Foster on Film – Page 69 – The Film Criticism of Matthew M. Foster

Children of the Corn II: The Final Sacrifice (1993)

Oct 051993

The cult-following, parent-killing children of Gatlin, Nebraska have been relocated to a nearby farm town. Tabloid reporter John Garrett (Terence Knox) and his son, Danny (Paul Scherrer), arrive in town to investigate the killings, not suspecting that Micah (Ryan Bollman) is possessed and is re-starting the cult of the One Who Walks Beyond the Rows.

The basics are here for an unsettling horror movie. There is something unnerving about cornfields, particularly if you live in suburban Atlanta (as I do). Evil children, a cult, and an unknown that “walks beyond the rows” are all the things of nightmares. But this retread of 1984’s Children of the Corn is as frightening as agitated kittens. The trick is to bring the audience into those fields, so that we are looking over our shoulders for what might be moving just beyond sight, and the best way to do that is to create a character the audience can empathize with. Instead, Children of the Corn II: The Final Sacrifice (which it isn’t as five more films followed) has two characters no one could feel for. John has no redeeming qualities, in no way acts like an actual human, and unfortunately is not an early victim of cornicide. Danny is his bratty kid who looks to be around twenty-five (quite distracting when he joins up with the children who are killing everyone over eighteen). There’s also a Native American stereotype. As the original film, based on a Stephen King short story, had enough plot for a thirty minute short, Children of the Corn II adds in a subplot about poisoned corn to take up time. That’s all it does.

It was followed by Children of the Corn III: Urban Harvest, Children of the Corn IV: The Gathering, Children of the Corn V: Fields of Terror, Children of the Corn 666: Isaac’s Return, Children of the Corn: Revelation.

Back to Demons

Demons, Reviews Tagged with: One Reel

Return of the Living Dead III (1993)

Oct 041993

After Julie (Melinda Clarke) dies in a motorcycle accident, Curt (J. Trevor Edmond), her boyfriend and the son of a military officer (Kent McCord) working on secret experiments, brings her back using the zombie-making chemical from the first two films. She fights her desire for brains, but in the end zombies are running around in the city and at the military base.

This third and best film in the Return of the Living Dead series is more serious than its predecessors. Brian Yuzna of the Re-Animator franchise took over the helm, reducing the camp element by instilling the movie with his darker sense of humor. Return of the Living Dead III has all the violence and gore of its predecessors. It also has a great deal more character development as it is a love story. Curt and Julie’s relationship is actually quite touching and I found it easy to care about Julie. In the film’s most wonderfully twisted scene, Julie (played by the beautiful Mindy Clark) pierces her body, including her breast, with springs and wires in an attempt to distract herself from her growing hunger. It is only partially effective, and when she comes to mangle the criminal gang that has been following them, she appears as a horrible and sensual undead goddess.

More than in any other zombie picture, the walking dead are to be pitied, not feared. They are the lesser of two evils, if evil at all, when compared to the military. There are plenty of action scenes in Return of the Living Dead III but this is a tragedy, Romeo and Juliet with zombies and the military, so the focus is on emotions, making the film feel deeper than the first two. It is at least more entertaining.

Follows Return of the Living Dead and Return of the Living Dead II.

Mad ScientistsBack to Zombies

Mad Scientists, Mad Scientists, Reviews, Zombies Tagged with: Four Reels

Hocus Pocus (1993)

Oct 031993

An annoying teen (Omri Katz), who dislikes Halloween because the script says so, accidentally resurrects the witchy Sanderson sisters Winifred, Mary, and Sarah (Bette Midler, Kathy Najimy, Sarah Jessica Parker). With the aid of his obnoxious little sister (a prepubescent Thora Birch), and a love interest who’s only along for the ride, he must stop the witches from sucking the life from all the children of the town.

