Gluck-3 Reviews

Mimesis (2011)

A Mimecess-pool of disappointment

[24 April 2014]

I have a very high tolerance for "bad" movies (a term I even have an aversion to use), with a tendency to accentuate the positive. Yet I ran out of patience with this one surprisingly soon.

Maybe what did "Mimesis" in was that the idea was pretty wonderful, and the promise of fun inherent in playing with such a beloved and classic movie was tremendous. I was hooked, and was very interested in seeing how the story unfolded.

Quick bright sides included the selection of an actress who sweetly resembled the blonde from "Night of the Living Dead" (of "They're coming to get you, Barbara" fame), and as I discovered now, the choice of character names following the first names of the original actors. Very nice touches, indicating a loving homage - which further serves to disappoint, given the dismal end result.

Immediately, the film formed frowns. The hero, Duane (AKA, "the black guy"), for example, gives a glass of water to his fallen friend Russell, as obvious as it appears that his throat is chewed off. The reason why the filmmakers did this was to show the water spurting out of the throat, a choice of effect over sanity.

Duane carries Russell out front only to be confronted by zombies who are not making any sudden and threatening moves. Duane decides to leave Russell at the mercy of the zombies, threatening one's suspension of belief in a very uncomfortable way.

This was only the beginning, however. Example after example of unbelievable moves by the players followed in quick succession. I did not make a list of them, not planning on composing a review, but off the top of my head the group finally encounters a mysterious newcomer upstairs, catching on that he is not what he seems. Except for the mother and daughter, the whole group is together, and in unison there should be strength. One measly zombie appears, and what do they do, particularly with two strong men among them? They rush into a room, locking the door behind them. Absolutely ridiculous.

What's more, they lock the newcomer out. How could they possibly do this, given that the newcomer was on the verge of spilling the beans as to why this madness was happening to them. Once again, the choice of plot expedience (he is shown to get killed, but there will be a twist later, during a critical moment when one of the group gets cornered) over reasonableness.

Let's not be naive; horror movies in particular can be notorious for stupid plot turns, but when it's one after the other after the other, in such blatant and glaring fashion, the danger point can easily be reached in getting the viewer disconnected.

Even with the minor and not overt aspects, the filmmakers constantly display their comfort with a lazy and insensible screenplay; they are only concerned with having the story roll along, no matter what.

For example, the masterminds apparently hired actors to play the zombies. (Among others, the large bald man, the long-haired one with the pitchfork, and the lady who took a bite out of the mother's leg.) What actor would possibly expose him or herself to the possibility of death or serious injury, in the playing of a role? (And on the other side of the coin, why would they have consented to commit deadly violence upon others?)

The undoing of the movie, in short, is a total contempt for the intelligence of the audience. The resulting disgust on the part of the viewers becomes all the more enhanced, given that the film could have been so much more.

The number of glowing reviews for "Mimesis" here at the IMDb is stupefying. Hardly far-fetched to conclude at least some are the handiwork of production insiders, which is somehow a poetic fit to the dishonesty of the movie.

As a final note, I was curious about the identity of the police "lieutenant" interviewed at the very end, so charmingly wooden, I suspected he was given the role for his probable connection with "Night of the Living Dead" - as perhaps another example of a loving homage. Unfortunately, this person does not appear to be among the IMDb's cast listing.

.

Burke's Law: Terror in a Tiny Town: Part 1 (1966) Season 3, Episode 16

Surprisingly Allegorical

[7 March 2014]

I'm not familiar with the series, and was lured into watching this two-part series finale based on the plot description, and from the excellent reviews provided by ShadeGrenade (second one accessible at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0533824/reviews). (His) has been the only input in over four years, so obviously "Terror in a Tiny Town" is far from the best known entity.

Settings where a hero finds him or herself in a town where all inhabitants think alike and pose a threat to the stranger can be irresistible. The first time I was introduced to the idea was in THE CITY OF THE DEAD (aka "Horror Hotel," 1960), which gave a very creepy feeling. The intent of that movie dealing with witchcraft had nothing to do with politics, of course. Ditto, INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, the horror classic whose intention was (ar least on the surface) only to provide chills. (In that one the protagonist was not a stranger, of course, but a town resident who had escaped the effects of the evil doers.)

As you may have determined from the IMDb's information, the villain of this story was the big power of the town who gained control of the townsfolks' minds through publicly transmitted subliminal messages. The idea was to get them all to think his way (or, as the villain put it, to goad them into "obedience"), leading to his ultimate goal, control of the whole country.

Aside from the inherent entertainment value, where the viewer's interest is easily maintained thanks to the effective way the story was handled, what I appreciated about this tale was its value as a parable to our current times.

I recall a young man appearing in a TV show who had made a name for himself when he was a kid, espousing far right ideology. What changed him? He answered that he started examining other sources, while maintaining all of the major sources of information wherever it was he grew up (perhaps Alabama or Mississippi) provided the same messages.

Indeed, some "big powers" in the United States have grown so wealthy, they have made good on a campaign to buy up newspapers, radio and TV stations in the last thirty-four years, so that in some locales, all one absorbs is the singular message advantageous to the big powers. (As an example for this case, the Koch Brothers.) Add to the mix heavyweight planners such as Karl Rove who initiate the strategy of keeping the base riled up, through knee-jerk issues with little relevance to peoples' day-to-day lives (such as gun control and abortion), in addition to financing think tanks to make available pseudo-science to support the mind-molding in effect, and what do you wind up with? A willing army of sheep who have forgotten to think for themselves, and who may be counted on to support the agenda of the big powers. This is an exact analogy for "The Terror in a Tiny Town'!

At the end of the show, the big power (wonderfully played by Robert Middleton, as Judge Hawkes) admits his intention of destroying the government of the United States. Is that not uncomfortably close to what we have been experiencing in recent times, when the extremist politicians who have been brought to office by the unthinking sheep, don't care for the government and will sometimes take unprecedented steps to slow it down (by avoiding appointees to important offices, or by not enacting laws) or to harm the government outright, through shutdowns.

It's insidious, and it's happening. Obviously, such a danger is nothing new, otherwise the writers of this episode would not have thought of it. (No doubt the McCarthy era served as their inspiration.) Yet if we may step away from reasons of political ideology (the extreme right-wing serving as the example here, but the extreme left wing poses no less a threat), and look at the big picture: it's a fact that media outlets, owned by some fifty companies back in 1980, have now dwindled down to five. We are all susceptible to the propaganda and limited windows of information the big powers prefer for the sheep of society to be guided by.

The writers of these episodes were undoubtedly repulsed by such tendencies, and they drove their points hard at the end; Amos Burke makes a joke to the pretty Mexican (played by Lynn Loring), calling her a "conformist," and when a lady voices her objection to another about the presence of the Mexican, Amos confronts the bigotry by asking, "Haven't you learned anything"?

How remarkable that an old and obscure television program from 1966 could have "foretold" the events in motion leading to a point in history where the terror in a tiny town could, not inconceivably, and quite frighteningly, become the terror of a great country.

Tales of Tomorrow: Frankenstein (1952) Season 1, Episode 16

Fun and Fine Job for What It is

[4 March 2014]

I had a great time watching, keeping in mind the shortcomings other commenters have made sure to point out. When one watches something of this nature, in fairness, one must put oneself in the mindset of the limitations involved. Of course it's early television and, worse, it's a live production. Wary of these liabilities, I was actually impressed with, for example, what one called the "cheesy" set - created on their obvious low budget.

What would you do if you needed to tell an involved tale in twenty-four minutes? Corners need to be cut, and if we can accept this reality, we can see they did a pretty deliverable job.

