Foster on Film – Page 67 – The Film Criticism of Matthew M. Foster

The Gamera Trilogy (1995/1996/1999)

Apr 021995

Gamera had always been the also-ran of Japan’s giant monster film industry. Made in the wake of Godzilla’s success, the giant, flying, fire-breathing turtle started as most of the big critters did of that era, following The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms. Humans messing with what they shouldn’t wake the sleeping monster in the arctic and he goes on the normal rampage—hardly original, but not embarrassing either. Not being embarrassing didn’t last. It took Godzilla a decade to go from frightening force of nature to defender of Japan and a few years more to hit rock bottom as a plushy toy for four-year-olds. Gamera did it in a year. He became a friend to children and his films were filled with annoying kids yelling their love for Gamera. As I child I found this patronizing and irritating and now…I feel more or less the same. The films dipped to lowest common denominator and kept right on going till studio Daiei went belly up in 1971.

So no one was expecting The Gamera Trilogy in the mid/late 90s. Gamera in a relatively serious film, with decent FX and non-annoying characters? The general filmmaking skill on display puts The Trilogy way above its contemporaries. And there’s several themes running through the films, including commentary on the Japanese government (it isn’t positive) and on Japan’s constitutional inability to protect itself. A Gamera movie being the best Japanese daikaiju flick of the year is odd. Being the best of the decade was unthinkable. But the Trilogy starts with the best such film of the previous 30 years (and nothing better has come out since). The big turtle had finally beaten the radioactive lizard.

Gamera: Guardian of the Universe (1995)

Lieutenant Yoshinari Yonemori is part of a plutonium transport sea convoy that runs into an atoll. Overwhelmed by the near disaster, he pushes his way onto the insurance investigator’s team that’s trying to determine what happened. Meanwhile, zoologist and all-around science expert Dr. Mayumi Nagamine is pulled in by Police Inspector Osako to investigate deaths on an island. They discover giant dragon-like reptiles flying in the region which they later call gyaos. The two investigations intersect, with Gamera appearing to fight the gyaos, and the investigator’s teenage daughter, Asagi, ending up with a pendant that binds her Gamera.

It’s too bad that the title gives away that this is a Gamera film as there’s some nicely built up suspense around the mysterious atoll. But even knowing what’s coming, the detective portion of the film works well and introduces us to our human cast of likable characters that almost make a difference (this is still a Japanese monster movie, so the humans don’t really matter, but for a change they don’t just stand around looking at screens and narrating what is happening).

Nagamine makes for a strong female lead and Yonemori is noble without going overboard. And the switch from the old Gamera films where you’d have cheering prepubescent “Kenny” children connected to Gamera to a teenage priestess makes all the difference, and raises the stakes since she suffers when Gamera does.

The mythology alone makes this film work better than so many others in its genre. Gamera is a gyaos killer. That’s what he is made for. He doesn’t have to be intelligent or noble and figure anything out (he’s a turtle after all, so deduction should not be in his skill set). He was made to kill gyaos and that’s what he does.

By US blockbuster standards, the effects don’t shine. This is men in suits (and for the first time, a woman in the Gyaos suit), puppets, and miniatures after all, but for Japanese giant monster movies, this is the gold standard. Here and there, the FX took me out of the film—the young gyaos’s randomly moving pupils and the animation of a high flying battle—but generally I liked the look of it.

If you dislike big monsters duking it out, or suit-mation, then Gamera: Guardian of the Universe isn’t for you, but if you have even a mild interest in the genre, this is the one to see.

Gamera 2: Attack of the Legion (1996)

A meteor shower brings the Legion to Earth: large insects along with a single true giant. They build nests, that when complete, launch a pod into space to further spread the species—the launch destroying everything in a six kilometer area. Colonel Watarase is on the case, leading soldiers against the bugs. He’s aided by Midori Honami, a general purpose scientist, and her computer-savvy friend.

Attack of the Legion isn’t really a sequel to Guardian of the Universe, and that’s its biggest flaw. The only returning human characters are Osako and Asagi, and their parts are extended cameos. The new characters are fine by daikaiju standards, but are a let down after the first film. The colonel is a generic, noble, military man. He’s fine, though forgettable. The replacement scientist is more of a problem. After strong-willed Nagamine, we get timid Honami. She hesitates before every sentence. Since she’s another young, hot, female scientist, I’m assuming they couldn’t get the actress from the first film, but didn’t rewrite anything except her name, and in order for the character to be different, they told the new actress to act scared all the time. Whatever the case, a weak woman was not the way to go.

Additionally, Legion has nothing to do with the mythology. Gamera is a gyoas fighter. So why does he show up to fight Legion? Yes, it’s to save the Earth, but that wasn’t his job.

So, as far as the Gamera story goes, this is a detour. But it isn’t a bad one. The FX is a touch better than in the previous film. There’s plenty of giant monster action (though it gets a bit silly at the end with each monster pulling secret powers out of nowhere), and the early stages of the film have some effective horror moments. And since there are lots of “little” monsters as well as the giants, there’s something for the humans to accomplish.

Note: I watch these with the Japanese language track as the dubbing was not done with care, but you can find this film with a second dubbed track, Lake Texarkana, where everyone speaks like rednecks. It’s amusing, though not the one to go to for your first screening.

