Oct 061992
 
three reels

Mary and Charles Brady (Alice Krige, Brian Krause) are a mother and son team of shape-changing sleepwalkers, vampiric creatures that feed on virgins. New to a small town, Mary is hungry and Charles has chosen Tanya (Mädchen Amick) as their meal.

Do you remember drive-in movies? Simple pictures that were fun, if silly, and just right for shouting at the screen from your convertible with your best girl by your side?  Me neither. But TV shows keep telling me that’s the way it was in the ’50s and ’60s. Well, if there was this golden age of drive-ins, then Sleepwalkers would have been a perfect film for it. There’s touches of violence, gore, and incest—none extreme enough to bother a ten year old, but all enough to titillate. It’s funny and fast paced with no wasted moments (I guess you better get your popcorn before it starts). For vacuous, B-movie fare, you couldn’t ask for much more. Well, maybe a latex monster suit that looks less ridiculous. Or some explanation of why cat scratches are fatal. Or maybe a bit of a reaction from the victim when his hand gets ripped off.  But in B-movie land, those are small flaws (ummm, that rat-cat suit does mar several scenes). The music more than makes up for the faults (Amick’s cleaning-dance to Do You Love Me would make anyone love her; Enya’s Boadicea gives the film a mythic feeling).  But this flawed but fun schlock wouldn’t rise above the average ’50s SF monster flick without Alice Krige. She gives the story depth the plot doesn’t deserve. She’s sexy and predatory and as believable as anyone could be in an unbelievable role. She cares about Charles, so I care about Charles. Of course that could be a problem as it puts me squarely on the monster’s side, cheering them on to suck that virgin dry.

There’s no scares to be had, but if you want a cheesy ninety minutes written by Stephen King and filled with cameos (John Landis, Joe Dante, Clive Barker, and Stephen King), give this a shot.

Oct 051992
 
three reels

Pin Head (Doug Bradley) returns, without the powers or restraints of hell, to cause mayhem.  Only the puzzle box can stop him.  TV reporter Joey (Terry Farrell) has the box, and a dream connection to Pin Head’s human half.  If only she can trick the human bound monster and send him back to hell…

Well, things blow up reeeal good.  This third Hellraiser film has little to do with the first two, but it has a lot to do with explosions and fires.  It’s not bad if you ignore the word “Hellraiser” in the title and take it to be just another monster flick.  Pin Head has degenerated into a generic demon and the shock factor is gone.  If you want fairly good-looking monsters and some spectacular death scenes, plus the before mentioned nearly random explosions, then you’ll enjoy Hell on Earth.  If you are looking for the kind of innovation and twisted genius that were the hallmark of the first two films, you will be disappointed.

Terry Farrell (Star Trek: Deep Space 9) is pretty enough but could have used a few more acting lessons.  Even Doug Bradley is a bit off his game as Pin Head, but he does have some good lines.

The other films in the series are: Hellraiser, Hellbound: Hellraiser II, Hellraiser: Bloodline, Hellraiser: Inferno, Hellraiser: Hellseeker, Hellraiser: Deader, Hellraiser: Hellworld.

Back to Demons

Oct 051992
 
two reels

The government resurrects Vietnam-era soldiers as cyborgs for dangerous missions.  However, their memories are not completely wiped and two of the ‘Unisols’ begin reliving the past, where one was a psychotic killer (Dolph Lundgren), and the other a hero (Jean-Claude Van Damme).

Quick Review: If you are going to make a robot out of a dead guy, get rid of the brain.  Just take it out.  I would have thought Robocop made that clear to all evil scientists.  Apparently not, as here we go again.  Roland Emmerich, who went on to make Stargate and Independence Day, decides what worked for Arnold should work for Jean-Claude, and he isn’t wrong.  If your beefy actor can’t act, can barely speak, but looks good, make him a cyborg.  Emmerich goes on to “borrow” from the second Terminator film, the earlier mentioned Robocop, and any other SF action film he could find to make this brain dead, but reasonably entertaining, film.  When you switch on a Van Damme/Lundgren film, you know what to expect, and within that framework, Universal Soldier isn’t bad.  It isn’t cyberpunk, but it is a third cousin.

