The Cat From Outer Space (1978)

You're probably asking yourself "Why on Earth is he reviewing a Disney movie about a cat?". I can assure you that your question is also your answer. I mean come on, it's about a talking cat from outer space who can fly in a spaceship and only cost me 99 cents at Goodwill- can you really blame me? The entire internet is essentially propped up by pictures of babies and cats, so just consider this as me doing my bit to shore it all up, okay?

Plot Synopsis: Spacefaring feline Jake makes an emergency landing on our planet and has only a few days to fix his ship (which by the way must be done with $120,000 worth of gold) or he'll be stuck here forever. Enlisting the help of oddball scientist Frank, His girlfriend Liz, and Frank's beer/sportsloving neighbor/colleague, considerable amounts of human/feline shenanigans commence forthwith. 

I know what you're thinking here, it's a kids movie, how complex can it get? Well not very but what's important here is how very unlike a modern movie for kids this thing turns out to be by the end. It even has doses of anti establishment lessons for your children. You think I'm kidding, right? The military (who of course take possession of Jake's craft with the gusto only they could manage- because it could be the RUSSIANS!) and a bunch of bumbling idiots who are the butt of many of the film's jokes. It might very well be intended as an extremely light hearted send-up of cold war paranoia, or maybe I'm just reading between the lines a little way way too much too much.

There's a goodly amount of jokes you really cannot put into a movie for kids anymore peppered throughout this thing. These include the neighbor /colleague who bitches about his wife wanting to watch something other than sports so he decides to watch it at our main character's house and continually drink his beers. When is the last time you saw a guy chugging brews while watching the game in a Disney flick? Did I just hear you say "Never"? This eventually leads us to Jake's need for 120K in gold. His collar lights up and lets him control anything and everything in his sight, so they decide to have the cat make the team they bet on win the games while they place bets with the local scumbag bookie. I should also mention Jake making a reference to being cooped up in a spaceship for five months after meeting Liz's cat Lucybelle. Yes, a feline sexual innuendo. What more can you ask for?

Yeah, you read that right. After a shenanigan involving Liz calling a vet friend over while Jake pretends to be sick to get Frank out of yet another date so they can fix his ship (and leaving him knocked out cold, unable to manipulate anymore games via the television), they take the next logical step- go directly to the bookie's scummy (and assumedly mob connected) pool hall. Jake eventually wakes up from his sedation and successfully manipulates the game, but yeah seriously- this is a movie for kids ala 1978?

Oh, I forgot to mention something: During all these escapades Jake & co. are routinely (both in regularity and ineptitude) spied on by Roddy McDowall, easily the most bumbling agent a movie of this caliber can muster. A movie like this simply cannot exist with a bumbling, shenanigan causing fool and McDowall doesn't disappoint, nose smashed up against windows in awe of what he witnesses and all.

The thing that surprises me the most about this movie is the surprisingly action packed climax where Jake and Frank chase down a helicopter (containing Liz and Lucybelle) in a biplane that Jake repairs with his collar. There's some really good stunt work in this sequence, involving stunt people hanging on between the plane's upper wing and a helicopter skid and even the helicopter bouncing its skids off the top wing which is a really dangerous and skills needed stunt just like in the film Capricorn One that came out only one week before this film did! It was a pretty ambitious stunt for a film with a 5 Million dollar budget, but for a Disney film with a budget undoubtedly a good deal lower it's a pretty impressive undertaking to say the least. I mean Disney stopped just shy of skid/wing contact but they were like inches away from each other, so you have to give them credit for doing it. Oh, and the biplace has a bunch of its fabric paneling missing leaving the frame exposed, talk about causing a lot of drag- that plane must have been a complete bitch to fly.

All this and a film score by Lalo Schifrin. It has a pretty long running time too, clocking in at 103 minutes. If this were made (or I shudder to think RE made) today , it would likely be both way shorter and probably mostly CGI if not completely animated. That in my opinion would take out a good dose of the fun this movie has by the bucketful. Not bad for 99 cents at Goodwill, if I do say so myself. It's nice to take a break from reviewing total bullshit/horror/exploitation/etcetera movies once in a while, and fuck it I like cats, so I call that a win/win scenario all around.

Go on, give it a go!

Ator The Fighting Eagle aka Ator The invincible (1982)

Great fantasy movies are great. Do you know what else can also be great? Low budget rip offs of great fantasy films. This where every sleazy rip off movie aficionado's favorite director comes in: Joe D'amato. He's responsible for other not rip off of something else films like the glorious cinematic dung pile that is Anthropophagus (1980). Only a man with his eye so keenly on the profit margin of a total knockoff of Conan The Barbarian (also released in 1982, strange?) could ever manage to produce, along with two of its three sequels.

I can always come back to all that later, I think what all of you really want is to see the trailer:

For the eagle eye/eared viewer, you may notice that the trailer features a piece of music which sounds vaguely familiar but not quite how this one sounds. What is it? Oh I don't know, maybe a complete copy cat effort of the Conan The Barbarian theme?

Naaaaaah, couldn't be. Total coincidence (it is worthwhile to note that the music in question in the trailer does not appear in the actual film, talk about marketing genius).

In case you haven't already guessed, this review is going to regularly feature the term "rip off" and various synonyms. There will also be regular comparison to the film which begat this beyond bizarre gem of Italian daring-do, because quite frankly it is unavoidable (and for the sake of ease will be referred to for much of the rest of this review as CTB). The sequel has quite a few more parallels (maybe one day I will discuss that too) but I will point out a few of them but not all- as I' like to leave you with a few surprises.

Plot synopsis: The story begins with an ancient legend involving a spider cult ruling the land for something like 1,000 years. It states that a mighty warrior by the name of Torren (for some reason spelled Thorn on the back of the box) will come forth to challenge them but will ultimately fail. His son will be a mighty warrior named Ator who will destroy the mighty high priest of the spider and free the land once again. Funny how an ancient prophecy can be so specific that it features exact names that apparently nobody would fake anybody out before it becomes true by naming their kids that, anyways back to the movie- Torren "casts his seed upon the wind" (didn't make that up, will discuss after plot is described) and young Ator is born. He is taken to a foster family by a wigged skeezoid named Griba who silently watches over him as he grows up. Later on follows a quest to rescue his wife to be (awkwardly the daughter of his adopted parents), where as the legend explains to you at the start, concludes with Ator winning out over the evil spider cult and restoring freedom to all the land.

There, now I can go on to point out the parallels. You'd like that wouldn't you? Let's face facts, I really beat around the bush with the plot synopsis (but don't I usually?) as what I really want to write about are the overarching similarities with CTB. Actually the first place the similarities begin is on the box for the tape itself.

Take a look below at a section of the image you saw at the very start of this review:

Yes I know fantasy movies pretty much have the same cover when taking a jab at the success of Conan, but this being one of the earliest that I know of really goes for it in a subtle yet tremendous way courtesy of one particular element. It's as if D'amato was attempting to challenge the far superior and better made CTB single handedly. Notice that helmet there, buried in the earth at the highly idealized image of Ator's feet? Tell me it doesn't resemble the helmet Conan wears on the poster/vhs cover (which by the way is only briefly seen during the pit fighting sequences early in the film)? It's not an exact match by any means but the resemblance is striking.

Decide for yourself:

At any rate, the art is done in the truest traditions of low budgeted Italian exploito cinema. He not only is not this ripped, but he also never wields a multi ended morning star, wears that insane cloak, has a scantily clad brunette nymphette as a side kick (we touch on the movie sidekick in a bit), and also doesn't have a cool sabertooth tiger as a battle beast. Instead he has a bear cub that somebody painted a skunk stripe on its head. Misleading? Not particularly, but a cute bear bear cub instead of a cool sabertooth tiger is pretty lame if you ask me.

