Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Manhunter

     Thomas Harris' first novel Black Sunday (a thriller partially inspired by the Munich Massacre in 1972) was a moderate success in 1975, helped by a 1977 film adaptation by John Frankenheimer. This of course, spurred him to write a second novel. He drew inspiration from his past: In 1963, as a Waco reporter, he had visited a Mexican prison to interview an American citizen, Dykes Askew Simmons  imprisoned for the murders of three people. He ended up interacting with a man named "Salazar", who saved Simmons after a guard shot him. Salazar unnerved Harris, especially with his fixation on Simmons' disfigured face and his crimes. Salazar, or as revealed later, Dr. Alfredo Ballí Treviño, was a former surgeon who was accused of killing and mutilating his close friend, and killing several hitchhikers (he was eventually released in 1981, and lived quietly until his death in 2009). Harris also took influence from the then-newly formed Behavioral Science Unit of the FBI, which had been interviewing imprisoned serial killers and creating profiles based on them to catch other serial killers (the recently departed Netflix series Mindhunter explored the origins of that unit). Eventually, he brought it together to tell the story of an FBI agent named Will Graham who tries to hunt a vicious serial killer named "The Tooth Fairy" by consulting another serial killer, Dr. Hannibal Lecter, one he put behind bars. Red Dragon , released in 1981, was a critical and financial success, which drew the attention of Italian producer Dino De Laurentiis, known for films like Death Wish, Flash Gordon, and Blue Velvet.  De Laurentiis bought the rights, but after the flop of the Michael Cimino film Year of the Dragon, decided to change the name (for some reason) to Manhunter. Di Laurentiis originally wanted Blue Velvet director David Lynch to direct the film, which the latter declined. Eventually (apparently based on the similarity between his surname and the new title. No, I'm not kidding), Michael Mann, fresh off films like Thief and shows like Miami Vice, was given the director's chair. William Petersen, star of Mann's Thief and a good friend of the director, was given the Graham role. For the role of the Tooth Fairy,Tom Noonan, a stage and TV actor with a large physique, was given the role. Finally, in the role of Lecter (or Lektor in the script), Mann cast Scottish actor Brian Cox, who had impressed Mann in the play Rats in the Skull. Filmed somewhat guerrilla style, the film would have the actors trying to get into character a bit too much, struggling to leave them afterwards. The film was a dud on release in 1986, both financially and critically, but Mann's subtle directing and Petersen's performance allowed the film to gradually gain a cult following. Notably, its portrayal of a contemporary FBI investigation would inspire later work like The X-Files and CSI. The biggest influence from this film, of course, is Hannibal Lecter, who Harris would feature again in his next book,  The Silence of the Lambs.

      A serial killer named the Tooth Fairy (Tom Noonan), because of his bite marks on his victims, has been terrorizing families in Atlanta. Desperate, FBI agent Jack Crawford (Dennis Farina) approaches former agent Will Graham (William Petersen) with the case. Graham is reluctant, because a prior case had a traumatic effect on him, but he ultimately accepts. However, when the case stumps even him, he decides to take a drastic measure. He visits the killer whose crimes haunted him: the cannibal psychiatrist Dr. Hannibal Lektor (Brian Cox). The erudite Lektor shows his skill at evaluating the Tooth Fairy, and the Tooth Fairy takes notice. 

     This film is absolutely gorgeous. The way it's lighted, the way it's shot, the angles, the production design. It just looks so good, and it just keeps you intrigued just by the way it conveys its story. It's easily the best and most distinctive part of the film. The acting is always sublime, especially William Petersen, Dennis Farina, and in his brief role, Brian Cox. Cox plays a more informal, less unhinged Hannibal than Anthony Hopkins. His version seems more like an actual serial killer, in that he behaves more naturally and emotionally, and less in Hopkins' dark, emotionless monotone. One isn't necessarily better than the other, but they are very distinct performances of the same character. And Cox's works in the context which the story has to serve him. Finally, the action is sublime, as per usual from Michael Mann, who makes every moment seem interesting and intense.

   This may or may not be an actual flaw but this film is very information intensive. You have to pay attention to a lot to get an idea of what is happening. Usually, it's at least clear what is happening in which scene and how they relate to the story, but, especially for someone whose attention has been shot as of late, it made the film a bit hard to follow. I had to go back a few times just to figure out certain plot points. There's also some digressions and characters that ultimately felt unnecessary, but those don't distract too much. 

   I recommend this film as a decent crime thriller, though again, there's a lot you have to keep track of. For those familiar with the Anthony Hopkins version, it's a good alternative interpretation of the Hannibal Lecter character. For myself, I might finally check out the third adaptation of this book, Hannibal , finally. I've heard really good things. 

   So, I suppose I'd be remiss in not reviewing the next Hannibal Lecter film, Silence of the Lambs. 

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- The Mummy (2017)

 On to the first proper review for this year.... and oh, God, I have to actually go into the history of this, aren't I? I'll make it quick. I find corporate bullshit like this far less interesting to write about. 

