Category Archives: Uncategorized

Uncategorized

League of Extraordinary Gentlemen

42 Comments

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen

lxg6

Today’s feature is best known as the movie that made Sean Connery quit acting: “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.”

“LXG” is an adaptation from an Alan Moore comic series, who you might recognize as the guy behind “The Watchmen” and “V For Vendetta.” As is the case with most adaptations from graphic novels, the fan base of the source material of “LXG” is hard to please, and was pretty much guaranteed to bemoan any minor changes to the story that they have so cherished (see: criticisms of “The Watchmen” film ending). Personally, I treat those sort of adaptation criticisms with a grain of salt: a fan base should be considered when making a movie, but they shouldn’t dictate it. Director and screenwriters need the freedom to make a work their own. Sometimes the fans love the outcome of this creative freedom (“Guardians of the Galaxy”, “The Dark Knight”, “Iron Man”), but sometimes (most times) they hate it with the burning passion of 1000 suns (“Super Mario Bros”, “Howard the Duck”, “Batman & Robin”, “The Watchmen”, “Daredevil”, etc). This is what I call “nerd rage”: it is frequent, usually excessive, and often unreasonable. And it is powerful.

lxg1
The power of bat nipples

So, why does Hollywood so often take the risk of dealing with fickle fanbases? Well, partially it is because fanbases exist, and will buy tickets to see movies regardless of how they feel about the quality of the product on screen. How many “Transformers” fans do you know that went to go see those movies in spite of the quality? Film producers and studios know about that. Also, and of probably equal importance: Hollywood is “creatively bankrupt.” I put quotes there, because original ideas do exist in Hollywood and in the film business as a whole, but big studios are generally unwilling to take chances on them when their alternatives have existing fan bases waiting to flock into a theater. That is why you can expect a whole lot more Marvel movies than “John Wick”s.

In the case of “LXG,” however, both creators of the source material (Moore and illustrator Kevin O’Neill) were incredibly unhappy with the final product of the film, and weren’t afraid to let the public know: so it wasn’t just the fans this time. Moore is quoted as saying, on the topic of the film adaptations of his works: “I have a dwindling respect for cinema as it is currently expressed.” On the specific topic of the experience of dealing with the eventual lawsuit against “LXG,” he was a little more colorful:

“They seemed to believe that the head of 20th Century Fox called me up and persuaded me to steal this screenplay, turning it into a comic book which they could then adapt back into a movie, to camouflage petty larceny.” This led to Moore giving a ten-hour deposition – he believes he’d have suffered less if he’d “sodomised and murdered a busload of children after giving them heroin.”

Yikes.

Anyway, rage aside, let’s dig into “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.” The film is directed by Stephen Norrington, whose film career was effectively destroyed by it. His only other major directorial work was “Blade,” a comic book adaptation that managed to not infuriate everyone in the known universe. He previously worked special effects on “Aliens” and “Alien 3,” which is pretty impressive stuff. However, the production process of “LXG” apparently burned him out entirely: not just the poor reception, but the difficulty of working with the producers, the studio, and the dealing with large acting personalities (Sean Connery). It sounds like the perfect storm of all of the elements ultimately did him in. He has gone so far as to publicly state that he will never direct a film again.

lxg5“League of Extraordinary Gentlemen” cinematographer Dan Laustsen has worked on a number of other notable productions, mostly in the horror genre. These include Guillermo Del Toro’s “Mimic,” both version of “Night Watch,” and the film adaptation of “Silent Hill.”

The film was written by a guy named James Robinson, whose other credits include…not much. The thing that kills me is that the few credits he does have seem to be related to comics on the whole, so I am willing to be he was a big fan of “LXG” going into it. I’m willing to bet that the reception was not pleasant for him.

lxg3One of my favorite B-movie writer/directors, Larry Cohen, was involved in a lawsuit against the “League of Extraordinary Gentlemen” production, claiming that the film plagiarized a script he and Martin Poll pitched to 20th Century Fox multiple times called “Cast of Characters,” which included a number of characters that wound up in the film but were not present in Alan Moore’s source material for the movie. To say the least, that is pretty suspicious, as is the fact that the matter was settled out of court (which stinks of a payoff to me). The fact that such an inexperienced writer was solely trusted with the writing of this major studio project is also a wee bit suspicious.

The cast of “League of Extraordinary Gentlemen” is highlighted, obviously, by the last hurrah of sorts for Sean Connery, who plays the famous fictional adventurer Allan Quatermain. The rest of the cast includes Richard Roxburgh as the primary villain (more on the similarities to “Van Helsing” in a minute), Jason Flemyng as Dr. Jekyll / Mr Hyde (again with the “Van Helsing” flashback…), Tony Curran (VIncent Van Gogh in “Doctor Who”, the conductor in “Midnight Meat Train”) as an invisible man, Shane West as Tom Sawyer, and a host of other minor actors playing various literary characters.

lxg4Much has been made of Sean Connery’s role in “LXG”: it is said that he only took it because he regretted passing on two other major roles (Gandalf in “Lord of the Rings” and Morpheus in “The Matrix”), and didn’t want to miss a potential franchise winner. Sean Connery is also reported to have been somewhat of an intimidating presence on the set, making other actors uneasy and being a general nightmare for the director, Stephen Norrington. He also went do far as to demand major script changes to make his character more likable.

“LXG” was absolutely stomped by critics upon release, and the audience reaction wasn’t much better. The film currently holds a 17% critic score and a 44% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. Financially, the movie made a reported 179 million on a budget of 78 million, which is certainly profitable. However, aspirations were clearly much higher for the film. A sequel was reportedly planned that would be based on “War of the Worlds” by H.G. Wells, but the poor reviews and not-good-enough box office performance meant that this potential space epic never quite managed to get off the ground. It probably didn’t help that the director and star both rage-quit the industry as a result of the production, either.

Personally, I feel like critics were way too harsh on this movie at the time. I remember liking it well enough as a kid, and I still found plenty of positives to enjoy upon a re-watch. For most of the movie, the CG stays pretty reserved: I still think that the invisibility effect looks pretty solid. Also, the practical effects used for Mr. Hyde (when they are used) look great. I’m also a big fan of the production designed, which has garnered the film a bit of a cult following due to its steampunk aesthetic. I particularly adore the interpretation of Captain Nemo’s Nautilus. It is just cool.

lxg2All of that said, there are a fair share of issues with the film, to say the least. The CGI gets way out of control as the film goes on, climaxing in a ridiculous battle between Mr. Hyde and a…bigger Mr. Hyde? It looks absolutely awful. The plot also starts to unravel after the twist, and pacing goes completely awry heading into the third act. When Sean Connery starts staring at a tiger for a few seconds in the snow, and you can’t help but wonder where the hell the story went.

In a recent post on “Van Helsing,” I mentioned a lot of similarities between that one and this one. So, how do they compare? Let’s start with a few of the similarities.

First: is RIchard Roxburgh a better villain in “LXG” or “Van Helsing”? I think this one has to go hands down to “LXG”: Roxburgh’s Dracula is just plain awful. He’s hammy, but not hammy enough, and doesn’t come off as threatening in any way. Q in “LXG” is at least mysterious, and I liked his costume design pretty well.

Second: which has the better Jekyll/Hyde? I have to give this one to “LXG” as well: while the CG bits of Hyde do look awful, there are also a few moments of really solid-looking practical effects on the character. In “Van Helsing,” it is all bad. However, he also isn’t a central character to that story, which is worth noting.