Witches, ghosts, a zombie, an enchanted cat, a spell book, and several magic-themed songs, all delivered with a light tone, makes Hocus Pocus the perfect family Halloween film. Well, perhaps for that to be accurate I need to redefine “perfect,” or just stick on a lot of modifiers. How about: The conceptually perfect family Halloween film that at times might provoke you to strangle small children with licorice. That sounds about right.

If the concept is on the right track, that usually means there are problems with the execution, but with the exception of the teen actors, there are no huge flaws. The film looks good, and the effects are state-of-the-art, for 1993. No, the problems are with the script, and they are enormous, all devouring defects, that suck the fun out of anything enjoyable that comes near them. They sunk the feature during its theatrical run, but now that you are likely only to see Hocus Pocus at home, there’s a way around them. Skip them. Don’t watch the whole film, just pieces.

Things start off well with Midler, Najimy, and Parker hamming it up. They’re all playing like they are a comedy stage act. Midler is chewing the scenery, making sure everyone in the cheap seats is having a good time. There’s no subtlety, but who wants a subtle witch? Najimy is right there with her, while Parker…ahhhh…she will set hearts aflutter. I sometimes forget how hot she was (is?). It’s Salem in 1693 and the witches are sucking the lives out of children. But their none-to-clever plot gets them hung, and that means it’s time to turn off the TV, or hit the skip button on your DVD remote.

After the Sanderson sisters bite it, things get painful. We’re tossed ahead to 1993 for an half hour of unpleasant teen-in-school and teen-with-young-sister faux drama that should cause you to hate: 1) Teens 2) Young Children 3) Disney. Mainly the last, as that’s where the money came from to produce this dreck. Max, who is the protagonist if not the lead, behaves nothing like a real teenager, but far worse than that, he does nothing that’s fun to watch. While he’s whiny and stupid, and responsible for the witches return by being an ass, seeing him bullied by poorly written stereotypes isn’t entertaining. Nor is it a blast to see him stuck with his younger sister, who manages the gargantuan feat of being even more unpleasant than Max.

But then the witches reappear, and things look bright again. The three actresses easily overpower the teen thespians; you don’t even notice they are still in the film when Midler is in overdrive, waiving her hands and bellowing, or Parker is dancing in circles. From time to time, the witches leave the screen, which signals you to go get a snack or hit the fast forward button.

Since this is a Disney film starring Bette Midler, there are a couple of songs. She belts out a rendition of I’ve Put a Spell on You that should have your youngest kids dancing about the living room while you tap your feet. However, the best musical moment belongs to Parker, who sweetly sings to the children, beckoning them to the witches’ den.

With proper editing, Hocus Pocus can become part of your Halloween tradition. And if you live alone…well…maybe you might want to catch the songs.

Halloween, Reviews, Witches Tagged with: Two & 1/2 Reels

Much Ado About Nothing (1993)

Oct 031993

While cynical Benedick (Kenneth Branagh) and Beatrice (Emma Thompson) are tricked into realizing they love each other, young Claudio (Robert Sean Leonard) is tricked into believing his bride-to-be, Hero (Kate Beckinsale), is unfaithful.

Much Ado About Nothing is an odd play, at least as it is normally produced. Claudio, assumed to be a good man, tosses aside Hero when her chastity is questioned and Don Pedro supports him. Their behavior is often explained by proclaiming that those were different times and that her supposed lack of purity was thought to be a greater sin then. But that explains nothing. The problem isn’t that Claudio turns from her, or even that he thinks justice demands an unpleasant fate for her. The problem is how Claudio appears to relish his cruelty to her. He doesn’t humiliate her to be just, but to be spiteful. If he is a good man, he might think that a punishment is required, but he wouldn’t act sadistically. Kenneth Branagh’s film version doesn’t solve this contradiction, and it makes the entire Claudio/Hero plot hard to enjoy. (The solution is obvious if you read the play: Claudio and Don Pedro aren’t vicious men, but clownishly stupid—as is Don John—and aren’t responsible for their actions. Just look at Don Padro’s plans, how easily Claudio is fooled when Don Padro woos for him, and how neither of them can keep their minds on a subject. Unfortunately, Branagh takes their behavior seriously instead of as part of the comedy).

