leoocampo Reviews

The Prowler (1981)

Starring: Tom Savini!

[6/10 · 23 May 2024]

OK, so Tom Savini may not play any of the characters in this one, but he still dominates the screen in any case. The special effects in this 1981 slasher are probably the biggest part of what earned it such a cult following to this day, and upon seeing it I understand why. This is some of Savini's best and most savage early work. Much like Maniac (1980), the kills here are savage, brutal, and gritty. It's not the flashy kind of cheap thrills of the first few Friday the 13th entries-no, no no. These are like, showing you the blade of the knife in the neck, full-on head explosions, and I dare to say the longest "kife-through-the-skull" kill in cinema history... and it's glorious. If you're here for the mayhem and the blood, you'll happy.

If you came here for story... well, you could do worse. At least the Prowler does something different. Since this is 1981 we're talking about, the slasher genre is still new and this is the year that slashers exploded into one of the movie phenomena that would define the 80's. This early on, it was a lot easier to be original, and yet we had lots of clones taking place in camping settings. The Prowler actually starts off with some. 1940's flashback, including newsreel footage from the return of troops overseas after the end of the War... you know, WW2-the big one! A dear John leader starts things off, leading to the murder of a young couple at a graduation dance. As the audience, we can surmise (and are expected to) that the woman killed is the one who wrote the letter and the killed is most likely the poor soldier she dumped while he was no doubt in a foxhole during the Battle of the Bulge. Well, I guess never-mind the sympathy since... you know, the brutal murders. Although, I guess you should be careful when coldly dumping someone who's now a trained killer experiencing sever psychological trauma?

If the philosophical difficulty of resolving this dynamic is too much for you, you're in luck! Because it's barely mentioned, let alone discussed. The explanation of the killer is left to the end, with a twist reveal of who the killer is, and a pretty shoddy "and here's why" bit of exposition thrown in to wrap up the package. It's not much. But grading on the curve, we can say this is probably as good or better than average. I mean... it's more motive than we got for Michael Myers. Probably a bit less than Jason or and surely less than Cropsy. So, again, you could do worse. But you could also do better. It's all original enough, but so flimsy that the story itself is-I hate to say it-pretty dull and boring.

This is made worse by some poor pacing, where the film kind of plays out almost like a whodunnit, except there's not much effort put forth into creating a compelling mystery. There's a surprise reveal, of course in the tradition of Friday the 13th with Pamela Voorhees, and it's a mix of "whaaaaat?" And "oh come on, really?". Because there was really not much that happened to make me care. Although, I'm not sure, but this might be the first slasher to use the "mask comes off right at the end of the final fight to reveal the identity of the killer" trope. Hmmm. In any case, the story may have some originality to it, but it's still just a device intended to provide framing and setup for some kills. You're not here for the story and they aren't looking to win over anyone who is or might be. Same with characters, unfortunately, because interesting, funny, or even just quirky and entertaining characters can be one of the things that separates a really good or really fun slasher from a just OK one.

What the Prowler really is, therefore, is a pretty mediocre, run-of the-mill 80's slasher, with a pretty original although dull story, nonexistent characters, and a lot of long, slow scenes that do nothing to movie the plot forward nor to provide excitement. It gets points for being so early on in the history of its kinfolk and was probably a lot more memorable to those who saw it at the time or discovered it at the rental store on VHS later in the decade. I imagine this might have still held up well even in the 90's. Really, one of the charms of this one that also give it points (like many films of 80-82) is that they still have a lot of the look and feel of 70's films. Some 70's movies, on the other hand, like Halloween 1978, or Jaws (1975), or even Star Wars (1977) have always looked and felt more like 80's movies to me for some reason... maybe because they were ahead of their time? But films like the Prowler feel closer to the bulk of stuff from the 70's than to other 80's movies. And I don't really know why, but to me that gains it some tilt as well. There's something I like about movies from that era that just have that vintage vibe to them, much the way the 60's or 50's or 40's movies have their own vintage vibes that give them their own look and feel. It can hide some of the flaws because it doesn't feel like you're watching something as modern and so you judge it by different standards. Or I do, anyway.

That is, except for when the blood starts flowing. The kills are definitely modern, so much so that they feel almost anachronistic and even contrary to the production value of the rest of the film at times. This really is, I think, why the Prowler has a reputation among fans of the genre as being much better remembered and more highly regarded than I think maybe it would otherwise deserve, because it's featuring some great work from one of the most beloved characters in horror. Not Freddy, nor Jason, nor even Michael... but mr. Tom Savini. It's a must-see for anyone who wants to follow the evolution of slashers, but I'm not sure this would be one I'd be rushing to rewatch anytime soon, even at the spooky time of year. There are just many better options and guiltier pleasures for me, personally. But, I might just pull up one of those Kill Count videos on YouTube to relive the good parts!

Maniac (1980)

Important and Groundbreaking, but Also just Not Enjoyable to Watch

[4/10 · 21 May 2024]

There was a lot going for Maniac. The main character is given a respectable performance and the acting all around is good. The effects are great, including some of Tom Savini's more ambitious displays of gore up until this time. This is also a deep and dark character study of a serial killer that really tried to convey and graple not just with the depravity, although it does plenty of that, but also the motives. Unlike in something like, oh I don't know, Pieces-here the killer's motivations are simply a plot device-here we are shown in great detail the effects of deep trauma and pathology. The film never asks or expects us to find empathy, but at times I did find myself feeling pity and sympathy. This is someone who can not only act normal and charming in everyday situations, masking it up like a champ, but can turn on a dime to bizarre and violent behavior and delusions, and it's impressive that the script and acting were able to pull this off. This isn't Dexter, this is more like Taxi Driver and Apocalypse Now's Kurtz meets Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Psycho and it was way before Silence of the Lambs.

Yet... see, all those movies I just referenced were, well good. No, great, films (and one show that I lost interest in after Season 1, but I digress). But what made them great wasn't all the boundaries they pushed or the taboos they broke or the gore and effects. They were well directed and well-written not just in conception, but in producing a product that would hold the audience and convince them that they actually wanted to continue this journey, even if it was at times unsettling, disturbing, frightening, or disgusting. Not so much here. Nah, Maniac has some interesting camerawork and scene setups, enough so that I'm convinced it was a genuine attempt to do something serious and not just be a sleaze-fest. But what's missing is a sense of pacing and audience engagement.

This is definitely NOT a slasher. So, if you go into this expecting a fun slice-and-dice popcorn flick full of tropes and jump scares, you will be sorely mistaken and disappointed. You might be pleasantly surprised to find something more intelligent and more challenging than, say, a Friday the 13th entry of the era. It's not even like the so-called torture porn of more recent years. There's something much more intimate and real here, something more personal. Maniac isn't nearly as extreme, nor as depraved as something like High Tension, but it's also not as engaging. There's no real action and the tension-building at times feels more tedious than tense. Though, those are not the scenes I found disconcerting... it's one thing to see a guys head explode when shot at near point blank range with a shotgun (Tom Savini high point of the film!), but it's another to sit through long, extended scenes, often with long takes and in close, where the killer talks nonsense to mannikins and to see his abode decorated with... God knows what. It's similar to the way parts of Texas Chainsaw Massacre made me feel almost uncomfortable, because the reality of it just seemed more down-to-earth and real, in contrast to something just being over the top. But I really enjoyed that movie. Same with Silence of the Lambs even though there are some parts there that really try to get in your head. But there's a way to use suspense and storytelling to pull the audience in and show them things they may not want to see in a way where they reluctantly want to see them. And here we just watch a broken human and spend time with him, seeing how broken he is and watching him physically break others by taking their lives, all so he can take parts of them to try to put something of beauty back together for himself. And in the end he must have had a realization of the horror of what he was doing and what he was, as it tore him apart.

Literally, because the ending of this movie is just crazy. Again in the literal sense. We've got a sudden super-natural/zombie pivot that is revealed to later be either hallucination, metaphor, or more likely both, as the source of the pain of the killer comes out of the ground and then the victims take vengence upon him by tearing him to pieces (again, Tom Savini, ladies and gentlemen!). It's ... bizarre, but probably fitting.

If I were rating this movie objectively, I would have to be kinder. It deserves at least a 6, if not a 7 for being made when it was, for what it was trying to do and how much of that it was able to actually put to the screen effectively. If, by effectively, one means to realize a vision. If, by effectively, however, we mean to make something that actually works well for the viewer, well, this viewer was simultaneously bored, disinterested, and not enjoying himself. If I were a cynic and wanted to just be mean, I would say the entire film was heavy breathing while watching a guy walk around and stalk victims interspersed with pitiful sobbing and the creepy ticks of, well, a Maniac. But, I don't want to do it the injustice of being that reductionist, so I wanted to point out all the above. If nothing else, it got me thinking enough to where I had to put my thoughts to written form. So, I typically rate things a 5 when I don't particularly care if I ever see it again and where, if the power went off during the movie, I would probably finish it at some point, but only for the sake of completing the experience and if I didn't it wouldn't be the end of the world. I rate them a 4 when I actively find myself looking at the time remaining and wishing it would hurry up and end because I'm not enjoying it and where I would prrrrobably still finish the movie after a power outage, but maybe I'd put that off for a while, and maybe I'd end up never getting back to it with limited to no regret. And this film for me sits somewhere between those. I am glad I got to see those Savini effects, and I'm glad I got to see this film for the sake of knowledge (the fact this movie exists and was made in 1980 helps contextualize a lot and add depth to my understanding of what was going on in the era). But finishing this one was a bit of a chore.

Madman (1981)

Delivers!