Third: which has the better cast of characters? Both movies are built on the concept of throwing a bunch of existing characters together. As far as appearances go, this go to “LXG” again. As fun as the Universal monsters are, Frankenstein’s monster is the only one who looks any good in “Van Helsing.” On the the flip side, “LXP” offers better execution on the team members: the invisible man effect, Nemo’s costume design, and the moments of practical Hyde all particularly stand out. However, it is also hard to argue that the League is more fun in concept than the Monster Mash bunch.

“Van Helsing” is overall a more fun movie to watch. However, it isn’t nearly as polished across the board as “LXP.” On a quality level, I think “LXP” gets the nod, but not by a whole lot. It is still a bit of a train wreck, but it is at least occasionally passable. However, “LXP” is also way too subdued, touching on being outright boring. There is a lot of standing around, which doesn’t happen in “Van Helsing.” There may be awful CGI and horrendous accents, but things are consistently happening in that movie. Overall, I think it is too close to call.

If it weren’t for all of the interesting background, I wouldn’t recommend the “League of Extraordinary Gentlemen” to people. Again, there are things I like about it, but the product on the whole is a bit south of mediocre. I don’t think it is the legendary failure that some critics hail it as, but it is certainly not good.

Uncategorized

Lake Placid

27 Comments

Lake Placid

placid1

Today’s review is on “Lake Placid,” a 1999 movie about a gigantic killer crocodile terrorizing a remote lake in Maine.

“Lake Placid” was directed by Steve Miner, who has been working as a director in television and movies since the early 80s. His biggest credits outside of “Lake Placid” are probably “Friday the 13th Part 2,” “Friday the 13th Part III: 3D,” “Halloween H20,” and the 2008 remake of “Day of the Dead.” “Lake Placid” was written by David E. Kelley, who has had significant success creating and writing television shows such as “Boston Legal,” “Chicago Hope,” “Ally McBeal,” “LA Law,” and “Doogie Howser,” but hasn’t done a whole lot of work in movies. Cinematographer Daryn Okada had previously worked with Miner on “Halloween H20,” but most of his experience is interestingly in comedies, such as “Black Sheep” and “Captain Ron,” and has since worked on larger productions such as “Mean Girls” and “Let’s Be Cops.”

“Lake Placid” marks the third film I have covered to feature work from legendary creature creator Stan Winston (the other two being “Small Soldiers” and “The Bat People”). Most seem to consider “Lake Placid” to be one of the lesser entries in his career: he is only creating a crocodile, after all, and most of the heavy lifting is done through CG. However, I still think it looks pretty solid. Even the CG used has held up a lot better than I expected it to, and looks more or less on par with today’s “Sharknadoes” and the other Asylum monster flicks. That isn’t too shabby for 1999.

placid2“Lake Placid” was unsurprisingly a critical failure, currently holding a 40% critics score and 36% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. However, according to BoxOfficeMojo.com, “Lake Placid” grossed just under 57 million dollars on a budget of 27 million, making it a financial success. The movie eventually got 3 direct-to-tv sequels that received significant airtime on the Sci-Fi / SyFy network, which I think have kept it in the public consciousness longer than it would have otherwise. I personally consider “Lake Placid” to be one of the primary forerunners to the Asylum monster movies that make up the mainstay of SyFy’s original movie lineup today, including “Mega Shark,” “Sharknado,” and “Supercroc.”

The cast of “Lake Placid” is made up primarily of B-list actors, led by Bridget Fonda, who was coming off of starring in Sam Raimi’s 1998 movie “A Simple Plan.” Bill Pullman co-stars, following up on a handful of successful roles in the mid-1990s (“Independence Day,” “Lost Highway”). The rest of the cast includes Brendan Gleeson, Oliver Platt (one of my favorite character actors), and Betty White, who essentially defined her modern persona with her role in this movie.

Essentially, “Lake Placid” follows the formula of “Jaws”: something is killing people in the waters off a small town, but it is unclear what it is. The local police (Gleeson and Pullman) are stumped, which leads to a big city, out-of-towner expert being called in (Fonda). An eccentric hunter then shows up who gives the impression that he can solve the situation (Platt), and off the story goes a-hunting the monster.

placid5Apart from Brody being split in two, there are a few other differences in the formula for “Lake Placid.” Firstly, Hooper is replaced with a woman character, which isn’t necessarily a bad idea. This allows for a romance subplot, but also unfortunately opens the door for a lot of lazy, shitty comedy, which I will delve into in a bit. The setting of a lake, as opposed to the ocean, doesn’t allow for the same kind of isolation and character developmental opportunities during the hunting process that is allowed for in “Jaws.” This winds up being a pretty big weakness for the movie: the characters don’t get much depth, because they don’t spend enough time together outside of the action for the audience to get to know them.

placid4For me, the biggest problem for the movie is in its attempts to be funny. I didn’t remember this as a horror comedy, because honestly, it just isn’t. Most of the humor is lazy, dull, or just off the mark in general. Instead of poking at the weaknesses of the genre or the ludicrousness of the plot (see: “Hot Fuzz,” “Shaun of the Dead”), it tries to find humor in the fact that one of the characters is a woman, and can’t handle camping outdoors. It just doesn’t work, because it isn’t funny. There is a way to make a funny movie out of a “Jaws” scenario, but “Lake Placid” just isn’t it.  Honestly, I think someone knew this, because the movie is not marketed as a comedy in any way. On a shelf, it just looks like another monster movie, and that is what it really should have been. Even “Jaws” itself is funnier than this movie, and all of the comedy in that movie is done as relief. There isn’t a single moment in “Lake Placid” (without Betty White in it) that is as funny as any of the comic relief moments in “Jaws,” which is pretty bad for a movie that is trying to be a comedy.

To the movie’s credit, there are a number of things I like in it. Stan Winston’s effects are fantastic as usual, and there is also a pretty cool action sequence or two in which the crocodile takes on a helicopter. Oliver Platt manages to stay charming despite the issues with the dialogue and writing, and is the biggest highlight in the movie outside of Betty White. The ending also taken an interesting turn in that the characters decided not to kill the crocodile, which is unusual for the genre. Over the credits, there is a shot of the tranquilized crocodile being hauled via a semi-truck to Florida, I would assume to be placed in a zoo or preserve. Just from skimming the IMDb boards, this seems to have elicited a mixed reaction from audiences.

As a side note, I can’t help but feel that “Lake Placid” suffers from the “Pacific Rim” effect of having an incredibly poor title that fails to convey the plot of the movie. Surely they could have done better than that, right? Even “Crocodile” or “Croc” would have worked better if you ask me.

placid7
“Crocodile vs Helicopter” would have sufficed

I have seen a good number of comparisons between “Lake Placid”  and “Deep Blue Sea,” another 1999 movie that has developed a bit of a cult following. I personally have a more vivid memory of “Deep Blue Sea,” but on my last re-watch I don’t recall the CGI holding up quite as well as it does in “Lake Placid.” That said, the dialogue and acting seems much better in “Deep Blue Sea,” and it doesn’t try to hit the comedy angle in the way that “Lake Placid” does. Personally, I think that is a weakness in the “Lake Placid” script, so I’m generally on Team “Deep Blue Sea,” but I think it merits another re-watch. It does have an LL Cool J rap, which I don’t believe “Lake Placid” can claim. Point: “Deep Blue Sea.”