While the Claudio/Hero plotline fails, the Benedick/Beatrice one is excellent and that is the more important story. There is chemistry to spare between Branagh’s Benedick and Emma Thompson’s Beatrice. He brings a boyish charm while she appears intelligent and sexy. If all of the film was as good as their scenes together, this would be the best Shakespeare on film. The movie also looks good, with a free, spring feel. There is some miscasting (Denzel Washington is far too upright for the foolish Don Padro and Keanu Reeves plays Washington’s character’s brother (yes, brother—you work it out) with all the skill of a junior high drama student, but the joy of the project wins out.

Reviews, Shakespeare Tagged with: Four Reels

Leprechaun (1993)

Oct 021993

A Leprechaun (Warwick Davis) has his gold stolen and he is stuck in a crate for ten years due to the power of a four leaf clover. After Tory Reding (Jennifer Aniston) and her father move into the house, a childlike house painter frees the Leprechaun who will kill everyone between him and his gold.

This is a kids’ movie, something Disney would have made in the sixties, with some gore added. Replace the murders with wacky confinement scenes (you know, knock out someone with a bowling pin, duck tape another to a table) and you’ve got a really drab G-rated flick. The characters are family-fare regulars: an L.A. girl who needs to learn that there’s more to the world than shopping, her back-to-nature father, a smartass kid who acts thirty, his mentally challenged, overweight adult friend, and the hunky leader of the house painting squad. You know from the start that nothing bad could happen to these folks. They run around doing kooky things: painting the house red and blue, falling off a ladder and spilling paint on themselves, swallowing a coin. It’s comedy for eight-year-olds. The Leprechaun would be the perfect children’s movie villain (if he’d stop biting and bouncing on people with a pogo stick). Warwick, the best part of the film, is an amusing green fey, but he doesn’t have enough to do. He kills, shouts for his gold, and cleans shoes (the shoe cleaning bit is pretty funny). Jennifer Aniston is nothing special here, and is only noticeable because of the fame she would gain in following years.

No worse than a majority of Slashers, Leprechaun is also no better.

Holiday Films, Reviews, Slashers Tagged with: One Reel

Wicked City (1992)

Dec 021992

Lung and the half breed Ying are members of the Hong Kong squad tasked with fighting the monsters that live amongst us, masquerading as humans, unnoticed by the average population. Yeun (Tatsuya Nakadai) is a powerful monster that thinks it is time for humans and monsters to live in peace, but few others agree and he is under attack by other monsters as well as by the Anti-monster Squad. And Lung has a secret: He fell in love with the incredibly cute monster, Gaye (Michelle Reis), who now lives under the protection of Yuen. Can Lung save the day? Will Ying find acceptance? Will Yeun survive? Do Gaye and Lung have a future together? Who cares?

The animated Wicked City is a classic of anime. This live action take is not. Based on the same manga, little is the same. The anime is a Japanese, fantasy-horror noir for adults. This one is some kind of strange, Hong Kong, cheesy, kids movie.

It is, however, a kid’s movie with lots of nudity. You never see anyone naked—fog or bubbles or electricity gets in the way, but the female lead spends as much time naked as dressed. And there’s a lot of symbolic sex, particularly rape. Those rapes can just be considered “energy drains” as the evil demon takes power from our heroine. The fact that they are both naked, and he’s thrusting forward between her spread legs while she screams and moans, throwing her head back, may just be coincidental. Or not. There’s also a sex scene where the female monster has shape-changed into a pinball machine. Or it could be the villain gets very excited by pinball. Childhood was different in ‘90s Hong Kong.