Consider my hands up in the air.

 This film features a lot of plot exposition that is simply thrown at the audience with no explanation, such as the secret talismanic weapons Ator must find. Some of it might have been told to me before but it is a Joe D'amato movie so probably not, speaking of Joe (allow me if I may, to completely diverge from the topic at hand for a hot minute if you will)- it's a good time to mention that he uses several aliases in this particular production. While that's nothing unusual for many a director who finds themselves on a budget, for D'amato (whose real name by the way is Aristide Massaccesi, so far as we are all aware anyway) this was standard operating procedure, which including the D'amato alias equals 40 odd names, several of which were used on more than one production. Fella has a history of sometimes sketchy behavior if you look around, just sayin'.

Now that that is off of my chest, I can afford to be fully on topic again. Like I was saying there's some tools Ator needs to obtain to defeat his foe that aren't really revealed to you until he is close to going to get them. One is the sword of Torren, which when spoken about sounds like they are saying Turin (you know, like the shroud). The other (I'll just spell it the way it sounds) is the shield of Mordor. I swear they say Mordor, just like in The Lord of the Rings. Anyways all it is is a mirror with a handhold on back that summons shadow warriors when uncovered. Kinda cool and kinda lame at the same time but it is there so what are you going to do? After he gets it he has to fight his way out of a cavern of dangerous sword wielding blind men. Don't ask, just watch it.

While there are similarities to CTB aplenty in this film, I will just mention three that immediately stand out in my mind (I also promised this review like a week and a half ago) and leave the rest for you to discover on your own should you decide to watch it for yourself (which I recommend doing, by the way, because why the hell not?). I'm typing these stream of consciousness, so there's no semblance of chronological order, not that it really matters all that much, right? Don't worry about it.

Maybe the biggest similarity is giving him a blonde lady sidekick who is a warrior/thief much like Sandahl Bergman's character in CTB. The only differences being that while not stellar, Sandahl is by far the better actor (which says A LOT) and actually has blonde hair, unlike the really terrible drag wig the lady in this is wearing. She couldn't act her way out of a wet paper bag, so it is probably for the best that she isn't in it for more than say a third of the movie. It also doesn't help that she has a lame character name like Roon, but what more can you really say about that? Both Ator and Roon have would be witty one liners (much like our heroes in CTB) but there is no love affair between them. I'll get to that at the end of the review. There's more to the pairings that is similar, but I don't want to give it away as the goose needs to live so you can have the golden egg and eat it too.

Earlier in the film Ator's village gets attacked by a group of horsemen and his parents get savagely murdered (sound familiar?). This is where another bit of film rippery occurs. I am a sucker for film scores now and then, and couldn't but notice that the piece of music that plays during the scene is a direct mimic of this track from the score for Star Wars that plays over the scene where Luke finds the smoldering Jawa sandcrawler. Similar imagery, similar music. Coincidence? I wouldn't bullshit you on this one.

Watch the Ator, but listen out for this:

The bad guy also happens to be a man of African descent who has a respectably low timbre in his voice and also worships a beastly creature. Only this time instead of turning into something cool like a giant snake he is the keeper or whatever for a small tarantula army that crawls on him often and a very VERY hokey looking gigantic spider puppet that builds somehow not at all sticky when extricating someone from it but sticky when you fall onto it webs that consist of very well woven together rope. He's much less of a Thulsa Doom as he is a Thulsa D'oh.

So yeah about that no love affair thing I mentioned while talking about Roon, Ator's heart belongs to another he says. This other awkwardly happens to be his sister (but he's adopted so in this fantasy world it somehow isn't considered weird when you are adopted and grow up with someone as a sibling and you want to marry them. not. weird. at. all.). He has to rescue her so he can get married and blahblah. Here's proof of their awkward interaction just below, along with proof of that damn skunk striped bear cub:

Nope, NOT WEIRD Ator.

While I can't find video proof of this I might as well tell you to stick around until the end of it as the end credits theme is sung pretty much to the tune of and has similar lyrics to the theme to the James Bond movie For Your Eyes Only. NOT KIDDING.

Don't believe me?

Watch it! With all of the ridiculous fantasy costumes featuring chest medallions and furry boots how can you really go wrong? There is also some A class fantasy dialogue that I don't dare give a line of away without you hearing it first.

DEFINITELY WORTH THE WATCH WITH OR WITHOUT BOOZE.

You heard it here first, maybe.

Invaders From Mars (1986)

When I finally got to see this movie (I seem to remember watching it as a kid, but only actually SAW it when I saw it in 35mm a while back) I thought for sure this was a movie every self respecting sci-fi/horror fan loves to bits. Unfortunately my smug sense of who likes what couldn't be further from accurate on this one. As such, I am here to defend its honor for anyone who cares to read this.

Trailer:

FUN! The plot to this movie is pretty cut and dry but I suppose I will give indulge myself. Young David Gardner has a very active imagination. When he sees a giant UFO land over the hill from his house one night, his parents wave it off as a simple nightmare. As the days go by his parents- followed by all the adults (and at least one kid too) that he sees- begin acting very strangely and all seem out to get him because he knows what's up with the invasion. Enlisting the help of the school nurse (the only adult he can trust, played by the legendary Karen Black), David sets out to right what has gone horribly wrong.

That plot synopsis I just wrote kinda sucks, but I rewrote it three times already and am just going to let it be and hope that you trust me here because the movie is actually pretty fun to watch. How many movies can you name where a school teacher gets taken over by evil aliens and gets eaten by their creepy looking soldiers in one tremendous gulp? Anyways, it seems that a decent majority of the moviegoing public really didn't seem to care very much about this film when it was released. The film barely made half of its budget back, and critical response was and generally still is rather lukewarm towards it while the public opinion (based upon my own research) seems to be very mixed and in some cases inaccurate (more on this in a hot minute).

I think one of the bigger reasons this film failed in the box office was that our good old bottom of the barrel friend Cannon produced it (for you readers who have been here since the beginning of this blog you might remember my reviews of two other Cannon films- The Hitcher and Allan Quatermaine and the Lost City of Gold) and for any of you out there savvy to the stuff this company churned out you will know it was done on the cheap end of the scale nine times out of ten.

Lucky for us, Tobe Hooper was at the helm of this picture and he has absolutely no fear of budgetary constraints and pulls off a pretty impressive picture. He is a film maker that in my opinion thrives on such constraints. The original 1953 version of this film had the budget of a pint of potato salad at Fred Meyer (which adds to its schlocky entertainment value to the maximum) so to give this the budget of a major blockbuster would have made it look completely ridiculous. The estimated cost of production is in the 12 million dollar mark (sadly, it only managed to make about 4 million in theaters, but Cannon nearly always recouped its losses in home video rentals and sales anyway). With the crazy looking aliens, sometimes expansive sets, and for a bit some gregarious gunfire, one would think the budget would have been more in the 15-20 million area. Such is the glory of Mr. Hooper. I definitely don't like a lot of his films, but I can say this- they are all pretty well made.

Okay I got a bit sidetracked there but remember like a minute ago when I was discussing response to the film? When one looks it up you find a pitiful response in favor of it. I don't know what people are expecting when they see this besides i don't know, SOMETHING FUN, but they apparently did not find the pseudo intellectual HJ they were hoping for. One would be critic claimed the ending is a "middle finger to the audience". Whoever this fella is obviously has no idea that the original film ends exactly the same way. Middle finger indeed. I feel this is a film that somehow managed to slip through the cracks for 90% of the Earth's population.