Gamera 3: Revenge of Iris (1999)

Four years earlier, Ayana Hirasaka’s parents were crushed by Gamera in his fight against the gyoas. Now she lives with her uncaring aunt and uncle in a miserable little town filled with terrible teens. Within a temple, she finds, and binds with, a strange creature that is related to Gamera and the gyoas. It grows, and she sees it as her opportunity for revenge against Gamera. Elsewhere, the gyoas have returned, attacking all over the world, and Gamera’s attempts to stop them have racked up a far greater death toll than the flying lizards themselves. Elsewhere, Mayumi Nagamine is again studying the gyoas problem and trying to find a solution, and she brings back now ex-Inspector Osako and Asagi. Meanwhile, government policy is being influence by a cultist and a strange game designer.

Now this is how make a sequel. It isn’t just the same old monster battles, but an inversion of the first film. In Gamera: Guardian of the Universe, we saw a few negative side effects of a giant monster hero, but for the most part, it is clear that Gamera is great and cheerleading was the way to go. Not so here. This is about collateral damage (from monster fighting, yes, but also from any military or police activity). There are brutal and beautiful shots of Gamera mowing down thousands of people. He slips and shoots a fire ball into a coffee house. He focuses all his attention on burning a gyoas, an attack that fries everyone on the street for blocks. He stumbles into a building and it crashes down on those below. We saw the good in having a powerful weapon on our side; here’s the bad.

Everything is about side-effects. Osako was destroyed by the events of the previous two movies. He’s suffering from PTSD on the streets until Nagamine finds him. It is possible that Gamera is what has drawn the monsters to Japan, and all of the damage is what has allowed kooks access to the highest level of government. And then there is Ayanna, who is the anti-Asagi. Asagi has faith, which is easy to have when things have worked out. The cult-lady has faith too, and that doesn’t work out well. Ayana has pain and longs for revenge. When another kid tries to tell her that Gamera is her friend, I (and Ayanna) wanted to kick him in the shin.

Too bad Revenge of Iris can’t keep up that level of storytelling. For three-fourths of the runtime, only Godzilla ’54 was in its league. But the filmmakers didn’t know what to do with the ending. That’s not surprising as while this isn’t a kids film, it still wants to play a bit in the young adult world, so it doesn’t go as dark as it needed to. We get some deaths, but the film needed more, as well as a better wrap-up for the theme. This is a very good movie, that was reaching for greatness, and couldn’t hold on. But very good will do.

Reviews

Batman Forever (1995)

Feb 261995

Batman (Val Kilmer replacing Michael Keaton) faces both Two-Face (Tommy Lee Jones) and The Riddler (Jim Carrey). As Bruce Wayne, he finds himself guardian of recently orphaned Dick Grayson (Chris O’Donnell), who naturally gets himself a costume and becomes Robin. At least Alfred (Michael Gough) is still around.

With Burton out of the directing chair, and Warner’s disappointed with its revenue from Batman Returns, director Joel Schumacher was free to strip away the goth flavor and create a children’s movie. There’s no troubling themes or artistry. Batman has been reduced to two hours of caramel corn.

Jim Carry and Tommy Lee Jones compete to see who can chew the most scenery. Neither play characters, but merely loud clowns. Both are annoying to anyone out of middle school, but their non-stop lowest denominator jokes won over the grammar school set. I can’t stand either of their performances, but I understand why they are in the picture. The same can’t be said by Val Kilmer. Michael Keaton had created a disturbed Dark Knight. Kilmer doesn’t do anything at all. He’s invisible in the part, being neither an action hero nor a comic. He just exists.

Nicole Kidman is sexy but is given nothing to do. Unfortunately, Chris O’Donnell is given something to do as Robin. The actor was twenty-five and looked it, giving the film a weird vibe as he pretends to be a teen—naturally a troubled and smart-assed one. O’Donnell takes on Carry and Jones and wins as most irritating, though Schumacher really deserves that award.

My ranking is quite generous, mainly because I don’t have a 1½ Reel rating. This isn’t a film to watch. But as background, or with a remote control in your hand and a lot of use of the FF button, it isn’t too bad an experience.

Batman Forever follows Batman and Batman Returns, and was followed by Batman & Robin. The character was rebooted into Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy: Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and The Dark Knight Rises. And he has been again rebooted into Zack Snyder’s Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Batman first appeared on the big screen in a pair of 1940s serials. He returned in 1966 in Batman: The Movie.

I have ranked the eight theatrical portrayals of Batman.

Reviews, Superhero Tagged with: Two Reels

The Shadow (1994)

Oct 161994

Lamont Cranston (Alec Baldwin) is a man who can see the evil in the hearts of men because he sees it in himself. Surrendering to his dark side, he had become a Tibetan drug lord with a great deal of blood on his hand. He is kidnapped by religious master who teaches him both morality and the power to “cloud men’s minds,” allowing him to influence their actions and to appear invisible. He uses these powers to fight crime in 1930s New York as The Shadow. He meets his match in Shiwan Khan (John Lone), who learned the same powers from the master, before killing him. He plans to take over the world with an atomic bomb created by two scientists under his control.

So, have you heard this one: A rich but very troubled American makes his way to the Far East where he learns great power from a secret teacher. He returns to the US as a vigilante and takes on a persona that is intended to frighten criminals. By day he acts as a playboy, but at night he prowls the city, his own base instincts tightly controlled, but always there under the surface. Yeah, it’s Batman. But it was The Shadow first. Bob Kane admitted that Batman is simply The Shadow in spandex. That connection has been reinforced with Nolan’s Batman Begins ripping off…I mean paying homage to… this movie. Screenwriter David S. Goyer has acknowledged the pillaging.