Overall, I was surprised at how bad “Lake Placid” is in retrospect, in particular because the things that were bad were not the things I expected. A lot of the problems are in the dialogue and writing: it half-heartedly tries to be self-aware and counter-genre, but the attempts at humor aren’t executed very well. Oliver Platt is a great comedic actor, but even he couldn’t make the dialogue for his character actually funny. In general, I have to agree with Roger Ebert’s assessment of the film: it is “completely wrong-headed from beginning to end.” He hilariously also calls it a “sort of failed Anaconda,” which is an arguably equally awful movie, which Ebert adored for reasons that I don’t think anyone truly understands.

placid3I might recommend this movie for the sake of nostalgia, because there are some ok bits here and there in the film. The characters and writing is generally just so awful though that it is difficult to sit through any sequences in which a crocodile isn’t actively attacking something. Luckily, the movie doesn’t bother with the human element too much, so you might be able to bear it. (speaking of bears…)

 

Uncategorized

Van Helsing

30 Comments

Van Helsing
helsing1

For those who have been paying attention to the Hollywood craze of creating combined cinematic universes, the upcoming reboots of Universal’s treasured monster movie franchises comes as no surprise. The first installment in the line-wide reboot was 2014’s “Dracula: Untold”, which wasn’t a promising start, but the Universal Pictures upper brass certainly aren’t giving up on a potentially ludicrously lucrative combined universe.

helsing11What most have forgotten, however, is that this latest foray isn’t the first time Universal has attempted to resurrect the intersecting classic monster franchises in the modern era of film. Back in 2004, “Van Helsing” was released in an attempt to spur a line of films based on the “Monster Mash” bunch, featuring Hugh Jackman as the eponymous vampire hunter.

helsing2Despite being a financial hit, grossing over 300 million on a reported budget of 160 million, “Van Helsing” was generally loathed by critics and audiences alike (Rotten Tomatoes critic score is 23%, audience score is 57%), and thus failed to kick-start the lofty cinematic rebirth of the Universal monsters. Much like Dracula’s impish computer-generated spawn in the film, all of these aspirations of future box-office and world domination imploded before they had a chance to inflict any real havoc upon movie-going audiences.

Most people are aware of the cinematic tradition of the Dracula character, but Van Helsing has an impressive history on screen in his own right. Such diverse actors as Peter Cushing, Anthony Hopkins, Christopher Plummer, Malcolm McDowell, Jon Voight, Casper Van Dien, Mel Brooks, Peter Fonda, Bruce Campbell, and Laurence Olivier have all played the vampire hunter character in one form or another, in addition to Hugh Jackman’s 2004 portrayal of the character. I’ve even covered one of Peter Cushing’s performances of the character in “Dracula A.D. 1972” here on the blog, as well as Bruce Glover’s IMDb Bottom 100 worthy take on the character in “Die Hard Dracula”. Hugh Jackman’s version of Helsing certainly stands out amongst all of the others though, given the more action focus and superhero tone of “Van Helsing.” I’m also pretty confident that 2004 marks the only time where Professor Helsing has become a werewolf at any point in the story.

helsing7
The werewolves look pretty awful, by the way

Writer/Director of “Van Helsing” Stephen Sommers hasn’t done a ton of work since the film, outside of 2009’s “G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra” and 2013’s “Odd Thomas,” both of which he directed and co-wrote. He does have an upcoming project called “When Worlds Collide,” but isn’t any information available yet as to when it will be released. The cinematographer on “Van Helsing,” Allen Daviau, actually has some solid credits on his resume from his long history working with Steven Spielberg, including work on “The Color Purple,” “Empire of the Sun,” “E.T.” and the short film “Amblin.”

One of the biggest criticisms of “Van Helsing” was that it overused computer generated images, something that is still an issue with the horror genre today. While the CG in the movie is definitely overboard, it holds up better than I expected. Typically, because of the rapid improvements in computer technology, CGI becomes rapidly and notably outdated in films. In “Van Helsing,” however, most of the effects are still holding up pretty well for being over 10 years down the line. They are definitely too cartoony and will continue to age poorly, but it still holds up moderately ok. Some scenes undoubtedly look better than others, and the few practical effects present (notably the interpretation of Frankenstein’s Monster, which I think looks awesome)  blow the CG away, but overall I was impressed that the movie didn’t look much worse in review.

helsing9
helsing12Something that I still can’t decide is a weakness or strength to the story is the presence of a lot of seemingly superfluous supernatural technology. In the film, Van Helsing has a sidekick who functions about the same as “Q” in the James Bond franchise: he is a friar who specializes in the development of technology for fighting monsters. As amusing as it is to think of a supernatural military R+D department at the Vatican, the character and technology seem to mostly exist for either comic relief or aesthetic reasons, and aren’t particularly necessary for the story. Although, there are moments where they are the only redeeming and entertaining aspects of the film, so I can hardly complain too much.

The score to “Val Helsing” is certainly interesting, and one of the better aspects of the movie. Composer Alan Silvestri is all over Hollywood, and has provided scores to movies such as “The Avengers,” “Captain America: The First Avenger,” and the “G.I. Joe” films. It isn’t a score that will necessarily stick with you, but it does a good job of serving its purpose in the film.

helsing5One of the reasons I remember “Van Helsing” so well is because of its similarities with the Sean Connery-led film “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen,” which came out the previous year. Both feature super-teams made of fictional characters, were moderate financial successes, and massive critical failures. They even have a moderate cross-section in that they both feature the character of Dr. Jekyll / Mr. Hyde. I am planning to readdress that film soon, so we will see how it holds up in comparison to “Van Helsing.”

helsing6When it comes to the cast of “Van Helsing,” Jackman is the obvious centerpiece. By the time that “Van Helsing” came around, he was already established as a major action star with the first two “X-Men” movies, as well as leading credentials in “Swordfish” and “Kate & Leopold.” Co-starring in “Van Helsing” is Kate Backinsale, whose previous year featured the first installment in the eventual “Underworld” supernatural action franchise, as well as the astoundingly abysmal “Tiptoes” with Matthew McConaughey and Gary Oldman: an indie drama/comedy about a family of dwarves. It is beyond awful, as Daniel O’Brien of Cracked.com can explain:

The accessory cast of “Van Helsing” features a good number of character actors, including Robbie Coltrane (Hagrid from the “Harry Potter” movie franchise), Richard Roxburgh (star of the Australian TV show “Rake”), Kevin J. O’Connor (“The Mummy”), and David Wenham (“300,” “Public Enemies”). They don’t have much in the way of name recognition, but they all have a fair amount of television and movie experience. That said, a lot of the performances in “Van Helsing” are awful, particularly anyone trying to don a Transylvanian accent (Richard Roxburgh is particularly wretched in that department). I think that is probably less of a complaint about the actors as much as it is about the direction and general tone of the film, which is pretty cartoony out of the gate. I doubt that Roxburgh’s Dracula performance would be waltzing around a room chewing scenery without some degree of direction from Sommers.

helsing8In general, I think I understand why “Van Helsing” failed to live up to Universal’s expectations for it. In 2004, Blockbusters were just about to turn in the direction of the “gritty reboot”, with “Batman Begins” popping up in 2005. “Van Helsing” I believe was too cartoony in execution for what audiences were really wanting at the time: for a movie focused on horror icons, it wasn’t scary in any way, and didn’t have a very dark tone either. The “steampunk” style I think would have looked better with a little more emphasis on practical effects over CG: the coolest thing in the movie is Frankenstein’s Monster, and he is the only one of the monsters portrayed consistently without extensive CG. The emphasis on hammy, over-dramatic antagonists just didn’t work either: Dracula’s wives are just groan-worthy to listen to now, and Dracula himself just isn’t menacing enough.

helsing10 helsing4I don’t think I can recommend “Van Helsing,” as it is one of those movies that isn’t quite bad enough to be on a good-bad level, and is still well out of the realm of being good. It might be worth a watch if you are curious what a “Avengers”-esque Universal monster movie might look like, but you will probably be disappointed in the result. It also sounds like we could very well see a remake of “Van Helsing” by the end of the decade, so it couldn’t hurt to look back to see what we might be in for. It is a generally watchable flick, but not an excessively fun one if you ask me.

