blonde, Jaws’ fearsomeness is blunted. And his face turn is...kinda sketchy. In short, it’s a disappointing treatment for the only henchman to appear twice in the series.

"For the last time, I'm not asleep!
I'm being subtle!"

4) In retrospective, Lois Chiles is very good as Dr. Holly Goodhead. There is a certain charm to her straightforwardness and she does have a pretty good chemistry with Moore. Plus she is able to handle some of the expositional heavy lifting a scientist character should. I have to assume her lack of favor in the realm of Bond girls has to come from appearing in this movie...and having the single most embarrassing name in the series history.

5) Here is where the comedy goes out of control in the Moore era. Not only do we get Moore’s overobvious punning, we get endless sight gags, double takes (especially during that awful gondola chase) and goofy musical cues that ape Close Encounters, The Magnificent Seven and 2001. Every time one of these comic moments happen, the film stops so we can appreciate the humor...except for the fact they all fall with a thud.

6) Even for an unrealistic spy series like this, the presence of laser gun wielding Space Marines propelling themselves on their own power through space to invade Drax’s spaceborn HQ officially breaks the suspension of disbelief.

7) One of the reasons I think this film ultimately fails as a Bond film is how, once Bond arrives in Rio the pace slows to an absolute crawl until the end. Even the climax is kept from moving forward thanks to the endless model shots of Drax’s space station. And speaking of these model shots....

8) It is obvious that this is a film that wants to be science fiction shot by a crew that doesn’t understand how to shoot science fiction. The space element actually interferes with the natural flow and feel of a Bond film, and makes the film seem less than what it could be.

"So what was that you were saying about me being a big
goof before?"

9) This is probably the last Bond film to feature great stylized sets. As bad as the space elements are, the actual space station set is excellent--and it pales next to the absolutely gorgeous headquarters hidden in a Mayan temple. It’s no surprise that this is Ken Adams’ last Bond film.

10) I have always contended that any Moore Bond film that ventures into California suffers....and while this one’s Drax Estate sequence does have its charm, the other fiddly bits around the edges help sink this movie.

Overall...a terrible, terrible film that is representative of the bottom of the barrel of the franchise--although, as we’ll find out, it actually isn’t as bad as From A View To A Kill and Die Another Day.

Ten Statements About....THE 2nd BEST SECRET AGENT IN THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD a.k.a. LICENSED TO KILL (1965)

2015-01-20T19:20:00.001-08:00

"Why yes, I did get this job because I look vaguely like that
other fellow...."

1) Okay, we get that Tom Adams was hired to play Charles Vine because if you squint in a dark room, he sorta looks like Sean Connery....but do you have to keep reminding us with jokey references to 007?

2) I can’t decide if this film is meant to be taken straight or as a burlesque. Adams and other actors play their role with a grim earnestness, but then we get villains named ‘HeShe’ and ‘Sadistico’ that seem a touch broad.

3) And since we’re on the subject of villains, the script never gives us a solid one. We get a group of Soviets, a doppelganger and the aforementioned HeShe and Sadistico--but none of them are vividly enough drawn to qualify as a superspy baddie.

4) As non-sequitorial as the idea of Vine taking a first in Mathematics at Oxford is, it cleverly allows for the exposition about Regrav to be better disguised as a dialogue between peers and not a scientist explaining his work to a blunt object.

5) You know what’s really jarring? That weird ass guitar based musical score. It seems too jaunty to belong in a spy movie.

6) While it’s obvious that the film is very low budget, I have to admit I didn’t realize that the big MacGuffin was never seen until after the fact...which is pretty effective screenwriting by Lindsay Shonteff and Howard Griffiths.

7) I guess I should be grateful that Vine barely gives Veronica Hurst’s Julia the time of day save for looking at her legs because she’s....well, a very bad actress and decidedly mannish in appearance. I almost expected her to be revealed as HeShe at one point.

8) Okay, you make a big deal about the soviet baddies having a doppelganger of Vine they plan to replace him with so he can assassinate Karel Stepanek’s Jacobsen. Then why don’t you ever even tease that Vine has been replaced, rather showing him being thwarted in his attempts before being uncerimoniously killed at the climax?

9) You know how you can tell a film’s low budget? When they use stock footage to represent the hero showing his charge the sights of London.

10) This ending makes. No. Sense. Even with that seemingly endless scene of Vine’s superior explaining the plot afterwards.

Overall...a peculiar little oddity that may not be the greatest low budget spy movie of the era, but has some charm. And to think there are two sequels and three sort of rip off Shonteff wrote featuring ‘Charles Bind,’ one of which starred Gareth ‘I was in The New Avengers’ Hunt!