[7/10 · 21 May 2024]

1981, what a year. Perhaps this year more than any other saw the Cambrian explosion of slasher movies in the wake of the success of Friday the 13th the year prior. This was, while not the birth of a genre (look back to 1978 and Halloween for the cord cutting moment), this was first steps and quickly off to toddlerhood! It's Friday the 13th Part

And in that mess of (literally) dozens of slasher films that came out in this iconic year, we have Madman. And what do we have here? A campground full of campers and camp counselors? Check,. A spooky fire-side story of carnage that create a lore and backstory worthy of a titular killer? Check. The slow picking off of the characters one-by-one as they make foolish choice after foolish choice? Double check! All the "rules" that we'd later come to know are present here, right down to alcohol and sex being death sentences for the characters. Except for our final girl, who turns out (spoiler alert) to not quite be the final girl. Well, yes and no. If you know you know.

You know what else came out in 1981? Well, a lot of things. But the big one is Friday the 13th Part 2, just a few months before this film here. And what was important about that film (aside from improving upon and refining nearly every aspect of the original into a condensed formula that is)? The introduction of Jason Voorhees, of course. The unstoppable (totally not a Michael Myers clone) killing machine who would roam around Crystal Lake dispatching horny teens as they partied. And, of course, this is the real milestone of the era if ever there was one. So much so that I think it can easily be forgiven that a film like Madman gets lost to time.

And yet... As good as Jason is, I think it's worth considering the Madman Marz among the better-conceived killers and stories of the era. For one thing, Let's consider the opening here. This is one of the better openings of any horror film of this era that I can think of.

We start off with a great score. The music here is nowhere near as iconic as John Carpenter's Halloween, but it's close if not on the same level as Friday the 13th's score (which is also pretty iconic). It sets the mood and tone perfectly. It's got that early 80's (with plenty of the 70's bleeding through). The minute I heard that music, I was like "Yeah, I'll probably enjoy this". I felt like a kid again. And the music plays against a very Halloween-y, creepy orange and black backdrop that evokes the woods perfectly.

But the auditory experience continues! As the film opens to a group of campers and counselors around a camp fire with one of them singing a ominous ballad which, with the help of some vague flash forwards of each character, forewarns the demise of this group at the hands of a malevolent force. It's a perfect opening, honestly. The melody of that song is like that of old medieval ballads and also captivated me. The flash forward bit is a bit wonky, but hey, it adds some character and builds the fireside spooky story vibe. Just in time for the movie to go full on Midnight Society on us with the camp owner telling the story of "Madman Marz", which completes the tone-setting and the set up of the entire plot, as it so happens. The driving force of this story is entirely centered around lore. The killer's name is invoked in violation of the tale's warning and, of course, the actual Madman Marz is awoken and goes right into action as he begins doing exactly what the fireside story said he would: stalking and killing the entire group one-by-one.

And that's really it. There's actually a little more character building than a lot of others in the genre. For example, we get into the relationship dynamic of two of our characters. We spend some time with interesting conversations among the counselors that are fun. The acting is also, mostly fine and occasionally good. Until it's not, of course. But the eye-roll moments are fewer than one might expect. We get plenty of plot contrivance as characters continually decide that splitting up is the best course of action, or choose the absolute dumbest hiding places. But, hey! That's all part of the fun-yelling at the screen as stupid characters do stupid things and win stupid prizes (usually in the form of an axe). I would say this is no-frills, but it feels more like no fluff. It's got all the stuff you want from a slasher, including plenty of jump scares, false senses of relief, and creepy "LOOK OUT BEHIND YOU!" moments.

The villain himself is as ugly, imposing, and ruthless. Character design here is lacking anything to set Madman Marz apart from the pack, like a cool mask, instead going for big, hairy, dirty, backwoods hillbilly type. Yet, that works just fine in my opinion. Marz's big frame stands out well in the dark for lots of silhouette shots, and his hairy and disheveled appearance works well when we see him unexpected in a window behind a character about to ... get the axe, as they say. Also, those nails.... And toes... and that breathing. It all adds up to a creepy good ghoul worthy of snuggling up against a special somehow on the couch as you watch. I could see how much fun this would have been to experience at a drive-in or in the theatrical run.

Oh, Yeah... I said Ghoul before, didn't I? And it's not quite clear if Marz is just still alive and in hiding, much like Jason was in the early Friday sequels, or if he's somehow more than that. A ghoul haunting the land to curse any who might dare speak his name as the legend says? Or is ths entire story just an imaginative nightmare being had by one of the characters after drifting to sleep for the night after the story seeped into their sub-conscience (doubtful, but has the right feel). Still, the deformed appearance of Marz and legendary aspects beg the question. Much as it migh later be wondered if Jason really was just living out in that shack all that time and just happened to see his mom get decapitated, or if somehow he came back from the lake to seek vengence (even though it's canon that the first explanation is the truth, the later question still lingers for many Friday fans and does give some convenient explanation of Jason's later plot armor and seeming superhuman abilities even before he was raised from the dead officially in Jason Lives). So it is with Marz... it's not a question that's actively explored by the story. Which is another element that makes this slasher more, rather than less effective. If we could say without ANY doubt that this was just some psycho, it wouldn't be as fun and would loose some of that mystique.

Now to the guts, pun definitely intended, of any slasher: the kills and the effects (gore). The effects are occasionally less effective or cheap, but mostly hold up well enough for a fun time. Nothing like that head-crushing scene in Friday Part 3... but they also fail to ever reach the heights of what someone like a Tom Savini might. Still, they work, and there's enough blood for it to play the part. Some of the kills are worthy of some noise from the crowd... notable moments for me included the axe to the chest, a pretty good decapitated corpse, an effective series of axings in the initial story, and an impaling on a meat hook. Oh and one of the better-done hanging deaths of any slasher of this timeframe. Seriously, we get bugged eyes and a purple face and it made me think for a moment how lame most hanging or strangulation deaths in competitors have looked in comparison. Some low points were a few much rougher and cheaper-looking decapitations and quite a few off-screen kills and cutaways. It's a mixed bag, but the whole is more than the sum of these parts.

All-in-all, what made me want to run on here and write this review is that this feels like a movie I should have known and loved in my warped childhood as an 80's kid. Yet, I hadn't seen it until now. But when I watch something from this era for the first time and still manage to somehow feel nostalgia for it, that is usually a good sign I found something worth finding. There's nothing entirely unique or revolutionary here, but what we do get is nevertheless effective and has just the right feel. This film just jumps right into it and keeps going for a wild ride. What I love most, though, is the feeling like there is actual lore here. I feel like I might find myself singing the ballad of Madman Marz around a campfire sometime this summer and warning my child not to stray too far from the campsite. There's nothing especially in the tale: bad dude goes crazy and axes his whole family, and maybe he's still out there somewhere. But that's why it work: it's the same kind of story countless people told around countless campfires around this time. In fact, the original inspiration of the story was supposedly based on the legend of Cropsey, which was changed due to the name's use in The Burning which, of course, also came out in 1981, but which is also an actual urban legend in New York (something I only just learned). The reason I'll probably remember this film better and more fondly than many others of 1981, including the Burning, My Bloody Valendtine, and other better-known titles, is not because of the specific back story, but how well they really got the vibe right and set up the movie with a feeling of actual lore. That made it a lot more fun and might make it a lot easier to think of and reach for this one in the future when the mood for such a thing might strike.

Intruder (1989)

"I'm Just So Crazy About This Store!" ... A Slasher for People Who Like Slashers

[7/10 · 30 April 2024]

Intruder (1989) isn't the greatest slasher film. It's not even the best slasher *movie*. Nor is it necessarily my *favorite* 80's slasher. That being said, what I say next might confuse you. Because, Intruder (1989) might just be the crowning achievement of 80's slashers. How can that be? It is endlessly debatable, of course, but it's possible because this move caps out the decade with what is arguably the most quintessentially "80's slasher" 80's slasher movie. It's a movie that employs all the tropes and gimmicks, that dates itself at every turn, that revels in the joy of its kills, that is gleeful with its use of gore and blood, and that is a roaring camp-fire of a good time, that put it easily in the company of peers like Sleep Away Camp 2. While it may not have any of its own lore and while its killer was never going to be as iconic as Angela, let alone a Jason or a Michael, it still has all the personality of a Freddy or a Chucky, even though it isn't anywhere near as memorable.

80's slashers need a concrete setting. A campground. A suburban neighborhood. A shopping mall. An abandoned city. An amusement park. An old mansion. Or... in this case, a super market. Somehow, with maybe the exception of a mall, this choice feels about as 80's as possible. The store is itself a character in both the story and the plot. It's a driving force of the movie, the characters, and almost every corner of it and all its features get brought into the events. Registers, displays, cardboard compacters, box cutters, butcher's knives, meat hooks, the manager's office, accounting paraphernalia, grocery items themselves, the lobster tank, the check out conveyor belt... you name it. Check.

80's slashers starting with Friday the 13th have a common tradition of the "we don't know who the killer is until the end" trope. Here, we know exactly who the killer is. Until we don't. And when the twist... twists, it does so in a manic fashion that completely abandons logic in favor of fun. You won't see it coming, because you can't. Therefore, the fact that there even is a twist is a spoiler! But this is easily one of the most fun such twists. Not nearly as legitimately unexpected and intentionally provocative as the original Sleep Away Camp, nor as innovative and genuine as the original Friday the 13th... but one that was nevertheless classic.

Of course, 80's slashers are all about... well, fan service. Sure, John Carpenter's Halloween might have initiated the genre, and may well still be the greatest example of the genre. But it was probably Friday the 13th that decided to take that concept and just... give the audience what it came for. Tension. And kills. Here we get something that pulls no punches, with some of the most brutal and gory kills of the genre. I can't think of another example with this many severed body parts. The killer here has a lot of time on their hands, because they somehow manage to completely... well, butcher... the majority of victims. Even if it's not how they died, you'll later see them in pieces. And creativity here is top notch... if you were to go around the various parts of a grocery store and make a list of gruesome ways to kill someone... it's probably covered here. And the ending... the conclusion is so bat-s#!t crazy, the absurdity starts to border on comparisons to Troma films. Toxic Avenger beats man with his own arm? That's nothing... here we see someone get beaten with a severed head. All for the police to show up and... well, let's just say things don't get resolved in a typical fashion.