Uncategorized

Groundhog Day Marathon Recap

2 Comments

This past Sunday, I participated in a 24-hour “Groundhog Day” marathon at the Gateway Film Center in Columbus, OH. To keep things interesting and lively, I decided to do a review between each of the 12 consecutive screenings of the movie.

Yesterday, I picked up a DVD copy of the movie, and went through Harold Ramis’s commentary while doing some research. Below are each of the reviews I wrote during the 20 minute intermissions, with some follow-up comments based on my research in italics.

“Groundhog Day” Review #1

I haven’t watched this movie in years, so it was good to get a fresh start. Bill Murray has a great way of delivering dialogue (of course), but I think the power of this movie is in the periphery cast: they are the control, and their performances have to be meticulously detailed for the story to work. If you don’t notice an aberration, then everything is working perfectly. Might be Tobolowski’s best role, and he is a dude who has been around the block.

Ramis made a specific note of the careful attention to continuity on the part of the crew. He also spoke at length about the casting process, noting that Tobolowski earned the role straight off of his audition. Of course, Murray did a fair amount of improvisation on the film, both in his physical acting and his dialogue.

Next thing: Phil creeps me out. Not just when he is supposed to, but the whole time. He is still obsessively catering his life to fit the desires of his “love interest,” even after he supposedly learns his lesson. Take the piano lessons: not something he did in earnest. I also wish they delved a little deeper and darker: the side plot with mortality, the homeless dude, deification, etc. doesn’t actually go anywhere: where is his epiphany from that, other than to refocus and re-obsess on attaining a specific mate? Creepy creepy creeptown. I would love to see some earlier drafts of the script…

 

“Groundhog Day” Review #2

I frequently watch movies twice in succession, so this isn’t too weird. However, I usually have time to research in between, which wasn’t the case here.

What stood out this time was how fucking awful Andie MacDowell’s character is. They tried to write what they thought was an ideal person: the result of which is inevitably boring. Characters need little flaws and tics to be interesting (beyond just not liking fudge, ffs). The only thing notable about her other than being “nice to people” is that she comes off as incredibly pretentious on a number of occassions. There should have been a glass-shattering moment where Murray realized she is human and has flaws, and learns to accept them. But nope. She also doesn’t exactly react realistically or consistently, which is kind of a problem for a character who ONLY REACTS TO THINGS.

As the marathon wore on, the audience became increasingly hostile to the character of Rita and MacDowell’s performance. Her in-and-out South Carolina accent, consistent breaking of character in scenes (noted by Ramis: Murray kept cracking her up), and increasing pretentiousness became more grating than anything else about the film after about 5 or so screenings.

I think I’m going to hate the shit out of this movie by midnight. Stay tuned.

I surprisingly don’t hate it, but it is hard to look at it objectively after being so saturated with it. I kind of consider it middle-of-the-road in content, but with a incredibly clever premise and structure. 

 

“Groundhog Day” Review #3

I’ve reached the point where background details are starting to stand out. Not the typical stuff, like Michael Shannon in his first film role, but like the dude in the background of the Gobbler’s Knob sequences who looks exactly like a young James Earl Jones. The amount of applause in the movie is astounding and rapidly becoming surreal. Why is there so much clapping in this movie? Is it intentional? Last but not least, there is a shocking amount of incredible “white people dancing” moments. Just everywhere.

The quantity of applause in the movie is surely the most surreal detail that came to the surface after multiple viewings. There are just a lot of crowd shots and group events in the movie, which means you rarely go a couple of scenes without some kind of applause break. The white people dancing moments never got less funny.
groundhog1groundhoggif
There are still more editing and pacing details that are bugging me that I’ll cover on the next round, but I’m generally far less grumpy now than I was after Round 2. Let’s see how the next one goes.

“Groundhog Day” Review #4

I’ve started using sectional divisions to make the screenings go by faster. The cyclical structure of GH makes it more difficult to sit through, because the script beats are a bit unconventional, so the sectioning has been helping me pace it personally. It has always helped on long drives, and this isn’t so different from that in principle. The sections are 1) introduction 2) indulgence 3) “romance” 4) depression 5) renaissance 6) conclusion.

This sectional breakdown is about the only way I made it though 24 hours of this movie. Interestingly enough, Ramis noted that the structure was inspired by the Kubler-Ross model (Five Stages of Grief). Mine is really similar, only really differing in a few spots. The Introduction covers denial, indulgence covers anger, “romance” is bargaining, depression is the same, and then I broke the acceptance into the renaissance and conclusion.

Section 3 is when Murray is at his creepiest and MacDowell’s character’s lack of depth really shows. Consistently, this has been when the literal chorus of snores has started, every time.

Every showing, this is where the audience disappeared. Until Murray started getting slapped in the face, at least.

Section 2 has a specific sequence that really encapsulates the hit/miss nature of the film. Murray robs a banking truck by memorizing the habits of the guards, which shows you his crooked nature and that he is getting more meticulous and experienced with details.

The second half of the sequence, however, serves no purpose at all. Murray is shown to have spent the money on a Benz, a prostitute, and a replica Clint Eastwood outfit. The sequence introduces a character that never returns, a location that never returns, and a number of objects that have no importance. It also establishes that characters don’t retain memories of previous days, but that is already laid out. Did Murray just really want in on “Three Amigos?” Anyway, the only attempt at a joke is an uncomfortable reference to the prostitute being underaged. Was Murray blackmailing Ramis to include his Eastwood impersonation? Why is this in the movie?

I hit the nail on the head on this one. In the DVD commentary, Ramis noted that this was entirely Murray’s idea, and that he did the Clint Eastwood impression “because he could.” We all have hits and misses, Bill Murray included. Ramis did mention that a lot of sequences were cut, so maybe this was supposed to tie in somewhere else? More importantly, how did this get through the final cut?

Anyway, more to come.

groundhog7

“Groundhog Day” Review #5

GH is, in many ways, a time travel movie. So, consequently, you have to talk about consequence! (Hurr)

GH tries to keep things simple, and evades what it can. However, there are some issues that can’t be skipped over. On day 3, Phil, in a panic, skips two conversations that he had on both previous days. This puts him at, underestimating, 30 seconds to 1 minute ahead of pace. However, that change fails to affect his subsequent encounter with Ned. That may seem petty, but I’d recommend looking at how a similar film dealt with the issue of temporal consequence: “Run Lola Run.”

In “Lola,” the beginning of her story cycle is affected differently each time it starts. The difference is only a handful of seconds each cycle, but it proves vital to the story. A few seconds is the difference between missing traffic, being impeded by it, or being nailed by a car. Looking at it from that angle, a minute being gained or lost is a lifetime.

Elsewhere, the film also dodges the consequences of Phil’s inaction. The finale focuses on the positive effects he has on townsfolk, but it is never shown what the consequence of his inaction is for them. Does a child break a bone because Phil didn’t catch him? Does a man choke to death? The thing is, Phil knows: he lived through it all. But we aren’t shown any of these potentially compelling interactions. BTTF managed to thread these things in subtly, so it isn’t impossible.