   So, as many of you know, Boris Karloff's The Mummy spawned a reboot in 1999, starring Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz. It was an action adventure film rather than a straight forward horror film, but it was successful enough to spawn two sequels and a number of spin-offs. However, as it gradually lost steam, Universal decided that a reboot was necessary, cancelling a fourth film with Fraser. They announced the reboot in 2012, and following the example of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, it was decided that it would be the centerpiece of a new "Cinematic Universe". After cycling through writers and directors, eventually, hack screenwriter Alex Kurtzmann (whose credits read like a cinematic rap sheet) was tapped to lead the "Dark Universe" and eventually to direct the new Mummy. However, he would be one of many screenwriters, including frequent partner and fellow hack Robert Orci and (of all people) David Koepp, writer of Jurassic Park, Spider-Man,... Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit,.... Mortdecai.... Anyway, Tom Cruise was cast, and by most accounts, took over production, controlled every part of it, and basically made himself the bigger star over the titular mummy (played by Algerian French actress Sofia Boutella, cast after her star turning role in Kingsman.) The film was a gigantic flop, and brought the end to the nascent "Dark Universe". The next film, a remake of The Invisible Man, was unconnected to the Dark Universe, perhaps for the better. 

    So, in this film about ancient Egypt, we start in England. During the 13th Century. During a funeral for a crusader. Then to modern day London where Dr. Jekyll (Russell Crowe, and yes, it means exactly what you think it means) digs up the corpse. What has to do with the rest of the film, I'm not sure, but then we get the story of Princess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella), her bloodlust on her way to power, her deal with the God of "Death" Set (Set was actually the god of deserts, Osiris was the god of death. How do you screw up such a basic piece of research?) and how she was mummified alive and transported to Iraq. There, her tomb is uncovered by Nick Morton (Tom Cruise) and Chris Vail (Jake Johnson, whose presence is extremely distracting), a pair of ... I'm actually not entirely sure, deserters? special ops?... anyway, they report it to their commanding officer (Courtney B. Vance) and by extension, archeologist Jennifer Halsey (Annabelle Wallis). They excauvate the ruins, and unleash the titular mummy, who decides to... again, not clear on this, but apparently it motivates her to unleash supernatural wackiness upon the world. 

   Good stuff, good stuff.... Sofia Boutella is always a compelling presence, and for the limited role she's given here, she does the very best she can (you want a good performance, watch the first Kingsman or Atomic Blonde for that). Tom Cruise is... Tom Cruise, for good or ill. Russell Crowe is mildly entertaining, since he's just decided to go hammy with the role. 

    This was very badly written, for the first really glaringly awful thing. The plot changes at least three times over the course of the film, and even then, it's really hard to tell what's going on. Why any of this is happening, what any of it signifies, and why should the audience care. I was baffled throughout this film, wondering what the hell was going on. The motivations of the titular Mummy are the biggest flaw, in that she doesn't have any. Her original plan was laid out and foiled in the opening, so her resurrection makes little sense, and she has no reason to do anything. Why does she conjure this supernatural menace? What's her endgoal? The ending is terrible, too, especially its non-climax and bizarre resolution that doesn't explain anything. I suppose it was meant to set up the "Dark Universe", but it was poorly done. As was the SHIELD counterpart Prodigium, which was deeply uninteresting and puts the film's pacing to a stonecold halt. As an intro to the "Dark Universe", it's really bad, and makes you actively avoid any future installments if they're this blatantly commericial. It also has terrible special effects combined with terrible cinematography. The result is a blur of action just vomited onto the screen, especially the action scenes, which are incomprehensible. 

    This was bad. Really, really bad. Bad in a distinctly uninteresting, completely predictable kind of way. There's no ironic enjoyment or unintentional fun. It's really dull and boring when it doesn't actively insult your intelligence. Frankly, you're better off watching the recent Invisible Man remake over this, since that worked on a individual level. This should probably be only seen as an example of how not to make a cinematic universe. (well, this and the DCEU.)

    Onto stuff I actually have interest in, we return to Larry Cohen next time with Because God Told Me To.

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Phantom of the Paradise

    This next film takes its inspiration from a variety of sources, including Gaston Leroux The Phantom of the Opera, Goethe's Faust, and Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Grey. Director Brian de Palma had already made a name in the industry by this time, primarily with small independent films (many of which starred a young up-and-comer named Robert De Niro), before garnering acclaim for Sisters in 1972. Singer-songwriter Paul Williams, who stars as the film's villain Swan, also scored the film. The film had a number of legal issues, including having to change the title from The Phantom to avoid confusion with the comic strip character of that name, and the inital name of the evil record company, Swan Song, due to Led Zeppelin's label having the same, which delay pre-production, such that it released in 1975, despite being completed in 1972 (Twilight Zone creator Rod Serling did narration for the film before his 1972 death). The film was a massive flop (except, oddly enough, in the city of Winnipeg in Manitoba, where it play continuous for 4 months), and was received with mixed reviews, though has gone through a critical reappraisal. After this film, De Palma was given the job of directing a film based on a bestseller from a new author. The author was Stephen King, and the book was Carrie.