But the best thing about this film is the camerawork. It sounds odd to say. The camera work here is not the masterful use of lighting and shot framing we see in John Carpenter's Halloween, but there's so much else. More creative shots and camera angles that if Quintin Tarantino and Alfred Hitchcock co-directed it. This kept me constantly engaged, giggling, and appreciating the effort. It's this kind of passionate joy that went into the entirety of Intruder. I feel comfortable saying that any fan of 80's slashers may not immediately put this at the top of their Best Of list, but will definitely and thoroughly enjoy this and can agree that a lot of work went into taking everything about 80's slashers, with maybe the exception of sex/nudity which is absent, and dialing it up to 11. All with a smile on its face.

Pieces (1982)

Breaks my rating system

[5/10 · 30 April 2024]

I don't know about you, dear IMDBian, but I constantly find myself in the dilemma: "should I rate this movie based on how much I enjoy it? Or based on how good I think it objectively is?" Sometimes I have to split the difference. But the movie like Pieces (1982) breaks everything.

First of all, it's all too easy for a movie to be so objectively bad that it becomes objectively good. Don't get me wrong, what we have here is nothing on the order of Samurai Cop or Room. But what we do have has too much personality and camp to be taken seriously. There's nothing scary here or even close to it, in a way we're even other slashers of the era at least maintained some atmosphere. This is pulp through and through.

But on to that other criterion... How much do I even like this movie? On the one hand I enjoyed it quite a bit. Mostly because I've come to enjoy the genre for what it is, tropes and all. I'm not fully on board with the "watch at ironically" crowd, But I have come to appreciate how to appreciate an 80's slasher on its own terms. I grew up loving the genre, then either progressed or regressed depending on how you want to view it and came to look down on the genre in my early adulthood, before finally circling back around to where I am now. But even with that context, what am I actually feeling here? I'm not enjoying this the same way I enjoy a movie like, say, Intruder (1989) or Critters. But I'm also not enjoying it the same way I might enjoy John Carpenter.

There is some bizarre stuff going on in this one. From a really twisted intro that makes Michael Myers look like a pretty normal kid, to completely nonsensical plot twists later on and a Friday the 13th style last-minute jumpscare that really turns into a last minute laugh out loud moment of absurdity. At various points watching this film I was sure I was going to rate it as low as it three or four or as high as a seven. But one things for sure it's a roller coaster ride.

I doubt I will have the multiple viewings in me that it would take for me to really dial in where this movie ranks among slashers for me. But I think any fan of the genre who hasn't seen this one should definitely give it a watch.

Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II (1987)

80's Horror Mashup

[5/10 · 17 April 2024]

Before generative AI, there was Hollywood. You might say, "hey Ron Oliver, write me a screen play for a slasher that is Carrie meets the Exorcist meets Poltergeist, and include some stylistic inspiration from Nightmare on Elm Street, and the Evil Dead... oh and try to break the record for scene with the longest runtime of full frontal female nudity". If you did, you might get something like Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night 2.

The original Prom Night is something of an underrated 80's proto slasher. It follows a very slow burn, "who's the killer and why are they doing it" formula, probably before there actually was a formula to follow. Probably for that reason, it 's not nearly as efficient nor as effective as many later entries, but it still has a quality its own that has some charm, similar (though inferior, IMHO) to Black Christmas. But this movie here is neither a sequel nor an offshoot... it's a completely different film that has no connection of any kind to the first that I can tell. Perhaps they were trying to do something similar to Halloween 3: Season of the Witch, using more of an anthology concept that circles around a common theme, event, or day... in this case: Senior Prom. I don't actually know, so this is speculation. But, be aware, you won't benefit from having seen Prom Night,

But it's not just story and plot and characters... Hello Mary Lou also doesn't FEEL anything like the original. They are entirely different animals. The original was dramatic, kind of creepy, and at moments tense. If you went to the theater in 1980 looking for "thrills and chills", it probably delivered. 7 years later, you've got sarcastic killers spitting out punchlines before ironic kills and practical-effect-laced carnage intended to get people talking. "Oh, man! The LOCKER SCENE!" Or "did you see the part after the one girl gets shot where ____... that was wicked!". And that's exactly what this film delivers. Well... sort of.

See, parts of this movie are well done. The intro is creepy enough, focusing on building atmosphere. There's some surprisingly good camera work and visual design. Not consistently so, but where it comes up, it will make you go... hmm, I like the way they did that. Like, there's a scene where two characters are in the locker room, with one friend comforting another who's found out she's pregnant and the father of the child won't return her calls (don't worry... this has absolutely no plot significance!... more on that later). The subtle framing of this shot places the characters in the lower right hand corner with lockers on the left side dominating the perspective and a wall on the other, while the camera slowly zooms in on and centers the pair as the talk and connect. That... was more attentive than what one expects from something like this. There are also a few pretty classic 80's horror moments here. These are what I had gone into this remembering from my childhood. Yes, the "locker scene" was. Some decent jump scares and make up work as well. But, the problem is that these are like the marshmallows in a box of Lucky Charms.

First problem is pacing. The original was a slow burn, but at least it kept the audience engaged by establishing different characters and angles of the story. Here... there isn't much story. What we do have tries to evoke the original by playing the "see this character here, let's flash back to a short in the backstory scene to establish that they are the younger version of this other character" game. But that's about all of it. The rest makes very little sense. There are only two characters that were involved in the original sin of this story and our antagonist only has reason to be seeking revenge with one of them. We have his son, of course, which is a common trope in the 80's (teenager paying for sins of the father), but he is also not the primary target. Instead it's ... the innocent girl? Most of the victims don't seem to have it coming here, especially our first kill which doesn't happen until almost 30 minutes in. That's not too bad... except that the next kill doesn't come for ANOTHER 30 MINUTES. That's right, kill number 2 doesn't happen until a full hour into a sorta-slasher with only a 1:34 runtime (no counting credits). Without much story, what else is taking up all that time, you might wonder.

Not much. It's certainly not characters. Now, with horror in general and slashers in particular, we're not really expecting much in the way of character depth, let alone character-building. But the lack of well-rounded characters is more obvious when we're not distracted. Much like those flavorless pieces of cardboard are more obvious the fewer marshmallows are in your bowl of Lucky Charms. And so the audience has to sit through a bunch of meandering mediocrity in order to get to the good parts. There's some tension building around the supernatural/possession angle. This is where this film draws more inspiration from the Exorcist, Poltergeist, and other such movies of the era, not the least of which is Evil Dead. Not only does a mirror turn into a liquid portal to the other side, but the same type of visual effect is later used more extensively with a blackboard. There's a creepy rocking horse that comes to life and has eyes moving and an animatronic tongue flapping out in grotesque fashion that could easily have been lifted from any of several titles that come to mind. Etc, etc. But this breaks up the pace quite a bit, as well as the mood. It just doesn't work as being seriously scary and these parts all lack anything fun or entertaining beyond a few cool visual effects.

Now, once we do get to the last 30 minutes or so, that is when things pick up. Gone is this slow-build supernatural story and in place of that we get something that feels much closer to a standard slasher of its era. The pacing here is fast enough that it's quite a wild ride, but lacking in any real tension or suspense, just fun. It's a catharsis that would be more satisfying if it was better earned. Maybe you'll feel you earned it for stiting through the first hour waiting for something cool. If, like me, this ends up being all you really remember of this film, then you may well remember it more fondly. Indeed, the rest of the film isn't bad, so much as just lacking much to feel good about. The thoughtful camerawork doesn't make up for utterly meaninglessness. It's defined by the movie's first kill, with is a combination of "OK! Here we go!" and a let down because it's underwhelming. It looks like we might get a good one with the paper slicer, only to end up getting something much less satisfying. It's unsatisfying enough that you end up thinking "hey, we just found out something pretty important about that character... and now they're dead just like that... why do I care? Why did that character story element even appear if we weren't going to at least spend a bit more time with this character and get to know them?" All questions which will have no answers other than lazy writing.

In the end, this isn't an experience worthy of repeat in full. No matter how many marshmallows are in the bowl, nothing can make the rest taste any better. Go for the Fruity Pebbles instead.

Jason X (2001)

He should have stayed in Hell...

[1/10 · 27 February 2024]

There's a distinct difference between junk and trash. Junk is like a Twinkie. You know it's not good. It's objectively not good. And get you enjoy it for what it is. Because there are inherently enjoyable qualities about it. You know it's poisoning you, but only in a slow chronic health condition inducing kind of way.

Then you have trash. Something that's just not fit for human consumption. Like moldy Wonder bread with a dollop of spoiled Cool whip on top. That Twinkie sounds real good all of a sudden. You can compare the trash to the junk all you want. People sometimes make trash when what they mean to do is make junk. Sure it's got the cream and it's got the spongy baked good portion, but this is not the same thing.

This movie is trash. I say that as a fan of the franchise. I say that as someone who enjoys, on their own merits, parts 1 through 6. Part 7 is where I started to have problems. Part 8 kind of broke me. And part 9 left me feeling unsure what I even just watched.

But none of those flaws are comparable to Jason X. Jason X is the exploitation of an exploitation film. And just like making a copy of a copy the quality that first seemed passible is suddenly barely recognizable. This isn't the slasher flick. It's one of those movies that like some others in the genre from this period try to rip off horror franchise and make a crash grab by dumping it into some outlandish even more over the top setting and plot circumstance. But just like an all cream Infinity stuffed Oreo, you push things too far and they break.

No this one had me missing necronomicon derived curses that create parasitic worm things that take over host bodies with the force of Jason. It had me downright nostalgic over telekinetic final girls resurrecting their dead abusive parent to pull Jason back into the lake. And finding out that Jason is not actually Jason but an impostor even to only still be duped into a half-assed cliffhanger Just seems like a delight.

No, just when you thought that it couldn't get any worse than Hell, we get this. Which should probably be nick-named something like Jason goes to Hollywood (and robs us at machete oint)

Genocyber (1994)

Wow. What a mess...