I spotted one background instance of the consequence of Phil’s inaction later on, which is mentioned in a future review. But, in general, there isn’t much.

Let’s not even start in on how GH deals with the butterfly effect…I have another screening to get to.

I still don’t want to go into this. Let’s just say that the film is inconsistent on Phil’s ability to influence future events.

“Groundhog Day” Review #6

Let’s take a little Tarantino-esque turn, shall we?

Early in the film, Phil steals a large amount of money from a bank car. He clearly researched it out, and memorized people’s patterns to execute the plan flawlessly. However, it is only shown once, when he is still exploiting his “power.”

In the second showing, I started wondering if he made the heist part of his daily routine, like the piano lessons. I initially dismissed it because it appears to be in the afternoon, and Doris, the diner waitress, is already off – duty (she is an unwitting accomplice). But still, Phil throws out a lot of money in the movie, all the way up to the finale. 1000 dollar piano lessons, multiple insurance policies on a whim, handing hundreds in cash to the homeless…is it unreasonable to think he is commiting a daily, perfect heist?

If that’s true, then Phil walks out of the movie with a literal fat stack o’ cash. Surely enough to rent a small place in a Pennsylvania town…?

Is it Marcellus’s briefcase or Mr. Pink’s diamonds? Nah, but it is fun to think about!

I mentioned this in an interview at one point in the night. I’ll be sure to post it if I ever come across it on YouTube.

groundhog4

“Groundhog Day” Review #7

Apparently, GH was intended as a curse movie according to early drafts. Even if you count that as apocryphal, there is some supernatural force at work in the story, and those are always bound by their own internal logic. The rules weren’t divulged, but that doesn’t mean that they didn’t exist!

Ramis spoke at some length about the decision to ultimately omit the background on the curse, but he did mention that one draft involved a spurned ex-lover.

So, what actually broke the GH curse? True love? I don’t think so. I would argue that he already “had the girl” before the last cycle, and that also isn’t much of a lesson (I expect a little more from Ramis). If that was all, surely it would have broken earlier. Was it learning the value of good deeds? Nope, he had clearly been through the motions on every divulged good deed in the film, and knew them by heart to the last detail. I think the real game – changer / curse – breaker was entirely internal: in the last cycle, Connors finally accepted his conditions, and was content with them. I think love and good deeds were learned and done as means to the end of Connors learning contentedness with the world around him.

Ramis mentioned that his co-writer on the script, Danny Rubin, is a bit of a Zen Buddhist, which seems to support this theory.

I think this is a sort of anti-ambition, anti-corporate message as much as it is a love story. Connors goes from being a perpetual climber with no love or need for little things or little people to being appreciative and happy with his current station and his environment. Makes sense for late 80s early 90s, yeah?

“Groundhog Day” Review #8

Finally managed to do a little research on production history, so how about some casting factoids? Before Murray got the part, Tom Hanks was considered, but it was eventually decided he was too nice in the public mindset. Kind of a shame, because he has solid comedy upside (“The ‘Burbs” = ♥). Michael Keaton turned down the role, and I can definitely picture that choice. Interesting that most of the considered leads were drama – heavy with comedy bonus, as opposed to vice versa (which Murray certainly is).

Ramis mentioned that Andie Macdowell was always the first choice for her role, and that she asked permission to use her (arguably mangled) South Carolina accent. The rest of the cast features a bunch of Second City players brought down from Chicago, as well as a couple of SNL alum (Brain Doyle-Murray, Bill’s older brother, among them).

Definitely pushing into the final stretch, and my body is starting to feel it. I think I’m the only one who has been awake the whole time…bunch a cheaters, these folks.

“Groundhog Day” Review #9

There are so many goddamn groundhogs in the background of this movie. I just noticed a six foot carved groundhog in a top hat prominently featured in the auction scene. On the 9th consecutive show. It is gigantic, and I have been looking for details. Really. They are everywhere. Dancing mascots. Wall art. Everywhere. To the point of saturation.

groundhog2

In other small details, I was pleased to find one instance of the consequence of Phil Connor’s inaction! The kid who falls out of the tree is in the background of a wide shot earlier in the film (in a hospital) with a broken leg in a cast. He is only identifiable by his distinctive red and blue striped jacket, or else there would be no way to catch it otherwise. I might have missed a few other background details, but I doubt anything else that interesting or semi-prominent.

groundhog5 groundhog6

“Groundhog Day” Review #10

One of the things that has stuck out with multiple viewings is the soundtrack / score. It has to do a lot of work, and manages to fit the variety of tones required of it. It definitely feels dated now, but it manages to do what it needs to. I particularly liked how music was used to accentuate on-screen surprise, discomfort, and confusion. I feel like a weak score could have sunk or seriously harmed a film that delicately balances its tone.

Ramis brought on Academy Award nominated composer George Fenton in to do the music, who worked on movies such as “Gandhi.” He instructed Fenton to imitate the style of Nino Rota, a renowned film score composes who worked on movies like “The Godfather.”

Speaking of which, I imagine this wasn’t the easiest film to market. I can see why so much deliberation went into casting the lead, because that had to be their biggest selling point for general audiences. Difficult to classify almost always means difficult to market. Anyway, It made a fair amount of money, particularly given it was competing in 1993, which was one hell of a deep year.

Adding to the marketing issues was the fact that “Groundhog Day” is uniquely American, meaning alternate titles had to be cooked up for foreign markets.

groundhog3

“Groundhog Day” Review #11

Gotta specifically call out the bit parts that I have come to love in this movie. Freddie Mercury Lumberjack? Yes. 1992 hair in the background of every scene? Of course. Highway patrolman who acts exclusively by emphatically pointing? Love em. Hilarious dancing white people everywhere, enough to explode the internet? Hoo boy.

Last but not least though: the bartender who exists solely to shake his head in disapproval and clean glasses. He has maybe three lines, all a variation of “what are you having?”. His unimpressed, dismissive glass washing and head shaking, though…his performance ties the whole movie together. Astounding. Inspiring.

Can you tell that I was completely exhausted at this point? It turns out that the police officer / highway patrolman’s dialogue was completely unusable due to the amount of wind on set, so all of his dialogue is dubbed in after the fact by an entirely different actor.

groundhog1 groundhog groundhog2

Conclusion

So, I made it through the whole 24 hours. Surprisingly, I don’t hate “Groundhog Day” after all of that. Certainly there is nothing out there that is meant to be consumed in this way, but the structure of “Groundhog Day” makes it almost ideal for this kind of viewing.

A lot of details and issues popped up after so much repetition, but it stayed generally watchable the whole time. I still love Bill Murray’s improvisational sharpness and the unique concept behind the film, but the romance elements are definitely weak. I think people are very selective in what they remember about this movie: there are a lot of hits, but also a lot of misses here. The Clint Eastwood scene is very weak, the lack of thought put into the temporal consequences of actions, Andie Macdowell’s performance and writing: there are flaws scattered throughout. It is still good without any doubt, but a long shot away from great.

I have had a couple of days to sit on it, but I’m not sure if I’ll ever be able to totally look at “Groundhog Day” with a conventional critical eye after all of this. So, take it all with a grain of salt.

Uncategorized

The Ladykillers

10 Comments

The Coen brothers, Joel and Ethan, are two of the most acclaimed filmmakers working today, and are almost certainly the most lauded currently active film-making duo. Their filmography is rife with cult classics and best picture nominees alike, and at times it seems that everything that they touch turns to gold. However, that was not always the case.