Don’t think of the nudity and sex as a negative. They’re the least embarrassing part of the movie. When away from groaning, we’re stuck with a nonsensical story, combat on the level of the Power Rangers, and horrible characters. Lung and Ying are deeply unpleasant and inconsistent, and presented with a degree of over-acting seldom seen in professional productions. Gaye comes off a little better due to being adorable, but if you aren’t excited by hot Asian women, you are out of luck.

Tatsuya Nakadai is in a different class than the rest of the cast, slumming it for a paycheck. Gambling debts is the only explanation I can come up with for why the star of Yojimbo and Ran appeared in this sludge.

The subtitles vary with different releases. In one version, the dimension-traveling monsters are alien lizard people, possibly from outer space. If anything, that makes it worse.

Fantasy, Reviews Tagged with: One Reel

Alien³ (1992)

Oct 091992

Shortly after the events of Aliens, Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) crash-lands on a prison planet, along with an alien. The all-male prisoners, led by Dillon (Charles Dutton), have found religion and don’t want a female bringing temptation. She’s left with only the doctor (Charles Dance) to talk to, until the killings begin.

The first three Alien movies focus on one feeling, one emotion. For Alien, it is terror. For Aliens it is excitement, thrills. For Alien³, it is depression. All are successful in their ways, but while terror and excitement are prime ingredients for a good film, depression isn’t.

Alien³ attempts a return to the claustrophobic feeling Ridley Scott created in Alien, but instead manages desolation. Now it is possible to make an interesting bleak movie (though not an exciting one), but only when something is done with that gloom. All Alien³ can do is present it.

The story is similar (too similar) to the first film as a group of people find themselves confined with an alien. It kills, we watch. But none of those killings are visceral; none are frightening. They are all just sad. The religion of the ex-convicts could have been fascinating, but isn’t as director David Fincher and the multiple writers and editors don’t do anything with it. They pray and Dillon yells at “the bothers” when they misbehave, but that’s about it.

Fincher shoots with a green and gray pallet making every room and corridor look the same. A majority of the characters look the same as well, all dressing the same, with the same hair cut, and speaking with similar voices. Except for Ripley, Dillon, the doctor, and the leader, I can’t tell who is who. When someone dies, I don’t know who it is, so, I don’t care.

As a non-action film, interest could have been generated by character relationships, but Alien³ supplies only one relationship of any interest, and then kills off one of the people.

Suffering from a flaw of many sequels, Alien³ pretends that what is going on is new to the audience. It moves slowly, building up the tension and mystery, and it asks the audience to contemplate the questions: is there an alien on the planet, and if so, what is this alien like and what will it do? But we already know all of it. There is no mystery. As soon as the name of the film pops up, we know there is an alien, and what it’s going to do is kill.

Taking Alien³ as part of a continuing story with the two previous films, it is a horrendous conclusion, destroying a substantial section of what came before. Killing off Newt and Hicks, and leaving an impregnated and doomed Ripley makes everything in Cameron’s Aliens pointless. Competent storytelling would say to replace most of Aliens with a five-minute scene of Ripley going back to the planet with some nameless soldiers, and then another of her damaged ship floating away. Anything else needed (like the Marines losing) is mentioned in Alien³. Or just edit out reference to the marines, and have Ripley crash after a facehugger somehow entered her escape vehicle at the end of Alien. But then, Alien³ has nothing to offer to a longer story while Aliens does. I prefer to say the series ended with Ripley, Hicks, and Newt flying away (closer to what Scott or Cameron might say), or to go with the comic book storyline (which I only vaguely know, but it has to be better). So, instead of giving Alien³ a rating for mutilating the series, I take it on its own, as a single film with no relationship to the earlier movies. And as a standalone, it isn’t exciting, or interesting, but it still has a cool monster munching on screaming people and there’s entertainment in that.

The production problems of Alien³ have become famous, with Fincher walking out before editing. Some have claimed that since Fincher has proven his skill (with Fight Club), the problems must be the result of studio interference. A new “workprint” version, that is supposed to be closer to Fincher’s vision (who knows, Fincher won’t say) is available, and while it is better for being more coherent with a better flow, the major problems are still there. This is a melancholy retread, and nothing Fincher might have done would have changed that.