Now add Cranston’s teacher being a mystic and that the powers gained were magical and we have Doctor Strange. But that isn’t giving The Shadow enough credit. He is the father of the modern superhero, not just a few specific ones. Sidekicks, costumes, and weird super villains all came from The Shadow. In some cases, such as Batman, Iron Man, Doctor Strange, and Green Arrow, the debt is more blatant, but it is always there.

The Shadow was an extremely popular character in the late 30s and early 40s. His powers and identity shifted around a bit, and the radio version was significantly different from the pulp one, but basic tone, the lush, dark, but somehow hopeful world was always there. By the end of the ‘50s, he vanished from popular culture. This was before my time, but as a kid I got to hear a few episodes on “Old Time Radio” and was as taken by the Gothic tones announcing “Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of Men? The Shadow knows” as everyone had been thirty years earlier. By 1994, he was all but forgotten. It was the success of his child, Burton’s Batman, that got The Shadow film greenlit, but audiences ignored it. It’s too bad as it is one of the better superhero films and a lot of fun. It wrapped me into its world.

Alec Baldwin is superb as The Shadow, though that might have less to do with Baldwin’s range and more to do with this being a perfect character for him. Cranston is suave, but always with a tinge of sarcasm and an occasional touch of smarm. He is jovial, but with a trace of pain and a bottomless pit of barely hidden rage, all of which is how Baldwin appear to me in every talk show appearance and interview.

No superhero looks better than The Shadow after his illusionary transformation—with his large nose, rough features, scarf, hat, coat, and flowing cloak. This isn’t a superhero with a fake we-can’t-kill ethic that’s been shoved into most superhero characters to make things “kid-friendly.” He has duel pistols and he knows how to use them. This is the only film superhero that lets his darkness out that is likable. The Punisher… No. He’s also the only one who is fundamentally frightening. The problem with Batman is that in most versions, he isn’t any more disquieting than an average tough guy. If you are afraid of being beaten up, then he’s scary. But the whole dressing-like-a-bat-to-terrify-criminals doesn’t work. With The Shadow, it does. An invisible man with swirling mists and hysterical laughter is the sort of thing that can chill someone to their soul. And the film does a wonderful job of presenting him as a macabre apparition.

The Shadow avoids the two major pitfalls that have afflicted a majority of superhero films (and most action films) for years: a weak villain and a bland love interest. Khan is an intimidating presence who also manages to be funny. That is due to John Lone’s performance as much as the script. He’s an actor who should have risen further. Penelope Ann Miller’s Margo Lane is strong, sexy, and quirky. She isn’t to everyone’s taste, but you will remember her.

The secondary cast is amazing: Ian McKellen, Tim Curry, Johathan Winters, Peter Boyle, James Hong, Joseph Maher, John Kapelos, Ethan Phillips. It is a Who’s Who of great character actors, though Curry could have dialed it down a notch.

I love the feel of this movie. It creates a universe of contradictions: a beautifully colored film noir world. It doesn’t recreate the real New York, but an art deco wonderland that is a call back to the films of the era and how I’d like for it to have been. There were not miles of pneumatic tubes wrapped around buildings and the real world was poorer for it. The art design is aided by Jerry Goldsmith’s score, that brings us back to the days of high adventure while also signaling the darkness inside our hero.

The ending sags, with multiple henchmen meeting their unnoticed end off screen. An earthquake destroyed some sets, including the room of mirrors, which shortened the climactic battle. That isn’t a huge problem as by that point we know exactly what is going to happen (like in most every action movie), but it isn’t the strong finale that The Shadow should have had. Likewise I would have liked some extended or additional relationship scenes, but again, what we get is good, just a bit hurried.

How much you enjoy The Shadow is going to depend on how much you like old Hollywood and if you are a rubber and spandex fan. If you think the X-Men’s blue and yellow costumes are cool, then this is going to lose something for you. For me, it doesn’t get any cooler than The Shadow.

Geek Note: The beryllium sphere used in the bomb would later be needed to power a starship in Galaxy Quest.

Reviews, Superhero Tagged with: Four Reels

The Puppet Masters (1994)

Oct 101994

A team of secret agents, led by Andrew Nivens (Donald Sutherland), and including his gun-toting son, Sam (Eric Thal), and NASA exobiologiest, Mary Sefton (Julie Warner), investigate a UFO in rural Iowa. They discover alien “slugs” have invaded, possessing humans by latching onto their backs. Unless they are stopped, they will take over the world.

Yet another alien possession film, The Puppet Masters is a mixture of Invasion of the Body Snatchers and that episode of the old Star Trek where Spock ends up with a manta ray on his back. Based on Robert A. Heinlein’s 1950s anti-communist novel, The Puppet Masters (which came out before Jack Finney’s The Body Snatchers), any cautionary messages about conformity in general (or the red menace in particular) have been wrung out of the story, leaving a reasonably entertaining sci-fi action pic. Unlike its superior cousin (I’m talking about The Body Snatchers, not the Star Trek episode), which creates a sense of paranoia by putting everyday folks into a hopeless situation, The Puppet Masters follows the adventures of larger-than-life characters, who are bound to find an answer with their super skills.