Not to say the imperfections and inconsistencies don't exist - there are plenty. I especially liked how Dr. Frankenstein tells us how his creation has the strength of ten men, and then straps his creation onto the table using two feeble straps. I also enjoyed the absurdity of the doctor using his girlfriend and little-boy cousin as bait to lure the creature, near the end of the show (putting them in such danger), and how the professor tells Dr. Frankenstein, when the latter confesses as to what he had done, that the research would be invaluable for science and his work should not be done away with - as Dr. Frankenstein threatens to do. A minute later, the professor admonishes his former pupil for the wrong he has wrought. How sad too that everyone except for the butler (who carries a torch for his fellow servant) shrugged their shoulders when learning of the sad fate of the poor maid.

When Dr. Frankenstein realizes his creature has gone out of control, I enjoyed the line, "He Must Be Destroyed," a telling precursor for the Hammer film to follow in a couple of decades, with "Frankenstein" substituted for "He."

The actor who played our Americanized scientist hero (not John Ireland, as Reviewer Wes-Connors believed, but John Newland, whom I guess few of us have heard of) had a nice way about him. As for his girlfriend Elizabeth (who was not yet the "Bride of Frankenstein," it seemed - someone mistook her for the wife), was that a British accent she was attempting?

Lon Chaney Jr. is fantastic; I have a new admiration for his acting skills based on his performance here. Reviewer Hitchcoc wrote that Chaney mimicked Karloff, but Chaney took Karloff's lost-in-the-woods persona that was successful in creating such empathy, and made the role his own - with greater energy. I was warned by every other reviewer telling us how drunk he was, but I couldn't tell. My ears perked up in the scene where he picked up a chair while mumbling the prop needed to be saved, but I didn't hear anything. (Not to say it's not there; Chaney's lips move after the chair is put down, but the music - which is very good - was too loud for me to make out any words.) It could be consistent with the confused character for the creation not to go about smashing everything, so what if the chair is put back on the ground in less-crazed fashion? Lastly, I am in agreement with the consensus of opinion, that the make-up was very good - on a par, if not better than many low-budget horror feature films of its time, if not a little later.

I appreciated Reviewer Verbusen for giving the idea that this episode is for the having; the source he named still has it, and the production is available elsewhere as well (as YouTube, currently). If you can take this production in context and aren't too spoiled in expecting more polished pizzaazz, you won't find it lacking in entertainment value.

An American Carol (2008)

Political films uncaring of facts defeat their own purpose

[14 December 2009]

It is true, neo-liberals can be just as hypocritical and dogmatic as neo-conservatives, which is especially painful, because the basis of liberalism rests upon compassion and understanding, whereas the current crop of conservatism exists on an anything-goes mode. So liberals can stand some poking fun at, as long as it's done intelligently and fairly (as with, say, "Team America").

Now you might say, in a comedy that purports to be an over-the-top spoof in the AIRPLANE mode, there are no boundaries. But that is untrue in a film like this. The crux of this film rests upon political ideology, which is critical to the fabric of society. Yes, anything goes, and political ideologies are no less open game. However, the fun must be based on fairness, otherwise the fun dissipates. Consequently, the amusing bits in this film seemed incongruent – the viewer is not in "stupid" mode, where anything is acceptable, but rather in smart mode, because of the weight of the ideas presented.

The fact that a film like this guises itself as a comedy makes it all the more dangerous, because basically it is a propaganda film – and the humor is designed to leave the viewer in a less defensive state, and therefore more open to the ideas that are presented.

The reason why "An American Carol" is a cringe-worthy film is because its ideas are presented in an unintelligent, and certainly unfair manner. One might correctly say its object of derision, the real-life Michael Moore also makes propaganda films and is not always respectful of the facts – but Moore's films do not pretend to be over-the-top comedies, and the context is intelligent and generally fair.

When "An American Carol" strongly deviates from the facts, it loses its thinking audience. Michael Moore, is a ripe target for satire, but the moment the film rests on the false premise that Moore hates America (and its soldiers) is when the film loses its purpose. Who is the greater patriot, the spoon-fed and mindless flag-waver who accepts whatever his government dishes out (such as the rights-curtailing Patriot Act and needless yet devastating wars), but the one who is on the alert to the bad directions a potentially corrupt government can easily take? (We also must bear in mind that in a satire, exaggerations are allowed in order to make a point – but here, even the exaggeration is not acceptable, because the premise is totally false.)

As an example, Director Zucker and his screenwriters justify the war in Iraq by setting a parallel with WWII. It does not work, because WWII was the epitome of the war of necessity – if Hitler was not confronted, we could all eventually become enslaved. The war in Iraq, on the other hand, was a war of choice, against a country that did not threaten the USA. The film loses respect for its ideas by building on a foundation that is essentially untrue. Even the detail of the scene is arguably incorrect – Chamberlain is presented as the stupid pacifist eager for appeasement. In reality, Chamberlain (who, ironically, was the leader of the British Conservative Party, a strange parallel for the liberal Moore character) hoped to avert a German coup against Hitler, striving to keep the Nazis in power so that Hitler may be encouraged to fight the Soviets. (As expected, Hitler turned east with his attack on Poland, but British public opinion derailed their government's plan.) Other bits are also excessively unfair, such as when Jimmy Carter, well-established as an honest and humanitarian man, is presented as a fool. For example, one statement that is intended to show him up is "Israel is an apartheid state." A compliant media may spoon-feed us to believe otherwise, but if apartheid is described as segregation where the group in power discriminates against the powerless group, everyone can see that statement is painfully true. It may be no coincidence that the writers were Jewish, and given today's climate where everything Muslim is presented as evil, writers don't even need to be (apparently) pro-Israel in order to depict all Muslims as dress-alike terrorists.

The bit designed to take away from the notion that all Muslims are not potential terrorists was the documentary (on Bill O'Reilly's show, where the demagogue was cast, of course, as the voice of reason) that tried to show Christians could be terrorists too. This was done by the images of respectable religious figures, priests and nuns, as committing violent acts. Here again, the satire is unfair, because Muslim terror acts are not committed by their priests (or imams), but by the weak-minded some imams incite. Very much like how weak-minded Christians can turn violent by more radical priests, as certain televangelists. What's the message here, that there is no Christian terrorism – there are no killers of abortion-performing doctors, and there was no Oklahoma City?

The list goes on and on; George Washington taking stock of the "Almighty." I'm not sure if the Founding Fathers, in general, were very religious. One reason why they were for separation of church and state, an idea semi-ridiculed in the courtroom scene with the ACLU zombies. (Is the ACLU really such a mindless hazard to society, or should we not be thankful there are wary thinkers trying to preserve their country's constitutional ideals?)

In short, anything is open for ridicule, but when the topic is not horror films (as Zucker's SCARY MOVIE 3 & 4) but politics, then the satirist must be extra-mindful that the foundation must be factual. Otherwise, the ones that the film attempts to portray as the voices for reason wind up looking as the fools. Furthermore, what's so heart-breaking, given my reading of the first two pages of the IMDb comments, is that so many unthinking Americans – the ones who probably helped bring a George W. Bush to power – are enamored of the narrow-minded and hypocritical ideas of this film.

Command & Conquer: Yuri's Revenge (2001 Video Game)

Cheesy?

[16 November 2009]

Almost ten years old, and Red Alert 2/Yuri's Revenge is still one of the best game(s) going. Varied, rich in detail, well scripted, beautifully cast in choice of actors and voice talent, and enough fun that it won't matter 'till daddy takes the T-Bird home.