     In search of a hot new thing to do in rock music to open his new extravagant music palace The Paradise, prolific producer Swan (Paul Williams) comes across a struggling singer-songwriter named Winslow Leach (William Finley) performing, and convinces his underling Philbin (George Memmoli) to sign Leach on, while secretly stealing his work from under him. So, Leach, while trying to talk to Swan, ends up getting kicked out of Death Records (owned by Swan), and tries to confront Swan at his house. There, he meets Phoenix (Jessica Harper), who, based on her lovely voice, he deems his muse. Ultimately, he attempts to crossdress to sneak, but it caught, and Swan frames him for drug dealing. He goes to prison and has his teeth removed and replaced with metal ones. He escapes in a delirious rage after learning his song is to open the Paradise. He breaks into Death Records, and tries to stop the printing of the record, but ends getting his face (and vocal cords) destroyed by the record press. He then jumps into the East River to avoid the police. Now donning a costume that looks vaguely like the Midnighter's costume from The Authority (ask your comic fan friend), he now seeks justice, but Swan convinces him to become resident songwriter, with his muse Phoenix even performing the songs. Of course, Swan has an agenda on his mind.

   The only other De Palma film I've seen is Scarface, and that showed his love of neon lights as a mood enhancer in full force. That particular aspect helps with providing a subtly alien atmosphere to the film. It is set in the bizarre, waywire world of the music industry, and the bright neon colors, from the sterile whites of Death Records' waiting room to the dark colors of the prison to the rainbow coloring of the Paradise, all help give the film a feeling of uneasiness much as the titular Phantom is experiencing as he navigates through a world hostile to him and what he represents. The more fantasy elements are well-handled. Very subtle with its Faust allusion and the depiction of the Devil. It gives the film its own distinct atmosphere, and makes it very memorable in terms of visuals. The music is very good. Going from 50's doo-wop to early 60's beach rock to 70's arena easily and with ease. Jessica Harper was a highlight, having an excellent voice and presence, and Paul Williams is a villain who relishes being evil and is having a great time. Finally, I do legitimately love the look of the Phantom. Just the way all the elements comes together really helps sell him as a victim of a capitalist machine uninterested in the authencity he brings to the table, but appropriating part of it.

    It took me a while to really get into this film, and that is primarily because of its tonal inconsistency. It goes from whimsical to comedic to scary back to whimsical in its first 40 minutes, and because of that, it's really hard to follow or keep up with. There's a lot of parodies and homages that tend to slow the film. Eventually, it stabilized, and that's when it started getting particularly good, but it really struggled to maintain that sort of interest for its first half.

     I think I kind of love this film. It took a bit while watching for it to click with me, but when it did, it was a fun, enthralling ride that keep me on my toes. If you like 70's music or Paul Williams, this is a must-watch. Really, it's a great musical, so I think most people will be able to get into it. Again, it takes a while to gain its footing, but when it does, it was a memorable experience.

    Next week, we return to the world of Ray Harryhausen with Earth vs. Flying Saucers

Current Film Reviews- Fast and Furious Presents: Hobbs and Shaw

     So, I've never seen a Fast and Furious film. I may have seen part of the second one years ago, but I've never seen any full film from the franchise, despite its increasing acclaim as an internationally, intersectionally minded blockbuster franchise. I just don't really know where to start, given that the continuity of the films is famously bizarre, and its shift from street racing to international spy thrillers equally such. So, given this, I decided to do this review with that mindset. Having not seen any of the Fast and Furious films, does this spin-off stand up as its own film to a non-fan such as myself, who isn't immersed in this particular franchise.

     A group of MI6 agents try to capture a device containing a virus that could wipe out most of mankind (sadly, it is not called "Thanoslite"), from the terrorist organization Eteon. However, an Eteon operative named Brixton Lore (Idris Elba), with superhuman abilities, comes out to retrieve their device. He kills all the agents, except Hattie Shaw (Vanessa Kirby) who injects the virus capsules into herself before fleeing. Brixton promptly frames her for the attack. The CIA then recruits Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) and Hattie's brother Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) to find Hattie and bring her to justice. Of course, Brixton is on the trail, and complications arise.

    First, the chemistry between Dwayne Johnson and Jason Stathem basically is the entire film. I've heard that they get on pretty well in real life, and it does show. I could just see them trash talking each other for a feature-length film. It helps especially during some of the sequences where they are forced to work together. Most of the other actors do fine in their roles (Idris Elba seems to be having fun in this). The actions sequences are spectacular, with elaborate set pieces and a lot of activity going on, making all of them exciting and fun . This could be attributed to director David Letch, who did similar large scale action scenes with John Wick, Atomic Blonde, and Deadpool 2 (Funnily enough, Ryan Reynolds plays a small role in the film). Best of all, there is no reliance on continuity, aside from some nods or subtle references (I don't know how much the two interacted before in the franchise, but they clearly have some history), and the big theme of family that has been through the franchise. It works as a standalone action film, with a lot of heart and sentimentality. 

     This was way too long. An hour and a half long story extended to nearly 2 hours and 15 minutes. It really starts to grind down in the second act, as the action sequences seem to go on too long. I know people don't really care about the story, and I don't really either in this case, but there are a number of continuity errors and plot holes that were a little distracting, even in a movie like this.

    So, I can't speak to whether fans of the franchise will enjoy this, but just as a fun action movie, I enjoyed it. I had a lot of fun, and there was a large amount of heart to this. I might actually check out the others in this series if they're all this fun and jovial. Even if you've never seen another one of these, I think one could watch this, and follow it with ease.  