OK, so this is closer to James Bond than to Sartre’s No Exit, but who doesn’t like James Bond? There are chases, fistfights, and shootouts. A girl leaps out a window and the heroic spy sneaks into the alien lair. It’s a ’50s B-invasion flick, done better than they were done in the ’50s. And like those films, the scientist and government come up with a “silver bullet” to defeat the aliens. An extra ending, so common in ’80s and ’90s horror, is stuck on so you know the decade. It helps to give the film a bit of humor and some needed excitement, but the “oh, it’s not dead yet” add-on is particularly hard to accept in this case as it ignores what we’ve been told about the aliens.

I watched this story as an outsider, never pulled in. Only Julie Warner’s Mary is sympathetic. That doesn’t mean the other actors don’t do their jobs. Sutherland embodies the typical Heinlein, overbearing, smartass leader and Eric Thal has no trouble with the generic, muscled agent. I just didn’t care about them.

I gave The Puppet Masters an extrafor presenting a fundamental truth about males. Mary spots possessed males by noticing that they don’t try to look down her blouse as any free, heterosexual man would. We males are simple creatures.

The film may have lost an opportunity by bowing to American prudishness. In the novel, people take the logical step of going topless so that it’s obvious who has been taken over, and who hasn’t. But as the film avoids any kind of female nudity, the characters are perpetually taken off guard by the possesseds. If I knew that clothing could be hiding evil aliens, I’d insist on a shirtless environment. It makes sense, and it would have added some needed titillation in a film that’s only going for thrills anyway.

Aliens, Reviews Tagged with: Three Reels

Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles (1994)

Oct 091994

Louis (Brad Pitt), a vampire, tells a writer (Christian Slater) his life’s story. In 1791, he met the vampire Lestat (Tom Cruise) in New Orleans. Lestat transformed him, but Louis, already depressed, couldn’t accept his murderous nature. To keep him as a companion, Lestat turned a little girl, Claudia (Kirsten Dunst), into a vampire.

The Hunger started a move toward a new kind of vampire film, one where vampires are the heroes and villains. These aren’t monster movies, with humans striving to defeat the evil beasts, but sensual soap operas with blood drinking acting as a metaphor for sex. Interview with the Vampire completed what The Hunger started, resembling a gothic romance far more than it does Dracula. The vampires, tortured souls with overly precise pronunciation, are pale and beautiful. Clad in elegant garments, they exist in a world of rich colors, lush surroundings, and dramatic music. This isn’t horror, and it’s quite silly, but also engaging.

The film follows Anne Rice’s novel fairly closely with the only significant change being the aging of the powerful vampire Armand, who was a youth in the book, but becomes Antonio Banderas for the screen. It’s a good change. The book was an estrogen-fueled angst-fest, and so is the film. Louis spends a majority of the film whining. “Oh, how horrible it is to be young and powerful and pretty forever.” Poor guy. That is the movie’s greatest failing. I’ll ignore that petulance is never a good basis for a story, and instead focus on Interview with the Vampire’s inability to convince me that being a vampire would be anything other than a great time. Over and over, the vampires say how bad it is, but it’s never believable. They don’t have the answers to the meaning of life, but then who does? They don’t need to kill unless they want to and have no problems with crucifixes, garlic, or running water. The only downside is having to avoid the sun, and I do that anyway. The story requires that the viewer emphasize with Louis, but I just wanted to punch him and yell “grow up.” He only becomes sympathetic when he seeks vengeance, and that’s late in the film.

But, as a slow exercise in the pouting of sulking vampires, it’s remarkably good. Costuming, set design, sound, music, and cinematography are beyond reproach. Few films look better. The effects and makeup don’t overwhelm the story but do their job of turning mortals into vampires.

Pitt and Banderas are better than usual, but it is Tom Cruise who is the surprise. He embodies the arrogant but charming Lestat. I’m not sure if Cruise finally figured how to act or if the stylized nature of the role fit him better than his other parts. Either way, I can’t imagine anyone improving on his performance. And yet, the film is stolen by the young Kirsten Dunst. She is unsettlingly sexy as a thirty-year-old imprisoned in a twelve-year-old body.

I can’t pin down how I feel about Interview’s attempts to titillate. The entire film is a thinly veiled homosexual romp with significant pedophiliac tendencies. It’s all kept socially acceptable by changing the fluids exchanged from semen to blood. It is effective, and yet it feels like a copout. Why not just make a full-out homosexual vampire film? I suppose the Bible Belt isn’t ready for that (but how do they feel about vampires alone?), nor is it likely that Cruise would be willing to star.

Even with Interview with the Vampire’s many problems (those mentioned above, and others such as Claudia taking thirty years to realize she isn’t going to grow up), it is a seductive film. Its world, and the images it creates are not easily dismissed, and I find myself drifting back into Louis’s and Lestat’s lives, thinking how I would have done things differently.

Reviews, Vampires Tagged with: Four Reels

The Nosferatu Diaries: Embrace of the Vampire (1994)

Oct 091994

A vampire (Martin Kemp) must get Charlotte (Alyssa Milano), the reincarnation of his lost love, to join him or he will die. But Charlotte is a repressed girl with a boyfriend, Chris (Harrison Pruett) , and the vampire only has three days.

A stripped-down version of the standard vampire story, Embrace of the Vampire exists to show off Alyssa Milano’s breasts. If you really, really, really want to see Alyssa Milano topless (and I know some of you do), then this is the movie for you. Of course you could just find the pictures on the Internet and save yourself the hour and a half. If you want to see a sensual vampire flick, you’re out of luck here. Yes, Milano takes off her top, and she is an extremely attractive woman, but she doesn’t do anything all that interesting once she’s bare breasted.