I know this is a cult movie, but I wish it were one with a far wider audience than it has as I don't feel like it gets the respect it deserves. The casting is spot on, even Louise Fletcher (if you don't know who she is, you better google it immediately) is in the mix. I should also mention a Devo related cast member for all you you spoudboys and spuddesses out there- Laraine Newman. For those not in the know, she played Donut Rooter (daughter of Rod Rooter of Big Entertainment) in a few inbetweeners on one of their video collections. Anyways Devo time over. Suffice to say the cast is awesome.

I think people really have a problem with this movie because of the childish tone of the story. In case nobody noticed, the events are all viewed through the filter of a little boy, of course it plays out halfway like a cartoon. When you are about four feet tall the world is a very different place, think back on that for a second. You can't drive a car, and adults are already weird to begin with. Everybody needs to drop the logic and get with the program here, this movie is fun period.

The moral here?

Don't take things so damn seriously all the time and enjoy life once in a while.

That includes this movie.

Penitentiary II (1982)

My brother picked this up from a VHS swap meet here in town last week. Obviously we were drawn in by the insanely vivid box art but the pictures/description on the back only made things worse. By worse I mean this movie could be one of two things: really unbelievably awful or honestly really good in a not very scummy or entirely exploitative way. We got column B much to our deep satisfaction. While I haven't seen any other films in the oeuvre of director Jamaa Fanaka, this one definitely makes me want to take a closer look.

Trailer:

Yes this movie is as good as the trailer would lead you to believe. Maybe you won't agree and think this movie is shit anyway, but that's fine by me because I know a diamond in the rough when I see one as far as my own personal tastes are concerned.  Giving a proper plot synopsis as it relates the the first Penitentiary movie made in 1979 is impossible, as I have yet to see it and frankly didn't know it existed until I saw this copy of the sequel. But by information from friends who have seen all three of these films (yes, it's a trilogy!), the second one is the best of them. IMDB user/critic ratings show the opposite is the case but I obviously don't agree with their assessment insofar as the quality of the second film is concerned. I want to see the first one to be sure things are in line. Expect me to get back to you about that at some point maybe.

Plot synopsis: Martel "Too Sweet" Gordone (Leon Isaac Kennedy) has just been released from prison on parole and is struggling to set his life in order. He shacks up with his sister Ellen and her husband Charles (Glynn Turman of Cooley High fame!) and gets employment at a boxing gym. Too Sweet refuses the owners attempts at getting him to box like he did in prison, as he wants to get on the straight and narrow and put the past to rest. Unfortunately for Too Sweet, his former cell mate and prison rival Half Dead (Ernie Hudson, just two years before being in Ghostbusters!) is out for revenge. After Half Dead rapes and murders his girlfriend, and tries to kill our hero, Too Sweet vows to return to boxing in her memory. With the help of his trainer Mr. T (obviously played by Mr. T, right after his appearance in Rocky III) he gets into fighting shape. But Half Dead never dropped his revenge scheme...

Considering the significant blanks I had to leave (an audience update is provided by and obviously Star Wars influence angled opening crawl even!) I think that gives you enough to figure out how this movie works. It's really strange to see a film made in the early 1980's that still utilizes tried and true Blaxploitation style dialogue. It made me think the film was made several years earlier until I looked it up, leaving me doubly surprised as you can very well imagine.

This movie really doesn't fuck around at any point. I did not find a single minute where I was checking my watch to see how long it had been on, because it has a capable cast and a pretty decent script. Sure the cinematography is really pedestrian, but when the cast is pulling their weight like this all things fall by the wayside. It's a pleasure to see a film like this that doesn't drag anywhere like so many do. The director (who had several films under his belt at this point) had a pretty respectable budget to work with, and hired some really terrific actors. On top of that, there's a few surprising cameos too- including Rudy Ray Moore and a very early film role for Tony Cox (billed here as Joe Anthony Cox). As a HUGE Tony Cox fan, I was stoked beyond belief to see him appear out of nowhere.

The soundtrack for this movie is really truly amazing. What's perhaps more amazing is the fact that it was never commercially released. A cursory internet search reveals absolutely nothing sans other people looking for it. While I have not researched this thoroughly, at least a couple of the songs in the film by the later era disco/funk group Klique (who also briefly appear in the film at a night club) are likely available on one or more of their albums or singles of the era. The real killer track that nobody can track down so hard that even the title eludes us is linked below. I think any self respecting DJ would kill for this:

If anybody out there finds a lead on info for that track you must let me know IMMEDIATELY. I'm pretty fucking serious about this. I'm fairly certain the main riff would be pure hip hop sample gold. For all of you that never seem to watch the youtube clips I ever so carefully select for my reviews, you just missed an unknown classic.

One thing I really have to comment on is the unintentional homoerotic undertones in this movie. I don't really think I have to explain further than it's a boxing movie featuring shirtless sweaty dudes with lots of muscles. If you need a plainer picture than that, maybe it's high time you took a few steps outside the third grade. Repeatedly showing how Too Sweet is desired by the ladies makes things seem forced but in a really hilarious and understated way. I know this was not the director's intention but I can't help but bring that sort of thing up.

If Jamaa Fanaka were still alive (he unfortunately passed away on April 1st of this year) I would definitely shake his hand to no end. I think that about does it, because I'm leaving the rest of the movie as a surprise for the faithful. It is readily available on DVD and at least three (though probably several more than that) VHS editions.

Enjoy!

Bad Dreams (1988)

This review is late as I decided to scrap the review I was going to post due to circumstances beyond anyone's control. Actor Richard Lynch died last Tuesday at the age of 76, and I felt it only proper to do a review dedicated to his memory. In fact I received this film in the mail just last wednesday which happens to be the day his death was officially confirmed to the public. It was a creepy experience to open this package and find this tape in with another one I had bought (it was a surprise bonus thrown in unbeknownst to me) and turned out to also be a pretty creepy movie too. Win/win situation.

Trailer:

This trailer gives away two of the grosser bits of gore in this movie. The hand impalement was a bit too much for me and I had to purposefully blur my vision and squirm around and moan a bit while it happened to make it through that few seconds of film. I hate shit to do with knives- they're sharp, pointy, and dangerous. But before I get side tracked even further I should probably give ou a rundown on what this movie is about. Be warned, there are maybe going to be some spoilers later on, but I will mark the section containing them beforehand so if you haven't seen this yet, it won't be ruined for you.

Plot synopsis: In the mid 1970's Cynthia (played by Jennifer Rubin, known for her roles in Nightmare On Elm Street 3, Screamers, etc.) narrowly escapes a group immolation (headed by cult leader Harris, played by Richard Lynch) and winds up in a coma for thirteen years. Awakening to the extreme bummer that is the late 1980's, she finds herself in a mental ward undergoing treatment for hallucinations she keeps having of the long dead Harris stalking her everywhere. A series of grisly deaths of other patients at the hospital uncovers something far more sinister than what she might have suspected.


This film seems to be ignored by most people, or simply derided. Much of this is due to some similarities (which are mostly on the surface if you really stop and think about it) with Nightmare On Elm Street 3. I think this is mainly due to the casting of Jennifer Rubin and the reliance of a mental health clinic for the main setting. That is pretty much where the similarities stop. I will get to that a little bit later though because it involves plot spoiling, so instead I will talk about the gore effects. Trade off? Anywhat, this movie has some simple yet extremely cringeworthy bits of gore in it. One of which you may have seen in the trailer if you are one of the people who reads my reviews as intended rather than skipping about willy nilly. 