One of the easy terms most use to describe Yuri's Revenge is "campy." Well, the game certainly has a wonderful sense of humor, is off the wall, and doesn't take itself seriously, one of the reasons why the game is so wonderful. While "campy" isn't incorrect, as the meaning basically boils down to self-parody, the description doesn't do this game justice, because often "campy" connotes tastelessness, and sometimes vulgarity. If a property doesn't take itself seriously and is so imaginative and well done as to create a world of its own, "campy" hardly pegs what Yuri's Revenge is about.

But as inappropriate as "campy" is, another word that many fans wrongly use to describe Yuri's Revenge is really rather unfair and well, cheesy. Yes, "cheesy" is that word, and it means "Of poor quality" and "shoddy." (Some synonyms are "chintzy," "crummy," "sleazy," and "cheap.") That means Yuri's Revenge is the exact opposite of "cheesy"!

What a pity the demise of the company and personnel that was behind this level of excellence has meant an end run to the series. (Evidently C&C continues, but it has become a whole different animal.)

PoliWood (2009)

World of Make-Believe

[4 November 2009]

"Make Believe" is what our world has come to, according to the intelligent voice of Barry Levinson.

One criticism of an external review was that POLIWOOD is meandering; indeed, there is no neat beginning, middle and end. But that's all right, as we are partaking in what Levinson has cleverly termed a "film essay," and strict organization is not essential, as long as the bits and pieces offer substantive value, adding up to a thought-provoking whole. Another complained that there is nothing, really, that we haven't heard before. Yet what is more important is whether the points being made are substantial, and whether they deserve to be made again, to a complacent and largely unaware public.

In other words, we basically are all aware that we are living in a relatively phony world, where extremist fringe groups dominate politics, with the money/zeal to effectively manipulate the public. The movie helps us to infer that perhaps we are living at a time when these forces have become more powerful than ever before. Of course, life is going to go on, we are all too weak or busy to do anything about the way we're led on a leash, but it is of extreme importance to be reminded of this truth.

Levinson tells us of a 1959 TV Guide article written by John F. Kennedy that spoke of the truths we know so well today, regarding, basically, the powerful hold of the televised media. We are reminded, for example, that the photogenic Kennedy won his TV debate with Nixon, while Nixon won with the non-visual radio medium. The GOP recognized the attractive telegenic qualities of Ronald Reagan, when Reagan gave a speech during Goldwater's 1964 presidential bid, and soon after, it was probably no coincidence that Reagan was elected as governor of California, paving the way to a political journey destined to reach the top. The message: the competence and talent of the candidate began to take second place to the person's superficial qualities. We are told that physically and sometimes personality-challenged past leaders, such as Presidents John Adams, Taft and FDR, very likely could not have survived in today's political climate, where (my example) an Arnold Schwarzenegger can get elected for all the wrong reasons.

One of the more thought-provoking facts pointed out was that television stations were once required by the FCC to provide public service programming, in exchange for the privilege of controlling valuable public airwaves and the opportunity to turn great profit. This was back in the days when the news meant something, a "public service," and a credible fourth wall that kept the corruption of government in check. With the help of deregulation, where giant conglomerates have gobbled up diverse news sources (resulting in mainstream media colluding with the controlling corporate world), we know we live in far different times now, very detrimental to our democratic process, where the bottom line has taken on critical importance, and the necessity to profit has taken precedence over the fact-supplying duty of journalism. Thus, the line between news and entertainment has blurred, irrelevant celebrities appear regularly on news shows, and in order to generate greater profit, news shows focus on conflict (e.g., liberal vs. conservative spokespeople in debates), thus adding to the impossibly polarized and often uncivilized status we are seeing today.

The role of celebrities in news-making is also explored, something I found of interest, because we all share, to some extent, a general contempt for, say, a not-necessarily-very-intellectual actor, who pretends to carry political influence largely on the basis of fame. In fact, we see the anger of the average citizen, when paired off with celebrities in the film's finale. POLIWOOD does not openly endorse the role of the celebrity, but recognizes the inevitable role that celebrity now carries in the political process. I enjoyed seeing celebrities in a behind-the-scenes sort of way, acting like everyday people, sometimes making sense, sometimes not.

What I liked about the film was that even though the participants largely represented the Hollywood left (which is my assumption, given the presence of obvious candidates such as Susan Sarandon; yet there were other famous faces, such as Robert Davi, whose political orientation isn't familiar. They belong to a group called the Creative Coalition, which stresses that they are a "non-partisan" organization), the point of the film is not to take sides, but to reinforce what has become the disturbing and unreal "reality show" aspect of our political times. This is a concept that everyone should be concerned about, regardless of political leanings. In fact, what the film is warning against is how the media has become so much more effective in manipulating minds -- that is, the kind of mentality expressed by a fellow POLIWOOD commentator, "Styopa," in his lash-out essay entitled "Self-justification hits the big screen" (offering the first comment here; I am the fourth), where Styopa gives the impression of being so conditioned by the media of the right, he immediately sees POLIWOOD as liberal propaganda. It's rather ironic, because the entire point of the film is the sad and harmful state that we have evolved into as a society, and not an endorsement for any political view.

In fact, a profound moment of the film was one exposing liberal hypocrisy. The late actor, Ron Silver, identified as the founder of the Creative Coalition, opined that too many liberals have become alarmingly intolerant, with some closing the book on further discussion, announcing that their minds have been made up, and that nothing can dissuade them. Therein lies the damaging societal gridlock, and only by examining what irresponsible forces have shaped us to such extremes can we hope to return to constructiveness and normalcy. This may be an unrealistic hope, as the controlling forces have become too powerful, but if we are not aware of these forces, choosing instead to mindlessly surrender to whatever we are being spoon-fed, then the situation will become truly impossible.

Hitman (I) (2007)

"HITMAN" Predictably Hits You in the Face; Emotions Emerge Unscathed

[5 July 2009]

I approached "HITMAN" purely as a movie, being ignorant to its video game origin. It was only when I visited the IMDb that I discovered this aspect, and in fairness I must temper my criticism, because obviously the filmmakers had a responsibility to be true to the video game (irrespective of how well they succeeded, given my unfamiliarity). At least, however, I can tackle "HITMAN" purely as a cinematic enterprise, unlike many of my fellow commentators.

As a film, the stops were satisfyingly pulled out; we got the kind of adrenaline-sucking "thrills" that we have come to expect from Hollywood action movies. And this is fine, if you're in that mindless mood to view a good old senseless shoot-'em-up. So why would I feel detached and uninvolved? I suppose it largely has to do with the sameness that we see in movies of this type, as professionally made as they are. There is an artificiality. For example there was a shot of the two Interpol officers, the white chief and his black assistant. I think the scene had something to do with their entering a building in pursuit, a fairly bland moment. The director chose to roller coaster the camera, moving in on one for a close shot, and then continuing with what appeared to be almost a 180 degree turn. Why? Because now it is the rule for the camera to engage in out-of-control motion. We get head-spinning kinetics all the time, even when the scene doesn't call for it. And even though younger viewers, having been conditioned on this style, probably demand it, there is much phoniness involved. The director can't trust the other elements he has at his disposal to sustain interest, and thus subjects us to a perpetual swing dance. The kinetic style is now to be expected, sometimes becoming boring.

To illustrate further, there was a fight sequence and within the span of a few seconds, we had four or five separate quick cuts as the characters exchanged blows. I'm not saying we go back to the old Western serials, where the camera stupidly remained fixed for ten minutes as the characters slugged it out. But there is a happy medium.

For example, in Kubrick's KILLER'S KISS, there was a gripping fight sequence between the hero and the villain toward the end, where the latter wielded an axe. There were no quick cuts. But the viewer was totally there, very much involved.

If the emotion is lacking, a film fails. Again, not to say kinetics can't succeed – Hitchcock loved to brag in interviews that the shower sequence in PSYCHO had some 70 cuts in 45 seconds, and that worked not only because such a style was unusual for its time, but because this was a very special "shock" moment. This kind of technique loses its luster when resorted to most of the time.