Aliens, Reviews Tagged with: Two Reels

Innocent Blood (1992)

Oct 091992

A lonely vampire (Anne Parillaud) uses mafia gangsters as her food, but accidentally allows one (Robert Loggia) to rise as a vampire himself. Soon he is creating a new kind of “made-man” and she is working with an unstable cop (Anthony LaPaglia) to stop this new threat.

Quick Review: This greatly underappreciated horror comedy is John Landis’s superior companion piece to An American Werewolf In London. The mood is the same, with humor (often coming from mutilated walking corpses) mixing with action and horror. Innocent Blood adds sex to the equation, and it’s a welcome addition. Maria explains that it’s blood and sex that she wants, and as she states it totally nude, I’m ready to believe her. Anne Parillaud combines lust and innocence in a very appealing package. So few vampire movies manage to capture the sensuality inherent in the sub-genre and settle for cheap gore, and when one finally does, I’m willing to cut it a lot of slack (by ignoring the stiff performance of Anthony LaPaglia). Most of the supporting actors are first rate, particularly Robert Loggia who manages all the violent energy needed of a gangster with some very funny moves. There’s something here for gore fans and nudity fans, all served with a joke.

Reviews, Vampires Tagged with: Four Reels

Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1992)

Oct 091992

Valley-Girl Buffy (Kristy Swanson) is the chosen one, the vampire slayer, except she doesn’t know it and instead spends her time shopping and cheerleading. Then her “watcher” (Donald Sutherland) comes to town to train her before the master vampire, Lothos (Rutger Hauer) kills her. Teaming up with rebel-teen, Pike (Luke Perry), Buffy attempts to stop the vampire horde from killing everyone at the school dance.

Overshadowed by the TV series, it’s easy to forget how funny and touching the film was. Swanson is an excellent Buffy, playing a complete flake who turns into a troubled and dedicated hero with the proper degree of humor and sentiment. It’s a hard role to pull off. The supporting cast is also good (which points to good direction from Fran Rubel Kuzui) with the exception of Hauer, who was poorly cast. Paul Reubens is the lead clown, giving the world the now classic line “kill him a lot.” But it’s Swanson’s movie. She gets a majority of the best lines and gives the film its heart.

It occasionally stumbles integrating its drama and comedy. Lothos never lands on either side and so, never comes off as a character. He is the greatest flaw in the film, also lacking the sex appeal needed to attract the young vampire hunter. Most of the humor comes from the characters, but there’s an elaborate, over-the-top slapstick death that is quite funny, but belongs in a different movie.

It’s an ideal film for playing “spot the stars before they were stars.” Hilary Swank and David Arquette are supporting teens, and an unaccredited Ben Affleck appears briefly on the basketball court.

Reviews, Vampires Tagged with: Three Reels

Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992)

Oct 091992

The fearless knight, Vlad (Gary Oldman), returns home from protecting Christendom to find his wife dead. Cursing God, he becomes a vampire. Four hundred years later, he decides to move to London and finds his dead wife reincarnated as Mina Murray (Winona Ryder). Opposing him are members of polite society including the vampire expert, Van Helsing (Anthony Hopkins), and Jonathan Harker (Keanu Reeves).

First, let’s get the title out of the way. The words “Bram Stoker’s” were added because of copyright issues. This film is not any closer to the novel than the other major versions (even though many critics claim that it is—critics who apparently don’t read).