As I said earlier a lot of it is to do with knives which I really hate when it is this realistic looking. The only thing that is really a shame is the effects in horror films of this era seldom match the film that accompanies them (this one I feel is an outstanding exception) leaving us with nothing more than lackluster films with good gory bits in between. This came after horror had mostly abandoned showing topless women running everywhere (breasts are great and all, but I want to watch a horror film not a nudie cutie reel), and there really wasn't much of a middle ground at this point of the 80's. The 1980's as most of you know is really the last gasp of consistently good horror movies. Major studios were all in on the act and as they usually do they start out doing some really ace stuff and then completely flood the market with trash so bad that true gems like this film get lost in the flotsam and jetsam of lame imitations. I know I got a little off track there but this is all stream of consciousness so go along with me on this. Back on point: The blood in this movie looks really real and it actually almost made me curl up into a ball because I was really grossed out.


This film begins with a really unexpected but awesome musical choice but ends with a VERY 1988 (read: shitty) musical choice. It was really disarming to hear The Electric Prunes play right at the beginning, and I really applaud the film makers for doing that. Unfortunately Sweet Child Of Mine by Guns N Roses was chosen for the end credits play out which dates this film more than the now hilarious fashion choices laden throughout. To give pause before I go on my short spoiler rant, here's that Electric Prunes track from the movie I like so much.

Listen:

SPOILER DISCUSSION BELOW THIS TEXT.

Don't you go and say I didn't give you fair warning now. I was mentioning how this film is often compared to Nightmare On Elm Street 3. I think the comparisons are all on the surface (I had already stated earlier), because the actual plot of the movie revolves around not a bullshit serial killer who attacks you in your slumber after making a would be witty pun but is about drug induced hallucination. Harris isn't actually killing anyone, he only appears in Cynthia's mind. It's the head of the clinic that is doing everything, not some would be emo dude in a striped sweater. Another difference would be that this movie unlike NOES 3 is actually pretty good.

A doctor doing fucked up drug shit to less fortunates is the real story here, and to me it resonates further- into the medical community as a whole. How many doctors would rather treat a symptom than an actual cause by throwing pharmaceuticals at the issue than actually dealing with said cause of trouble? As someone who has had this happen repeatedly I can tell you that it happens quite a lot. While health care commentary is very likely not what the film makers had in mind, the magic of film brings these thoughts up to anyone who has their mind open to them.

SPOILER SECTION OVER.


Oh wait, the review is over too... whoops. I think you should go watch this movie if you haven't already. Just be prepared for the gross bit with a hand getting stabbed over and over with a syringe. Those things hurt period, and I didn't really need to see that.

RECOMMENDED? 


YES.

Out Of The Past (1947)

How I lived so long without having seen this film is a really really good question. I have always had a deep love of film noir and all of its trappings and I cannot readily think of a film that really sets the bar for the rest more than this one. I know that is a bit of a blanket statement considering how many really terrific titles there are in this genre but I am not the only one who feels this way. I wish movies still had snappy hard boiled dialogue like this today, I would be more likely to shell out the pocket money for a ticket.

The film is all about the past of Jeff Bailey (Robert Mitchum), a seemingly normal bloke, and how it catches up with him. He operates a gas station in a small town of little significance, and leads a simple life with his fiancee' Ann Miller (Virginia Huston) until a man from out of town starts asking questions. A major flashback (involving 40,000 dollars and a dame to end all dames) through Jeff's seedy past reveals all to Ann as they drive toward a fateful meeting. Sensing a setup but with no choice left but to finish business he would rather forget, Jeff must confront his past love (Jane Greer) and her maniacal lover (Kirk Douglas) and finally put things to bed.

This movie is a great deal more complex than this of course. What I give you above sounds a great deal like most other noir films but trust me there is far more than that to chew on. Not all films that fit into film noir can boast that, as with anything there are 50 B grade trash fests for every A lister like what we have here. I think that is something that helps the film the most. RKO Radio Pictures had been focusing on the all to lucrative market of B movies for a good while and someone decided it would be a good idea to give Out Of The Past an A budget, and it shows. Director Jacques Tourneur made one hell of a masterpiece with the money they gave him.

But of course flashy cinematography and good casting simply are not enough, the script is what is really important here. Daniel Mainwaring (who later went on to write the screenplay for the original 1956 version of Invasion Of The Bodysnatchers) pulled out all the stops to deliver a screenplay so full of hard hitting dialogue and intrigue it makes my head spin. It is no surprise either, considering he also wrote the novel that the film is based on which was titled Build My Gallows High. The colorful speech used in movies like this has always been a major point of interest for me, and sometimes I wonder if everyone talked this way at one point in time and everyone was magically wittier in the 40's but somehow I doubt it. It's up to us clever folks to make sure that witty comebacks like the ones Robert Mitchum uses constantly in this film never go the way of the Dodo.

In case you have the memory of a goldfish, I mentioned a major flashback during the plot synopsis. The flashback is so major it actually takes up a vast majority of the running time. Much like an over extensive voiceover (think Apocalypse Now for an example of where it actually worked), a flashback of such epic length can be hard pressed to carry a movie. It happens so seamlessly that unless you stop and think about it you forget that a flashback is even happening. Try to think of another movie where this was done and done so very well, I bet you can't. Such a showcase of screenwriting skill is a rare occurrence indeed.

Most of the films I have seen lately have really incredible casting choices, and I have to say this is one more to add on the pile. Not a single dud to be seen anywhere. Robert Mitchum and Kirk Douglas' talents need no introduction. Seeing Kirk Douglas so young however was a real treat (he was around 30 or 31 at the time of release), due to the fact I didn't even read the DVD case to see who was in it in order to achieve maximum surprise. Jane Greer is a supreme femme fatale, displaying both fragility and also deadly cunning. Virginia Huston does an amazing job with the relatively small part she has, and it is a shame that she never got more successful. A car accident broke her back at the height of her fame, and by the time she was healed all she could muster were B level movie roles. A true shame indeed.

There is always so much more to tell with any film I choose to review, but I can never seem to bring myself to go all out (unless the movie in question is a stinker). Besides, part of the fun is letting you discover at least a little bit about a movie yourself. I can't find a single thing wrong with this movie, and I hope you feel the same way too. Color film is great but sometimes black and white can do more than any amount of Technicolor could ever hope for.

RECOMMENDED BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT.

Five Easy Pieces (1970)

I honestly believe that this is one of the best American films ever produced. The only problem? Most people have never even heard of it. I could be wrong in that fact, but I can count the amount of people I know who have seen it within ten fingers. Sure that makes me bad at statistics but you're picking up what is put down here. Upon first glance the film is a very simple tale but as things unfold it becomes much more complex, revealing much much more than you thought you were in for. Every time I watch this I realize just how magical films of this era can be.

Trailer:

For once I can say I am actually pleased that a film trailer falls short of the mark in telling us what exactly a given film is about. Five Easy Pieces is a simple film but loaded with complex things, something many modern films utterly lack. Plot synopsis you say? Fair enough: Robert Dupea (Jack Nicholson) is a seemingly simple blue collar oil field worker. He drinks beer with his buddies, plays poker, goes bowling, cheats on his girlfriend- you know, the usual. But for all of this image, Robert is actually a former child prodigy pianist, and for reasons unbeknownst to us, has turned his back on his past. After quitting his job and briefly taking off to Los Angeles, his older sister Partitia (Lois Smith) tells him that his father is tremendously ill after having strokes. Bobby sets off with Rayette (who through his friend he finds out is pregnant) to his family home in Washington, but to what end?