Marvel Cinematic Universe: Ranked!

      Okay, a little history lesson: In 1996, after about a decade of corporate wrangling and increasingly desperate attempts to bulk up sales in the wake of a generally declining industry, Marvel Entertainment formally declared bankruptcy. To save it, they merged with their subsidiary Toy Biz, and was able to reemerge from bankruptcy. To help do so, they sold the film rights to their stable of characters to multiple studios and co-produced the films under "Marvel Studios". This worked out well enough starting with 1998's Blade, and continuing with the Sam Raimi Spider-Man trilogy and a certain unmentionable director's X-Men trilogy. However, with these successes, many others were stillborn, and the rights reverted back to Marvel. With Iron Man's rights reverting back from New Line Cinemas, they teamed up with Paramount to make Iron Man in 2007, with plans to make a film based on the premier Marvel comics superhero team The Avengers. Flash-forward today, Marvel Entertainment is now an arm of the all-powerful Disney corporation, and the Marvel Cinematic Universe is the biggest thing in movies right now, for good and for bad. With Endgame on the horizon, and as a lifelong Marvel fan, I figure I might as well rank these before going into Endgame. I rewatched a lot of the MCU over the past few weeks in order to prepare for this list. Mostly Phase 1 and Phase 2. Not really in order and I did skip some because I had seen them recently enough to remember what I thought of them. I'll do these like the year-end list, where I'll rank it worst to best, and have every film in there, with a short explanation as to why. This quiz here (https://sorta.app/q/1016/frosemqiantjlcugpdbkh) was very useful in helping formulate this list. So, without further ado:

Thor: The Dark World

The only one of these that was legitimately bad in its own right. Confusing, dimly light, way too serious, with some glimmers to a better film here and there (most notably Thor and Loki making their escape). It was the only time watching that I didn't at least have some good time watching. Worse, a few days out from seeing it, I barely remember what happens in it.

Avengers: Age of Ultron

You may recall I put this at the very bottom of one of my first year-end lists. It is easily the weakest film that isn't necessarily bad. A few things save it: James Spader as Ultron, Andy Serkis as Klaw, the opening fight scene, the second half of the climax. However, its main problem is the action scenes, which aren't well-shot, and feel too long to have any actual impact.

The Incredible Hulk

There appear to be three films being made here. One is "Jerry Bruckheimer does The Fugitive". The second is a Michael Crichton SF thriller. The other is a monster movie with the Hulk. The one-third that has the Hulk is pretty good, but it is bogged down by the other two-thirds. I heard Ed Norton rewrote the script heavily, so that might account for this problem.

Thor

For a while, I knew I didn't care for this film in comparison to the others, but I couldn't quite put my finger as to why. After rewatching, I think that I feel disappointed that the film is not more over-the-top. It feels too reverent and constrained, and Marvel's Thor was always larger-than-life. I suppose it comes down to: it took itself too seriously.

Spider-Man: Homecoming

Decent. Decent action, decent character moments, decent story. It is basically a good film, and I enjoy it. That said, with better Spider-Man movies (Spider-Man 2, Into the Spiderverse)  it pales in comparison to those. I think I was kind at the time because it was a good palette cleanser for the obscenely bad Amazing Spider-Man 2,  and it eschewed being another origin story. Again, I like this film, but it was weaker on the rewatch

Iron Man 3

It was an interesting turn they took with Iron Man's signature villain (I won't spoil it for those who haven't seen it), and just as a Shane Black movie, it's pretty good. It has his signatures: a sprawling conspiracy involving a well-known industry, a little kid who helps the hero, Christmas. It's not one of his best, but if you like his films, it'll satisfy even non-Marvel fans.

Captain Marvel

It was a good decision to actually lean into some feminist themes (however surface level it may have been), as opposed to merely having a female protagonist and just leaving it there. It helps elevate to more than another origin story. It also had decent enough action to back it up, and the reinvention of the Skrulls was a superb twist that worked very well for comic fans.

Iron Man 2

I was a big defender of this one for many years, but it was a while since I had seen it, and yeah, it hasn't really stood the test of time. It's still fun, and it does do a different story than the first, but a lot of the story feels half-baked and underutilized, and the climax was just too bombastic without any sort of motivation or understanding.

Ant-Man

This is generally a lot of fun. A good sort of superhero heist film, with tons of witty dialogue, character banter and pop culture references to really engage an audience, along with some excellent visuals taking advantage of its size changing hero. Makes sense, given Edgar Wright, Joe Cornish, and Adam McKay all wrote the film. Yeah, apparently it's considered one of the weaker films, but it is a lot of fun for me (even if its villain was a bit boring.

Guardians of the Galaxy

Also a lot of fun, but director James Gunn manages to imbue it with a very personal touch. Focusing on the characters and how these misfits and outcasts slowly grow to become a family, with some dark moments and some great action. It is sort of amazing how well the balance of emotion, action, and comedy really work out to make this entertaining. And of course, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the soundtrack, which I still listen to frequently.