The movie takes its cues from the 1979 version, sharing its romantic and erotic take on the tale as well as its failings (read that review as I hate to repeat myself). But this version is not a copy as the mood is quite different. This is theater as spectacle. Everything is bigger, brighter, and louder than previous tellings or life. It is a precursor to the style-first horror films (Blade, Underworld, Van Helsing), and like them, coherence, story progression, and character all take a back seat to set design, costumes, and FX. Things happen not for the story, but because they look cool. The actors attempt to compete with the true stars by waving their arms about and either yelling or whispering their lines. It’s very melodramatic and leaves the actors looking foolish. Ryder and Reeves are the perfect couple, as even with their histrionic speeches, their characters are flat. Hopkins, on the other hand, presents a Van Helsing that would be suitable on the old, campy Batman TV series, but is not for a feature we’re suppose to take seriously. Oldman’s Dracula is just one step away from Sesame Street’s Count and ripe for parody.

Yet, with these flaws (and many more I haven’t listed), Bram Stoker’s Dracula is worth your time for its pageantry. When story and acting are overwhelmed by appearance, it’s because the appearance is spectacular. Every frame is a feast for the eyes: magnificent gothic structures, writhing topless vampire babes, transformations into a horde of rats, a werewolf, and a half-human bat, extravagant gowns (particularly on vampire Lucy and on old Dracula), independently moving shadows, and translucent lingerie. It is overindulgence for its own sake, and who doesn’t like that now and again?

Reviews, Vampires Tagged with: Four Reels

The Spirit of Christmas (Jesus vs. Frosty) (1992)

Oct 091992

Four young boys (voices: Trey Parker & Matt Stone ) build a snowman, but three of them ignore the fourth when he warns them not to put a magic hat on it. The snowman comes to life as a monster, growing tentacles that it uses to kill Kenny, the fattest boy. The remaining three run to Santa for help, but when that doesn’t work as they hoped, they realize that they need Jesus. 4 min.

A four minute proto-South Park short, The Spirit of Christmas is crude even by South Park standards, in both senses. The foul-mouthed boys swear constantly, but it is in the second sense (as in, inferiorly made) that this stands out. It looks like it was drawn in a few hours with a couple of colored pencils, and the muffled sound makes the dialog almost inaudible.

But many of the things that would make the series a hit are already in place. The four children are essentially Kyle, Stan, Cartman, and Kenny, though the only one given a name is the fat kid (Cartman), who is called Kenny and dies first. The kids are cynical and show little empathy for anyone else. And they expect that the real Santa and Jesus live in their town (and they aren’t completely wrong). It should be no surprise to fans of the show that the Spirit of Christmas turns out to be presents.

Several years later, Trey Parker and Matt Stone would remake Spirit of Christmas with many of the same jokes. Frosty would be gone, making it a fight between Santa and Jesus. This second version would lead to the TV series. It is also the superior take on the material, and makes this one just a curiosity.

The series has had multiple Christmas episodes including: Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo, Merry Christmas Charlie Manson!, Mr. Hankey’s Christmas Classics, A Very Crappy Christmas, and Woodland Critter Christmas.

Christmas Shorts, Christmas Shorts, Reviews

The Muppet Christmas Carol (1992)

Oct 081992

Old humbug Ebenezer Scrooge (Michael Caine) learns the meaning of Christmas from three spirits, but this time, the three spirits are made of felt.

The duality of this film is a bit much, even for a film with a talking frog. On the one hand, it is a very straight and rather dull re-telling of the Dickens’ tale, with the normally interesting Caine bringing nothing new to the lead. On the other, it is a rollicking, silly musical narrated by a comical piece of cloth and a sidekick rat-puppet. The two parts never meet. Caine and the other humans don’t even notice they are surrounded by muppets. They aren’t funny, nor are they particularly emotionally engaging. The muppet half of the film does work. The Great Gonzo (as Charles Dickens) and Rizzo the Rat (as, well, a rat) make one of the better comedy teams of recent years. The songs aren’t great, but better than those in the other musical versions of A Christmas Carol. Any fan of The Muppet Show will love the old men in the balcony as the Marley brothers. But there isn’t enough time spent with the talkative puppets for me to recommend doing more than catching The Muppet Christmas Carol when it turns up on a free TV station.

Christmas, Reviews Tagged with: Two Reels

1 2 … 67 68 69 70 71 … 133 134