In 2004, the Coen’s released a quasi-remake of the Peter Sellers / Alec Guinness movie “The Ladykillers,” starring one of the most acclaimed contemporary actors in Tom Hanks. The match seemed destined for glory, with Hanks coming off of acclaimed roles in “Catch Me If You Can” and “Road to Perdition,” and the Coens having just released a series of acclaimed films (“O Brother, Where Art Thou?,” “Intolerable Cruelty,” “The Man Who Wasn’t There”). Even T-Bone Burnett, who produced the highly acclaimed music for “O Brother Where Art Thou?” and “The Big Lebowski,” was attached to work on the soundtrack.  Every aspect of the film seemed crafted with winning in mind. “The Ladykillers,” however, was not received well.

ladykillers1Despite being nominated for the Palme d’Or at Cannes and Irma P. Hall receiving wide acclaim for her role in the film, “The Ladykillers” was widely panned, and is often considered to be the weakest of the Coen brothers’ works. The film has an underwhelming 55% critic score on Rotten Tomatoes, and an even lower audience score at 43%. The IMDb users have the film at a slightly higher 6.2, which is still far from a fantastic score for the Coens.

This is one of those films where I think the context of the movie is absolutely essential to understanding the critical response to it. For instance, most of the criticisms of “The Ladykillers” that you will find pulled together on Rotten Tomatoes fall into one of three categories:

1. The Coens can do better than this / Why isn’t this another “Fargo?”

‘Frankly, this doesn’t have that Coen magic.’

‘When the Coen brothers are capable of making brilliant stuff like Fargo, should they really be spending their time making pictures like The Ladykillers?’

‘There’s a hint of the usual Coen genius here…but only a hint.’

‘If you set your expectations low enough there are real laughs to be had, but coming to the Coens with low expectations somehow just feels wrong.’

2. The characters are too quirky and unbelievable

‘…a series of hoops the characters must jump through to prove just how strange they are.’

‘A lukewarm live-action Loony Tunes cartoon’

3. It isn’t as good as the original “The Ladykillers”

‘The Coen Brothers try their hand at remaking one of the best of the 1950s Alec Guinness comedies. A version that has little to offer anyone who has seen the original.’

‘Uninvolving and tedious rendition of the 1955 British classic, film is too slow at the gate with longwinded speeches bogging down the momentum.’

‘Such a slight effort compared to the original Ladykillers and past Coen works.’

Just looking at 1 and 3, you can start to see why people were so hard on “The Ladykillers.” Not only is the film a remake of a beloved classic that could not possibly be lived up to, but people had very high expectations of the Coens. Although “Intolerable Cruelty” received generally better reviews “The Ladykillers,” it also faced the perhaps unrealistic criticism by many of being “too normal” or “not Coen enough.” I personally think that the timing of “The Ladykillers,” following only a year after “Intolerable Cruelty,” likely suffered from being the second of two consecutive a-typical Coen brothers movies. Critics that tolerated “Cruelty” as an experiment by the Coens weren’t going to forgive another film that didn’t fit the preordained Coen mold, which I think is a real injustice for the film.

ladykillers2Looking at “The Ladykillers” on its own merits, it is definitely a strange, dark comedy with highly exaggerated characters. The criticism that the characters are too unrealistic and quirky isn’t exactly wrong, but I think that they all fit the generally off-kilter ambiance of the film perfectly. In any case, I don’t think that the way the characters behave or interact is an error on the part of the Coens: I think that “The Ladykillers” is exactly the movie that they intended to make. It may not be in accordance with the tastes of general audiences, but since when has that ever stopped the Coens from making whatever movie they felt like making?

“The Ladykillers” may very well be the weakest of the Coen brothers filmography, but I would say that it is far from being a bad film overall. The negative critical reception at the time was, in my opinion, unfair. I believe that both the acclaim of the Coens, the popularity of the source material, and the fatigue of the critics after the “a-Coen-esque” “Intolerable Cruelty” set this movie up to fail from the start, as the Coen’s vision of the film was never in accordance with what audiences and critics wanted or expected from them. One of my favorite negative criticisms of “The Ladykillers” listed on Rotten Tomatoes unintentionally illuminates this point:

“Increasingly, the Coens seem more intent on amusing themselves than the audience.”

Y’know what? There is nothing at all wrong with that. I think that same attitude has produced a number of more recent Coen movies, such as “Burn After Reading” and “A Simple Man.” Particularly, “A Simple Man” is not a film that ever had a chance at a wide draw, but they made it anyway. If the Coens started making movies just to amuse an audience, then they wouldn’t have the integrity and acclaim that they have today as artists in the film world. At the time of “The Ladykillers,” I don’t think audiences or critics were ready for the free-wheeling Coens that we have now. Hell, there were a good number of critics that greatly disliked “The Big Lebowski” at the time, and that film looks damn near mainstream compared with the sort of movies they have put out since then.

ladykillers3On the flip side, the negative reaction to “The Ladykillers” almost certainly directly led to one massive positive: “No Country For Old Men.” Functioning as the opposite end of the pendulum swing to “The Ladykillers,” the Coen’s follow-up was exactly the dark, brooding spectacle that people were craving from them, and the brothers reaped their rewards for it. Perhaps the Coens would have done “No Country” regardless of how “The Ladykillers” was received, but I’m willing to bet that having “The Ladykillers” blow up in their face gave them a little more incentive to give the people what they wanted, for better or worse.

Uncategorized

The Langoliers

7 Comments

The Langoliers
langoliers3

“The Langoliers” is a 1995 ABC miniseries adapted from a Stephen King novella of the same name (it came from the same collection that later produced the Johnny Depp movie “Secret Window”).  I think most people have forgotten about it (for good reason, I might add), but I definitely remember watching this on TV when I was a kid. Specifically, I remember the hilariously terrible eponymous ‘langoliers,’ that look something like evil mollusks crossed with a chainsaw.

langoliers1Apart from the langoliers themselves, the series is chock full of other crappy CG effects, and they have all aged about as well as an open bowl of shrimp. For instance, the plot involves a rift in space-time, which an airplane accidentally flies through. Here’s what that looks like:

langoliers2Not so great, huh? For even more CG fun, here is the climax of the film set to “Guile’s Theme” from “Street Fighter.” Just look at those giant Pac-Man raisins go!

Aside from the awful CG throughout, the next most memorable aspect of the series are the performances. There are a handful of decent actors featured, such as Dean Stockwell and David Morse, but they all wind up looking pretty abysmal in this thing. Stockwell in particular winds up playing a heavy-handed Sherlock Holmes analogue, which is surprisingly one of the less distractingly awful performances in “The Langoliers.” Morse, who I guess is supposed to be the lead, plays one of the most generic characters I have ever seen on screen. Conveniently for the story though, he also happens to be a pilot! Of course, if he were anything else, everyone would have just died before the end of the first act, and the movie/series wouldn’t be 3 hours long.

langoliers7langoliers6Chewing the scenery with arguably more gusto than the langoliers themselves is Bronson Pinchot, who plays the increasingly unhinged character of Craig Toomy: a stock broker of some sort who is in the midst of a breakdown as the story begins. His performance is, to say the least, memorable.  Here’s a clip of Toomey hallucinating an argument with his father. Honestly, it is on the level of “amazingly awful”:

On the other end of the acting spectrum is Kate Maberly, who plays a young blind girl with inexplicable psychic powers named Dinah. Her performance is, in a word, bad. You can check out a little bit of it in the trailer, though it hardly scratches the surface of how terrible her line reads are:

Rounding out the cast are a few more notables: Frankie Faison, who would later play Commissioner Ervin Burrell in “The Wire”, Patricia Wettig, who has does extensive acting work on television, and Mark Lindsay Chapman, who most would probably only recognize as the Chief Officer from “Titanic.” While Wettig gets her fair share of ridiculous lines in the third act (“Are we the new people?!?”), Chapman definitely steals the show for most of the movie. Essentially, Chapman plays a grittier version of James Bond: a rough around the edges assassin and hit man with some sort of connection to the British government. As with Stockwell’s Holmes-ian character and Morse’s pilot, it is ridiculously handy to the story that a super-agent with field training winds up in the crew of survivors, particularly once Toomey finally snaps.

langoliers5
I mean, he looks so harmless though?