 Cyberpunk, Reviews Tagged with:
Oct 021992
 
two reels

At the moment of his death, Alex Furlong (Emilio Estevez), a racecar driver in 1991, is pulled through time to 2009 where his body is meant as a replacement for a dying rich man’s. Alex escapes, finds his old fiancée (Rene Russo), who works for the most powerful businessman in the world (Anthony Hopkins), and together they run from a relentless bounty hunter (Mick Jagger).

So, by 2009, we’ve developed time travel. Cool. Wouldn’t five or six additional decades make it a bit more believable? Of course if the film was set far enough in the future to have the technology even minutely plausible (OK, it’s never plausible), Rene Russo’s character would be far too old to be fooling around with Emilio Estevez. Since they have the romantic chemistry of two twigs in the street, I can’t see that ensuring their age compatibility is important, but this is a Hollywood film, so there must be a romance.

Now Estevez’s Alex escapes when brought to the future, thus becoming a freejack. So, enough people plucked from the past for mind transfer have escaped that they have a word for it? Wow, future security just sucks. That’s not surprising since these near future people can’t think up anything better to do with time travel.

So, the plot is a series of holes held together by foreshadowing that the blind can see. The main stars don’t so much phone in their performances as tap them in on a telegraph machine. Still, it’s not a bad mindless chase picture.  Mick Jagger does the best job by overacting (which makes him fit in with the explosions and crashes). There’s lots of running and truck chases and shootouts (often with electro-guns) and even a sword. Lots of unnamed people die and there are some really unnecessary cyberspace effects, which adds up to an enjoyable, non-engaging film.

 Cyberpunk, Reviews Tagged with:
Sep 291992
 
two reels

Stuffy, British couple Fiona and Nigel Dobson (Kristin Scott Thomas, Hugh Grant) take a cruise to India in an attempt to bring some magic to their overly comfortable marriage.  On board they meet sexy, French, femme fatale, Mimi (Emmanuelle Seigner), and her obnoxious, crippled, American husband, Oscar (Peter Coyote), who pick Nigel to hear the story of their sordid lives.  Oscar is both repelled by and addicted to the account, mostly because he has become obsessed with Mimi.

Bitter Moon is a great big, twisted tale of love, hate, and death, that signifies far too little.  For an investment of 138 minutes of my life, I want something more than a straight-line story with predictable characters.

The film is notorious for perverted content and lurid sex scenes.  The only thing that shocked me was the overly sensitive nature of  a majority of film critics.  Yes, sex is discussed in the film, but we’ve all had sex and know what it is, so this isn’t that breathtaking.  (If you haven’t had sex, what are you doing watching this film?  Go, now, and get a date.)  A few unusual sexual activities are discussed, but nothing that should surprise anyone.  As for what is actually shown, it’s not much.  Emmanuelle Seigner appears topless multiple times, but that should hardly offend anyone who chooses to see an R-rated film.  She’s quite attractive, and seeing her is as exciting as it gets.  What I noticed was how prudish the film could be.  It would show a bit of skin, and then cut back to Oscar describing the situation instead of showing anything explicit.

Most of the film is a series of flashbacks, told by hack writer Oscar.  His speech is filled with clichés and his story is out of a cheap novel, which works considering his stated lack of talent.  As he’s also an unpleasant man and a liar, it’s impossible to say how much of his account is true and why he is telling it.  Unfortunately, the ending makes nothing of this possible fictional nature and I was left thinking we’re supposed to take the story at face value, which makes it very drab indeed.

Not much happens on the ship, and the little that does makes no sense.  Nigel is willing to go to extremes, including drugging his wife (well, encouraging her to overdose) to get a chance to be alone with Mimi.  Why?  She’s a hot babe, but she’s not much of a siren.  She’s unpleasant and insulting, and add in Oscar, and you end up with creepy.  I needed to see a whole lot more to convince me that Nigel would chase her.