But let’s just take it as a given that her multiple flesh scenes are great cinema (if you don’t think that, just run from this film now). They still only amount to a few minutes. Between those scenes there are endless soliloquies on lost love and diatribes on virginity. No one does anything, but they sure talk a lot. If we’re not getting unbelievable dialog, we’re getting dreams. I really should have timed it, but my guess is more time is spent in dreams and hallucinations than in “real” action. Too bad all those dreams lead to nothing. Inhabiting those dreams is the wimpy vampire (who doesn’t even get a name) who snarls and crawls around the floor when he isn’t wearing cloths only fit for a gay German dance club. He also licks doors. You can see how there can be a lot of sexual tension between beautiful Charlotte and a guy with a door fetish. Worse still is Chris, who doesn’t have any personality beyond whining that Charlotte won’t sleep with him. To add in a touch of hypocrisy, the theme of the film is that lust should be suppressed and that a good life comes from purity. I don’t think anyone whose libido is quelled will find anything of interest in Embrace of the Vampire.

Reviews, Vampires Tagged with: One Reel

New Nightmare (1994)

Oct 091994

Now that the Nightmare on Elmstreet films are over and Freddy is dead, the people who made the films, including actress Heather Langenkamp, actor Robert Englund, and director Wes Craven (all playing themselves) are having nightmares of a darker Freddy. When Heather’s son begins acting strangely and people die, she realizes that Freddy Kreuger is real and coming after her.

Much is made of Scream‘s self-referential nature, but films that acknowledge that they are films are nothing new. Bob Hope comedies did it over and over again. The Last Action Hero played with being a stereotypical action picture as well as an Arnold Schwarzenegger vehicle. And two years before Craven made Scream, he created the modern horror, self-aware film. With the Elmstreet franchise long devoid of anything worthwhile, it was a clever move that could have produced a boring farce, but didn’t. New Nightmare is the first smart film in the series since the original, and it is the best acted and directed of them all (including the original). The production values are way up with believable dream world sequences. Additionally, Craven has a theme, although it isn’t what many critics claim. I’ve seen written over and over that in New Nightmare, Craven is suggesting that horror films may have negative consequences on young viewers; actually he is saying the opposite. Yes, that position is mentioned, by characters who lack any perspective on what is happening. Their questions lead to trouble and death. Instead, Craven is saying that there are real things out there that are frightening, but if we discuss them in our art, if we make fables out of them (as humans have done for millennia), then we can tackle them without fear numbing our actions; that is the value of horror pictures. It’s an interesting point, and one worth considering.

While New Nightmare demonstrated that something could be done with the dying series, not everything works. The doctors are an irritation (if a kid who was showing only psychological problems suddenly needed an oxygen tent, the hospital would call the mother). Plus, the time spent dealing with those meddling doctors is too long considering how trivial they are when compared to a dream killer with blades. And the great battle in the dream world could have fit into any Freddy movie; Heather uses none of her knowledge of the film franchise and Freddy is unaccountably weak. Still, the film is a standout among Slashers. It is also known as Wes Craven’s New Nightmare.

Reviews, Slashers Tagged with: Three Reels

Miracle on 34th Street (1994)

Oct 081994

Dorey Walker (Elizabeth Perkins), the parade organizer for Cole’s Thanksgiving Day Parade, hires an unknown jolly old man (Richard Attenborough) as a replacement for their drunken Santa Claus, first for the parade, and then for the department store. The problem is, he thinks he is Santa, and as he tries to bring a bit of magic to Dorey, her daughter Susan (Mara Wilson), and to lawyer Bryan Bedford (Dylan McDermott), others are trying to have him declared insane.

Already remade three times for TV, there was no compelling reason to mess with the 1947 classic, Miracle on 34th Street yet again. But they did. I considered attempting to review this version on its own, ignoring the original, but it really isn’t possible. And, I realized it isn’t useful as no one should even think about seeing this who hasn’t seen the first version. Watch the original, then come back and read this review. I’ll write as if you have done just that.

Remakes tend to fail in one of two ways: either they are too much like the original, in which case they are unnecessary, or they are too different, in which case they lose whatever was worth remaking. This sad excuse for a movie’s only success is that it manages the trick of failing both ways.

It isn’t uncommon to attempt to update an older film for modern sensibilities—keep the themes and basic concepts, but make them accessible to people with a different set of experiences. It is one of the few good excuses for a remake. Don’t look for anything hip or up-to-date in this work. It’s 1940s schmaltz, but without the charm that made it easy to swallow the first time around.

As for the changes, not a single clever decision was made. Some, like switching “Doris” to “Dorey” and “Fred Gailey” to “Bryan Bedford” were pointless, but didn’t harm anything. Others, such as “Macy’s” becoming “Cole’s” were outside of the filmmaker’s control (Macy’s wanted nothing to do with this project, though the filmmakers could still be partly blamed for adding an unnecessary subplot of the department store suffering financial problems). As for the other alterations, let’s take a look:

Laughing and cheering crowds are removed from the courtroom, making it more distant.
People now shout and cheer on the street for a department store Santa, removing the sense of intimacy.
Dorey’s development toward belief and love is no longer a perceivable shift based on events, but is more like psychotic jumps in personality, making her unlikable and unbelievable.
Instead of the antagonists being regular people without faith, there’s an evil store owner, mafia-like underlings, and an ex-Santa who implies pedophilia, stripping the film of its theme.
The scenes showing the judge’s motivation are missing, making it inexplicable that he would allow the now more ludicrous court events, such as bringing a reindeer into the court room.
The case has been shifted from being about Kris being insane for thinking he is Santa, to the question of the existence of Santa. Just what kind of a hearing is this? I could have sworn competency hearings should involve specifics about the “patient,” not general metaphysical questions. In doing this, all the humor has been removed from the trial.
Kris Kringle is now more erratic, often unable to control himself. In the original, he took several foolish actions because he was hurt. In this version, he just does things, be they wild outbursts or assaults, as he furtively glances about. Hmmmm. Maybe he is crazy and should be locked away.