Ten Statements About....DOCTOR WHO STORY ONE HUNDRED THIRTY-ONE: WARRIORS OF THE DEEP (1984)

2015-01-19T19:11:00.000-08:00

"Yep...all fall down go boom I guess."

“The Myrka is a creature of the inkiest depths - or was until the Silurians tinkered with its biology. Anyway, it has little tolerance to light and hopefully none at all to ultraviolet rays.”
“Can you be sure?"
“No, Tegan. Perhaps you should ask it nicely to go away?”

1) There is a certain elegance to connecting the Silurians and the Sea Devils, making them akin to distant cousins. Granted, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense when you think about it in the context of the series for any length of time, but for the story it does.

2) Oh, God...go away, stupid pantomime horse Myrka. Just...go away.

3) ...and you know, the Myrka would just be another crappy monster design if it wasn’t proving how ‘indestructible’ it is by stomping around on literal styrofoam sets. There are moments where we actually see the rubble caused by this stupidity wobbling and curling under its foot. It undercuts the veracity of a serial whose quality is already shuddering like a top.

"RAAAR--I's a Monstah!"

4) It’s nice to see that in 2094 all military personnel worship Michael Jackson and wear vinyl outfits with piping ala’ the video for ‘Thriller’. No wait...no it isn’t!

5) I see that John Nathan-Turner's obsession with name stars has prompted him to ressurect Ingrid Pitt. As if seeing this legendary Scream Queen all chunky and slathered in make-up wasn’t enough, we have to see her kung-fuing the Myrka. And that moment may encapsulate everything that was wrong in the JNT era.

6) And speaking of Ingrid Pitt’s Dr, Solow, the whole subplot involving this conspiracy to turn Martin Neil’s Maddox into a pawn for ‘the opposition’ designed to sabotage the whole operation seems decidedly out of place. Hell, it seems there primarily to add to the morbidity that Eric Saward confuses for being adult.

7) We get that ‘adult’ means gruesomeness and death to this era of Doctor Who....but don’t you think every. single. cast member dying save for our heroes a bit much?

"I figured I'd act all cowardly and resist
your every suggestion...sound good?"

"8) On one hand, I like the samurai-like armor of the Sea Devils--even if the necks list to one side. On the other, giving the Silurians what amounts to a wrestler’s singlet and a perpetually surprised expression does not work a’tall.

9) You can kind of see how Turlough is not going to be the greatest of companions. He’s not one for action and tends to contradict everyone around him. To be honest, I see no advantage to having him tagging along.

10) What was the point of the ‘what have you been eating?’ gag? Because it’s not, like, funny or anything.

Overall...a pretty low point for the series, and arguably the lowest point in the Peter Davison era.

Ten Statements About....THE SPY WHO LOVED ME (1977)

2014-11-24T08:37:00.000-08:00

This is one of the best couples in Bond history...

“When someone's behind you on skis at 40 miles per hour trying to put a bullet in your back, you don't always have time to remember a face. In our business, Anya, people get killed. We both know that. So did he. It was either him or me. The answer to the question is yes. I did kill him."
“Then, when this mission is over, I will kill you."

1) This is one of those movies--probably due to the fact that Richard Maibaum has a new writing partner in Christopher Young--that shows you the Roger Moore James Bond we could have had. While the Moore punnishness and humor is still there, in many cases that humor is much darker in a way that fits the film’s world.

2) I think a lot of what makes Moore step up his game is working opposite Barbara Bach. The two have a palatable chemistry and create a credible complex romantic and professional relationship together. And while the final resolution of their story arc comes off as forced (and features some forced Moore-like humor), the two of them work very well indeed.

3) I know there are some people who feel Stromberg is a mite over the top, but I never felt that way. Curt Jurgens actually has a very good pitch as the ocean loving villain, remaining arrogant and smart throughout while also having that level of operatic a good Bond villian needs. If there is one flaw in Stromberg, it’s that he’s not as charming as other Bond masterminds (something Michael Lonsdale also fails at in the next film, but for the exact opposite reason; he underplays while Jurgens overplays).

He bites...and that's one of the reasons he's one of the
greatest Bond henchmen of all time.

4) This is the beginning of that weird period where the producers are experimenting with more contemporary composers for the Bond films. This film’s score by Marvin Hamlish is at odds with the Bond tradition, being too...well, disco-y at times to be taken seriously as a spy soundtrack.

5) As delightful as Bach is, this film sorely needed more of Caroline Munro’s Naomi. She is certainly the epitome of the Bond Girl, and her brief, very flirty role adds some spice to this already flavorful film.

6) One of the things this film is not recognized for is that it begins a heightened emphasis on continuity. Besides making pointed reference to Bond’s marriage, the film introduces a number of characters who will recur throughout the next few films--primarily Walter Gotell’s Gogol, who serves as M’s opposite number.

You know what this film needed? More Caroline
Munro in a bikini....