[3/10 · 4 February 2024]

I went into this one excited. I had heard that this anime series had a reputation. Although I didn't know much more than that. I was expecting a dark cyberpunk story with some over the top gore and violence, and I was even kind of looking forward to that. Upon completion of the series however, all I can do is sit here and ask myself what the hell did I just watch?

I'm not saying that because I'm shocked. The shocking parts were actually some of the better parts. No the question arises from the fact that between those brief moments of cool scenes and well animated insanity, is a story and plot that less unfolds so much as, oozes. For most of what I've sat through I was just sitting there staring at the screen half bored and half wondering what it's actually going on? And why is it happening?

The story is completely jumbled & disjointed to the point of being entirely incoherent. It just doesn't make sense. Things just seem to happen for no reason at all. The action scene seem to come out of nowhere. And you'll be happy for them because you'll hear that exciting theme music play And you'll see some cool stuff, but even the action sequences seem to just jump all around and kind of happen way too fast.

In short, well there are some forward-thinking and compelling aspects to the story, none of that ever gets fleshed out and in fact what we get is told to us in little bits and pieces that are never even connected directly. Characters just enter and leave the story. There's no real character growth or depth or meaning to anything. There's no sensible arc from the first part of the series to the end. And I have no idea what even happens in the end. I literally just watched it and I have no idea what happened. The good news is, you can expect that there will be no spoiler in this review. The bad news is is that maybe that's a spoiler in and of itself: surprise this anime is about 80% confusing nonsense.

And it's too bad. Because even the stuff that's good here comes across as just hollow and pointless. There is some truly disturbing scenes of body horror that makes Akira look tame by comparison. Even the parts of the story that feel like they could have been lifted out of Akira had some fresh twists that could have been The foundation of an interesting story. But there really isn't much of a story. Let alone characters to drive said story.

Sadly, I would never want to rewatch this. Although if I were ever in a conversation about some of the most messed up things ever animated there are a couple things in here that might make me search for a scene on YouTube. But otherwise this whole thing was like a fever dream and not in a good way.

Oh well.

Elfen Lied (2004)

Brutal, Disturbed, Subversice, and Pulles No Punches, Yet Somehow Cute, Innocent, and Profoundly Sensitive

[9/10 · 25 January 2024]

If someone's describing this series to you, it might be difficult to find the right words. But I could forgive them if the only thing that comes to mind is "messed up". This is one that will test its audience through its own cheer audacity. The first episode starts right off with a creepy murder fest, And by the end of the series decapitations and all manner of gory splatterfest spectacle will seem almost mundane.

Urination, incest, infanticide, child abuse of both the sexual and physical torture kind, sadism, animal cruelty, this show doesn't say away from anything. And I'm here for it. Not because that stuff makes the show good (it certainly does not), But because of the boldness of vision that allows it to be included and somehow work.

This is a tale of trauma, identity, persecution, and many other human traits. But the core of this story is how hurt people hurt people and the ways in which we all we all process and cope with the unbearable suffering that life brings, And and some of the more shocking elements here (even by anime standards) all have good reasons for being in the story. The point is to push things to an extreme to drive home the point. Not just for shock value.

And this series does not disappoint in bringing together a story that touches on many threads of the human emotional experience that defy rational explanation. It's a beautiful tragedy and yet one that has a sweet ending to it that bequests the viewer to remember above all else to find kindness to offer to others and to remember to look for joy in one's own life.

Also this is worth viewing simply for the fact that it was a major influence to the writers of stranger things.

Leave the World Behind (2023)

The Ending is Perfect, People

[8/10 · 1 January 2024]

This film will defy your expectations. If what you want is yet another linear apocalyptic disaster film, there are plenty of those to go around. Just recently there was Greenland, for example. But this film doesn't explain the larger story.

Instead what we have here is a very ground level narrative. We only know what the characters know. And just as in real life, the characters have lots of conflicting information none of which adds up to a clear and obvious accounting of what happened and why. There are lots of hints dropped throughout the film, so if you must form some kind of conclusion there's plenty there to interpret. But the point of the movie is not the larger events. It's our place within those larger events.

And that's what keeps this movie from becoming another run of the mill disaster flick. A suspense and drama will draw you in. You'll find the characters relatable in that they are real people. Flaws and all. There's suspicion, distrust, biases, selfishness... That all makes the story a little more believable. There's nothing over the top here. Rather what we have is a commentary on how we're all living in our own little bubble. But somehow we all share the sense that this world we're living in isn't real. Or at least it can't last. It's a very 2023 sentiment.

Back in 2020, we thought we felt this way but we didn't really. The perfect film for that era was Don't Look Up. That film analyzed how politics and our social inability to find consensus on things as basic as facts we're going to inhibit us from doing anything constructive toward solving any sort of collective problems. The movie's asteroid was really just a placeholder for any of a number of things we face as a species. Pandemic diseases. Climate change. Ecological disaster. You name it. We got a good look at how the distortion of truth not only inhibits but distorts and misdirects humanity's potential. Somehow we managed to make problems worse rather than better.

But in 2023, it seems worse. It's not just our collective detachment, or social media, or the politics. It's us. We see the dangers on the horizon. Almost every living generation grew up knowing that we had nuclear weapons and that these things posed an existential threat to our world. We all know that our consumption habits are unsustainable. We all virtue signal and try to act like we can make a difference. But that's all it is. An act. Somewhere deep inside of us we feel like we can't make a difference. Maybe we even know this. Not feel it, but KNOW it. And of 2023 has shown us anything, it's revealed to more and more people that maybe we're just cogs turning in a vast machine that we can't possibly understand. There are forces shaping the world that are bigger than our individual capacitys, and maybe too complex for us to collectively confront. We lack a common cause. Because we often can't even agree on what the problem is. And where we can and do see problems we only see the surface problems. We bandaid things, and we swat flies. But we're not building the solutions that we need to build a better future.

And now we can see a potential future in which we will end up stuck, with things collapsing around us and not having the slightest idea of why or how. And maybe in that moment will pop in a DVD and tune out to some old comforting sitcoms. And in that moment we'll ask ourselves: is this the real problem? Do we tune out and disengage? Or is this maybe the only solution to problems that have no real solution... To just try and find comfort where you can and hope that you come out the other end okay.

Here's hoping everyone reading this has a happy and prosperous 2024 and here's helping we all make it through to 2025.

In Search of Darkness: Part II (2020)

Massive overview of a decade of horror

[7/10 · 19 November 2023]

Unfortunately, part one is not currently available in any format, so I can't compare. But part two is a sweeping review of the horror genre year by year through the 80's. It's got lots of actors and directors giving their commentary in the genre and the decade, which is fantastic. It's also interesting that they didn't just scratch the surface, they dug deep into a reflection on many aspects of the genre, including exploitation and representation, and it's not nearly as one sided and simplistic as it could have been and as many outsiders would believe in that regard.

The mainlet down is the structure. Who is going to sit down and watch a documentary (or anything) this long in one sitting??? Why didn't they cut this into a mini series? You can literally watch 3 or 4 classic horror movies in the time it takes you to watch this. It's already got title cards and is broken into sections, so why didn't they just take that added step?

In any case the last thing to note is that they seem to touch on so many movies, a lot of these are going to be ones you've never heard of. That can be a good thing! It means I came away with a big list of new movies to watch, not that I needed that, but hey maybe there will be a few gems in there... New household favorites even. Who knows. That's the beauty of exploring the past. It does however also mean that they spend at most 5 minutes on any single film. Which is enough time to give a great overview and context, but not enough to delve deep into any single film. They do spots that occasionally go over films again as a part of some larger topic, like discussing a certain director, which is nice. But the overall cohesiveness of the documentary is lacking. Nothing feels connected or driven by a unifying narrative. This isn't a huge flaw if all you're looking for is a huge survey of the genre over a whole decade. Just be aware, they aren't going to guide you through it all or talk purposefully about how this or that movie changed the genre. That sort of thing comesup in the interview clips, but never as a clear historical narrative baked into the documentary itself. You may prefer that, or not, but it's something worth knowing up front. This literally just consists of hours and hours of title cards and interview clips stitched together with film clips added in and overlayed throughout.

It does beg the question... With so many films discussed, where is this or that film? Did I just miss it or forget they talked about it? Was it in part 1? There's a part 3. Confusingly, you might think since part 2 is the 1980's, that part 1 was everything pre-1980's and part 3 would be post 80's, right? Nope. Part 3 is... Exactly the same as part 2, just more movies. They even start back at 1980... odd. I have no idea what part 1 is because it's completely unavailable at the moment for me, so who knows.

Overall definitely worth seeing for any genre fan.

Scream (1996)

Not Worthy of the Reputation

[3/10 · 5 November 2023]

I remember the mid to late 90's. The mainstream movie scene then was weak. Especially in horror. It was still dominated of dying franchises that had lost whatever it was that made them the icons they were in the 80's and early 90's and left them empty shells. Or else it was dominated by the ghosts of those that had already fallen. Nowhere was this more evident than the Slasher.

So, along comes something new and fresh from Wes Craven. A slasher film that's super meta and starts off with a gritt, captivating sequence torment and murder. It reinvigorated the genre and led to a rebirth.

Or at least that's the narrative. I do recall feeling Scream was fresh and new. No super natural, unstoppable force doing all the slaughter like Leatherface, Michael Myers, Jason, Freddy, Chucky, etc. Ghost Face was more of a whodunnit mystery, closer to the original Friday the 13th or Sleepaway Camp. Maybe for that reason alone I remember really enjoying it at the time.

But nothing about this movie really lands well today. The plot twist at the end is too contrived. The kills after the intro are uninspired and boring. There are tons of jump scares and plot misdirection to keep the audience engaged, but the tone is off and lacks and actual suspense. It's a sarcastic inversion of slasher tropes and full of meta references and in that sense can be seen as an homage to the genre, but sitting here in 2023 it was hard to make it through the whole thing. This is coming from someone who's been rewatching and rediscovering slashers from the 80's and 90's as of late, so I'm not just hating on it for what it is. Maybe I'm just not a Wes Craven fan... But this is one I wish I'd skipped.