Hugh Grant plays a version of the priggish character he’s portrayed in better films, and is less believable than usual.  Kristin Scott Thomas sells her part of the partly-loved, partly-loving wife, but has little to do.  Emmanuelle Seigner is an object of desire.  The film belongs to Peter Coyote, and he was closer to annoying than interesting.

So, with no shocks or surprises, slow pacing of a ho-hum plot, and adequately portrayed characters that are unlikely to engage the viewer, what is left of interest?  Ms Seigner’s form is not enough to be the basis of a movie, no matter how sensuous she is (besides, this is far from soft-core; no one’s going to get titillated).

Well that leaves theme, and we’ve got theme in abundance.  And if it represents co-writer/director Roman Polanski’s views, than I’d suggest Ms Seigner, who is his wife, run away very quickly.  Polanski’s had many troubling events in his life (look it up) and I could imagine he’s developed a dark philosophy, but Bitter Moon is a cry for anti-depressants.  He suggests love is empty, life is meaningless, people are cruel, and the only thing that will grant you any relief is knowing that some part of you continues.

Socially proper relationships (as personified by Fiona and Nigel) lead to unhappiness since there is nothing there but surface—action without depth.  An aberrant lifestyle doesn’t help; it may produce a momentary sense of elation, but the crash is just that much harder for it.  There is no communication between partners (everyone talks and hears in the film, but no one says anything meaningful and no one listens).  Any activities that don’t involve a partner (writing a book, traveling to India) produce nothing of real value.  The voice of hope and wisdom in the film is that of Mr. Singh, an Indian that Fiona and Nigel meet on the ship.  He alone is happy, and points out the flaws in their actions (such as the trip to India).  So, why is he happy?  What is the way out of the horrible trap that is life?  Well, his wife is dead (so no more lies about “love”) and he has a child, and children create continuity.  There is no reason to think he loves his child; love isn’t the issue.  What matters is a connection to the future.  Fiona, the most reasonable of the failed characters, feels he is right although she had previously decided not to breed.  The way she paws at the child is more obscene than any of the sexual shenanigans.  I could see her need.

Bitter Moon uses sex to illuminate the futility of existence.  I’m not convinced by his arguments, and was only mildly entertained.

 Film Noir, Reviews Tagged with:
Sep 291992
 
four reels

Nick, a troubled policeman (Michael Douglas), becomes the mental and physical plaything of rich, educated, bisexual partier, Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone), a suspect in an ice pick murder.  His simple partner (George Dzundza) and ex-lover, psychologist Dr. Beth Garner (Jeanne Tripplehorn), try to help him, but he falls deeper and deeper into addiction and Catherine’s plots.  But there are a lot of secrets being kept, and Catherine isn’t the only one connected to murders.

A direct descendant of Body Heat and Hitchcock’s Virtigo, Basic Instinct has the dubious honor of giving birth to hundreds of cut-rate, direct-to-video, sexual thrillers.  But you can’t blame a parent for its children.  And this is one hell of a hot parent.

The structure is that of a murder mystery, but this isn’t a mystery.  It doesn’t matter who the killer is.  In most Noirs, there is no question of who killed whom.  The point is to get to know these people.  It’s clear from the beginning that Catherine Tramell is capable of murder; the only question is: did she happen to do it this time?  That’s not an interesting question.

So, like the Noirs of old, this is a character study.  We get to spend two hours with the ultimate icon of everything that is worshipful and frightening in women, along with an average broken man, and a collection of everyday people with their sniveling problems and narrow insights.  Yes, this is the Catherine Tramell Show and what a great show it is.  She is the ultimate femme fatale.  Sexy, powerful, manipulative, beautiful, artistic, and smarter than everyone around her, she is every man’s greatest fantasy, but one that most of us hope stays far away from real life.  Let’s face it guys, we’re no match for her.

Basic Instinct opened to ill-conceived protests from feminists and homosexual rights groups who missed the point:  Catherine Tramell is not the villain; she’s the hero.  Nothing in this movie slams women or lesbians/bisexuals.  But the groups yelled because Catherine isn’t a PC, gentle, business woman.  No she isn’t.  She’s better.  Remember the old Helen Ready song: “I am woman, hear me roar.”  Well, here she is.  I suggest trembling.