I admit I did water that down a little but in my everlasting zeal to not give each and every thing away in a film I truly love gets the better of me. This film is not always 100% serious but still is. I say this because there's a strange interlude on the way to Washington where Bobby and Rayette pick up two women (one played by Toni Basil- known for the 80's hit "Mickey") on their way to alaska. All they talk about is environmentalism and filth. I have a thing for serious messages delivered via comedy and I think they really hit the nail on the head. I won't post any clips of that to ruin it for you, but I just have to put in the infamous diner scene where Nicholson displays his supreme sarcastic abilities to their fullest.

Watch:

I find it hard to believe that a diner wouldn't offer toast but the social context is obvious. So obvious in fact that I won't explain it, because if you're clever enough to be reading this far you probably already get it. But enough about shenanigans, this film has some truly fine acting from all members involved. I can't find one character that is cardboard for so much as a millisecond anywhere in the picture. How Karen Black never got more attention after being Rayette I'll never know (she of course has a terrific back catalog of films to boast of regardless) but after seeing her in this movie you realize she has tremendous acting ability. Susan Anspach (who plays his brother's fiancee') should not be overlooked either. She is a reminder of what Bobby could have if only he would allow himself to love himself, and her lines are so matter of fact I nearly burst into tears from the truth in them.

One really has to hand it to Nicholson as well as he is in top form here. Sure Chinatown is amazing but I feel this is his best effort, and the monologue he has with his disabled father is the clincher. I could post that for you as it is on youtube, but I would prefer you see it in its proper place in the film. Bobby is a man who cannot and will not accept the world as it is, and finds hiding and running away from his problems a more acceptable solution than owning up to them. He both cares and refuses to care. Where this mode of living will take him nobody knows, but such a misanthropic modus operandi tends to catch up with you sooner or later. To Bobby Dupea, everything truly is nothing at all.

One thing I regret not being able to post for you (maybe later but as I have no mp3 turntable so you'll have to wait indefinitely) is the soundtrack. It is a strange mixture of Tammy Wynette tracks mixed with the "five easy pieces" (from an early script reference left out of the finished picture) by Chopin, Bach, and Mozart. Also rare for a soundtrack of its era are loads of dialogue from the film, both as stand alone tracks and as intros and outros to several songs. Unfortunately the rather obscure nature of this film means it will likely never receive a CD release but thankfully the LP can be had for 2 dollars US if you know where to look. Anybody who likes country music of the era and Chopin like I do should love it.

For the sake of reference I will throw in a picture of it below:

Why see a film about a man who cannot be loved because he refuses to love himself? That is up to you to decide. The 70's in American cinema were touched by the misanthropy that lay underneath the nation's collective consciousness. By 1970 the hippie movement was winding down from their stupor and the counter culture started to look inward on itself, and I am glad films like this were the result of that soul searching. One can only talk about peace and love for so long before you realize that it starts from within you. I think it is a period for films that we will never see again, at least not in the way it was the first time around. Sure the tag line on the DVD cover is a bit lame (and I sincerely hope it wasn't used on any theatrical posters at the time), but don't let that deter you should you find this lying around in a Safeway store like I did.

RECOMMENDED 100%

Allan Quatermaine And The Lost City Of Gold (1986)

*********************************************************************************************************** EXTRA SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT: TODAY FUCKSHIT!- THE HOME VIDEO REVIEW HAS TURNED ONE YEAR OLD, REJOICE!

***********************************************************************************************************

I used to watch this movie all the time as a kid. We all have movies like that in our lives and many of them remain just that- in our childhood. Sometimes they manage to rear their heads out of distant memory by pure chance, and this is exactly what happened in this case. My friend Paul found me this at a Goodwill and my jaw dropped as soon as he handed it over. I had long kept a memory of a movie sequence involving a scary dude dipping a live victim into a huge pool of molten gold that scared the crap out of me as a small boy. Turns out it was from this movie, thanks a lot buried childhood memory.

Something I would very much like to point out about this trailer: There are several things in the footage above that are not in the finished film. The most noteworthy of which is the cable car sequence, which features Quatermaine using a whip much like Indiana Jones would do. Note that this sequence appears to have been cut so late in the game that it also managed to find its way onto the VHS box art pictured above. Curious, don't you think? Too bad really, because the couple of snippets lead me to believe it might have been a pretty cool bit. On a side note, Quatermaine is carrying a whip upon his shoulder on the box art besides the cable car thing. He never EVER carries or uses a whip anywhere in the movie.

Plot synopsis: Super adventurer Allan Quatermaine (Richard Chamberlain) is planning on settling down and marrying his bride to be Jesse (Sharon Stone) until an old colleague of his stumbles out of the jungle. Mumbling in delirium about a city made of gold, Quatermaine realizes that his missing brother might be there and goes on the attack to find him. Putting together a rag tag search party Quatermaine and his friends face unknown dangers in a death defying quest for the mythical city, finding much more than he expected once he arrives.

Gotta admit, I did okay describing that there didn't I? Let's get one thing straight right off the bat, this movie is capitalizing on the wild success of the first two Indiana Jones films and is not (necessarily) a rip-off of them. While huge liberties were taken with the source material, Allan Quatermaine (for those of you not in the know) is just one of several inspirations for Indy. This is a straight up adventure movie, but is definitely not without its flaws. Filmed at the same time as its successor from 1985 King Solomon's Mines in order to save money (leave it to the Cannon Group to make two movies for the price of one with minimal effort), they even went so far as to reuse most of Jerry Goldsmith's score from said movie in this one, which means music that really doesn't always fit what is happening and the exact same action cue used every 30 fucking seconds. There's also a bit of music that sounds suspiciously like the drumming from the title theme to Conan The Barbarian from 1982 only sped up a couple of times.

I'm not sure where to even begin on the acting. It seems pretty obvious to me that Richard Chamberlain and James Earl Jones only did this movie for some easy cash, at least I really hope so. Chamberlain's Quatermaine is very odd to say the least. He's constantly laying down half assed jokes and rather than use a whip like Indy he just shoots everything with his forever loaded revolver. Each member of the cast  is either on the borderline of or is a full blown racist caricature. Especially the weasel like Swarma (played by Robert Donner, who you will recognize as Boss Shorty in the 1968 classic Cool Hand Luke). Watch it and you will see what I mean. Sharon Stone couldn't act her way out of a wet paper bag, so I wasn't expecting much there to begin with. Henry Silva is as always, and I am now as certain as before that he's never actually acting, just being totally insane himself. Cassandra Peterson (sans her trademark Elvira makeup) makes a brief and completely forgettable appearance as someone or other. I'm not going on about the cast anymore, I could write a book before I finished.

This movie has the pacing of explosive diarrhea. Think about it, it runs all over the damn place. It's almost as if the film makers decided to model the movie off of a 1930's movie serial so very closely that they somehow forgot to release it as a serial. What do I mean by this you ask? Well, look at an old serial from the 30's/40's and you will see that each and every installment has an action sequence of some sort or other to crete a cliffhanger to keep viewers hooked. Apparently the film makers so clung to the dream of that idea that they must have decided that viewers could be lulled in by the technique through a full length feature.

Luckily for Cannon, it actually worked for me in a quite literal "so bad it really IS good!" kind of way. Sure there's an awful lot wrong with this movie (I won't even go into the often very hokey effects sequences), but even I will throw caution to the wind from time to time, put my arms up and say fuck it and just enjoy something this bottom of the barrel. I don't know just how this movie keeps me so entertained exactly, but maybe it's better off that way.

I suggest watching it over good conversation that has little to do with the movie and some delicious food and drink.

Maybe burritos or pupusas.