Monsters (2010)

An achievement in filmmaking, and almost a really good film

[6/10 · 12 October 2023]

First, let me say that this film is a true achievement. To make a film of this quality on the budget that this film was made and the fact that this film was almost entirely made by the same person wearing so many different hats is insane. If I had to grade this on a curve based on these facts, it would be a 9.

I would also give this film tremendously high marked for visuals. This is one of the best looking giant monster films I think I've seen. At times I was reminded of similar films that I've loved in the past like Cloverfield. The director later went on to do the Godzilla remake which didn't look nearly this good. There really is a lot to be said about knowing how to expertly only show you what you're meant to be seen. The tension and buildup to catching a glimpse of something otherworldly and dramatic and then having only a partial reveal but making that partial reveal looking credible and totally believable... This film could be a master class in that art.

Another thing this film does particularly well is tension building. The film starts off in a frenzy of action and violence. We don't see much, But we see enough to get our pulse going strong. Throughout the film we are giving glimpses of this world. And the world building is also very tight in this regard. Everywhere you look there are little signs and little suggestions and hints at what the world has become and the horrors that fill this world. Much of this also flushes out the rich subtext and I'll mention in a moment. But you always have this feeling like something huge is about to happen.

Unfortunately, none of this ever culminated in a way to which I could say honestly felt satisfied. There was a lot to like here and a lot of potential and so many things that were so very well done. But it just didn't all come together in the way that I wish it had. Instead despite all of the expert storytelling, and the good story premise, The story itself is what was lacking. These two characters on this journey, and the causes and reason behind the journey were never really fleshed out. The characters had moments where they were flushed out to some degree, but I never really felt like the characters connected with me, or with each other. Especially the female lead ( I forget the names), who just seemed aloof and distant. The male lead isn't much better, But the slight edge to his character gives it a little more emotional resonance to relate to. Richer characters and some clearer motivations and relationships would have done wonders.

Now the last important thing about this film, is the subtext. This is one of those movies that's about one thing but is actually about something else. Ostensibly it's about monsters from outer space. In reality it's much more about the modern geopolitical and sociopolitical state of the world and the division between the developed world and the developing world and all of the identity politics that go hand in hand with that. The building of the wall on the Mexico border. The sense of foreign alien otherness it exists in the "infected zone". I'd love to say these were utterly original ideas, but it feels pretty close to what district 9 did and district 9 did it so much better. We come to find out that the monsters are not monsters, they're just different and strange life forms that we don't understand. And they're kept that way. Whenever told the answer of what it is the monsters are actually doing and why. We're given some hints and left to figure it out for ourselves. Which is interesting or possibly frustrating depending on your perspective. But the main point is the mystery and the hinted potential that what we perceive as threatening behavior may simply be to the imposing size of these creatures and their capacity to do damage if they so chose. But maybe their true motivations are the same motivations of all living things. To survive, to reproduce, and to exist according to their own instincts and biology. The ambiguity creates the question at least in my mind if not intentionally in the mind of the viewer who are the monsters? Given what we see human beings are capable of? Are the monsters the ones on the other side of the wall trying to break through the wall? Or the monsters the ones building the walls and trying to keep out that which they cannot understand? Or is the monster solely in the outcomes and the results and not the perpetrators of the acts themselves? It's an interesting premise. It's relevant. And it could have come together a lot better if some of these other elements had been addressed more fully.

All that said this was enjoyable for what it was and a surprise considering what I later learned about the film and it's constraints.

The Super Mario Bros. Movie (2023)

Mario fans will find plenty to love

[4/10 · 29 July 2023]

Mario fans will find plenty to love here. The bigger the fan, the more there will be to love. If you're looking for old-school Mario and Nintendo nostalgia, it's there. If you're looking for more recent or more esoteric Easter eggs there are tons of those as well. Write down to Mario flying through a window into a pizza shop in Brooklyn and falling next to a knocked over arcade game titled "Jump Man". For those who don't know that was the original name of Mario's character when he first appeared as the protagonist in the original Donkey Kong game. And that moment pretty much sums up the movie.

It's... Mario. ALL OF IT. Luigi, toadstools, Princess Peaches, power ups in the form of invisibility stars, mushrooms, leaves, the racoons suit, Bowser, flying bullets with faces, carnivorous plants, teleportation pipes, the carts, the under water stuff. Remember that Mario movie from back in the '90s that had absolutely almost nothing to do with the video games other than it's title? Remember how confused you probably were if you saw it as a kid? I think this is supposed to make up for that because it's the exact opposite. If you took every Mario thing ever made and crammed it into a movie, that's exactly what this is.

But that's all it is. If I was scoring this based on how many video game references and how much video game content they could squeeze into a film, I would give it a 10. But if you're looking for anything else, like ANYTHING else, you'll be left wanting. For me the, "oh yeah, hah! I remember that from the game!" and the "OMG, I haven't thought about that since I was like 10" and the "oh wow they even put THAT into the movie" started to wear off after about 20 minutes. And my enjoyment level swiftly declined.

You also need to be aware that this is strictly a kid's movie. That's not to say that some adults can't and won't enjoy it. Especially if set adults are hardcore Mario fans. But it is to say that the target audience of this film is really those below the age of 12. If this seems a little bit at odds the fact that the movie is chock full of references that will only be appreciated by people who owned Nintendo's in the 1980s and 1990s or people who have gone out and either purchased or pirated every Mario's game going back to the original arcade games, that's because it is. The kids this movie is intended for will totally miss all of that. But they'll enjoy it because it's a goofy kids movie. The adults won't care about the plot or any of the other stuff because they're just there for the cultural nostalgia. That's the formula that this film goes with and if that works for you great.

For me, I can appreciate the nostalgic references but it's just not enough to carry a full length film and hold my attention for that long without me starting to feel bored. I'd rather go play some Mario. See the game doesn't need much of a plot because the joy of the game comes from the gameplay. I don't think it works translated to film.

In short, One might describe this movie as the "anti Barbie". That is, Barbie 2023. Whereas Barbie 2023, has all the nostalgia and cultural references, but has a much smarter, more mature, more socially conscious, more self-aware, and cleverly subversive treatment, The super Mario Bros movie is Barbie without all any of the rest of that. It's probably what most people expected the Barbie movie to be. So if you're the kind of person that was offended that a "kid's movie" actually had something to say, then here you go. But if you're looking for more than just being completely inundated by decades worth of intellectual property, then you should probably skip this one.

Top Gun: Maverick (2022)

Finally, My Cynicism Proves Wrong!

[7/10 · 18 April 2023]

I was fully prepared, perhaps even expecting, to hate this movie. I'm at a point where I immediately want to despise any reboot, re-imagining, rehash, or (as in this case) long over-due sequel. Any instance where a franchise reaches deep down your throat to try and pull out that piece of your soul that once loved it and reignite a spark that may or may not be there any longer, and where the attempt is lacking in any of the necessary sincerity to accomplish the task in the cases where it is. Sometimes it's less down your throat than it is up your... well, you get the idea... as in where the franchise being resurrected was never even a franchise to begin with... one of those few noble cases where a very successful piece of pop culture wasn't immediately squeezed to render out every last dime possible from fans before utterly ruining the integrity of the original.

So the minute I heard this one was coming out, I immediately filed it into the pile of other titles that I had no intention of wasting my time with. No thanks. Even as the positive reviews and hype mounted, I would not waver in my determination to avoid this one. I'd been burned too many times by finally caving in to all the praise and peer pressure to watch something with a rotten tomatoes score so proportionately opposite of its worth that it put both my faith in humanity and my sanity itself at jeopardy. In what world is Mad Max: Fury Road considered "the greatest action film of all time"? This one, apparently. Alas, I eventually did relent after seeing a few clips that made me hopeful this might be if nothing else a fun time.

That's how I went into this. We rewatched the original the night before, and were quite underwhelmed. It had been a while... a long while. Maybe 20 years? Maybe longer. Top Gun is decidedly not a movie I have on my "must rewatch at least once every few years" rotation. I realized that for all the nostalgia value, I didn't remember much about this one except Tom Cruise as Maverick, Val Kilmer as Ice Man, flashing visual memories of F-14's and carriers, and the sound track. Mostly the sound track. The cheesy love story was cheesy even by 80's standards. The action... just doesn't hold up today. At the time, I'm positive this was the most screen time contemporary fighters and carriers had ever gotten and the most fluid action shots ever captured of aerial dog fights and maneuvering. Today, not so much. And the rest of the structure isn't nearly strong enough to hold up the film without it. Nope, I had to adjust my score of the original down to a 5... one I will probably not watch again intentionally, but might passively watch if it was on and I happened to be in the room. To be fair, I think my prior rating had only been a 6, or possibly a 7 at the highest. But still.

This did not bode well. Yet, historical trends here were inverted. An original that proved to be far less good than I had recalled (and which I never regarded as anything close to great other than its place in the pop culture of the time... oh, and that soundtrack of course), was followed up by... a pretty damn good sequel that was never needed (or even asked for by most) and didn't come along until nearly 40 years later. What?

Top Gun: Maverick really shows an understanding of an effective formula to pull this off. First, it brings back the main characters (most of them) that you might love or at least will remember. It pays them some level of reverence and respect, without ever praying at the alter of the past. Maverick is still the same character, portrayed consistently by Tom Cruise, but with obvious growth and evolution. We get to see Maverick piloting an X Plane and breaking speed records, but only by breaking the rules and getting himself into trouble that he's only narrowly saved from. And then he ends up back where it all began, full circle. Which is a common theme in what is often being attempted in these kinds of movies... call backs, cameos from original cast, etc all can be effective, but are also cheap tricks that are easily over-used. Those tools are only slightly better than the ultimate crime of ignoring and/or disrespecting the original. We didn't see Maverick sidelined by some new character(s) we had no reason to care about. Maverick wasn't turned into a buffoon, another old god that needed to have its idle cast down and destroyed in service of our more modern sensibilities or concerns. We do get some new characters, and I would point out a bit of added diversity in the cast as well, without any of those pitfalls. In fact, the most important new character is a direct thread to the key story point of the original (I won't spoil). It not only connects emotionally with the original, but functions as a natural continuation of that narrative... by introducing elements that, like the great wheel of time itself, are both consequences of the last story and the central problems in need of resolution in the current one. It's a plot that is well written and a script well-executed. The result is die hard fans will love it, age-old detractors may actually come around, and the un-indoctrinated would yet not feel lost or left out. It's self-contained, yet builds upon what came before. Imagine that.