Of course the sex is exciting, and the nudity is captivating, and none of it is gratuitous.  This is a film about power and passion, and Catherine uses everything she’s got.  Besides her body, she uses language, and many of the best scenes consist of her talking to Nick.  It is old-school Noir dialog, which means witty and meaningful, and Sharon Stone’s playful delivery nudges it over into “classic” range along side Philip Marlowe & Vivian Rutledge’s in The Big Sleep and Waldo Lydecker’s in Laura.  That’s lofty company.  In fact, Stone’s portrayal is across-the-board perfect.  Her career since ’92 has been less than impressive, but here, steely, erotic, and imperious, no one could have been better.

Director Paul Verhoeven brings a look to the film which is more Hitchcockian than Hitchcock.  Because his subject matter is often drenched with sex and violence, and due to the miscalculation of Show Girls, his skill is often ignored.  But Verhoeven is a master of setting and camera movement, and is likely the most underrated director working.  Here, a sweeping, overhead shot of San Francisco does more in two seconds to set the mood than other directors can do in two hours.  The famed police interrogation, where Catherine defeats a room full of men by simply uncrossing and crossing her legs, is one of the great scenes in modern cinema.  Verhoeven takes us into the room, lets us see every emotion and every bead of sweat.  He pulls in, letting Catherine overwhelm with a glance, and then slides out again, making us feel like we are one of the policemen and are as helpless as they.

If only every moment could be spent with Catherine.  But the story follows Nick, and whenever he is without her, the film pales.  Michael Douglas is a reasonable choice for the weak, disturbed cop, but there is no way for him to make the part sing.  Whenever he is investigating or arguing with other officers, I found myself uninvolved, just waiting for him to meet up again with Catherine.  Jeanne Tripplehorn injects some slightly twisted energy, but without Catherine, the movie is just biding its time.  Luckily, she’s never gone long.

With all the murders, unexplained characters, and unanswered questions, Basic Instinct keeps the viewer off balance.  It is never clear who has done what, and why.  Which leads to the one miscalculation.  In the final seconds of the picture, we’re fed what is supposedly all the answers.  Actually, what we are shown answers very little, but there’s no question that the filmmakers wanted us to think that it covers everything.  This is a case when less is more.  There was no reason to mess with a beautifully ambiguous ending.  I prefer to ignore Verhoeven and company’s intentions, and go with what they shot instead of what they meant, which lets me bask in the uncertainty.

Verhoeven also directed the brilliant and undervalued Flesh & Blood (1985), the satiric bloodbath, RoboCop (1987), the cyberpunk action-fest, Total Recall (1990), the wry, anti-fascist Starship Troopers (1997), and the disappointing Hollow Man (2000).

 Film Noir, Reviews Tagged with:
Sep 171992
 
two reels

A meteor strike both wakes Godzilla and uncovers Mothra’s egg. It is also the final straw for Battra, who heads toward Japan to wreak havoc. A poor Indiana Jones stand-in, his ex-wife, and a salaryman head to Infant Island to check out the egg, and end up recreating as many Indiana Jones scenes as could be shoehorned in. They also end up with two taking fairies. It seems, the fairies explain, that they are the last survivors of a wonderful, ancient race that was protected by Mothra. Well, wonderful until they decided to drain the “life force” from the Earth (Mothra not looking so swell now, is she?). The Earth responded by creating Battra, a black Mothra, to defend it, and the civilization was drowned. Now, with humans destroying the Earth once again, Battra is back to save it, and Mothra is back…for…reasons. Also…Godzilla.

A lose remake of 1961’s Mothra, with an added dark moth, Godzilla and Mothra: The Battle For Earth has little for Godzilla to do, which makes sense since he wasn’t in the first draft. Toho was going to make a Mothra movie but decided their Godzilla franchise needed some familiar names in it. So Godzilla got written in and feels written in.