The climax of the film, has been changed in a bizarre way. (*The rest of this paragraph will reveal a huge spoiler, as well as one for the original, but considering the rating I gave this turkey, I say read on*) In the 1947 version, the U.S. Post office delivered letters to the court, showing that the government takes Kris to be Santa. Case dismissed. This might work with a sympathetic judge. But in this version, Kris’ identity is ignored. With no “miracle” for the defense, Bryan just mouths some platitudes that wouldn’t impress a judge, then makes sure the judge sees a dollar bill. Upon noticing the bill says, “In God We Trust,” he rules for Kris because if the government can accept a metaphysical being like God, then we can all believe in Santa. Case dismissed.

What?! Is there any sense to that? If the Feds say one metaphysical being exists (God), then it is clear that not only do any others we dream up exist, but anyone claiming to be one of those entities is that entity. That’s one hell of a legal precedent. How anyone can use the existence of a god as proof of the existence of Santa is beyond me, but how does any of this show that Kris is the guy? I’m guessing that producer/writer John Hughes wanted to make some statement about Christianity, but I can’t say what that statement is supposed to be. So, God enters the film, but then fades away. If you’re religious, this sounds offensive; if you’re not, it comes off as inane.

There are people who can’t bring themselves to watch a B&W film. Sad, but true. Sadder still is the attempt to get these people’s money with swill like this. Hey, if for some reason you just can’t take the silver screen, then get the colorized version of the original. Sure, the colors lack subtlety and are often bland, but you’ll be far more satisfied. But the filmmakers were counting on people not doing that. The true reason the 1947 Christmas classic about belief and the disease of commercialism was remade was for money. Irony, it’s a bitch.

Christmas, Reviews Tagged with: Toxic

Godzilla vs. Space Godzilla (1994)

Oct 081994

G-Force has come up with yet another robotic super-weapon to destroy Godzilla, who now hangs out on an island with his frog-headed adopted son. They also have a second plan to control the monster with telepathy. However, their plans change when an “evil” double of Godzilla, with crystals on its shoulders, flies from some distant part of the solar system in order to abuse Baby Godzilla and kill the original big lizard.

A team of first-timers to the Godzilla franchise don’t inject fresh ideas, but instead slavishly repeat ideas from recent films while bringing back the mistakes of the past. An undisciplined movie where nothing is thought out, Godzilla vs. Space Godzilla is poorly conceived and chaotically executed. It is the worst of the giant lizard’s flicks in twenty years, and is the type of movie that gives the genre a bad reputation.

A bit of background: after seeing profits plummet in the ’70s, Toho studios, noting that they had devolved their star property from a terrifying force of nature to a noxiously cute savior of humanity, decided to put Godzilla on hiatus for ten years. When he returned, every film but the original had been stripped from the canon. Toho was now making semi-serious, monster/adventure movies that could be enjoyed by not only the young, but by anyone. That was the idea anyway. These “Heisei” films (1984-1996) were exciting, but had their own, new failings. Most contained overly complicated stories, with irrelevant subplots that often went nowhere, and chronicled the lives of poorly painted characters.

Godzilla vs. Space Godzilla combines the flaws of the Heisei series with those of the Showa series (1954-1975), making a film that does something wrong in almost every scene. The plot is a convoluted mess where things happen for no reason and most events don’t fit into the movie. Space Godzilla comes to Earth (why?), kidnaps Baby Godzilla (huh?), attacks Godzilla (why?), and then stops when he’s winning to go squat in the middle of a crystal fortress (that comes from nowhere). The government’s plan to stop Godzilla (telepathically controlling him) uses a commercial cruise ship to send their agents (soldiers?) to a monster-filled island (does the ship normally go by the monster-filled island? If so, this is the worst ticket ever.). When the one-and-only telepathy test fails, the whole project is dumped (so why is it in the movie?). A scientist defects to the mafia, kidnaps a girl, who is then rescued—all in five minutes (again, why is this in the movie since it goes nowhere and ends so quickly?). One member of G-Force, who apparently is never given orders and spends most of his time AWOL, runs around trying to kill Godzilla with a single bullet in a mid-caliber rifle (why are we watching him? Artillery can’t penetrate that hide, but this gun is going to?). Two fairies riding a moth warn a girl about things that the audience already knows and the character would find out about anyway within five minutes (so they are in the film because…?).

The characters are either scenery-chewing cartoons (the whiny psychic and the gruff, on-his-own-terms soldier), or undefined (everyone else). The psychic gets more screen time than in previous films (she is the one reoccurring character in the series) and she uses it to whine. Everyone babbles. The scientific theories fill up time, but have nothing to do with science (or even theories): “The cells of Godzilla and Space Godzilla are the same, so obviously, there are black holes, white holes, exploding stars, accelerated evolution, and crystal entities involved.” Yeah. Right.