7) Just as Bach and Jurgens help to elevate this film to its great heights, so does the presence of Richard Kiel as Jaws. Kiel is one of the scariest henchmen not due to his physical body, but his non-verbal acting. Even when the script is obviously trying to make him a figure of fun, Kiel manages to keep Jaws a serious threat by sheer force of will. The only time he seems to fail is a moment involving a magnet, but it’s a brief moment in an otherwise amazing performance.

8) I find it fascinating how this film reflects the softening of relationships between countries. In addition to the relationship between Bond and Anya, we get an interesting dynamic between Gogol and M and a third act showing American and British naval personnel fighting side-by-side with Soviets. This is the beginning of a reorientation of the Bond franchise away from the cold war emphasis of previous entries.

9) This is one of Ken Adams’ crowning jewels--which is made all the more impressive given how badly his eyesight was failing at this time (he received an uncredited assist from Stanley Kubrick when it came to lighting the massive submarine dock sets). There are some gorgeous set designs that reflect the changing design esthetic of the70‘s while also maintaining the elegance most people associate with Bond villains. And while it’s obviously a model, Atlantis is a magnificent sight as it rises from the ocean.

10) I love the Lotus, and I’m even more impressed that its submersible qualities were not faked at all. Practical effects like this is something I continue to sorely miss.

Overall...Along with For Your Eyes Only (which is atypical of a Bond film), the best of the Moore era with very little to lament. Recommended.

Ten Statements About....DARKMAN (1990)

2014-11-07T04:55:00.000-08:00

"I'd rather look like this than continue trying to speak with
an American accent...."

“I'm everyone and no one. Everywhere...nowhere. Call me... Darkman.."

1) Even though this is treated in almost every way like a classic super-hero movie, this is Sam Raimi’s love letter to pulp heroes. Liam Neeson’s Payton Westlake is such a mash-up of a number of pulp characters (the intelligence of Doc Savage, the madness of The Spider, the chameleon-like nature of The Avenger, the visual of The Shadow) that he becomes Pulp Fiction’s Greatest Hits.

2) Boy, the non-Americans in this film can’t keep an American accent worth a damn. Neeson struggles until he just gives up on it about midway through--maybe using the fact that Westlake damaged his body so much it altered his nationality--and Colin Friel’s Strack sounds like a bad imitation of every third Warner Brothers Gangster from the ‘30‘s...

3) ...which is pity, because the script by Chuck Pfarrer and a slew of other people gives Strack a lot more shading and nuance than it gives the person we’re supposed to react to as The Biggest Bad, Larry Drake’s Durant. From his background as a developer’s son made to work the high steel by his dad to his motivations, Strack ends up an intriguing presence. Compared to him, Durant is just Pure-D-Mean.

"I's A Bad Guy! A BAD GUY!"

4) I really did like Frances McDormand’s Julia (Hell, when I first saw this I thought she was, ummmm, rather sexy), but the reason she works is solely because of McDormand. Julia is a criminally empty role to the point where I didn’t know what she actually did for a living until late in the last act. Even with all the posturing about her as an active participant, Julia is nothing but a damsel in distress there to be threatened and saved.

5) I certainly respect the moment where Raimi uses CGI to amplify his own stylized tendencies, like when he uses it to ‘break down’ the backgrounds during Payton’s seizures. But the few times when it’s being used to make stunts safer (particularly every time Payton swoops down over another character) it sticks out like a badly burned face.

6) I find it fascinating that the macguffin is this plastic flesh, yet the thing that the film is uncannily prescient about is the manufacturing process; Payton is using a 3-D printer!

7) I wonder if the film would have benefitted more by being set in an identifiable city. I have to think Raimi patterned his no-name city after Detroit, and I can’t help thinking Strack’s argument about tearing-down-to-build-up would be more persuasive if the setting was this great American city that had almost turned feral.

"And one of my particular skills is the ability to make a
stupid face while the background explodes..."

8) I’m pretty sure it’s Raimi and company trying to keep the story true to the rather sketchy nature of the genre, but this is a seriously underwritten script. This is the ultimate film where no one seems to have a life before the movie begins. They just exist, with the possible exception of Strack.

9) Even though this is a fairly violent film, albeit one that is not gory about it given its rating, it’s a real shock to hear some of the cursing in it. Maybe it’s because ‘you must be shitting me’ never appeared in an actual pulp adventure tale, but the examples of swearing stand out as an anomaly.

10) ...although, oddly enough, the Raimi-isms (I’m looking at you, Rivet-cam) actually make sense in this world, as they exaggerate the cartooniness of the film itself. They fit more seamlessly here than they do later on in the Spider-Man films.

Overall...a seriously flawed but entertaining film that can be seen as the beginning of a transition from cult to mainstream director for Raimi.