But that's all meta. The flow of the film is what is really central here, and this is something that is pulled off with all the precision of a carrier landing. The action keeps everything moving forward, there's enough humor to get a good number of chuckles, which helps balance out the moments of seriousness, tension, and even a bit of reflection. All in all, this is a more mature film that the original, and also is leagues above the original in terms of visuals, technical specs, etc. It's like... well, it's actually quite akin to comparing an F-22 to an F-14, more advanced on every level. The action scenes in particular showcase this as much as an F-22's thrust vectoring allows it to pull off aerial maneuvers that seem physically impossible if the baseline is the prior generation tech. The visceral, fast-moving, and tense sequences here kept me fully engaged and excited right through to the end. And it did a really good job communicating "what's happening" to an audience who may or may not be familiar with things like the various types of counter-measures these aircraft use to avoid missiles. You shouldn't find yourself ever confused at "what's happening on the screen". All around a pleasant surprise that builds on, respects, and brings the original into a new age. And hopefully one that won't be followed up by "Top Gun: Rooster" in a couple years...

So, then, did I merely enjoy it due to lowered expectations? No, I don't think so. I think that is, however, a good explanation for just how much praise this film has gotten. Rating this movie a 10 or a 9 is definite hyperbole. But, I do see how someone reluctantly dragged to a theater and getting treated to this on the big screen could have that reaction. A more sober response is that this is merely what we should expect as the bare minimum anytime something like this is attempted. This is the benchmark, but not a gold standard. It does have flaws and they are noticeable.

First, the absence of Kelly McGillis is noticeable. I don't know and won't speculate as to the reason, but what's distracting is that it is never even referenced as far as I could tell what happened with Maverick and Charlie. All that reminiscing about his time at Top Gun and Maverick never mentions or talks about it, not to himself nor anyone else? And the character of Penny bares more than a few passing similarities where at a couple different moments I had to pause the movie and check to make sure that she wasn't a recast as the character of Charlie. Jennifer Connelly does a good enough job here, but this all felt like an unnecessary sub plot, as if Maverick needed a female love interest to carry the story and I don't think he did. The inclusion of this just felt like they were tied to trying to recreate the cheesy, but admittedly better, romance between Cruise and Gillis in the original.

Second, the film's political implications are... intentionally ambiguous. On the one hand, it wants to be a flag-waving, guns-blazing, don't think too much about whether or not the pilot in those "other" planes survived and let's just focus on '5 kills' making him an 'ace' and cheer for it kind of movie. But it's very careful to not name the enemy or even give any particularly identifiable character to what we can only refer to as "them". Or "the enemy" as the film puts it. This is clearly meant to avoid pointing a finger and demonizing or involving itself in any kind of fear/war mongering against another real nation or people. It would have been all too easy for the script to put Maverick in the South China Sea defending Taiwan, or (could you imagine, given the timing) in the Black Sea warding off Russia. Instead we find him conducting a nearly impossible bunker-busting bombing run against Iran's Natanz, I mean... "The Enemy"'s unnamed underground uranium enrichment site. I feel two ways about this. It's responsible on the one hand to try and not profit off pushing hawkish propaganda. More likely, it's also wise to avoid wading into such a politicized debate. But there is also something oddly unsettling about how dehumanizing it is to simply reduce "the enemy" to a place holder... this says something perhaps even more disturbing and pushes a perhaps even more dangerous message: that it doesn't matter who we're fighting or why, they may as well be zombies or robots, or possibly Nazis or Communists, but they are generic "bad guys". What is worse? To hate one's enemy? Or to simply not even care enough about them to hate them? I'm undecided myself, but a far better answer might have been to actually deal with this question in a meaningful way. But the original was about Reagan-era pride and wanted conflict without confliction. And so here we are.

Speed (1994)

We Can't Slow Down

[7/10 · 15 April 2023]

Speed is a high concept action flick in its purest form. The movie so tight it even frames it's own elevator pitch for you:

"Pop quiz, hotshot. There's a bomb on a bus. Once the bus goes 50 miles an hour, the bomb is armed. If it drops below 50, it blows up."

And in hearing that line in the trailer, everyone watching immediately thought to themselves "I'm in". It's just a great and novel idea. In another self-aware moment, the movie outdoes itself, finding an even more succinct self-summary: "bomb on bus". Bravo.

Speed never tries to be anything else nor anything more than what it is an action movie based on a good idea. And it delivers well with that. It keeps the tension up and keeps you on the edge of your seat waiting for what's going to happen next.

You might think this film would be shallow and empty and it certainly not harbiring any hidden depths or intentional meaning. And yet films like this can somehow either intentionally or accidentally capture something meaningful about the times in which thier made.

In 1994 we were already full swing into the 'new world order'. The Cold War already seemed like distant history. It was an age of rapid globalization and rampant capitalism. It was a time where technology was taking off at the never-increasing pace and where society just seemed to be changing faster than anyone knew how to keep up with. It was the beginning of the era we're pretty much everyone felt like Life just wouldn't slow down. Maybe it's just me watching this with nostalgia, but I can't help but feel like that spirit of the age found its way into this. We all found ourselves on that bus, unable to slow down, no hope of stopping, and no idea what lied on the road ahead.

And then the world like that you need escapism. We all want to imagine we can outsmart the problem by leaning into it. We're all looking to jump the tracks, or find some way to make that ridiculous jump over that cap in the overpass. So when presented with an opportunity to lose ourselves for A couple of hours in what basically amounts to "die hard on a bus", no wonder this was a huge hit. And still enjoyable today. Yet we're still all on that bus with no hope of slowing it down...

Joker (I) (2019)

I was wrong.

[10/10 · 5 March 2023]

So, I avoided Joker since I first heard about it. No one could ever top Heath Ledger's interpretation of the character. And, besides, anything DC since The Dark Knight has been utter trash, so this was clearly just an attempt to cash in on the Joker character's popularity with both fans and critics, right?

WRONG. VERY WRONG. I am sad and sorry that it took me 4 years to finally see this. The initial positive reviews, I dismissed, because so much positive hype these days is completely baseless (Mad Max: Fury Road comes to mind, another movie I avoided, then held out on, and finally caved in to give a chance only to be confirmed right in the most frustrating way possible). But, no... I couldn't have been more wrong here and I'm glad. Far from being a tired rehash or cash grab, this is an artful character study that is stark, grim, disturbing, necessary, and utterly transfixing to watch.

From the first shot, to the last, this film was put together with masterful precision. The cinematography and editing should be lauded. It's full of brilliant transitions and cuts, interesting angles and camerawork, and masterful sound editing as well. It's not quite the piercing tension that pervaded the Dark Knight with a sense of impending doom, but it is a sort of quiet unsettled chaos, the kind of slowly building menace that can only arise from a troubled soul being tormented to the breaking point. It's good stuff, but in the worst way. No, actually I mean that in the reverse. I think.

The performances here are not just flawless, but master class. Joaquin Phoenix is utterly amazing. If I didn't already know him and love him, this performance would have made me ask "who is this guy... I need to see more of his work!" Having already been blown away by his performances in Gladiator and Her, I am not surprised. This guy really reminds me of other greats like Edward Norton, who can just become a character with a kind of emotional depth that is both utterly convincing and simultaneously otherworldly. But I would be doing a disservice to the rest of the cast to let even this masterful performance overshadow all the other great performances. Literally all of them are impeccable. I can't find fault. And I tried!

But what really makes this film work isn't just one actor's noteworthy performance, or even an across the board assortment of solid roles and casting... no, the real star here is the story itself. I can't think of a single comic book villain as overdone and as critically-acclaimed as the Joker. It's odd really... because the Joker character on paper shouldn't work on film. He's ridiculous. Literally and purposefully. And yet, we had the 1960's goofy version played by Julio Romero Jr., to the utterly iconic version portrayed by none other than Jack Nicholson himself, to the version in Batman the Animated Series voices by Mark Hamill, to Heath Ledger's version which is just legendary in its both commitment and innovation. It's hard to imagine that an origin story for this character could somehow capture still untreaded territory and uncover new ground, but this does it and does it in a big way. We don't just get "the origin of the Joker". We get a new conception of who and what the Joker is and this new image neither deviates too drastically from prior versions, nor is in any way constrained by precedent. This is utterly original, as far as I'm aware, with the Joker representing many new concepts.

In the 60's incarnation, the character was just a goofy (thought classic) caricature. In Tim Burton's Batman, the Joker was darker, more unsettling, and was a representation of unbridled criminality in its purist, most absurd form. Heath Ledger's Joker embodied that concept taken to possibly its darkest logical conclusion as a force of pure chaos and anarchy. This Joker we get here is chaos and anarchy... but with something all the other Jokers lacked: empathy and humanity. Yes, this Joke is a human being. He's one we can relate to and feel for. We can understand how and why he becomes what he does, even if we don't condone it. Is this Joker a hero or an antihero? No... I would argue it's still a villain, but seeing the humanity in a villain doesn't make them less villainous. Understanding their descent and the root of their motivations is simply to acknowledge that the human condition is universally hard, and when the masses of people are stepped on, ignored, and crushed beneath society's boot, the result is going to be people becoming villains who while they might have had the choice, didn't have as much opportunity to become anything else. In fact, their lives maybe push them to a breaking point until society itself then has to cope with the consequences. It's an apolitical message, because it's not a force that is either driven by or subscribes to any political theory. It is simply that hurt people hurt people. To the point where hurting people becomes the only thing they have left to express their own hurt, or maybe to compensate for it. We'll hear them one way or another, whether by listening or by not listening, whether by words or actions.