Also written in was a romantic comedy plot because market research said they needed to get more women and kids to buy tickets, and the best way to do that was to add a deadbeat dad and a put-upon woman with a child. Well, Godzilla films have had worse human subplots. The couple makes little sense in the film (Why did they need Indie to go to the island instead of any of hundreds of other better informed choices and what exactly was he going to do there? Who is he trying to sell the fairies to? Why does mom drag her kid into danger zones?), but there are so many other things that make less sense that it is hard to pick on the movie for that. Now, me not liking them and having no interest in them getting back together, that’s a problem worth picking on.

The other humans are unnecessary, as usual in Godzilla films. The salaryman and his insane boss end up not affecting the plot (which is odd since they directly map onto characters in Mothra and Godzilla vs Mothra, where the corporate types matter a great deal). The annoying psychic girl that infests all the Heisei era Godzilla films helps to find the fairies with her magic powers, but could have been cut without comment. Every other human simply stands in front of a screen and comments on Godzilla stomping on things or on how humans are destroying the environment. As a firm believer in the latter message, even I was annoyed by how it was hammered home. Partly, that was due to the fact that the film wants us to side with Mothra, but really Battra should be the good guy (good moth?). It’s Battra who is trying to save the Earth. To keep with the symbolism, I’d like to have seen Battra wipe out the human race.

The monster carnage is about what one would expect for a 1990s Godzilla film. The Godzilla suit (suits as the big guy changes his appearance mid-movie) isn’t bad and Mothra is better than she’d ever been, which isn’t saying much. The Battra worm is, at times, a guy in a suit, which looks about as well as one would expect. If you can get past the puppets and suits and lack of leg movement and horribly fake bites and wounds, I suppose the combat isn’t bad. To give Mothra something other than wind-powers, she now shoots beams. So does Battra. I guess that’s something that giant monsters just do. So if you like beams, you’ve got something to look forward to.

To keep the budget low, there aren’t many people in the streets, which makes the city-crushing unimportant. There’s little in the way of screaming citizenry dodging falling masonry. It’s just a guy in a suit fighting two moth puppets. It looks OK, but is unengaging, which is a good description of the film.

At least the music is good.

Mar 081992
 
four reels

Helen Lyle (Virginia Madsen), a university student working on a paper about urban myths, investigates the legend of the Candyman.  Both a romantic and a horrifying figure, when human, the Candyman (Tony Todd) was brutally murdered due to his race.  If you say his name five times, he will appear.

Quick Review: Candyman is poetry meeting Slasher and both are caught off guard.  It is an atmospheric art film, with hooks rending flesh and pools of blood.  Everything is several steps above the normal level of a Slasher (except humor, which is completely lacking—this work takes itself very seriously), particularly the acting.  Madsen creates a completely believable heroine, a bit naive and weak at the beginning, trapped but stronger at the end.  Todd is a standout, with his deep, fluid voice and commanding, somewhat lost expressions.  When he extols the virtues of painful death, it is almost believable.  The complex screenplay, based on a Clive Barker story, left me with plenty to think about and more to feel, particularly about race relations in modern culture.  If you’re not interested in thinking, Candyman will still entertain with plenty of gore and scares.  It didn’t frighten me (only three films have), but I’m not entirely comfortable reciting “Candyman,” five times.

Back to Ghost StoriesBack to Slashers

Feb 271992
 
3,5 reels

Penguin (Danny DeVito), leader of a criminal organization of circus freaks, rises out of the sewers for his own purposes, but industrialist Max Shreck (Christopher Walken) has other plans for him. Shreck’s secretary, Selina Kyle (Michelle Pfeiffer) discovers part of his scheme, and Shreck kills her. But she returns from the dead as Catwoman. Penguin and Catwoman have one thing in common: their desire to kill Batman (Michael Keaton).