Definitely pupusas.


An extra little tidbit I found on youtube is this combination of the movie trailer (as linked above also, though seemingly slightly shorter but I didn't bother timing it) as well as the video rental store promotional campaign featuring some sorta neat stuff. I wouldn't half mind the 3-D poster they mention to tell you the truth (so if any of y'all have one hit me up). Also around 2:08 there's a great example of Henry Silva being completely insane himself.

See it below:

Now go get yourself booze and pupusas please.

Harold and Maude (1971)

Almost everyone knows the title of this movie and what it is about, but few seem to have actually seen it. Why this is is anyone's guess, but unavailability on VHS/DVD could be a main factor in that. To be perfectly honest, I don't know what the hell took me so long to view it either considering there's always been a copy nearby me at a video store for umpteen odd years. While not a life changing film for me per say, it does have a peculiar charm that will keep me coming back in the future again and again. The ending almost made me cry like a baby too- which is a good thing because I like feeling feelings.

Trailer:

Plot synopsis: Harold (Bud Cort) is a young man with a rather intense obsession with death. He visits funerals for fun, has no friends, and only finds happiness when he thinks of being dead (and keeps setting up elaborate fake suicides that do little to shake his inattentive mother). While attending one of these funerals he enjoys so much, he meets a spritely 79 year old woman named Maude (Ruth Gordon). He is somewhat nonplussed with her at first, but cannot help but keep going back. Harold falls in love with Maude and through her unique vision learns the value of life and just how much it is worth living, with some serious shenanigans along the way.

I bet you never thought I'd be a right ponce and write a review of a romantic comedy would you? This one gets special dispensation for not only being unique but also being a true cult classic. I can't think of any other film about a misanthrope in his mid twenties who falls in love with a woman about to turn eighty and if I could it would be a total rip-off of the film in question. One thing is certain: This movie would NOT be able to be made in our day and age. Just reread the plot synopsis if you don't believe me and mull it over with yourself, I'm sure you'll reach the same conclusion as I did.

While I don't know about you, I do enjoy a good black comedy now and again. One thing I really got a repeated kick out of was Maude's infallible ability to steal an automobile. How on earth she manages to do this (and almost always get away with it) is beyond me. The one time she does get caught we are treated to a most unexpected (and well camouflaged) appearance by Tom Skerritt, but manages to pull the wool over his eyes and get away thanks to her lead foot and a carefully selected El Camino. Being a fan of horror movies (you might have noticed this from my repeated reviews of various films from said genre) I for one find Harold's repeated (and for a film from the early 70's, awfully realistic) fake suicide attempts uproariously funny. The humor in this film is often times very dry and understated and if you aren't paying attention and actually watching the movie you are bound to miss a prank or ten.

Another strength of this movie is the myriad of things that aren't said. Perhaps the most notable of these is the seconds long moment where Harold notices a concentration camp serial number on Maude's forearm. This moment happens quite late in the film, and is never remarked on or even brought up in the movie besides that one brief moment. I found this an unusually powerful moment for an otherwise comedic romp, and it really gives the attentive viewer something to chew on once the credits role as it pertains to Maude's character and her overall outlook on life. I leave the implications of the scene up to you dear reader, as we will surely all attach our own meaning to it (part of the magic of such open film making).

The soundtrack is done entirely by Cat Stevens. I can't fucking stand Cat Stevens on a normal day, but somehow his music actually manages to work here, and melds with images on screen to create a truly joyous experience. I'm generally not a fan of singer/songwriters doing entire scores for films (if anyone out there recalls the truly cringeworthy effort by Joan Baez for Douglas Trumbull's 1972 movie Silent Running you'll get my meaning), but somehow the rabbit was successfully pulled from the hat here (please for the love of god don't ask me how, because I just don't know). Touche' Cat Stevens, Touche'...

What else is there left to say? This film (as I said a few paragraphs ago) is a true cult classic. Maybe more people will go seek it out after reading this, maybe they won't, or maybe they have already seen it and just want to read what I think about it. Who knows? One thing is sure, and that is that this film's place in cultdom is secure for all times, and I wouldn't have it any other way. If you are grossed out by the idea that two people of such disparate ages can fall in love, then you can it this one out buster because I will gladly take your place on the ride.

WATCH THIS.

The Asphyx (1972)

I could hardly believe my eyes when I first saw the trailer for this movie- it was like Ghostbusters but serious and set in Victorian England. How could I NOT find it awesome? It's a very rare thing indeed when a movie not only lives up to its theatrical trailer but also exceeds it. How this movie manages to remain so far below the radar confounds me. I think now is a good time to stop jibber jabbering about it and let you get to the goods.

Watch:

Am I right or what? The trailer is a bit annoying what with the "More than a myth...More than a maybe!" horseshit but at the end of the day what can you really do about it?

 The story revolves around Sir Hugo Cunningham, a scientist/philanthropist who discovers a mysterious blur on photographs taken by him and fellow colleagues of people taken at the moment of their deaths. He believes this blur to be the image of the soul as it leaves the body, but his doubts lead him to further experimentation after the accidental death of his son. Through a series of mishaps and accidents he discovers something far more insidious- a being known as the Asphyx, a spirit which appears at the moment of death to take one away the the underworld. Theorizing that one could become immortal by capturing their Asphyx before death, he begins experiments to prove the unimaginable, but not without dire consequences.

While this is considered a horror film, it only fits via technicality. Like most British horrors of its era, this film is less of a scare and more of a morality tale. Hugo's obsession with cheating death so as not to lose those close to him ever again leaves him completely blind to any consequence, and we see his character and human decency erode along with it. If you can't figure out what I am getting at then you are probably a sociopath.

But back on track here- Poor Hugo's desire for immortality is the true centerpiece, and the horror we see is not of the blood and guts variety but completely cerebral in nature. I find it sad that modern horror films seldom play on this aesthetic and concern themselves with more bargain basement gore fest plots with zombies or werewolves or some such other overdone elements from decades past as their main focus. The plot is more than compelling and really quite original, and I would not be surprised if this movie wasn't at least a teensy tiny inspiration for Ghostbusters some years later.

The Ghostbusters parallel is an easy one to make, and the trailer posted above provides you with all the ammunition you need to make the jump. One thing I am definitely surprised by is that this film isn't bigger with the whole "steam punk" crowd. Considering the fact that there's lots of cool technology reverse engineered to look plausible in a different era (examples: spirit capturing "light boosters" powered by blue crystals and coffins capable of containing them, and also a motion picture camera in use a full 20 years before they were invented), you would figure they would have latched onto this one immediately. Maybe it's better that way because I think that whole genre and it's title are total bullshit.

The cinematography gets big ups here, as the Director of Photography was the formidable Freddie Young, who you will recognize from various films you haven't seen such as Lawrence of Arabia, You Only Live Twice, and Doctor Zhivago. Unfortunately for me, the Magnum Entertainment vhs edition is pan and scanned all to bloody hell so I couldn't really enjoy any of his meticulous work. I cannot say how the Interglobal Home Video editions look and I assume that any DVD edition from the US or UK is likely in widescreen format and does not suffer from this problem. Even though this happened through the entire movie in the most annoying ways possible I still got sucked into the movie enough that it did not matter, but having a widescreen copy would definitely be worth it.

Something else I would like to mention is the difference between the prints used for the DVD and VHS masters for the tape I saw and the DVD my brother had seen before recommending this to me. In my old vhs things are ever so slightly washed out (part of the charm of British horror films of this era I think) and the Asphyx appeared to be blue, but you might have noticed that it is green in the theatrical trailer posted at the start of this review. Upon doing some research, I found out that someone (some sources say All Day Entertainment, but I cannot confirm this) actually did an incredibly extensive restoration of this film which included very careful color correction of a badly faded 35mm print. For a film this obscure that is a very major effort, and I am thankful someone stepped up to the plate. Maybe I should go get the DVD too.