The entire reason I went back to watch “The Langoliers” in the first place was because I noticed a handful of similarities while watching the recent Nicolas Cage “Left Behind” film. Particularly, both stories involve people inexplicably disappearing from aircraft, leaving personal possessions behind. Here is a clip from the earlier Kirk Cameron adaptation, which I think shows a lot of the similarities:

It turns out that the first “Left Behind” novel came out in 1995, 5 years after King published “The Langoliers,” and the same year that “The Langoliers” miniseries aired on ABC. It turns out that I’m not the only one to notice the similarity: you’ll find comments all over the internet pointing out the parallels. I’m sure it is only a coincidence, but it sure is a fun one: that makes 3 awful movies with almost the exact same premise!

The director and screen-writer of “The Langoliers” is Tom Holland, who is almost certainly best known for writing and directing “Fright Night” and “Child’s Play.” However, he has pretty much fallen off the map in recent years. I imagine this has a little bit to do with his abysmal follow-up to “The Langoliers”: another Stephen King adaptation called “Thinner.” I recently watched that as well, and it makes “The Langoliers” look like “Touch of Evil.”

Due to the mixed bag of underacting, overacting, and hilariously bad CG effects, I think there is a lot of entertainment value to be had from “The Langoliers.” I particularly enjoyed the handful of instances where the actors have to stare out of plane windows and react to the langoliers, which they obviously can’t see. That’s just the sort of thing that can set me a-giggling.

The series / movie (the DVD cut just sort of merges them) is definitely too long at 3 hours, but I didn’t think it was impossible to sit through. All the same, I think a super-cut of the highlights gets the entertainment across without wasting a significant portion of your day. The Nostalgia Critic pulls together a good number of clips for his review of the series, so I can recommend checking that out for anyone curious:

 

Uncategorized

Groundhog Day Marathon

1 Comment

groundhog

I recently found out that the good folks over at Columbus, OH’s Gateway Film Center do an annual 24 hour marathon of “Groundhog Day” ahead of that most marmot-friendly of holidays. As an incentive to take on the challenge, they offer free movie tickets for a year to anyone daring enough to sit through 12 consecutive showings of the Bill Murray classic.

gateway2

So, of course, I’m going to be giving it a shot. This Sunday, I’m going to be holed up in the Gateway Film Center for just over 24 hours with a bunch of other film nuts, and I’m going to make it all the way through this meta-Sisyphean experience. Laptops are unfortunately banned from the theater, or else I would definitely liveblog it. In any case, we will get 15 minutes between screening, so I’ll be sure to take notes on all of the little details in the movie that are sure to surface after repeated viewings, as well as on my general mental state following each viewing. Here’s to making it through to the other side!

Be sure to check back next week to see how the marathon went, and if I managed to prove my cinematic endurance.

Uncategorized

Wolf (1994)

19 Comments

Wolf (1994)
wolf1

I first heard about 1994’s “Wolf” through the We Hate Movies podcast (it was a little before my time). I am pretty sure that I had seen images and clips from the movie before, specifically of Nicholson in the werewolf makeup, but in general I hadn’t heard anything about this film before I came upon their review. That particular surprised me, because it has a huge cast for 1994: Jack Nicholson, Michelle Pfeiffer, and James Spader were all pretty big names at the time.

The movie did make money (131 million total on a reported budget of 70 million), but I suspect it has faded into obscurity due to much higher expectations than it delivered. Director Mike Nichols and Jack Nicholson had scored in the past with “Carnal Knowledge,” and hopes were that their reuniting would spark magic. Unfortunately, Nichols’s magic from “The Graduate” and “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” waned through the 1980s and early 1990s, and “Wolf” proved to be no exception. The critical reaction was mixed, and far from the knockout that was surely anticipated. It certainly didn’t help financially either that the movie opened between the releases of “Speed” and “The Lion King”: both bigger, more successful, and more exciting movies.

wolf2Many complaints at the time about “Wolf” centered around the fact that it lacks the traditional action and horror that one would expect, despite a few good Nicholson moments. Some put the blame on the script for lacking energy, whereas other put it on Nichols as the man with the final word on the film. It is generally agreed that it was an experimental and new take on a werewolf movie, but it is a mixed bag among critics and audiences as to whether it worked or not.

wolf wolf 1993 real : Mike Nichols Jack NicholsonIt seems that the most memorable scene from “Wolf” is a bathroom sequence shared between Spader and Nicholson, in which Nicholson’s wolf-mad character fires Spader and then pees on his shoes in a display of dominance.

One of the biggest complaints about “Wolf” is the ending, which was the result of extensive re-shoots after the initial one tested very poorly. Personally, I think it is far too long, and could have said in 30 seconds or less what it ultimately conveyed in almost 2 minutes. Also, and this is another huge issue with the film as a whole: the wolf puppet looks absolutely ridiculous. You can see it for yourself here:

In any case, it is shocking that this the best ending that they could come up with after over 6 months worth of delays for re-shooting. It also really feels like the third act was manifested out of thin air: it just doesn’t feel right, particularly in its pacing. James Spader, however, is really fantastic in the third act, probably the only redeeming aspect of it.

There are a number of things this movie does really well. Most notably, it builds suspense spectacularly with the cinematography and sound, as well as with the performances . That said, there’s not much payoff, which means that the constant buildup just drags down the pacing. Still, it isn’t so bad to the point of being distracting, but just enough to be disappointing.

Overall, I didn’t hate this movie. It certainly hasn’t aged well, but compared to CG-heavy werewolf movies from more recent years, that cheesy-looking puppet wolf is holding up pretty damn well for over 20 years down the line. The casting, not just of of Nicholson as a werewolf, but the whole cast from James Spader to Christopher Plummer, is just perfect. They all work well together, and they all of the principal players get a chance to shine. The makeup on the film is generally pretty good (which is no surprise, as acclaimed makeup artist Rick Baker was in charge), something that is key to any werewolf movie. However, the writing and directing really hold it back, in the sense that it subverts audience expectations in a bad way: there is never really any extensive werewolf rage to be enjoyed, except in very brief spurts. It is mostly about business culture, which is certainly not what people were in the theater for.

wolf4That said, I respect the attempt to do something different with “Wolf.” It is a unique take on a werewolf story, and has more depth in the concept that you would expect. However, it isn’t executed as well as it could have been, which leaves it in a half-committed no-man’s-land between horror and suspenseful drama, not quite succeeding at either. It might have just had too high of aspirations to be able to succeed at what Nichols and company wanted to do with it.