But the cookie-cutter "fast" style was not the only reason why "HITMAN" proved empty. I couldn't care about our protagonist. Yes, he was a specially programmed robot-like killing machine, but the character was so devoid of charisma, he became irritating. Wasn't non-actor Schwarzenegger infinitely more watchable in COMMANDO, another kill-fest? Even when Arnold played a kill-crazy and one-dimensional robot in THE TERMINATOR, he was more compelling.

There was a sequence where our heroine asked why the hit man was going to do what he was going to do, and he replied, in typical macho style, because that is what he does. Coming from an unengaging character, such uninspired dialogue becomes even greater a bore.

If you can't respect the characters and the settings (even in a suspend-one's-disbelief vehicle), the movie is lost. Things have to make sense. We had the scene where our hero and his other bald-headed assassins are pointing their guns to each others heads. (All of whom had the same training, so it was hard to believe our hero could dispatch of the others with such ease). Since the other three were sent after our hero, why were they pointing their second guns to the heads of their colleagues? The reason, I suspect, is because the director was paying homage to the by-now-clichéd "Mexican standoff" stance popularized by Woo/Tarantino. Only now we had four instead of two, and there had to be a certain symmetry with all the pointed guns. Aesthetics and style over substance and sense; another moment where respect is lost.

As a side note, I was amused by some other commentators going gaga over our heroine's briefly shedding of her clothing. What a sexually unenviable time we live in, if we are to feel grateful for a mere glimpse of nudity. What a pity that an era (back in the '70s) where major actresses were almost required to offer intimate views is long past.

So here we have a creep who feels no compunction over killing and he is so sweetly shy with the "girl." I was thinking, wouldn't this amoral creature have taken terrible advantage of her, while he had the chance? And he is so "sweet," that by the film's finale, we see him looking after her welfare, while expecting nothing in return. Is that because we expect a "hero" to behave in such fashion, despite the fact that nearly everything we've seen about this character is so bad? A shyness theory offered here was that since he was so conditioned to lack emotions (so as to make him a better killer), he lacked the social skills to woo. Maybe; but I'd think such a fellow completely on his own, with no one to answer to, would take any occasion to taste what was at one time forbidden fruit.

To boot, the killer was allowed to get away with everything. It's not that I'm not a fan of the anti-hero, but because the hit man was so amoral and unsympathetic, it's tough to accept that he was allowed no comeuppance whatsoever.

Fatal Pursuit (1995)

Fatal Forsooth!

[18 November 2006]

Given that the user reviews for this film were so nose in the air, I was compelled to give the film a higher rating than it really deserves. (Forgive me Father.) Let's not make any bones about it; this is one of those run-of-the-mill, get it off-quick-on direct video (now DVD) action films, the kind you forget soon after watching. You can't expect anything special from such a film. So let me accent the positives, particularly after fellow reviewers have gone so far as to rate this among the worst films ever. (Yes, the sound you heard WAS a groan from the spirit of the Marquis of Queensbury.) I loved the relationship between our heroine and the hero. They obviously went all out to provide a study in contrasts, he a beer drinking slob from the Big Easy, and she a stuffy British bird who is not easy at all. And it worked! I wasn't familiar with the actress; I noticed in her listings she is something of a "B" queen, and I greatly appreciated her showing her wares (the film's dialogue comments, after she gets drunk and our hero brings her to bed unconscious, that she is a "10," and that not far from the truth. ((Those who might lecherously ask, "What, me Whirry?"... the answer would be a resounding "yes.")) By the way, let me jump ahead and provide another reason why I liked this film... it broke the rules, in this scene. Normally, the hero would be too much of a gentleman to take advantage of a lady in this state of stupor, but our cad of a hero actually did! I thought they were kidding, and at the end it was going to be one of those, "naw, I was a good boy" sort of thing, but that was positively ground-breaking..! Certainly only wonderful in movie terms; in real life we'd be talking downright contemptible, date-rape without question. She actually tells him, once she wakes up in the morning and over the phone, "I hope you used a condom." And her character was meant to be uncool!) So I loved this relationship. And our hero... whom I see from his listing has a tendency to cast himself, as the producer of many of his own vehicles... looked like a real hunk a' man as we used to appreciate in the old days, good manly build (in a natural way, without the superficial buff) hairy chest and all. And even though he was a rapist, there was a soft side to him, not one of those clichéd and boring heroes we would expect in a film like this. There were a lot of wonderful and clever lines in the film, I guess not too memorable as I can't think of an example now, but as I was watching, I thought to myself, hey. That was kind of witty! So the writing gets a plus... kind of. The plot? Well, what do you want. It moved. It's not boring. What do you want, for Pete's sake?

I'll tell you what else I liked. (Man, my glass is hopelessly half full compared to the other reviewers, thus far; theirs barely had a drop.) I love these B-movies that fill up the cast with familiar faces. I mean, Robert Z'Dar? Charles Napier? (At 62, a swinger with the chicks. This movie may not exactly rule, but it breaks the rules, I tell you!) And Larry Linville, an old guy here, but still getting it on with the lovely lasses. Again, not conforming to the rules of our youth-oriented society... yes, men still have sex after forty. (Women? Not in too many movies, alas, especially not this one. Okay, there are limits to the rule-breakings.) Malcolm McDowell can walk through the kind of evil boss role that he plays here, but he does a great job. Even if he's walking through it. His hopelessly young girlfriend (there's a trend here with the older men getting it on with the beautiful young women, yes I spotted it) is a kind of psycho, which is almost a cliché, but still kind of fun. We even get the obligatory twist ending... well, not quite a "twist," but you know how in horror movies we get the resolution, and after the dust settles with what appears to be the finale, there's room for one more cheap scare? We get that here too. And after the bodies pile up, our heroes (the lady has been won over by now; I thought her English accent was winning, by the way, as someone mentioned it was not consistent. I thought Ms. Whirry pulled it off) say, let's have sex! Yes, even with the dead bodies around them. Now if that is not a cool movie, what is?

Blonde Venus (1932)

Women are from Venus, including the blond ones

[6 September 2006]

I was captivated by this film, and genuinely surprised. After having seen MOROCCO just before on a DVD set both films were part of, I gained a great new appreciation for the magnetism and the acting prowess of Marlene Dietrich. The ape suit transformation scene was marvelous, but I was disappointed in her lackluster singing efforts. Is this the woman who made such a mark in singing, "Falling in Love Again" (in THE BLUE ANGEL), I wondered. The Little Rascal playing her son was winning, and the "nude" swimming opener was a welcome surprise. I also gained a greater appreciation for the talents of the famed director. The segue way from her suitor's "pick up line" at the lake to marriage in New York City some five years later, for example, was sharp and impressive, along with the many mood shots Josef von Sternberg was famous for, such as the somewhat hit-the-viewer-over-the-head close shots of the husband in silhouette, reflecting his changed attitude, as trouble brewed in the marriage.

I wanted to concentrate more upon the bothersome ending, however. Of course, the need for a "Hollywood happy ending" might well have been the culprit for why the resolution turned out the way it did. But here we had Marlene (in the form of her character Helen) and her husband (Herbert Marshall's Ned) clearly in love throughout the film, until he had to go away. Just before he goes away, Marlene asks Ned if he loves her (which perhaps displays doubt/insecurity in her), a question which prompts shock from Ned, as of course he loves her.