Batman was the most Tim Burton-y of Tim Burton films; I couldn’t imagine him going further. He did. Batman Returns is a dark fantasy where art deco meets circus freak and the 1920s, ‘50s, and ‘90s are merged into a Never-Never Land. This isn’t our world or one this side of a nervous breakdown. Gotham City is more lovely, if your tastes run to the eerie, and more fantastic. Wayne Manner is a haunted house. Danny DeVito’s Penguin is a grotesque monster for those who love a carnival and Michelle Pfeiffer’s Catwoman breathes sex and insanity. There’s a lot to love.

But as a whole, more is less. The sheer weird spectacle gets a bit tiring and there is too much going on. Three villains was at least one villain too many. Catwoman and Penguin each could have carried the film. With too many stories to tell, none got the focus it needed and Batman became a supporting player in his own film. The relationships are the victims. A lot more could have been done with Bruce and Selina vs Batman and Catwoman. More meaning could have been given to the Penguin’s quest for acceptance and vengeance. Everything falls apart at the end, when even the sense of dreams fails. I don’t mind penguins with missiles (though monstrous penguins would have fit better), but I shouldn’t have been left asking how they got loaded up so quickly. It remains a beautiful film and the second best for the Dark Knight, but I could have used a bit less, to get more.

Batman Returns followed Batman (1989) and was followed by Batman Forever (1995) and Batman & Robin (1997). The character was rebooted into Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy: Batman Begins (2005), The Dark Knight (2008), and The Dark Knight Rises (2012). 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.

Oct 111991
 
one reel

A neglectful father (John Calvin), returning from a vacation with his daughter, Annie (Aimee Brooks), accidentally brings “critter” eggs back to his low-rent apartment complex.  Though Aimee was warned about the monsters from bizarre alien-hunter Charlie McFadden (Don Keith Opper), she doesn’t believe until the critters start attacking.  Then it is up to her and Josh (Leonardo DiCaprio), the stepson of the unscrupulous landlord, to save the day.

Hand-puppets-of-death!  There is so much sly humor available to a movie featuring killer pieces of cloth.  It almost writes itself. Too bad the filmmakers didn’t go that route as having someone write the script didn’t work out so well.  It has nothing approaching humor.  Nor does it contain horror.

What it does have is family drama.  You see, Annie’s father has grown detached from his children since the death of her mother.  Annie is upset about this and doesn’t want to grow up too fast. In multiple scenes, she shows her frustration, by pouting or huffing or talking and talking about it.  The father shows his isolation by sitting around. Sound exciting? Hey, it gets even better.  Enter one pre-Romeo + Juliet, tween heartthrob, Leonardo DiCaprio, replacing da Vinci as the Leonardo of Western civilization. Leonardo has family problems too.  It seems his mother has remarried, and you know what stepfathers are like.  What are teens to do when their families just aren’t listening?

Ummmm.  Where are the monsters?  I could have sworn this movie was about hairy little monsters that eat folks. Shouldn’t someone get eaten?  When I’m looking for a horror comedy, something with small creatures that can devour a person’s head, I rarely am truly in search of an after school special.  I want to see hairballs chomping on people.

Eventually the critters do bite a few bad guys (only villains get hurt in this film). They then go on to drink dishwashing liquid and eat beans.  Then there’s some more family drama and some more drinking of dishwashing liquid.  Outside of a brief attack on a pair of bunny slippers, there isn’t a moment that’s amusing.

All of the Critters films suffer from being aimed at more than normally dim children, but this one forgets that children like to see little cute monsters feasting on the unwary far more than teen girls discussing their problems.

The other films in the series are Critters, Critter 2: The Main Course, and Critters 4.

 Aliens, Reviews Tagged with:
Oct 091991
 
one reel

Two teens, Cindy and Lucy (Ami Dolenz, Maya McLaughlin), accidentally wake a vampire who starts converting the residents of the backwoods town of Allburg.  A love-struck Priest discovers his dead brother’s wife (Karen Black) and Cindy have become vampires and restrains them.  He recruits his old friend, Mark (Peter DeLuise), to see what caused the vampirism.