Indeed the Joker is always there, serving the mischievous role in comic book cannon that is much akin to the role of the Devil himself: that of causing chaos and discord not for any perceived purpose, but for the pure joy of tearing things down. And this Joker is one that is not nearly as dark and disturbing as the Health Ledger Joker in its manifest evil, but is perhaps even more disturbing in its relatability and familiarity.

So... which Joker is best? Well, to each their own. But this Joker is not so much the symbol of pure anarchy and chaos as the icon of the downtrodden and forgotten masses that are always there waiting and searching for an outlet and a voice, and the true injustice is that such lives even have to be lived and endured in the first place. That we can have people born into poverty, struggling with mental illness, lies, and having to live a life without human compassion from their communities, that's the perfect storm to create a Joker and in which a Joker will not only thrive, but be lauded as a hero. Becuase when everybody hates everything, then anyone who lashes out to break things will be seen as the hero by those who want to see it all on fire. Trauma is a time bomb that society would be wise to defuse and ignores at its own peril.

The Twilight Zone: Replay (2019) Season 1, Episode 3

Nice Concept

[6/10 · 4 March 2023]

A video camera that lets you rewind time. It's a concept tgat would have fit nicely as a plot device for an episode of the the original seies.

But this incarnation of the show seems to be much more overt in it's tackling of controversial social commentary. So, let's wrap that up with a story about police brutality and more specifically race in America. Ok, sure. This could work and be great. Just like many classic episodes of the original series .

The acting is also really good. Great performances for each of the three main roles.

The camera work and storytelling are generally good as well.

The strongest points of this one are how it really makes the viewer feel the hopelessness and insecurities of the main characters, both them being caught in a time loop trying to escape a seemingly inevitable disaster, and the parallelism between that and the broader sense of minorities in our society feeling targeted and persecuted to the extent where it seems the whole universe might be conspiring to prevent them from ever finding a happy ending.

To be fair this isn't original. In Don't Be a Menace to Society While Drinking Your Juice in the Hood, the use a similar trope that any time a black man tries to make it out of the hood they are assassinated by "the Man". But this obviously develops a similar idea and fleshes it out into something much more serious and poignant.

I really enjoyed this one for like the first half of the episode. Then it fell off for me why?

Well, the first point was where our protagonist decides that instead of running from or trying to avoid the fate she fears, she will confront it. She tries to find empathy for and common humanity with the antagonist, who seems to reciprocate and acknowledge her humanity as well. Except then he does a complete 180. This was a bold choice. Brave even. It would have been too easy to try and give this a neat and clean feel good ending, which would have definitely come across as a platitude. That would have been safe, however.

Instead the riskier road of suggesting that the antagonist himself is without empathy. But it was done in a way that doesn't make sense. The antagonist at this point is dehumanized by the story... We no longer understand the motives. Maybe that's the point. And if so that could have been an interesting thing itself to explore. Maybe looking at the transition of an individual who has humanity and empathy into something else once they take on a role of authority or become mere manifestations of the State. Or they could have made the antagonist less empathetic. Like the Sheriff from First Blood. But again, I think the story is going for something deeper and more complex here... It wants us to see the antagonist as a human being who is nevertheless acting inhumanely. It doesn't want to employ a simple racist cop trope. It reaches further than that... But falls short of finding what it wants to say, or else didn't succeed in conveying it.

What makes this pivotal moment a turning point for me I'd that while the story didn't quite unravel, it gently fizzled for mevafter this.

I liked it that the story required our characters to go back to go forward... That the place she had escaped to find a better life was the key to breaking the time loop. Except that it wasn't. The uncle was a great character but under utilized, like the rest of this part of the story. There's a really strong message here that seems to be directed at those who've been successful that you can't just not look back, you have to remember where you came from or eventually it will catch up with you. That the reality of racial inequality dies go beyond socioeconomics and the struggle for justice is one that can and does affect those that might falsely believe that because they found material success they've transcended the problems of discrimination. An escape through the sewer is even used as a nod to the Underground railroad. It's a lot packed into a short time without enough time to really pull it altogether, so in the end it achieved little.

It really seemed like they didn't know how to end the story, and fair enough. Society is still trying to write the ending itself. But what we end up with is really where the story hit the wall and went splat. I liked the use of the camera itself to record instead of rewind. But the whole way it all unfolds felt forced and too direct.

TZ was all about using metaphor and allegory. Rather than a big show down, they could have just wrapped this up in some other less melodramatic way, maybe avoiding confrontation, and used the flashing lights as they did to convey that sense of always having to look over your shoulder.

In any case... The fact this one goes off the rails doesn't ruin it at all. It's still one of the better episodes of season 1 that I've seen so far.

Twilight Zone: The Movie (1983)

A Shadow of that Dimension which Exists Between Light and Shadow

[5/10 · 19 February 2023]

This long-forgotten anthology consists of a prologue and 4 segments. The prologue sets the tone, and is perhaps my favorite part of the film. We get some great dialogue and some very natural performances that really pay tribute to the original series. This includes a rather unexpected climax which is both jarring and goofy all at the same time, much in the way the original series would often use both provactive concepts or plot twists, but often with goofy special effects that often don't hold up well today. The effects here are very 1980's, with creature suits, puppets and animatronics, along with some legitimately well-done visual effects, but that's all yet to come... here we just get a taste. It's actually a bit off from the rest of the film stylistically, as it feels much more horror and less psychological thriller. But it does set up a nice Dan Ackroyd gag that will later be used for a wrap around at the end (no spoiler here, but you'll know it when you see it).

The segments themselves are varied. The first is a mashup of two episodes ("Back There" and "A Quality of Mercy") that is quite unsubtle in both its set up of a flawed character and pretty on-the-nose for delivering that character's fate. I wanted to like this one, as it had a great premise, but the execution was off for me. The story lacked any actual lesson or even learning on the part of the main character beyond simply watching the character run around helpless. Not the best story-telling, but the introduction was done pretty well... could have been good.

Then we have straight remakes of three episodes: "Kick the Can", "It's a Good Life", and the eminent classic "Nightmare at 20,000 Feet". Here's where things get really odd. In "Kick the Can" we get one really good performance and memorable character by Scatman Crothers (which you might know as the voice of both Jazz from Transformers G1, as well as Hong Kong Phooey) ... he carries this whole segment. If not for him, this episode is just weird feeling. This is before "Cacoon", but it feels like that movie done in the style of Spielberg in E. T. Mode. It had a few moments, but otherwise falls flat and is the most dull of the segments, despite a great main character/actor, and a warm mood. I have to say this one also stands out as just not fitting at all with the rest of the segments... we literally go from a man spewing racial epithets seeing cattle cars full of doomed jews in Nazi Germany, to this morality tale about staying young at heart, then right to a weird reality-warping psychotic child's fun house, before ending with a suspenseful psychological thriller where we watch a man lose his sanity as he struggles to save a plane full of panicking passengers. How.... Ok, Nevermind. The Zone could be like that sometimes, with the occasional lighter note episodes, sure... but in a single anthology I would expect things to flow in a more coherent manner.

Now, the last two segments are the better half of the film. "It's a Good Life" was a classic episode, and here we have a reimagining of this story with some new elements and a much more visual take. We actually see a good deal more of the reality warping powers of Anthony here and the effects are certainly a far cry from anything we used to see in the original series. I'm not sure how I feel about it, honestly. It's the 80's equivalent of a CGI fest... And the story doesn't make sense, as the beginning doesn't seem to fit with the revelation about Anthony later on. In any case, it's reasonably entertaining and passable. This one was done by Joe Dante, who brought a lot of vision to this one even if it doesn't completely work.

"Nightmare at 20,000 feet" is the real start of the film. Leave it to director George Miller to create a truly intense (for the time) "plan is about to crash" scene. John Lithgow is the best performance of the film, by a landslide. That, and the subtle references to the Gremlins theme throughout this segment (a film for which both Joe Dante and Steven Spielberg ) were nice touches... although Gremlins came out in 1984 and this one in 1983, so I'm not sure how that works chronologically. In any case, it's capped off with a nice wrap around to the prologue scene, and then we're done. Plot twist: The Gremlin is actually William Shatner. No, I'm kidding. But wouldn't that be funny.

And we're probably glad to be done by that point. It's an enjoyable ride with some parts being better than others, but overall is quite uneven in it's execution. At the end of the day, the writing is not nerely as thoughtful, well-conceived, or well delivered as the original series. Which is bizarre, because the segments are all based on episodes, so there would have been a lot more creative juice left over to tweak and polish those ideas and ensure they were imbued with the same air of mystery, irony, and commentary as the original series, which is still so relevant and was ground-breaking at the time. No... this as a whole leans more toward the 80's horror and away from the mental horror and conceptually-focused plots and scripts of the show. But fans of the original series will find things to like and may enjoy it nonetheless.

Back to the Future Part III (1990)

Worst of the Trilogy

[6/10 · 4 February 2023]

The original Back to the Future is about as much of a classic as a movie can be. With its cliffhanger ending, we were bound to end up with a sequel once that film became the pop culture cinematic sensation that it did (and still is). The sequel was less a sequel than a continuation, but is to my knowledge one of if not the first film to ever drop the audience back into the original film's storyline, which made up for a few minor weaknesses compared to the first. The end of the sequel with yet another cliff hanger and a post-credit scene full of bits and pieces of the third left most fans eager for more.

But where would they take it?

The first film took a single period and plopped Marty there. We had time for 50's nostalgia that was omnipresent during the 80's when it was released. Much of the film's charm was sue to the contrast of that "golden age" with the then modern age of the 1980's. Full of jokes referencing Reagan, pop culture, music, and the general zeitgeist. We also had an unbeatable plot, centering on Marty's parents meeting and his fate resting upon that chance event, but also on the many things that went wrong in the realization of that dream, which left Marty's life far from perfect. The culmination of the film neatly puts Marty's life back together again while fixing all the things that hadn't quite worked out.