Once Ned is away getting treatment in Europe, Marlene admits it is hard not to like her new suitor Nick. What's not to like? He's a millionaire, showering Marlene with generous gifts, and he's the dashing Cary Grant. As we get to know his character, it turns out that he is very genuine, not at all the "user" type that we have come to expect from wealthy cads. And he's admirably upfront with her, when the husband issue comes up. Do you still love him? he asks. "He's my husband," she replies. Not very convincing, is it? She even elaborates that the reason why she must stay with the husband is that he is weak, not strong like Nick. Again, we get a strong confirmation that Marlene's heart no longer belongs as strongly to Ned.

After Ned learns the bitter truth of her wife's indiscretions, he is very cruel with her. He beats her over the head with comments such as, "I suppose I should thank you for saving my life." He doesn't know whether Marlene's feelings for Ned have shifted at this point of first revelation, and yet he's so hurt and selfish, it doesn't even occur to him to figure out the great sacrifice she has made for him. From this exchange we learn that his love for her had limits. Even if he felt hurt for Marlene's having "cheated" on him, if he was so head over heels for her as first established, the odds are he could not have stayed mad for long.

After abducting the kid (the "wanted" posters give her age as 20-23, by the way, which would have made her 15-18 at the swimming hole) and giving him up, Marlene hits rock bottom (odd for her not to have gone flying back into the arms of Nick at this point; perhaps her feelings for him were superficial), and builds her career up until the chance encounter with Ned in a Paris revue, where she has once again become a sensation. Once again they hook up. (Ned's love never wavered; Marlene says at first she can't go on the boat with him, obligated to the solid bookings as she is. At the last minute, she changes her mind, and an engagement is announced in the newspaper.)

Now, Nick is such a beautiful guy -- he already had developed a sincere affection for the kid, as we witnessed in scenes past -- he insists on Marlene's finally seeing her boy again. (Husband Ned had forbidden it.) It is at this point where we are faced with the deplorably sappy and unrealistic ending, where husband and wife wind up with each other again.

Not to say it couldn't happen in such a way. But given the strong evidence that husband and wife had lost their love for each other, the ending was a huge letdown. What about poor Cary Grant's Nick, who behaved as a true dream man with Marlene, and whom Marlene "left at the altar"? What a strong parallel to the suitor in MOROCCO who also was tossed aside... but he was no (compared to rival Gary Cooper in that film) prize as a macho man, and it was clearly established he worshipped Marlene, a severe case of unrequited love.

In MOROCCO, Marlene's character boasted that she never changes her mind, only to demonstrate a profound mind-change in that film's sensational finale. We all know it's a woman's prerogative to change her mind, but does she ever do it in a particularly irrational and cruel manner at the end of BLONDE VENUS.

The Babysitter's Seduction (1996 TV Movie)

The heart wants what it wants

[9 August 2006]

This was a fairly watchable film. Stephen Collins' character came across as a very nice person, and as with any good mystery, one kept guessing for a while as to "whodunnit," after the other suspect was introduced. (Although once the killer became known, we entered into silly potboiler territory.) I thought Ms. Rashad made for a good detective. And our heroine was very winning. As for the older man-younger woman hook-up that a few reviewers found repulsive, such an outlook is really a curious state of the times. Our extremely youth-oriented society has brainwashed the masses into rejecting practically everyone who is over thirty; it's as though you either must cease to exist as a sexual being once you reach a certain age, or you must only be confined to partnering with one in your own age bracket. Even if there's a young person of legal, consenting age, people have now been trained to believe -- perhaps because the media has sometimes built the sex offender issue to a fever pitch, and some people think they are doing their "moral duty" -- there is something unethical about an age gap between lovers. I just watched the 1937 movie, ALGIERS, where the young and beautiful Hedy Lamarr was engaged to an older ogre of a man who was much more hideous than Stephen Collins, and yet the alliance seemed fairly natural; yes, in this case, she was in it for his money (an allure for our heroine in "The Babysitter's Seduction" as well, although the babysitter did develop genuine feelings for the man), but that was Hedy Lamarr's choice, just as it was Anna Nicole Smith's in real life, years later. Stepping aside from the lure of the sugar daddy, and entering the realm of genuinely "equal" relationships, it's a pity people have become uptight, and regard age as more than a number. Years back, there was more normalcy about accepting older people as regular human beings.

Shatter Dead (1994)

I shatter to think, perchance to dead...

[20 June 2005]

Even the director/producer calls it a "video" instead of a film in the credits, so maybe I should be careful before calling it a "film." But right there, we have an example of honesty that is a rarity among typically egomaniacal filmmakers, and this very terminology is an indication of the inner integrity this -- ahh, film -- possesses.

Now it's not that my fellow reviewers are totally off base. Yes, the plot is full of holes. Yes, the acting and production values aren't so wonderful at times. And, yes, the standard horror elements have been given a back seat. (And the latter was fine with me, because I believe a film has to be taken on its own merit; there are plenty of mindless zombie films out there, many of which tread the same tired ground, and can get pretty boring at times.) But what do you expect? The production has no budget. Given those limitations, one has instead to inspect whether the film has heart. And this is not a by-the-numbers production. I'm not sure I would normally recommend this film to anyone, frankly, but right there -- given its heart -- SHATTER DEAD deserves much credit.

Eyeing a couple of the external reviews, I see the film was "Winner of the Best U.S. Independent Feature Award at the Italian Fantafilm Festival in 1995." That says something, as I doubt the production team held the political sway of a Miramax at Sundance... this award must have been offered "purely." I also see Joe Bob Briggs says "check it out." Fine. These opinions, although more "official," need be no more valid than the one-vote giving ones here who have concluded "Crapper, Crapper," and (from zombie film fans) "Completely Absurd," as well as "Deeply disappointed." Yet, the former still serve as an indication that there is more to this movie, beneath the surface. (Officialdom = 1; Zombie Film Fans = 0.)

Indeed, the lead actress was not a glamourpuss, as could be said for the rest of the female performers. But the fact that her teeth were crooked and her chest was ungenerous only serve to provide a sad commentary of what our brainwashed movie-goers have come to expect. Frankly, I appreciated her form more than the dime-a-dozen plastic robo-hootered variety that permeate the B-movie kingdom. I liked the fact that she wore no make-up. These were touches that made her more "real," given the awful situation where we have been required to suspend our disbelief. And, yes, the delivery of her lines left something to be desired at times. Then again, she exuded a weight-of-the-world on her shoulders weariness that was most fitting for the depressing context. (She was actually quite lovely in the behind-the-scenes DVD extras, where the director gives a tour of his house.) Suspension of disbelief are the magic words for an enterprise such as this, and that goes beyond the fantastic plot. We have to accept the harsh realities of guerilla film-making, and excuse such matters as the ridiculous toy rifle strapped around her neck.

On the other hand, I appreciated what the film has achieved... for example, in the establishing sequence, the crew shot in a small town without permits, and managed to convey a desolate, "last man on earth" type of atmosphere... not an easy task, without a Hollywood machine to grease the wheels. Secondly, there were special effects that were quite well done, from exploding squibs to a man on fire; the make-up wasn't "that" horrible, either, contrary to what some of our more spoiled reviewers have claimed.

I could have done without some of the extreme "shock" scenes, but I guess that's the sort of thing that makes this kind of film more "fun." (One of the IMDb reviewers complained of "gynecological" hardcore close-ups during the "gun" intercourse scene; in the Sub-Rosa DVD I viewed, there were no such close-ups, so perhaps they were edited out.) The film didn't allow me to get bored (well, okay, maybe the scene with the preacher's rantings went on a bit long). Basically, I'm giving SHATTER DEAD a reluctant thumb's up, mainly for the richness of the ideas conveyed within; that's a lot more than we can expect from a cinematic excursion fully belonging in the trash heap.