Ant-Man and the Wasp

Even more fun, even more visuals, even more comedy. A good sequel always takes what works about the first, and ups the ante, and with this films extensive exploration of the Quatum Realm, and Ant-Man becoming Giant Man, it really ups that ante. It also fixed the biggest problem of the first one, by having an interesting villain (but a bland secondary one)

Doctor Strange 

You might recall I put this in the "okay" category the year it came out. I think I was just affected by the negative buzz of it being yet another origin story. Now with some distance, it is an origin story, but it is very well done, with the character actually growing into the role and having to actually let go of his own ego. Also, I don't think I gave the truly impressive visuals or the inventive use of magic in the plot the due it deserved. So, call this a repentance for my previous evaluation.

Iron Man

This was actually a favorite of mine for many years, and I've seen it a dozen times. It holds up well after 12 years. There are flaws and indications of its age (most notably the Bush era focus on terrorism and the glamor of Tony's life, and the start of Marvel's obsession with making a villain a dark reflection of the hero), but its well-crafted plot and ingenous scheme of incorporating comic storytelling to the silver screen deserves a lot of credit.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier

Taking more influence from 70's political thrillers and Steve Englehart's run of the character during that same period, this manages to take the character of Cap and deal with his commitment to freedom in a world that increasingly and slowly chips away at that freedom, as well as him having to fight a very personal threat. With more intense, up close action and a bzyantine conspiracy that completely derails the MCU as previously known, this was the first that really helped mature the franchise beyond the standard superhero film.

Thor: Ragnarok

Much has been said about the political subtext of the film being about the legacy of colonialism, much of which can be attributed to the half-Maori director Taika Waititi. However, I want to give props to the film for capturing the look of the Marvel Cosmic, and with that, finally getting Thor right as a bombastic hero, and adding some humor into the film. Combined with an excellent supporting cast, and it makes for a good film viewing experience.

Captain America: Civil War

Really more of an Avengers centerpiece, this features a strong, dense story that never collapses or feels too complicated or confusing. The slowly rift between Cap and Iron Man just grows and festers with each scene before it climaxes in a dark, brutal finale that is very hard to get out of mind. It was a good gut punch of a film and had enough seriousness without going over-the-top with (*cough* Batman v. Superman *cough*)

Captain America: The First Avenger

This was the highlight of the Phase 1, hands down. Joe Johnston's affection for the media and culture 1930's and 40's (used to great effect in his other Disney produced superhero film The Rocketeer) give the film a sense of both nostalgic, and modern sensibilities.  The gloss and charm of the style help give the story and the character of Cap more reverence and urgency, especially in dealing with a threat that even surpasses the Nazis. This was the kind of film that really does justice to the character. (Given the 40's serials actually produced during the war got his identity completely wrong, that's really saying something)


Avengers Infinity War

This is how a big crossover event should be done. Enough time is given to each character, there is a lot interplay between them, and there is enough action and character to move the plot along. It manages to balance out the more fantastic and the more mundane elements from each film, and has comic book fun without becoming pure camp or pure edge. What really makes this good is Thanos, who manages to be both a cruel, but fundementally human villain who is given life by Josh Brolin's performance.

Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. II

I'll just reiterate the points I made in this film's entry in my 2017 list. It is both a fun film with tons of well-done action, comedy, and visual that all work very well in their own right in making it feel like a Bronze Age Marvel story, but what really makes this extraordinary is how it manages to also be about the often complicated, contradictory nature of family and the nature of the relationships that tend to arise from that. It is sometimes a bit hard to watch because of that. And it easily has the best ending of any of these. I always tear up when I see it.

Black Panther

I think the theme of these last few entries is balance. Black Panther has a couple of minor flaws, sure, but what makes it the sort of film that can be nominated for an Academy Award is how it manages to be both a great superhero movie with great action and effects and have a strong sociopolitical streak, with themes of racism, colonialism, and isolationism being explored and utilized in the plot with powerful moments that stick with you for a long time. Neither side ever overwhelms the other; in fact, they compliment each other. It is the kind of superhero movie for people who don't like the genre.

The Avengers

Whilst not having any sort of political message or theme, this is easily the best of this cycle for just doing what sets out to do in the best possible manner. It manages to bring together these characters, develop them, have them interact, and have some really excellent character, before going into the action moments, where they could have some impact. It is sort of a perfect blockbuster in that sense. A pure action-adventure story that never forgets what it is, but tries to be what it is to the best of its ability. It really is sort of a modern classic.

-----------------------------

So, that's my rankings. You may think this is building up to an Endgame review. Well, maybe, but that will be hard to do, given that spoilers are a big thing going around and that there will be more than enough reviews going around that I won't have anything to say that someone else hasn't already.

So, join me in a few days, as I look at a much hyped auteur indie feature from indie darling corporation (often to the point of outright worship) A24, that was dumped onto VOD this week, Under the Silver Lake. 

Dailles and Nightlies- Battleship

          This almost sounds like a parody, really. Now 7 years removed from it, it is sort of stunning that this film actually exists, and isn't something in the background of a Hollywood satire. A military sci-fi blockbuster based on the plotless game of Battleship. The one where you yell out a position, and it hits or misses (I'm guessing modern versions are a tie-in to the film? Haven't played it in a while) Someone actually conceived of this, and created the film with high quality effects, name actors, and military support. It is kind of astounding, and with the right combination, it might've actually worked. Unfortunately, for a concept this wonky, it is surprisingly dull and boring.