While Heisei films may be packed with complicated nonsense, they normally look good. But Godzilla vs. Space Godzilla takes a huge step backward. Godzilla Jr., who only seemed mildly ridiculous in the previous movie, has reverted to his 1967 form: a cross between a warty Barney the Purple Dinosaur and a deranged smiley face. I suppose the change was to make him more appealing to two-year-olds afflicted with brain rot. And to keep it instructional for future anthropologists looking for the moment when the Great Cultural Decline began, he occasionally performs little hoppy dances. Space Godzilla isn’t a complete disaster, since he’s pretty much Godzilla with a meaner visage. That is, until you notice that he’s got two big globs of plastic on his shoulders. That’s gotta be tough on his spine. I hope he has a good chiropractor. When he flies, he is hung beneath a bunch of plastic shapes because…well, I guess it was cheap.

The third player in the three-way throw-downs is a metallic punk penguin with overlarge glasses. Why did the Japanese government feel the need to make their killer weapon in the shape of an unstable bird? Why did the makers of this film feel the need to repeat the giant robot angle that had been used a year before in Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla II, and to make one that isn’t nearly as cool. There had been no reason for anyone to make a big tank in the general shape of Godzilla, but that doesn’t mean that the doors are open now for a WMD that looks like a flightless bird this time around (stranger since it flies with butt rockets).

The big mistake of the Showa films, the one that caused Toho to restart the franchise, was the emasculation of Godzilla, making him a hero and friend to children. Godzilla vs. Space Godzilla turns him into a protector once again, with the psychic saying how swell he is and how he must live. Since Toho didn’t make Godzilla a completely swell guy, this view is nuts. The big lizard is still happy to stomp on people, but psychic girl thinks this is OK, and, from the way the film is structured, we’re supposed to think so too.

Godzilla movies are about a big nasty monster ripping up Tokyo and other monsters. They shouldn’t be about pining for some lizard lovin’ or the fidgeting of a rejected Pokemon.

Foreign Language, Godzilla, Reviews Tagged with: One Reel

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1994)

Oct 081994

Picked up in the arctic by an exploration ship, Victor Frankenstein (Kenneth Brannagh) tells his tragic story—how he fell in love with his stepsister, Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter), how his mother died a bloody death during childbirth, how he went to school to become a doctor, and how, in his quest to end death, he created a living creature (Robert De Niro).

Sticking an author’s or a director’s name before the title is a red flag for me. It’s an announcement that the film isn’t good enough to lure in an audience, so maybe the name will. In this case, the filmmakers claim it’s there because Universal has the rights to the single word “Frankenstein.” Whatever the reason, you shouldn’t go into this thinking it’s a faithful version of Mary Shelley’s book. It is closer than many, but as some have nothing to do with the book outside of character names, that’s not saying much.

The name of this film should have been Kenneth Brannagh’s Frankenstein, as it has his touch everywhere. At home in larger than life, epic, romantic parts, he has transformed Victor Frankenstein into a romance novel lead. With flooffy hair and washboard abs, this Frankenstein doesn’t carry out immoral acts, but rather fights heroically for all of mankind, as well as his love, only to be foiled by bad luck and timing.

I’m not opposed to heroes or romance, but Frankenstein is not a story that lends itself to a Fabio rewrite. The Creature is repellant and Victor chops up corpses—not the stuff of pretty Victorian corset-bursting fiction. If Branaugh has dialed it down a few notches, then, with a reworking of the creature, perhaps it might of worked. But Branaugh is in full opera mode, yelling, weeping, and barking his lines. Frankenstein is a larger than life story, but even it has its limits.

The rest of the cast is somewhere between acceptable and good. John Cleese is cast against type as a dark, troubled scientist, and shows that he can do more than comedy. Helena Bonham Carter doesn’t come off as well and ends up being a ’90s girl playing dress up.

No matter how hard Branaugh fights to make this his film, Frankenstein is always about the Creature. Boris Karloff brought not only heart to the monster, but also something original, something alien. De Niro’s version is sympathetic, but he’s just a guy with scars. There’s nothing special, supernatural, or even odd about him. You can’t have a monster movie without a monster, and all Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein has is a man in need of a plastic surgeon.

De Niro is also one half of one of the oddest scenes in recent film history. Naked, he is dumped, along with a hot tub’s supply of warm jell-o onto the floor to be grabbed and felt-up by a half naked Branaugh. If this is the gay porn section of the film, I at least understand the intention. But nowhere else does this subtext exist. If I’m not supposed to take this as homoerotic wrestling, how would Branaugh and company like me to take it? If Mr. Branaugh wasn’t auditioning for a part in “Man Meat,” then this scene shows just how little thought was put into this project.

Back to Mad Scientists

Mad Scientists, Mad Scientists, Reviews Tagged with: Two Reels

Wolf (1994)

Oct 061994

Depressed and aging editor Will Randall (Jack Nicholson) is bitten by a wolf on a snowy Vermont road. Returning to the office, he finds himself demoted by wealthy publisher Raymond Alden (Christopher Plummer), and replaced by his traitorous protégé, Stewart Swinton (James Spader). But Randall starts to feel powerful, aggressive, and in control. He also starts a relationship with Alden’s daughter, Laura (Michelle Pfeiffer).