C.A.T. Squad (1986 TV Movie)

Stalking Danger, Hidden Drag-on

[12 June 2005]

The video box looked unpromising, but the director has earned enough stripes to make this exercise worth a peek. (Or so I thought.) An Odd Squad is on the trail of an international assassin, after the villain knocks off innocent parties in most violent ways. The assassin himself (Carlos?) is such a banal youth, it was hard to accept him as the professional killer who was notorious at his game. Another moment difficult to accept was that our heroes run into a competing squad of spies after a common target. They're from Israel, and the target was being pursued in New Jersey. Shouldn't that have been the cue for our American heroes to put these foreign agents in the stir?

There was another mainstream film from a few years later (LOOSE CANNONS) where two American police detectives operating domestically ran into Mossad agents (led by a beautiful woman who would become the love interest), and then they teamed up... as if it was the most natural thing to do. What is the message here, some foreign countries are supposed to be such heroic allies that they are allowed free reign to blast away with their guns on U.S. soil?

The problem with this film is that the characters across the board are such soulless vehicles to carry the action forward that it's impossible to care for any of them. I only saw it hours ago, and already I'm forgetting entire scenes. Apparently William Friedkin was hoping to launch this idea as a series, but none of the networks bit. It's hard to understand why a once-great director would agree to sink so low.

House of the Dead (2003)

House of the Dud

[2 September 2004]

I was moved to write after having watched the film tonight, as I was appalled. However, now that I've read a page of reviews at the IMDb and have discovered how so many have absolutely trashed this film, I'm going to go easier. Who can resist fighting for the underdog?

Some of the reviewers were being unfair by attacking elements that don't focus on the real problems of this film, such as the acting and effects. No actor gave a poor performance in this film (featuring poorly-written roles that gave nobody an opportunity to shine), and the effects were very impressive. As the DVD extras revealed, the producer hired an effects team in Montreal, and given the enormous number of required effects, this small house did a very good job. No doubt the budget was limited. The non-make-up FX were also very satisfactory. The photography was A-Plus.

The fact that the zombies did not follow movie convention should not have bothered too many; fast-moving zombies who use intelligence is ground that has already been covered. The film deserves credit for featuring a range of zombies in various states of deterioration.

But here's the rub: for all the wonderful talent that went into this film, how could they have gone so pitifully wrong? Okay, the "Night of the Living Dead" plot of people holed up and being relentlessly attacked is nothing new... but it's always an irresistible platform for drama and chills.

The problems: Geeky exec. producer Mark A. Altman is not a writer, and has few clues about "real people interaction." As a result, we don't care about the characters. The German director is very talented, but as Altman mentioned in the DVD, the director went off on his own egoistical tangent to do an action movie. Unfortunately, anyone renting a film with this title is expecting a horror movie. When there is no horror, that's an invitation to major disappointment.

All we have is the empty rat-a-tat-tat type of "music video" film pacing that is becoming really boring... without any substance to back up the goings-on. And nobody needed the intercutting with the video game to remind us we are watching an empty video game that only runs on adrenaline. What we're watching is a film. By skipping the basics, the film has no integrity.

Luckily, some of the DVD extras provided the emotional commitment the film lacked. There was a fun featurette starring four of the female leads as they went through "zombie-shoot training." Interestingly, the pretty blonde who becomes zombie chow at the beginning of the film was chosen as one of the trainees.... even though she never had the opportunity to go blasting. Yet, the black woman who kicks much dead people-ass has been omitted.

A parting gripe: how did these plastic and pretty party-goers become so expert in the use of weaponry and martial arts, anyway?

But to end on a positive note: the in-joke of one of the pretty people referring to Jürgen "DAS BOOT" Prochnow as a U-boat commander happened to be a teeny-weeny highlight.

Omen IV: The Awakening (1991 TV Movie)

Oh, Man! IV the Critics...

[9 December 2001]

Ho-hum. Isn't it tiresome when viewers just totally blast a film like there are no redeeming qualities in it whatsoever. To read many of the other user comments, you'd think this was the worst film ever made.

Yes... this TV-movie is certainly not very inspired. Yes, it's a rehash, featuring much of what we've seen before in previous OMEN movies. And, yes, the film isn't above giving us our share of cliches... the hound from hell becomes the kid's protector, after saving her life. The new nanny may not be as innocent as she appears.

However... one has to take such a film in perspective. The series pretty much ran its course with the third one, where Damien had grown and become the U.S. president. So, of course old ground is going to be retread... it's a TV-movie for goodness' sake. (Not that all TV-movies are necessarily junk... DUEL jump-started Steven Spielberg's career... but, chances are, you're not going to get an auteur at the wheel of a TV-movie.)

What you do with a film like this is get in the mood for old, rehashed OMEN-like "thrills." The concept is still strong... a couple has a "Rosemary's Baby," building up one evil incident after another; slowly one or both parents become aware that something's not quite right. Then the terrible and profound conflict of choosing to protect humanity or your own "flesh and blood" (figuratively speaking.... here, the kid was adopted) comes into play. (Reminds me of the television series "Xena" where the same conflict arose with one of the main characters.) Then you just sit back, relax, and see how the film makers went about presenting such watchable drama.

Being a TV-movie, the gore quotient was low, minimizing the impact of the horrible deaths we are accustomed to in this series. Not that gore necessarily translates to chills, but you can't expect to be genuinely scared, generally, especially with a TV-movie. (Very, very few films are genuinely scary; even under the hands of a master, Stanley Kubrick... THE SHINING wasn't all that scary.) However, there were some jarring moments, like the detective (Michael Lerner... a highlight, here) getting into a "CARNIVAL OF SOULS" state of mind where appearances go from normal to the bizarre. (For example, the choir on the street, singing Christmas songs, suddenly becoming something else.) And the acting..? What was wrong with the acting? It's not like the actors weren't competent. The mother played by Faye Grant, for example, came across well enough. Maybe she's not the most extremely talented performer in the world, but she delivered satisfactorily. I found the kid to be a little disappointing, not convincingly menacing enough. However, she was much better than the Skywalker kid in THE PHANTOM MENACE. Sometimes you gotta make allowances for kids. Child actors who are knockouts are rare.

Now, don't get me wrong... I'm not saying low expectations should translate to the enjoyment of any movie. For example, there are entries in the FRIDAY THE 13th that I've found hard to watch, simply because some were totally uninspired. Even though nothing really knocked my socks off with this latest installment of THE OMEN, I wasn't bored, and was entertained overall. There were even some nice touches, like the inverted cross reflection on the dying former nun's hospital room wall, and the wonderfully subtle last shot, utilizing the crosswalks of the graveyard. Too many viewers love to be unfairly critical.

The Program (1993)

Professionally Made, but Don't Expect Surprises

[6 December 2001]

I'm not a football fan, although it's not like I haven't enjoyed football films from the past.... such as "North Dallas Forty," "Semi-Tough," and "The Longest Yard." Not that any of those were pure football movies, but maybe that's why I enjoyed them. So I didn't look at "The Program" from the eyes of a football fan, but from the perspective of whether it's a good movie or not. Certainly it's very professionally made and acted, and the football scenes are pretty exciting. (The point-of-view shots with the football helmet's bars in the foreground made you feel like you were there, as in any self-respecting shoot 'em up video game.)

The main reason why I was attracted to give "The Program" a peek was that I was in a James Caan state of mind... having recently seen him in "Warden of Red Rock," and rediscovering what a fine actor he can be. My first disappointment is that Caan, as the coach, is present mainly as a vehicle to keep the film moving along. He fixes things when the boys screw up, acts tough, makes appropriate facial expressions... and is basically a one-dimensional character with no depth. Naturally, the film has decided to focus on the lives of the football players, as youth sells.