      NASA has managed to locate an exoplanet with the potential for life, and sends a signal to any potential life. But, this interesting development is sidetracked by the story of Alex Hopper (Taylor Kitsch), who, as brother Stone (Alexander Skarsgard, and yes, his name really is "Stone") helpfully exposits to the audience, is an unemployed slacker celebrating his birthday at a bar, where he attempts to impress Samantha (Brooklyn Decker), by stealing a chicken burrito from a nearby convenience store. He's tased pretty badly by the police, and while he is recovering, Stone once again helpfully explains that he wants Alex to join the Navy and that Samantha is the daughter of the Commander of the US Pacific Fleet Terrance Shane (Liam Neeson). Cut to 7 years later, and Alex is now a Tactical Action Officer on the USS John Paul Jones, and is preparing to ask Admiral Shane for his daughter's hand in marriage (why this is still a thing, I'm not sure. Seems terribly antiquated). However, he is on the verge of a discharge (for some reason that's never explicitly explained as far as I could discern). Samantha, meanwhile revealed to be a physical therapist is helping a double amputee, Lt. Col Mick Canales (Gregory D. Gadson, a real life Iraq veteran and double amputee, which is very cool) recover by taking a walk in the beautiful Hawaiian wilderness.  If you're wondering where the aliens come in, well, they land during a Navy game between the RIMPAC nations, and create a force field around the Hawaiian islands. Now, after Stone is killed, Alex, along with Petty Officer Cora Raikes (Rihanna. Yes, that one) and the commander of the Jones' sister ship Yugi Nagata (Tadanobu Asano) must fight the aliens from within, while Samantha, Mick, and a SETI scientist named Cal Zapata (Hamish Linklater) try to destroy the shields.

      There are a couple things that are competent about this film. It has two kind of interesting subplots that are more interesting than the main plot. One is the aforementioned story of real life double amputee Gregory Gadson fighting off aliens, which was generally very awesome whenever we got to see it. The other involves a group of veterans actually refurbishing the USS Missouri with the main characters to fight the aliens. Both of these could've made entertaining films in and of themselves, and didn't deserve to be attached to Battleship the movie. The acting was alright, with a surprising standout being Rihanna. (I want to see her in more films, she has only been in 6 films since this one). It is mildly entertaining how they shoehorn aspects of the game into the film, like the pegs and when they try to fire on the aliens using a grid.

     It is surprising how boring this film is. Battleship the movie should be some weird, glorious mess. This is just another blockbuster, with a few tangential connections to its origin. It's not fun, it's not really that absurd. If you've seen any alien invasion film with clear support from the United States armed forces, you've seen this. I really can't say much other than that. Beyond that, it's also clear that it is trying to take elements from the then-hottest blockbusters, especially the Transformers films from Michael Bay. Director Peter Berg (known for the original Friday Night Lights, which is likely why Taylor Kitsch is in this) is clearly attempting to ape Michael Bay's style , from the panning shots to the slow motion action. However, while Bay has turned this into something of a vulgar artform using his own openly iconoclastic mannerisms, Berg's imitation makes the film look even cheaper and more mundane by comparison (though at least Berg doesn't imitate Bay's political incorrectness, in the former's defense). It really says something that I was more confused here than by the Transformers films I've seen directed by Bay. Along with failing to get Bay, Berg also uses a lot of Spielbergian music cues and especially, JJ Abrams-esque lens flares, which make the film even harder to see. I'm probably making this Frankenstein's monster combination out to be interesting, but really, the combination of these elements make the film generic, and not terribly interesting in its own right.

     It took four goddamn days to write this. Battleship the movie should not be this hard to write about, but the film is that uninteresting. I had a hard time describing the synopsis, because literally very little of note actually happens. I really don't recommend this to anyone, except maybe battleship enthusiasts with its accuracy and how it uses military strategies from what I've read, though maybe there are errors. I don't know. This was a lot tougher than I originally imagined.
        

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Hellboy II: The Golden Army

     (Okay, a bit of explanation. I couldn't find Spirit of the Beehive online anywhere. I assumed it was on Hulu, but for some reason, it wasn't there. Since getting a DVD of it would take a couple days, I decided to make a last minute pass, and choose something that was more easily available. To compound manners, I twisted my foot over the weekend, and had to spent time recovering from that. With that out of the way).

      Not much history, as to be expected from a sequel. Guillermo del Toro had intended a trilogy with the character, and with the success of the first one, the sequel was to be released in 2006. However, Revolution Studios, which had produced the original, went bankrupt, and Columbia stepped in to distribute. After bouncing around a few ideas (including reinterpretations of classic monsters and elemental titans) and some stories from the comics to adapt, del Toro and Hellboy creator Mike Mignola wrote an original story. The film finally entered production after Pan's Labyrinth won many accolades. Released in 2008, the film was both financially and critically successful, and a third film was in development, before it faltered, and a reboot (currently slated for 2019 with Stranger Things' David Harbour in the lead role) was deemed necessary.