I think you might have guessed by now that I REALLY enjoyed this film. It's well shot, a compelling idea, has cool artwork on the cover, and has some great moral dilemas for the audience to mull over. Of course I do have a couple of misgivings (mostly the absolutely terrible old age makeup used at films end, it looks like a really lame papier-mache mask), but no film is 100% perfect and that's why I love the artform so very much. No matter what edition you choose to pick up or come across (I won't lie, I went for the artwork on mine, plus it was only 5 bucks) I think the smarter folks out there will really enjoy it and find that there's quite a bit to chew on in what most people might dismiss as nothing more than a simple ghoul movie.

Please do watch this and enjoy yourself.

The Curse (1987)

Talk about sleeper hits, wow! I never knew this movie even existed until saturday evening when a friend of mine found it and boy oh boy am I glad he did. I was pretty skeptical at first considering the fact that Wil Wheaton (aka Wesley Crusher on Star Trek: The Next Generation for those of you living under a god damn rock- in fact this movie was released mere weeks before TNG premiered on TV!) received top billing followed by once big time character actor Claude Akins. I can honestly say the billing order was justified after viewing the finished product. I can also prattle on about that forever though, so time for the main course.

Trailer:

I know that's probably one of the shortest trailers ever (I'm fairly sure part of the intro is missing if you ask me), but what can you do? Plot synopsis: Zack (Wil Wheaton) is living out on a farm and trying hard to adjust to his stepfather Nathan (Claude Akins) but is hating every minute of his beatings and religious bigotry. One night a mysterious meteor crashes on their land only to completely melt away shortly afterwards, seeping into the water supply and unleashing deadly parasites everywhere. Can Zack stop the madness before it's too late?

This movie is based on H.P. Lovecraft's short story The Colour Out Of Space, and from what I understand the film follows the source material pretty closely too (it remains unfortunately one of a handful of Lovecraft stories I have not read yet, sorry folks). It's pretty easy to totally screw up a Lovecraft based movie, but thankfully this one works (at least I seem to think so anyway). Granted it has a four point something rating on imdb, but I was really honestly entertained here. This movie is regularly branded as mediocre by lots of folks and I'm not really sure what their problem is. I feel like the people who brand this movie like that are really missing the point.

What is the point you ask? Simple: entertainment. My girlfriend and I watched it and weren't bored for a single instant. I thought it was well paced and contains heaps of atmosphere (which as avid readers know is something I really love in a horror flick) and is pretty damn creepy in some bits too. Having such and odd cast helps too, especially since Wil Wheaton actually does a pretty good job as a frustrated and cussing teen who can't wait to tell his step dad to go fuck himself. Having only really known him from Stand By Me, TNG, and some sporadic voiceover work through the years, it was really nice to see him doing some acting outside of a cartoon or television series and I really feel like he pulled his weight here plain and simple.

Claude Akins is a real bastard in this movie. I find him an odd yet fitting choice for the stepdad role as I don't recall seeing him in too many other horror movies and the fact that he was about 60 when he made this, making him a bit too old for the character in my opinion. Either way he really puts his well honed character actor skills to good use and despite my misgivings about it really comes across really well. Another odd casting choice is John Schneider who you will no doubt recognize due to his role as Bo Duke in the series The Dukes Of Hazard. Odd of a choice as he might be I think he goes the distance along with the rest in a worthy fashion.

Perhaps the oddest credit here belongs to first time Director David Keith. You might recognize him from all over the damn place as an actor, as he has been in every movie you probably haven't seen. It's always a mixed bag when an actor decides to direct a movie rather than act in one and this is one of the few times where I think things worked out. As this was his first feature as director, the film has some obvious production woes that people really like to rag on. Yes, there's some sloppy editing and etcetera but blah de fucking blah, a good horror movie is a good horror movie plain and simple. If you like movies based on Lovecraft stories, or weirdly cast horror movies, then this one is for you.

Krull (1983)

I'm sure a lot of you who read this blog on the regular are more than aware this movie exists, but I have noticed throughout my life that few people outside of their 30's and 40's (sans me of course) have never really heard of it. That fact alone warrants me reviewing it for you here but it also happens to be a fairly entertaining fantasy film despite being rather derivative. I am pretty sure most of you reading this know that already, but I like to keep m bases well covered lest they become "are belong to us" if you get my meaning.

Trailer:

Plot synopsis- On the faraway world of Krull, a hideous creature known only as The Beast and his army known as the slayers is enslaving all in their wake. Two rival kingdoms are joining forces to fight The Beast's armies, but to seal the alliance there must be a marriage between Prince Colwyn (Ken Marshall) and Princess Lyssa (Lysette Anthony). After Lyssa is kidnapped, Colwyn- with the aid of a powerful ancient weapon known as "The Glaive" (which is a pretty kickass looking five bladed flying knife)- must form a makeshift army composed of everything from thieves to a crackpot wizard on a quest to rescue her from the Black Fortress and free his world once and for all.

Sure the plot is really standard fairy book stuff, and if you've ever been exposed to a story where the hero has to rescue the damsel in distress then you know how things will turn out. But come on, this one has a fucking cyclops as a character- A CYCLOPS for crying out loud! Not a CGI one either, but one made with makeup and handcraft. Alas, this movie still manages to have a rather lackluster reputation. I can see why people would feel that way but I obviously don't subscribe to that interpretation. Critics gave mixed reviews upon it's release, probably due to it's similarity in many respects to the Star Wars franchise. Couple that with the fact that it was released only two months after Return Of The Jedi and you roughly wind up with a financial disaster.

Thanks to site like imdb, movie fans like myself can crunch numbers with ease and Krull was a bona fide FLOP. The USA gross earnings were only 16 million dollars of its estimated 27 million dollar budget (some people claim it was a bigger budget than that, but 27 sounds more realistic to me). A lot of care and attention was put into the production of this film, especially where set and costume design are concerned and I find it a downright shame this movie din't manage to find its audience while in the box office. One must never underestimate Star Wars mania.

Sets and costumes aside, this movie is pretty well cast all things considered. There are some surprising appearances in the supporting character roles (perhaps most noticeably a very early film appearance by Liam Neeson). My favorites have to be Freddie Jones and Francesca Annis, their scene together is enough to have made me cry on several occasions. This is one year before they were also cast in David Lynch's 1984 film version of Dune, and it's a pity they never had another scene such as this together. The acting in the movie is so wooden it might as well be a forest, but somehow it doesn't bother me all that much considering the bedtime story type flair the movie has coming out of everywhere.

This film was obviously designed to become a smash hit by the studio judging by the merchandise produced. While not as extensive as some films it did have an Atari arcade game, a board game, an Atari 2600 game a tie in Marvel Comics adaption, and various other brik-a-brak. These plans of course evaporated as I explained earlier. I do rather find it a shame that there were never any Krull action figures though, as a toy of a Slayer would be pretty damn awesome if I do say so myself. Alas, it was not to be, maybe I can get someone to make me one? Thankfully this nice special edition DVD came out a good long while ago and for a movie so harshly put down on it has a real cornucopia of special features.