Basically, we pursue the love lives of two jocks. Joe makes a play for Camille (played by the original Buffy, Kristy Swanson), while Darnell zeroes in on Autumn (Halle Berry... who helps make the movie come alive), after suckering her to tutor him. In both instances, both women are vehemently against dating these guys. (Camille, in fact, flat out states that she does not go out with football players; she ultimately does so by losing a bet.) Now, it's nothing new in movies... as sometimes in real life... for a fellow to court a reluctant girl only to win her over at the end. I know we like to see that sort of thing. However, neither of these young men had the kinds of characteristics that would turn these girls' pretty heads in the manner that they did. Darnell's sweet, but not educated enough to hold a sharp gal like Autumn for long; and Joe can be a smarty-pants, smirking jerk at times, especially for a hard-nosed and demanding sort that Camille is initially established to be.

However, not only do the girls fall for these guys (and, granted, some women have been known to fall in love for no good reason)... but they do so in a totally devoted and nearly altruistic way. I could have bought one of the female characters doing so, but both? How very unrealistic; in real life, unless a woman feels that immediate click... before surrendering so completely... usually she will make a man jump through many more hoops than what these lucky b******s go through. We're just moving the plot along, folks.

This is a great display of how Hollywood movies are made... I can imagine the screenplay being discussed by the marketing whizzes at Disney, where the committee of account executives decided that everything should safely and neatly fall into place. All the predictable cliches have that neat, happy ending... Darnell finally bonds with his rival, for example; Joe's neglectful father is shown tuning into to his son's big game. Yes, the movie pushes the right buttons, but there is no soul within; like in so many Hollywood cookie-cutter films... films that are, too often, hard to distinguish one from the next.

The Hunger (1997–2000)

Not a bad dish

[26 October 2001]

Not having cable, I recently discovered this series on DVD... the well-done horror based series is not easy to find, TALES FROM THE CRYPT being an exception, but this one seemed to deliver... some of the time. The DVD only featured four episodes from Terence Stamp's reign (David Bowie sounds like a promisingly good replacement, as at least he was in the original movie) and although not every segment packed a punch, a couple were pretty good... in particular, "Necros," directed by Russell Mulcahy. It was also interesting that the scenes involving passion were on the forceful side, as the typical Hollywood movie usually depicts such primal action as slow, tame, and loving.

Vampire at Midnight (1987)

A Midnight Snack

[24 June 2001]

Didn't start out very well, with the introduction of the cliched, macho cop character (who single-handedly defused a hostage situation)... but grew to be a rather well-made film for the genre. I don't know if it was the xenophobe in me, but hurray for the return of the vampire with the Eastern European accent. (Is it any wonder Bela Lugosi is generally still remembered as the most popular Dracula?) This vampire's hiding behind the profession of hypnotherapy was an excellent idea, hypnotism being one of the powers of vampirism. The villain, however, seemed to be breaking the other rules of vampirism, keeping the viewer on his/her toes... could he have been George Romero's "MARTIN," all grown up? I also enjoyed the presence of the vampire's pretty boy "assistant" ("Raoul"), a novelty characterization we haven't seen until Brad Pitt in "INTERVIEW WITH A VAMPIRE"!

I don't know what our macho cop hero saw in the blond piano-playing heroine, since she was always so depressed and lifeless. Maybe it was the fact that she had a nice body? (One that we later got to see, fortunately, undraped?) The annoying macho cop kind of grew on me as the film wore on, and when I read his other credits on the IMDB, I was totally won over when I noticed he was the actor who played "FLESH GORDON"! (I still have a soft spot, whenever I see him in B-movie potboilers, for Sam "FLASH GORDON" Jones, as well...)

The Silencer (1992)

Silencer is Golden? If not, let's get down to the Brass tacks

[17 June 2001]

You may have gotten an overall idea from the other comments that this film was not exactly ground-breaking. What do you expect from Crown International Pictures? There's a formula to be adhered to involving pretty girls, guns, sex, violence and nudity. So allow me to pitch in my two pennies as to the specifics.

It's always a curiosity for a female director to be at the helm of an exploitation film. Since such films generally don't deliver, sometimes one wonders whether a feminine perspective can set things right. I could practically hear the cheering section shouting, "You go girl, you Amy Goldstein, you show 'em how it's done RIGHT." It could be said director Amy Goldstein was the auteur of "The Silencer," as she was also the co-writer. Yessir, Amy Goldstein's womb was filled with "The Silencer," the film was her baby, and she has delivered... probably by Caesarean.

Not that Ms. Goldstein has gone totally wrong... she has set about creating an unusually strong female lead. (Well. The character is a hitwoman, so she can't be too much of a wuss.) There is one scene at a poolroom where she takes such a liking to a feller ("Tony"), she practically rapes him, as if to say, Ha-ha. How do you like this role reversal, buddy?

The thing is, why oh why did Ms. Goldstein choose Lynette Walden as the hitwoman, "Angie"? It's like today's films that insist on casting Hollywood pretty boys for roles involving rough-and-tumble characters. For example, I hope you don't remember the TV series version of "The Dirty Dozen," but if you're unfortunate enough to still be haunted by this memory, just compare the mostly plastic actors in that cast versus the amazing cast in the original movie. (Even "The Silencer" plays along with casting ho-hum pretty boys in the mean roles... note the corrupt vice cop - if that's what he was - who tries to shake down hookers for money... why choose an actor who has the forgettable looks of Jeff "Taxi" Conaway?)

Okay, Ms. Walden tries to look and act tough, but she opens her mouth and she sounds like she's out for a night at the mall with the rest of the girls. She's so.... regular! If you're going to make a film about an aggressive and ruthless woman, you need an actress who has some GRIT! An extreme good example is Lucy Lawless' "Xena"; a beautiful woman, certainly, but the viewer can readily believe there is some power behind her. The odds were already stacked against The Silencer's being a memorable movie, but Amy Goldstein really did herself in with her unimaginative casting choice for the lead role.

Two good casting choices: the late Morton Downey, Jr. who was so beautifully sleazy, and perfectly chosen for his villainous role in "The Silencer"; then there's Chris Mulkey, who's always a pleasure to see in films, with his eyebrow tips by the nose constantly pointing upward. I didn't know this actor by name, but you always see him in movies and television... bit parts in films like "Rambo" is where I first took note of him. Checking his body of work at the IMDB, he has been around for a while... starring (STARRING!) in a "Death Wish" type of movie all the way back in 1976 (called "Deadbeat"). He's tall and distinctive-looking, and should have become at least as well known as Michael Madsen. Why couldn't obscure Chris Mulkey have been cutting off ears in "Reservoir Dogs"? Life just isn't fair.

Surprisingly, some work actually went into the title sequence, going for a James Bond type of flair; the song helped. When the gets-lost-in-a-crowd Lynette Walden kept holding her Luger-like golden pistola with the defective silencer extension, do you know what she caused me to do? I mean, besides lowering my eyelids to half-mast? She reminded me of Christopher Lee's "Man with the Golden Gun." Maybe she reminded me more of Herve Villechaize in that film, I don't know.

In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, could somebody please tell me how Mr. Mulken's character, as the one-time lover of the far-from-intoxicating Lynette Walden (I'm not talking about her mouth-watering chest... I'm talking about Lynette Walden, the person. Please do not objectify Lynette Walden), stalking her as he does throughout the movie (Chris: the affair is over; get over it. You want to be with a dangerous woman, go after Amanda Plummer... even if her chest is not of the treasure variety)... how in the world can he see her every move from the video game machine that she seems to be getting her instructions from. Is Chris Mulkey secretly Dr. Mabuse, and is this really a science fiction film? Do not ask me to suspend my disbelief to such an outrageous extent, PLEASE, Amy Goldstein!