     On Christmas Day, 1955, Trevor Bruttenholm (the late John Hurt) tells his adoptive son Hellboy (Montse Ribe) about the legend of the Golden Army. How humans and elves went to war many years ago, and how the Golden Army was created by Goblin engineers for the elves to destroy humanity. However, the elf King Balor ( Roy Dotrice) sees the destruction wrought about by his new army, and how he created a pact with mankind. However, Prince Nuada (Luke Gross), who had tempted his father to creating the Golden Army, is dissatisfied with this, and leaves to be called back at some indeterminate time, while the Golden Army is sealed away with the elf crown being the key to opening it. Sure enough, in the present day, Nuada decides his time has come to destroy the humans, and retrieves their portion of the crown from an auction at a museum. He then kills Balor, and takes his portion, while his sister Nuala (Anne Walton) flees with the final portion. Hellboy (Ron Perlman) and fellow Bureau of Paranormal Research and Defense (BPRD) agents Liz Sherman (Selma Blair) and Abe Sapien (Doug Jones, now doing both voice and body) investigate the initial attack, and find themselves the victims of tooth fairies (which are not as innocuous as they sounds). They defeat them, but Hellboy is exposed for the first time to the public, prompting fallout with the higher ups, particularly BPRD head Tom Manning (Jeffrey Tambor). They take one tooth fairy, and have their new team leader, Johann Krauss (John Alexander and James Dodd for body, Seth MacFarlane (!) for the voice) a German whose body is now a strange ectoplamsa material contained in a suit, examine it. This leads them on a course that will intersect them with Nuala and then, having to stop Nuada from reviving the Golden Army.

      I don't know where to start with how good this film is. It has great effects, an engaging story, great performances, great action, a larger sense of world building and mythology, some nice homages here and there (including references to the films of John Landis and Ray Harryhausen). Unlike the more mysterious original, this one has a more of an action-packed, urban fantasy feel to the proceedings, which actually works in that it still feels like it's in the universe of the original. It also has the character grow from the original, and grow throughout the film. The Golden Army itself was built up well, especially with their ability to regenerate, making their threat very clear, and forcing a unique solution beyond a direct confrontation.

     This is one of those films where every flaw I could think of actually works upon revisitation. I suppose the length.... nah, I'm kidding, it's 2 hours long. I think a little bit more backstory was needed for somethings. Like, if the elves were solely restricted to the British Isles and Ireland or were more worldwide, and a bit more on Johann Krauss and what happened to him (since he turns to the heroes side due to a tragedy in his life). It might've helped flesh out the story a bit more.

    I was harsh on the original Hellboy. I think I didn't really appreciate it for what it was, a fun romp with many different references and complex worldbuilding. I think this is better than the original, and a whole hearted recommendation to anyone who loves horror, urban fantasy, action, or del Toro films. Just, maybe watch the original first, however.

   We're at the home stretch, so Friday will see the modern classic American Psycho. 

Current Film Reviews- The Equalizer II

       The first R-rated film I ever watched in theaters was 2014's The Equalizer, a remake of the popular 80's TV series and starring Denzel Washington in the lead role. That distinction would imply some sort of affection or fondness for the film, but I actually barely remember anything about it. I'm not even entirely sure what it was about. I know it had to do with Washington's character fighting off Russian mobsters and the climax took place in a home goods store, but that's about it. Honestly, there isn't much context that is needed for this. Even though I couldn't remember the first one, I could follow this fine.

       Set an indeterminate amount of time after the original, Robert McCall (Denzel Washington) is now a Lyft driver, who continues to do the occasional job on the side. We start in Turkey, where he saves a young girl, after her Turkish father kidnapped her from her American mother. Despite the brutality and efficiency with which he does these jobs, he still has a very friendly relationship with the people around him. After his apartment complex is vandalized, he strikes a mentorship with Miles Whittaker (Ashton Saunders), an aspiring artist. He, however, is thrust back in action when his former CIA associate and friend Susan Plummer (Melissa Leo) is killed in Brussels. He soon finds himself investigating a conspiracy to take him and others affiliated with him down, and he must stop it at any cost.

     What really elevates this from B-list action schlock is Denzel Washington's performance. He really sells this character, both as a brutal enforcer and a friendly guy helping his neighbors. There are some legitimately great scenes of him either dealing with the situation or simply interacting with Ashton Saunder's Miles Whittaker. He is really the reason this film (and for that matter, the first one) are at least somewhat compelling. The action helps, often being both exciting and slightly terrifying. It was a satisfying experience, at the very least. It provides what it is selling, Denzel Washington beating up crooks while giving life lessons.

      I normally don't really quibble with plot holes, because honestly, I don't notice that much whilst watching a film, but I pretty sure this had a number of loose ends. Without spoilers, I still wasn't sure what the main villain's motivation was, or how he got his associates.  I also wasn't entirely sure why Melissa Leo was in Brussels. I know it had to do with a murder there, but I don't think they ever explain who that character was or why he was specifically murdered.  It doesn't help that this film has a real pacing issue, with the main plot sidetracked to deal with Washington going about his everyday life. I didn't know when this film was ending, since it doesn't feel like it was building up to something.