Produced by the folks that publish Fangoria magazine, the largest horror fanzine, Children of the Night doesn’t speak well for their subject-matter expertise.  For many years they have reported on what is effective in the genre, so when they made a film, I expected it to have some connection to horror.  You know, something frightening.  Or shocking.  Or interesting.  Anything other than drab.  But perhaps they always intended to make a comedy, not a horror movie.  Of course, then it should have been funny.  I’ve heard the film called a satire, but I can’t think what it might be satirizing.

Children of the Night starts well, introducing an all-American small town in the Bible belt, and then corrupting the image with kids stealing porn, a drunk stumbling into the street to be struck by a hit-and-run preacher van, and a doctor trying to talk his way out of his malpractice case.  Then, it switches to two teens swimming in a submerged crypt, symbolically washing the dust of Allburg off before they leave the area.  It’s an improbable scene, but it looks good, and isn’t something I’ve seen a hundred times before.  Unfortunately, things go downhill rapidly as we’re introduced to Mark, one of the many lit-teaching, ex-seminarians who inhabit bad horror.  For reasons known only to the multiple writers, they treat us to an irrelevant scene of Mark arguing the value of reading with a Bible-thumping parent.  Oh, the horror.  Actually, Peter DeLuise’s acting (thumping things, grimacing, and yelling out each line) is pretty frightening.  Thinking he isn’t overacting enough, he rushes over to Evan MacKenzie as Father Frank who has become a guru of overacting.  No gesture is too broad.  No shout is too loud.  Father Frank feels pain, and MacKenzie isn’t afraid to bang into walls and slap his palm against anything that makes noise.  Now that’s ACTING.

As a majority of the cast follow DeLuise’s and MacKenzie’s lead, the blame has to go to director Tony Randel.  That’s strange as Randel demonstrated real talent with Hellbound: Hellraiser II, but here it looks like he gave up, leaving the actors on their own while he played with the camera, making interesting shots that had nothing to do with the scene.

The only one who comes out of this looking like they should ever get another job is Ami Dolenz, who pulls off a poignant speech about what she’s lost in becoming a vampire.  Take her, a few effects, and the opening, and dump the rest, and maybe someone could make a good film from it.

 Reviews, Vampires Tagged with:
Oct 081991
 
two reels

This may take a little longer than usual. Three people from the future and their cyborgs take a UFO through time to 1992. They warn the Japanese government that the entire country will be destroyed in the next century by Godzilla, and they want to travel back to 1944 and stop him from ever existing. You see, Terasawa, a journalist, has  discovered that a squad of Japanese soldiers were saved from attacking Americans during WWII by an immortal dinosaur (he must be immortal as he recovers from fatal chest wounds, and then everyone just assumes he’ll be around fifty years later after he’s dumped into the sea). That dinosaur would later become Godzilla when hit by radiation from nuclear bomb tests. The future folks want to send just one of their members, Emmy (a Japanese girl), and their super cyborg to the past along with the journalist, a current era dinosaur expert, and a psychic. Why do they want these three people?  I haven’t a clue.  Why aren’t all of the time travelers going?  Beats me. Why did they even stop in 1992 instead of going straight to 1944? They never say. So they go back and teleport the wounded dinosaur into the ocean far away from the island. Why didn’t they just kill the proto-Godzilla?  Who knows.

While in the past, Emmy releases three gold, plastic-winged, Muppets. Back in the present, Godzilla is gone, though everyone still remembers him. Why? I’ve no idea. In the monster’s place is the three-headed dragon, King Ghidorah, which everyone knows to call by name even though he’s brand new. Why? Don’t know. It seems he was created by the three Muppets being hit by the blast that had previously created Godzilla, which would mean he’s been around for 50 years, except he hasn’t been. (Ummm. OK, I guess I’ll just have to go with that.) This was the future folks’ plan all along. Really, they are from some group that opposes economic inequality, and since Japan owns the world of 2204, they want to crush it now.