The second film continued the storyline and showed that there's no such thing as "happily-ever after". Even perfection in a point in time is fraught with the potential for future mishaps and mistakes that can seemingly unravel our greatest achievements or inheritances. We also got a lot more variety, not only seeing the future, but returning to a new alternate dystopian 1985, before ultimately having to return back to the 50's and the events of the original film, this time to prevent a counter-move that not only undid all the good of the first film, but made things far worse for Marty in his present than he had imagined possible.

And then we have this third film. Once it finally came out, remember seeing it in the theaters and enjoying it... but also feeling underwhelmed.

So, here we have Marty starting off the film in 1955 right where we left off: stuck with no way home and with the 1985 Doc having been accidentally transported to the Old West. This is resolved easily enough by the bright idea that the Delorean, which went back to the Old West along with the 1985 Doc, has been stashed away for a hundred or so years in a mine. OK, great.

Of course, now we learn that the 1985 Doc, who wrote to Marty specifically asking him not to attempt to rescue him, was killed days after that. So now the new conflict of this film has been established, to go back and rescue the Doc much like the first film. Also, much like the first film, this time we won't be moving back and forth between time periods and/or between alternate timelines. Nope, this will instead once again feature Marty, stuck in the past in a single period, trying to save the Doc's life.

Except it all rings a bit hollow. The film attempts to recreate some of the magic from the first films, even rehashing familiar gags like the Doc building a model to demonstrate their plan to return home, yet more ancestors of Biff and the McFly family, even the obligatory manure scene. But the McFly ancestors only serve as side characters and the familiar Biff antagonist is both a tired trope and not particularly well conceived. The Old West setting is really under-utilized and there's not quite enough of a contrast to the 1985 world to give that same kind of fun juxtaposition we had in both the other films.

The worst part of this story, though, despite being less-well imagined and less-well executed, is a single plot point: Doc falling in love. Nothing about this part of the story feels particularly genuine or authentic. Back to the Future was always about Marty and his character and his future and past, not the Doc. Now having to shoe-horn the Doc's personal romance into things feels awkward and forced and like a general departure from what the story was all about up until now.

Marty does still have some unresolved character flaws which were somewhat sloppily introduced in the second film. He can't stand being called a coward. He maybe has the opposite problem his father had to overcome (that he actually was a coward). Maybe this could have worked better if the story itself was still centered more on Marty without diverting the attention necessary to try and establish the love story for the Doc. Who knows.

In all, I prefer to think of Back to the Future as a pair rather than a trilogy. Fans of the series will probably enjoy this one and it's worth seeing at least once, but I personally have never felt compelled to rewatch this entry in the series, even after watching the first two. I have tons of fond memories of the first two that will just pop into my head on occasion and all of which make up my childhood and thus a decent chunk of my own present and future personality. But this one? ... it's largely forgettable. There's some good stuff here, to be sure, but just not enough to make it feel worth it. It starts out strong, accelerates quickly, and does manage to make it all work, but it never really gets up to the 88 miles per hour water mark, nor generates the requisite 1.21 gigawatts as the first two films. It's a shame they didn't try to do more with this one, to build on the concepts of the first two and see how much further they could take the ideas of time travel, alternate timelines, paradoxes, and circularity of self-fulfilling prophecies. We end up with Marty having learned a lesson and avoiding another critical mistake, but never really feeling like there was a significant point to this chapter otherwise. If it were up to me, I would have liked to see the trilogy end in a way that forced Marty to choose between giving up the perfect present life he got after the first film, and having to put things back where they started, rather than endlessly seeking to avoid this or that next crisis in the timeline. Maybe learning a lesson that it's not the present we inhabit or the past we inherited that matters, but the choices we make now. We can't and shouldn't want to alter the past or see the future, just try and do the best now with what we have in order to try and make things better where we can and that maybe that point in 1985 was a critical turning point all along, where having seen all the ways in which things could have played out in the past or could play out in the future, Marty is instead about to use that knowledge to return to his original 1985 and see all the hidden solutions to his and his family's problems that exist there and then, but hadn't been seen. That, I think, would have been a right proper way to wrap up this otherwise great series.

The Twilight Zone: The Odyssey of Flight 33 (1961) Season 2, Episode 18

Classic Sci Fi, but Needed More Time

[6/10 · 24 January 2023]

This might be my least favorite of the most well-known classic Twilight zone episodes.

It's based on an interesting enough premise but falls victim to the fact that the span of time of the episode is just not nearly enough time to develop the story and explore the idea in full.

Well acted, but there are too many characters on screen to really give anyone but the captain a chance to shine.

Too bad, because one thing this has going for it was the buildup. The intro scene and the ensuing setup of the plot are well done and suspenseful. But, then we find out what's happening and barely have a chance to see anything or allow the implications to settle.

In short, the greatest irony in this twist is that this episode falls short due to it lacking time.

The Twilight Zone: Mr. Dingle, the Strong (1961) Season 2, Episode 19

Goofy.

[5/10 · 24 January 2023]

Some decent practical effects and a good performance from an actor who you might best know as the trainer from the Rockie movies, but surprisingly also played the Penguins the the 1960's Batman TV show and voiced the role of the arch Villain Golobulus from the 1987 animated film GI Joe: the Movie (who's voice acting was not impeccable and imposing as hell).

Here, he plays a timid weakling with a stufmtter who ends up the favorite test subject of some incredibly ridiculous looking aliens looking to imbue somesub-average human with superhuman ability.

It's pretty silly. The plot is basic and there's nothing close to a serious attempt to explore the idea. Sometime TZ was like that, almost like they took a break to just let off steam. At least we got some comic relief & good performances.

Die Hard 2 (1990)

Not a Bad, but a Mostly Forgettable, Rehash of the Original

[6/10 · 21 January 2023]

Die Hard was and is more than a great film-it's a classic. It's a piece of culture. It's debatably the greatest action film of all time. So, of course, it was going to get a sequel.

And here it is! And what did we get? An attempt to have a redo... a rehash of the original, that lacks most of what made Die Hard so great.

The diminished returns are evident right from the start. See, Die Hard started out by building up to things. We meet John McClain, his lovable driver, Holly, and we are introduced nicely to the core dramatic threads that hold the story together and make it more than JUST a shootemup action flick. By the time we meet the villains and the hostage part of the plot begins to unfold, we're already thoroughly invested.

Not so with this one. Holly is on a plane and her only involvement is that she's stuck there with the same news reporter she punched in the face at the end of the last film. John is at the airport and getting himself involved in a terrorist plot that somehow they've stumbled into. The villain cast here is not bad at all, but mostly mediocre all the same. The fights and shoot outs, while often bolder in terms of blood and number of rounds expended, are somehow less intense and visceral than the best the prior film had to offer.

It lacks all the charm and crafting of the first film, while hoping that if they give us more of the same kind of action, we won't mind. Except that I did. And the action itself lacks the same heart and commitment that the action from the first had.

This is not a bad film, but easily interchangeable with just about any of the other action films of the era. This is itself a Die Hard ripoff: "Die Hard in an Airport, with Actual Die Hard". But even the cast of the original can't add the magic alone that made that eminently clone-worthy classic so special. You could easily skip this one and just go straight from Die Hard (1) to Die Hard with a Vengeance (3) and you wouldn't miss much, if anything. In fact, your overall enjoyment might be enhanced.

The Twilight Zone: An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge (1964) Season 5, Episode 22

So Much Said, Without One a Line of Dialogue

[10/10 · 21 January 2023]

This was originally a short story with was turned into a short film. It was edited so it could be aired as an episode of the Twilight Zone. And the choice of story and film really show how much the TZ really was committed to artistry in story-telling and film-making. Sure, there are some goofy episodes, a bunch of filler, and a few tired tropes in the 5 season run... but the best episodes are so far ahead of their time not just conceptually, but also in the quality of cinematography, sound, and writing. The show was made by people with a real passion for the arts and if those other top episodes don't convince you of that, the I submit for your consideration this one here. Not technically made for the show, but a real art house selection that proves the point.

The episode is mostly silent. There minimal to no actual dialogue. And yet, or possibly because of that fact, the sound in this episode is fantastic. Great use of sound and sound editing to help not only set the mood frame the emotions of the story, but to tell the story itself. The highlight has to be the skillful use of music, a particular song with particular lines that perfectly capture the essence of this tale.

The story is great. A condemned man about to be executed for a crime during the Civil War. But the time, place, and reasons don't much matter here. The episode is not about any of that. Our story is simply that of a man facing his demise, and trying to escape in any way he can. It's one of the most thoroughly human stories among any of the TZ episodes and stands tall for serious consideration without any fanciful science fiction of super natural plot devices. As you might guess, there's a twist... but one that resonates in a potent and deeply emotional way. It's not one where you jump up and smile and go "OHH!!!!" It's more one where you slunk down into your seat and go "oh. Ohhhh..." I won't spoil it. Even though this is definitely a story that doesn't require surprise to be enjoyed.

But the best part of this episode has got to be the visuals. Which goes hand in hand with the aforementioned attention to detail with sound and music. It's as artsy and dramatic as it gets. If it wasn't, this wouldn't have worked. But it is and it does and it's possibly the most beautifully and well shot episode.

The Twilight Zone: Deaths-Head Revisited (1961) Season 3, Episode 9

Possibly the darkest of the series

[7/10 · 17 January 2023]

Possibly the darkest of the series. Only because it is based in real history and doesn't flinch at discussing true horror... The kind that doesn't just exist in the twilight zone.

Powerful performances are the core of this onem. If there's a Hell this is it and it is well deserved.

It's a bit on the chin, this one. Not at all subtle... But maybe rightly so. No twist, not at all coy, or clever. Just brutally direct and unflinching in it's gaze. This one may be slightly overated, but is also a time capsule of an age no so far removed from the subject matter as we are today.

A good watch, but not in my rotation.