Wolf feels like three films merged into an uneven, but satisfying whole. The first section, a comedy-drama about a weak man being crushed, and then taking it all back—and more—by the power of his wolf, is the most successful. We’re in metaphor territory here, with the werewolf representing reclaimed masculinity. Want to be happy in the modern world? Find you inner beast. It’s no coincidence that the popularity of men’s groups, with suburban males in the forest beating drums, was at its height when Wolf was released. This is no criticism. There are real issues that need to be addressed, but it’s hard to take anything seriously when stated by an accountant pretending he’s a tribal hunter. But set in a comical tale of werewolves in the corporate world, it’s easy to listen to the concerns. Humor is the key. Wolf simultaneously takes a swipe at corporate life; an easy target, but that doesn’t stop it from being an effective satire.

Part two brings us unnecessary explanations (why must monster movies always have an expository old person?), an unlikely romance between Randall and Laura Alden, and Randall’s fear of the consequences of his bestial nature. None of it’s bad, but neither is it compelling. With almost no humor, we’re expected to take it all seriously, and that’s hard to do. Not the werewolf bit, that’s comparably believable, but rather that the beautiful and youthful Laura would hang out with Randall; that’s what’s too much to swallow. When it is suggested she’s with him only for the opportunity to act out and upset her father, it is plausible. But when we’re handed this relationship as deep and true love that’s developed in a few days between an aging man showing signs of psychosis, and a bratty, hot babe who is emotionally closed, it doesn’t gel. Randall’s guilt and uncertainty is more reasonable, but not much fun to watch.

The third section gets things moving again as the themes are dropped in favor of action. It’s monster mash time. The comedy is back, along with some blood, punches, and a few minimal special effects. It’s good, mindless fun.

Nicholson, controlled by director Mike Nichols, manages the broken old man with only the slightest step into parody. His transition to energized wolf-man is a joy to behold and is Nicholson doing Nicholson, but better.

Pfeiffer makes a good damsel in distress without being weak. I can’t say that I ever felt her character fit the picture, but she’s beautiful enough that I didn’t mind.

However, it’s James Spader (Stargate, Crash) that brings a sparkle to Wolf. I’m not sure if Spader can play an average guy, but he has down bizarre. With his “I’m so charming I must be stabbing you in the back” smile, he projects an image of someone who isn’t quite right. So, when we find out that things are deeply wrong with him, it all makes sense. Spader has perfect comic timing, and I found myself laughing with him, hating him, and yet cheering for him, just a little.

I like the understated werewolf makeup. It reminds me of Werewolf of London where the “monsters” could almost pass as human. It’s a good look that any talented makeup artist should be able to do on the cheap. Why Rick Baker, the top man in his field and undoubtedly not cheap, was hired is beyond me. If you are looking for the sort of wild effects Baker is known for, you’ll be disappointed. But werewolf films should be about more than hulking beasts, and there’s a lot to enjoy in Wolf .

Reviews, Werewolves Tagged with: Four Reels

Prince of Jutland (1994)

Oct 031994

Fenge (Gabriel Byrne) usurps the throne of Jutland by killing his brother, King Hardvanael, and marrying his widow (Helen Mirren). Hardvanael’s son, Amled (Christian Bale), feigns insanity, but Fenge doubts his condition and sends him to a friendly duke (Brian Cox) in England to be murdered. Instead, the prince becomes a hero, marries an English girl (Kate Beckinsale), and returns to Jutland for his revenge.

Based not on Hamlet, but on its source material, the chronicles of Saxo Grammaticus, Prince of Jutland tells generally the same tale, but simplified in almost every way. Luckily, it’s a pretty good tale, filled with intrigue, deceit, and murder.

This account tries for an accurate portrait of medieval Denmark, with simple wooden structures and bland garments. There are no great warhorses, just small ponies. The women take nude saunas, hitting each other with branches, and the men fight with primitive weapons. While this small scale is effective for the story, the term “chieftain” or “village elder” might have been better than “king” for Hardvanael for setting the proper tone. “King” implies something grander than is found here.

The acting is first rate, with Byrne smoldering with hatred and corruption. Bale manages to convey a believable, affable young “prince” and plays crazy with a zeal I haven’t seen him match since. Mirren is always good, and beautiful in the sauna scene.

The scenery adds as much as the cast. Filmed in Denmark, the movie depicts a beautiful world, but one not friendly to men trying to live off of it. It is easy to believe that the men of Jutland are always one poor harvest from death.

Unfortunately, the low budget shows through. The village is a bit too small, particularly as large portions of the population appear to be missing a majority of the time, making it look like this is a conflict over a club house. But while that’s annoying, the battles are painful. Look, if you don’t have the money to shoot a sword-swinging, axe-cleaving battle, then don’t put one in your movie. It’s really that simple. Instead, we get several. The first show two men swinging in slow motion before fading to red. The second is similar to what you might see at a local renaissance faire, with too few men and no believable moves.

Editing is also an issue. I felt I was watching a two and a half hour film, hacked down to an hour and a half. Pieces are missing, transitions are too sudden, and both the character and the narrative development often lurch forward before returning to a reasonable pace. I can only guess that the unnecessary narration (how often are narrations actually needed in films?) was someone’s answer to the uneven flow of the film. But it rarely comments on anything which isn’t obvious.

I enjoyed Prince of Jutland, when I wasn’t cringing, but it easily could have been much better.

Also known as Royal Deceit in the U.S.

Reviews, Shakespeare Tagged with: Two Reels

1 2 … 65 66 67 68 69 … 133 134