      I didn't hate this, just like I didn't hate the first one. It gives what the first one gave, some decent actions and some nice character stuff from Denzel Washington. However, the first one at least had the distinction of being the first R-rated film I ever saw. I'm probably not going to remember that I ever saw this. Honestly, a better version of this, at least in regards to action, is Upgrade, which came out about a month ago. If you want a fun action thriller with a hard edge, I honestly recommend that. If you liked the first one, you'll probably like this, and if you didn't, this isn't really an improvement. Just seeing here thinking, I'm already beginning to forget about this film. 

Current Movie Review- Kingsman: The Golden Circle

    I heard a lot of bad press for this film. Mainly, what I had heard was that, in comparison to the first one, it was a disappointment. Some even hating it. So, I had trepidations going into this. I had hoped that it would be another John Wick, Chapter II. Another sequel that takes what worked about the original, and expands on it. However, the film many compared this to was Men in Black II. Another sequel which took the fresh original (also based on an independent comic), and alternated between repeating it and contradicting it in order to repeat it. (As Rick Sanchez said, it was a "soulless cash-grab") Having now watched it, The Men in Black II  comparison is the most appropriate. It's not as bad as MiB II or III, but yeah, in comparison to the first one, this was disappointing.

      Based on characters from Mark Millar's and Dave Gibbon's  The Secret Service (which didn't have a sequel), a year has passed since the events of the first one, and Gary "Eggsy" Unwin (Taron Edgerton) is now a bone fide Kingsman, still working alongside Roxie (Sophie Cookson) and Merlin (Mark Strong), and dating Swedish Princess Tilde (Hanna Alstrom) . The film opens with the James Franco look-alike from the first one, Charlie (Edward Holcroft) attacking him, having lost his arm (somehow) during the events of the first one. After an extended action scene in a taxi, he manages to escape. However, the robotic arm manages to hack the Kingsman's database. Charlie goes to his new benefactor Poppy (Julianne Moore), a drug lord obsessed with the 70's version of the 1950's (and keeps Elton John (Reginald Dwight) around as entertainment). Poppy has been sending tainted drugs in order to force full drug legaization across the world. She uses the info Charlie retrieved to launch an all-out offensive, leading to the destruction of the Kingsmen. Only Eggsy and Merlin survived the onslaught. However, when they drink a whiskey they had retrieved for such an occasion, they are alerted to the "Statesmen", a similar organization from across the pond. After a terse meeting with Tequila (Channing Tatum), they meet the American version of Merlin, Ginger Ale (Halle Berry), agent Whiskey (Pedro Pascal) and the Statesmen leader, Champagne (Jeff Bridge) (Get it?) Biggest of all, they find the Statesmen had retrieved Harry Hart (Colin Firth) after his death in the first one. Poppy's demand illicits an opposite response from POTUS (Bruce Greenwood) who wants to kill off all the drug users to gain some political points. Between people slowly falling victim to Poppy's drugs and the President herding them to force their death, the Kingsmen and Statesmen must team up to find the antidote.

      I'll give it this: like the first one, the actors are clearly having a good time, either hamming it up or indulging wholescale in the action. (Spoiler) One of the characters dies singing John Denver's "Take Me Home, Country Roads (The second time this year I've heard that song in a film) Some of the action scenes are good (I'll get back to that). Elton John was enjoyable in his supporting role. Most people got annoyed by him, but I found his presence funny (plus, he plays one of his most enjoyable songs "Saturday Night's Alright for Fighting"). The set design is good. The action set pieces are well-established, if contrived. The action is also toned down significantly from the first one (though it still has some gruesome moments, they feel less intrusive.  The fact that POTUS turns out to be a minor villain was a nice touch, (especially since it pokes fun at both extremes of the drug debate)

    The first fight scene in this film was hard to engage with. The problem was that it was so heavily CGI'd, which would be fine if it weren't so fake-looking. It set the tone for some of the action, which felt less innovative than the first one. It tries to top the first one, but it feels subpar. Sometimes, it wouldn't make sense. I mentioned MiB II earlier, and it feels most apt when talking about Eggsy. Like Will Smith in MiBII, it feels like the character has been stuck where he was in the last film. It never really shows any sort of growth for his character. Not that he is back to where he was at the beginning of the first film, but he doesn't really have anywhere to go. Taron Edgerton still gives an excellent performance, but the character felt running in place. The plot is engaging, but it doesn't feel organic and more contrived. It also feels like it goes on for too long, because they needed to wrap up everything. That goes with individual scenes as well, which sometimes take longer than they should. Some actors are wasted. Despite their prominence in the trailer, Channing Tatum and Jeff Bridges are basically cameoing. Julianne Moore's villain (aside from her opening scene) doesn't feel particularly disturbing or threatening. They outright killed Roxy (one of the best parts of the first one) after only one scene.

    So, yeah, this was not another John Wick, Chapter II. If you liked the first one, maybe you'll enjoy this, but it won't really exceed it. If you haven't seen the first one, don't bother. Go watch It, that was a good adreneline rush film, or stay home and watch the first one. I had fun in this, and I liked it more than other people, but I agree it wasn't as good as the first one, and I do see why people dislike.

   Tomorrow, I will start the next chapter of Masterpiece of Horror Theatre, with the late Tobe Hopper's Texas Chainsaw Massacre.