Once Ghidorah starts destroying everything, Emmy gets upset and acts like she didn’t know this was the plan, even though she released the Muppets. Meanwhile, a corporate executive and others who are in no way in charge of the government decide the only way to defeat Ghidorah is to recreate Godzilla by finding the dinosaur that’s been floating in the sea for fifty years and hit it with radiation from a secret atomic sub the Japanese have been hiding in South America. (I don’t even know where to begin saying “What?” to that last sentence. Everything is bizarre.) Unbeknownst to them, a sunken ship has already irradiated the dino, making a bigger and badder Godzilla, who’s on his way to Japan. The guys from the future realize that there’s so much radiation around that Godzilla was bound to be created (Ummmmm.  Well, that just sucks), so they send Ghidorah to fight Godzilla even though it would suit their plans better if both monsters were left to knock down buildings. They also demand the government install a computer they’ve brought along, but no one ever says what this is supposed to do.

With monsters destroying the land, Emmy, who has defected, decides to go back to the future in her Delorian, where changing the past has had no effect, to save Japan in a way that’s only possible in a Godzilla movie.

If you’re getting the idea that Godzilla vs. King Ghidorah doesn’t make much sense, then you’re beginning to understand this movie. (And no, the problems are not, as some have claimed, due to inaccurate dubbing—I watched it in both Japanese and English.)  It is a twisted affair. But the lack of coherence and character motivation aren’t huge problems. It’s a film about giant monsters fighting, after all.  Oh, but there are problems.

After Godzilla vs. Biollante failed at the box office, Toho decided to resurrect some of the popular elements in their older films. They brought back a well-loved monster with Ghidorah, as well as the often used concepts of UFOs and aliens (well futurists) to control the monster. Godzilla was a protector once again, but thankfully, that side of his personality was only on display when WWII Japanese soldiers or Ghidorah were onscreen.  The rest of the time, he’s in fine city-stomping form.

The movie was condemned by the American press, who found it anti-American (it certainly is), anti-Western culture (guilty again), and racist (not at all). Imagine the nerve of these people, making a movie where the citizens of their own country are the good guys instead of us.  Don’t they know that Americans should be the heroes in everything? And besides, the U.S. film industry never makes films where America dominates the world and Americans beat on foreigners. Nope. Never.

Long time Godzilla fans were upset that the film changes the nature of the monsters (Ghidorah is no longer a space creature, but a giant, mutated, conjoined Muppet, and Godzilla is a WWII era dinosaur). Worse, it is almost impossible to fit this film with the 1954 original.  These aren’t problems for this movie, but rather for the franchise as a whole, and I’m not reviewing all 28 movies here.

So what are the real problems? The nonsensical human plot goes on forever. If you are going to have a gibberish storyline, at least make it brief. Godzilla doesn’t get to any real crushing until an hour in. A few of the character’s stand out for a change, but they need to step aside for the title character much quicker. Then there is the super-cyborg. Apparently, writer/director Kazuki Omori, who has stated he didn’t think much of the early G films, was a fan of the Terminator (or just believed cyborgs would bring in the audience). So, we get an unstoppable machine that even lets his metal parts show through. But where Arnold looked cool, this guy looks ridiculous. That could be because his super-speed is variously shown by increasing the frame rate (looks like an hold Keystone cops routine), plastering his face on the screen while a rear-projected background recedes in triple-time, and having him skate without moving his legs. It doesn’t get more laughable. I don’t want to forget (really, I do want to forget, very badly) the Western (English-speaking Caucasians) actors, who are uniformly horrible. Casting and a lack of talent may be partially to blame (Toho is notorious for hiring people who “look American” as opposed to being able to act), but when every White-guy is this bad, directing has to be involved.

So, is this a total wash?  Not at all. It is one of the more enjoyable Godzilla movies. The monsters look great. The Godzilla, Ghidorah, and Mecha-Ghidorah suits are all a giant monster fan could ask for (though the flying Ghidorah puppet is far too stiff, with its legs locked and its wings like sheets of plywood). If what you want to see is huge beasts going at it (ummm, fighting I mean…), then you’re in luck. The battles are excellent, fast paced, and never silly. The breath weapons are dramatic and high on the “cool” meter. The miniatures work is mixed, but generally gets the job done.

With more attention to the script, this could have been a much better film, but it still works beautifully for a Saturday afternoon.