So yeah, this movie has a hell of a lot of deficiencies. The one that bothers me the most was the obvious overdubbing of Lysette Anthony with an American accent. It is jarring and really unnecessary, and doesn't really help things. Like I already said, the acting is pretty so/so, and the fact that there's a little kid and a comic relief wizard in the mix really fucks things up. One could go on for hours about just what is wrong or perceived wrong with Krull, but at the heart of it it's just a fun fantasy movie and haters are gonna hate. This is one of very few movies I can say that I really liked as a kid and still like just as much now. If you haven't seen it then I definitely recommend giving it a go, you just might like what you see. Like I said, there's a great deal of deficiencies to ignore but let's face it- this ain't Citizen Kane, it's sword and sorcery for christ's sake, and last I checked you're supposed to have FUN when you watch a movie like this.

Critics lambast this as a b-movie, I call it awesome.

Black Rain (1989)

Throughout history cities or places where significant events happened become a watch word, often for something very unfortunate. Hiroshima and the ensuing nuclear aftermath need no introduction, and this what our review this week is about. As most children brought up in America know little to absolutely nothing about the immediate carnage and lasting aftermath of the bombing beyond what we were told and almost immediately forgot in school, this film makes for an eye opening experience. The story of the hibakusha (this is the Japanese term for survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, which literally translated means "explosion affected people") is something seldom touched upon in history books, and this film is a lasting testament to their struggle.

Trailer:

Plot synopsis: The film separates itself between 1945 and the present day of 1950. The story focuses on Shizuma Shigematsu, his wife Shigeko, and their niece Yakuso. Shigematsu is obsessed with finding a husband for his niece, who was covered by the infamous fall out ridden "black rain" that fell from the sky shorty after the attack. As Shigematsu goes back through his diaries in an attempt to prove that Yakuso is not ill with radiation sickness, his diary entries (related to us via flashbacks) illustrate the horrific events of August 6th through 15th, 1945 weaving past and present into a tapestry of destruction and agonizing death as he and the rest of his fellow hibakusha await the inevitable.

As you might have guessed, this film is pretty far from being light viewing. But as I was saying in the introduction to this review, many of us know very little about those who survived this. There are of course US Army Signal Corps films and photos made of burn victims of all ages but that is only one side of things. There are those outside the immediate blast radius who dealt with something just as insidious and deadly, but for them the effects of the bomb might not hit for years after. Their story is just a poignant (and rather misunderstood) as the stories behind the events themselves. Many hibakusha still survive to this day, and are still subject to severe discrimination in Japan. A lot of this is due to the lack of knowledge of how radiation sickness effects people, leading many to believe it is hereditary or even communicable. Try finding that in your high school history textbook and get back to me.

I could write all day about the politics faced by the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the myriad of difficulties they face (including some sufferers facing refusal of recognition by the government even to this day), but this is a film we are talking about here so I need to get back on track. All manner of documentaries have been produced about this event but this is the only theatrical effort (insofar that I am aware of, if you know of others please leave a comment at the end of this review or email me directly as I am very interested) to be made about Hiroshima not utilizing a documentary like stance, by that I mean a "here is the whole story behind this" type of movie.

While this does not make the struggles of our characters any less than compelling, it's nice to have a film maker handle a subject we all know so well already so that we can skip the history lessons and focus on the smaller things that fall through the cracks (which in this case lie directly underneath the surface). Choosing to shoot the film in black and white is a stroke of genius. I wouldn't be surprised if Spielberg saw this as an inspiration for Schindler's List, but I could easily be mistaken. The film score is minimal, and instead we are treated to a soundtrack composed mainly of the sounds of rural Japan. Cicadas and songbirds make a fitting (and mournful) backdrop indeed. This film is all about atmosphere (as you very well know by now, my favorite film element), and considering the subject matter I believe this is about as close to a true to life horror story as one could possibly get.

I firmly recommend this this film to everyone. Though the atomic bombs were dropped nearly 70 years ago, they are no less significant in how the modern world has been shaped. The aftermath of these weapons is no less serious and this film showcases that in a context everyone can grasp. The ghosts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki will always be over our shoulders as a warning to be heeded, and this film is as fine a tribute to their struggle as any memorial of stone.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.

Straight Time (1978)

What on earth took me so very long to finally watch this film is beyond me. Thankfully I have a friend who is a HUGE Dustin Hoffman fan and he jumped at the chance to give me my first viewing and I have absolutely no regrets. So no regrets in fact that I obviously bought myself a copy to enjoy again and again. Dustin Hoffman kicked some serious ass back in the day, and I am flabbergasted that more people do not seem to be familiar with this movie, as it's possibly Hoffman's best role.

Trailer:

See what I mean? Plot synopsis: Max Dembo (Hoffman) has just been released from prison. He's facing a situation that none of us can really imagine without having been on parole ourselves. He's stuck with a hardass parole officer (played to assholish perfection by M. Emmett Walsh) who just won't give him a break. Landing himself a job thanks to the efforts of a young woman named Jenny (I just love Theresa Russell!) Max finally gets on his feet. Unfortunately he decides to meet up with his old buddy Willy (a drug addict not surprisingly played by Gary Busey) who shoots up in Max's new apartment landing him back in jail. Needless to say this pisses him off, and his parole officer won't let him live it down either. Max is a man caught between two extremes, and he can't play the man's game much longer...

We've all seen lots of movies featuring safe crackers or home invaders or some such thing going after that mythical "one last score" that will end it for good, and this is definitely not one of those movies. There's nothing glitzy or very Hollywood about it. Straight Time is the real deal, and the glimpse we receive into Max Dembo's world is far from pastoral. It's a scummy, desperate, and frantic world where one wrong move will either land you back in the slammer or pushing up daisies. Crime isn't pretty and in the real world you don't always get away with it.

You really feel sorry for Max, he cannot help what he is or the ways he chooses to do them. He is a man out of step with society in more ways than one, and the frustration on his face in every scene is actually quite touching. In fact both of his ex con buddies suffer in the same way. Max's buddy Jerry (played by all time great Harry Dean Stanton) is perhaps the pinnacle of this. He has a wife, a business, and a pretty nice house. The only problem is he's suffocating, and is obviously dissatisfied going legit. You can't really blame the guy either.

Yet another film reviewed here featuring a stellar cast. Hoffman is 110% on point as is the rest of the cast. Once again Theresa Russell is spellbinding (this is only her second film appearance, and was made two years before she appeared in Nicholas Roeg's film Bad Timing which you can read about here), and her sweet girl next door charms balanced with the dead seriousness of getting romantically involved with Hoffman's character after his crime spree begins is an important lynchpin to the film as a whole. She represents the normalcy he could have but at the same time cannot. It's as if she is suspended in the ether before Max like a great spinning magnet, both attracting him and pushing him away at the same time. The chemistry between the two of them while in their respective characters is painful because you know there's only one way it can end for them.

The film doesn't have any fancy camera work and I really think this does it credit. Ulu Grosbard (who has not directed many films it seems) and Dustin Hoffman himself (though uncredited) capture the world around Max as it must seem to someone in Max's position- that is to say wide open, but also completely shut off. Any sort of artsy fartsy camera moves would do this film a serious disservice, and I'm glad the directors had the skill to realize this. The script is also not to be overlooked either, which was written partially by Edward Bunker who authored the novel No Beast So Fierce which the film is based on. Michael Mann (a generally kick ass director, if you don't know who he is then go find out) was is said to have had an uncredited role in writing the screenplay also (he later used the same novel as a reference for the character Neil McCauley in his still amazing film Heat some years later), just to throw that little factoid out at you.

Do I recommend you watch this? YES. If you like crime movies, ex con movies, Dustin Hoffman, or in other words films that generally kick ass because of one or more of these elements I have described throughout this review then I strongly suggest viewing it immediately.