Dracula's Widow (1988)

Can you do Wid or Widowd Dracula's Widow?

[16 June 2001]

Could this have been the very film that inspired the director's uncle, Francis Ford, to make "Dracula" some three or four years later?

We're supposed to ignore other reviewer's comments, but I can't resist mentioning another opinion in these hallowed "comment" pages, where the film viewer sounded scared out of his wits. Fear is a relative thing, isn't it? The shock moments were awkwardly handled for the most part, in this film; note the guard who's sitting by a window, and the monster uses the old "crash through the window" trick (Argento, for example, used this trick a little more effectively in "Tenebre" six years earlier) to make the guard wish he had a guard. How could you crash a window and dig long vampiric fingernails into the victim's neck at the same time? I've tried it, and believe me, it takes some doing.

Then there's the create havoc with over a dozen devil worshippers scene. Talk about one uninspired montage of creating havoc.

A friend lent me this, along with a few other vampire films... he loves vampire films... and I happened to see "Midnight Kiss," another obscure film about bats. As it was made a few years after "Dracula's Widow," perhaps it was Dracula's Widow that inspired it (since Uncle Coppola may have been inspired by Dracula's Widow, why shouldn't the makers of Midnight Kiss?), but I was struck by some similarities. Let's see... vampire bites victim, and victim takes a few days while the vampire virus goes to work. Meanwhile, victim has to wear sunglasses and be tempted to feast on animals. There was even a "morgue" scene, where recent victims get served stake, coming to life as soon as they got the point.

Sylvia Kristel did a credible job as the widowed Dracula, conveying an otherwordly and monstrous power pretty effectively. Raymond, our hero-turned slave (or is it slave-turned-hero?) played by Lenny von Dohlen, reminded me of a Jon Stewart-ish Harry Langdon... the helpless child trapped in an adult's body. He even had silent film star Langdon's eye make-up.

My favorite performer was Stefan Schnabel, who played the grandson of Dracula's famous nemesis, Van Helsing. Boy, what a great ham! He was like a combination of Burgess Meredith as "The Penguin" from the old Batman TV show and Gilbert Gottfried. Josef Sommer was also very solid and watchable, as the police hero. As far as sweet girlfriend Jenny, played by Rachel Jones, at least we get to see her topless in a bathtub scene.

Ilsa, the Wicked Warden (1977)

Merely Wicked Warden ramblings...

[13 June 2001]

Not as lurid as She Wolf or Harem Keepers, this one had almost an air of normalcy about it. Thanks to the IMDB, I could place the face with the actor... so that's what Jess Franco looks like! As I was watching the film I liked the actor who played the doctor, and it turned out to be the infamous director himself.

The "uncut" version I saw, distributed by Anchor Bay Entertainment, cut out the end credits entirely... what a crime. I wanted to see who the actress playing "Rosa Phillips" (the sister of the heroine) was... I thought she was very appealing, not necessarily because she was the greatest actress... but she looked great running through the jungle vulnerably, in a semi-naked state. (Okay, okay!) The bully of the girls (and Ilsa's pincushion), Lina Romay, had a wonderful presence... check out her credits within the IMDB; what a surprisingly prolific film career she has had, both in front of and behind the camera.

Credit has to be given to camp favorite Dyanne Thorne, with her gravity-defying constructed mammaries and her, as always, irritating German accent. Like Lucille Ball, she got her claim to "everlasting" fame during her forties, never an easy task for any actress, when most glamour girls' careers come to an end; and, unlike Lucy, she did so with full nudity, so bravo to Ms. Thorne for beating the odds.

The ending was reminiscent of BLOODSUCKING FREAKS, and I enjoyed the succession of close-ups of the inmates' faces, before they attack their tormentor (and as Ilsa's doom-meeting horror becomes scarily apparent). The smiling face of the "transsexual" inmate character was particularly creepy. (What's her name? Who knows? No end credits...) Another plus is the untraditional fate of the heroine that might have made Janet Leigh green with envy, in PSYCHO. (Okay, not really; still, an unhappy ending for the leading lady is a rarity, and deserves credit.)

Finally, one of the dumbest scenes in the film - or perhaps in the entire history of cinema - takes place after the doctor appeals to the authorities at the beginning of the movie, to investigate the suspicious clinic. We see the heroine, played by Tania Busselier, intently listening as the committee reaches the conclusion that a "plant" is necessary to get the goods on the asylum-prison. It seems hopeless... who would be crazy enough to volunteer being admitted into this hellhole? Why, ANYTHING could happen. However, the heroine decides she is just that brave woman, since she's anxious to find out what happened to her beloved sister (played by that very attractive actress running with her alluringly bare butt through the jungle. Sigh...) How does the heroine offer her hard-to-find and desperately needed services? By hiding in the back of the good doctor's car and pointing a gun at his temple! Well, that just didn't make ANY sense.

The White Warrior (1959)

An inadvertently unique historical film

[30 May 2001]

Not the greatest film, but not as "tiresome" as Leonard Maltin claims in his review. (Leonard has seen so many films, he apparently gets tired easily -- See IMDB's sidebar link.) The wonderful thing about this film is its decision to cover a subject area that is largely unknown to Western audiences. Indeed, we Westerners didn't have any idea about this area of the world until the fall of the Soviet Union, where a lot of these mysterious countries emerged with an "an" at the end: Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and the like... largely Turkic regions and nations. Of course, Turks are almost always treated as villains in Western films (Another group that's usually villainous in cinema are the Arabs; however in a rare film where the Arabs were the heroes, "Lawrence of Arabia," the Turks were still the villains).

Now the Turks are not the heroes in this film, per se (not the Turks of today's Turkey, or the then-Ottoman Empire) but various Turkic tribes in the Caucasus (in the film, they're referred to as "tribesmen," "Caucasian," once as "Muslims," or -- derogatorily by the Russians --as "Savages." Probably using the word "Turk" would have been risky, as the Western audience might then lose its sympathy for the film's heroes). In the declining years of the Ottoman Empire, mighty Czarist Russia instigated many wars against the Ottomans, taking good advantage of their weakened state.

The thing I found interesting is that Czarist Russia is often depicted in American and other Western films as noble and heroic... I guess it's the Christian connection. In this film, based on a novel by Tolstoy, the Russians are hinted at as the bloodthirsty oppressors they were. I'm influenced by a rare book, "The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims" by Prof. Justin McCarthy, which showed the unbelievable magnitude of the evil and inhumanity displayed by the Russians, and others, including Bulgars and Armenians. Turkish or Muslim lives are not as important, and this part of history is very unknown to us Westerners. I doubt this subject matter would be chosen in an American film, and if it wasn't for Tolstoy's book, probably the Italians would have been unaware of the subject matter themselves, when they tried to choose an adventurous vehicle for Steve Reeves.

At the beginning of the film when Hadji Murad attacks Russian troops down a lonely road, Robin Hood-style, he meets with the "Maid Marian," Russian princess Maria. When she makes a statement regarding the superiority of Russian soldiers, Murad replies that his tribe kills only soldiers, whereas the Russians slaughter women and children. I'm reminded of the fighters in Chechnya following the same procedure (generally)... they wouldn't target innocent Russian civilians (other than terrorist attacks) during the first phase of their recent struggle, a few years ago. During the second phase, when the Russians invaded again, the Russians murder, rob and rape as indiscriminately as they have done in centuries past. Now that the Chechnyans (is it Chechens?) are no longer winning, there has been a general news black-out in the American media... but their struggle is still a continuation of freeing themselves from Russian domination in the Caucasus that "The White Warrior" is about.

I thought Steve Reeves had a surprising charisma... obviously, he was hired for these kinds of films for his spectacular build and not for his great acting ability, but he came across as a likable and believable hero in this one.