I definitely understand why this has been a movie more or less lost to the ages: 1994 was one hell of a year for movies, and this is not a good enough film to stand out from the pack. Even though this isn’t a really bad movie, it definitely failed to live up to expectations of critics and audiences in just about every possible way.  This is another movie where you can’t help but wonder what could have been if a different creative team had gotten a hold of it.

I recommend checking out the urinal scene between Spader and Nicholson, which is definitely the highlight of the flick. It might be worthwhile to look up some clips of the ridiculous wolf puppet, but even the context of the movie to be much fun. Spader is pretty great in the third act, but that probably isn’t worth sitting through the whole film. Outside of all of that, this is an absolutely forgettable flick. It isn’t necessarily bad, but at best only a hair above mediocre.

 

Uncategorized

Leprechaun 3

10 Comments

Leprechaun 3
leprechaun1

A few years ago, I spent a Halloween doing a full watch through Warwick Davis’s infamous “Leprechaun” franchise. Like most bad movie people, I was already very familiar with the first and fifth installments (“Leprechaun: In The Hood”), but I was curious about the rest of them.

For the most part, they are pretty forgettable. I can’t speak for the new WWE reboot of the franchise (“Leprechaun: Origins”), but “Leprechaun 6: Back 2 The Hood” and “Leprechaun 2” were nearly unwatchable and definitely the worst of the bunch that were out at the time.

“Leprechaun 4” is deserving of a rewatch/review post to itself: essentially, it is a generic sci-fi movie that has the Leprechaun cut in in lieu of an actual alien creature. It is a little bizarre, to say the least.

However, none of the Leprechaun movies (including the original and “In The Hood”) have stood out in my memory quite as much as “Leprechaun 3,” and I’m surprised it doesn’t get more attention.

As with a number of horror movie sequels, “Leprechaun 3” has a ridiculous, gimmicky setting to try and make the story new and interesting (see: “Jason Takes Manhattan”). In “Lep 3”, that setting is none other than Las Vegas, NV.

The more I have thought about it, the more I love the concept of this movie. Leprechauns are all about wishes, luck, and wealth: where better to throw one than Las Vegas? However, the setting is only the surface of what is notable about this flick.

In a baffling turn, the plot of “Leprechaun 3” actually primarily centers around a person who is bitten by Warwick Davis’s creature, who slowly (and inexplicably) starts to become what I can only describe as a “were-leprechaun.” Yeah, that’s the kind of movie we are dealing with.

leprechaun2

As I mentioned, it has been a few years since my “Leprechaun” marathon, so I was curious as to how much I might have forgotten about this film, and if I was perhaps remembering it more fondly as a good-bad movie than I should have. So, I just gave it a re-watch, and here are some of my thoughts on it after a second viewing.

—–

I totally forgot how this movie began, and what brought the Leprechaun to Vegas in the first place. A one-eyed man (who I don’t recall from the second movie) wanders into a pawn shop in Vegas with the Leprechaun, in it’s dormant stone form, dragging behind him in a raggedy sack. He then sells him to the pawn broker for 20 bucks and disappears. The broker then almost immediately awakens the Leprechaun by removing his cursed medallion, to the shock of no one. Then, the rhyming starts. I almost forgot just how horrible and distracting the lazy and cringe-worthy rhyming dialogue was in these movies.

leprechaun4

Perhaps the only thing worse than Warwick Davis’s lines in these movies are the ones given to everyone else. Here’s an interaction from the film, for instance, after a young boy discovers a woman whose car has broken down:

“Have you ever blown a rod before?”

“I beg your pardon?”

“The engine, I meant”

Oh come on now, that is a bit of a stretch (to say the least). And this is less than 5 minutes into the film, in one of the first lines of dialogue introducing central characters. It doesn’t exactly go up from there, either. Speaking of which, that “young boy” (who supposedly isn’t old enough to walk on a casino floor) looks like he is almost 30.

leprechaun5

Here’s another thing I forgot: the internet hilariously plays a really important role in this 1995 movie. I am a total sucker for movies that include the internet before anyone knew much about it, and this one is no different. The internet in this movie is basically just a poorly animated storybook and guide to everything Leprechaun (and Were-Leprechaun) related.

leprechaun6

Another thing that somehow slipped my memory: one of the main characters is a skeevy magician, who is played as hammily as possible by an actor named John DeMita, who primarily does voice acting nowadays for video games and English dubs of anime series (“Final Fantasy XIII-2,” “Naruto”).

leprechaun3

The leads of the film are the aforementioned 30 year old supposed teenager, who becomes hooked on gambling / becomes a were-leprechaun, and his love interest: an ambitious magician’s assistant. Other notable characters in the unnecessarily and shockingly large cast of “Leprechaun 3” include an over-the-hill roulette dealer who lusts for the beauty of her youth, a casino worker who is in debt to the mob, and, strangely enough, the pawn broker from the opening. Somehow, the Leprechaun winds up stuck in that pawn shop for over half an hour of run time, making the broker a mildly important player in the film. His theft of one of the Leprechaun’s coins is the catalyst of the entire casino-centric story.

When the Leprechaun finally does make it to the casino, the movie somewhat sidetracks as he starts taking out most of the accessory cast while his last lost coin continues to change hands. The most notable of these deaths is of the roulette dealer, who wishes for youth and beauty. As with any sort of crafty and devious wish-granting creature, it quickly goes sideways on her when Leppy tracks her down. This is one of those things that is easier to show than to tell:

There are just no words to describe how ridiculous that is. I have to admit, though, that’s kind of what I assumed happened off screen in “Willie Wonka.”

The whole middle act of the film is basically Warwick Davis hamming it up in the casino, killing off characters, and continuing with all of the worst rhymes that the writers could think up. The best of all of these deaths is definitely the magician’s, who bites it towards the end of the movie in a unique take on the classic “sawing a person in half” trick.

Of course, I have to get into the whole “were-leprechaun” plot. It turns out that it was a little different than what I remembered: the main character is turned into a were-leprechaun because he both bitten and is exposed to Leppy’s blood, which is apparently toxic and burns like acid (very xenomorph-like). Other than that, it is about exactly what you would expect: he starts wearing bad prosthetic facial hair, freckles magically appear on his face, and he starts rhyming incessantly in a fake Irish accent. It is pretty annoying in the moment, but hilarious to look back on.

leprechaun7

There is a particular segment of the film that I forgot about in which the magician’s assistant and co-lead, Tammy, is possessed by the lost coin after the casino boss makes a wish to sleep with her. The coin is stolen again before anything happens, but the whole segment has massively uncomfortable undertones. The casino boss is almost immediately killed afterwards by Leppy, who summons a killer sex robot from his TV, which is one of the more bizarre cases of instant karma in film that you’ll ever come across.

leprechaun8

The finale, of course, features some extensive Leprechaun battles between Leppy and the were-creature, and features lines such as:

For pulling this trick,

I’ll chop off your dick!

and

Cut her nose,

and I’ll hack off your toes!

and

Power to power

You have much to learn

Taller or shorter

I’ll make you burn!

I can’t emphasize this enough: every single line between these two central characters in the last act is like this. Back and forth, back and forth: constant. Again, this is as annoying as anything in the universe to sit through, but I am laughing my ass off thinking about it now.

The Leprechaun is ultimately defeated with the creative use of a flamethrower, but only after he fails to lure Scott, the were-leprechaun, to join him on what he literally refers to as “the green side.” Scott is magically cured of his were-leprechaunism after the bout for reasons that aren’t exactly clear meaning that there’s a happy ending for Tammy and Scott. However, the last line has to be overdone, inappropriate, and cheesy, so the writers decided to rip off the last line to “Casablanca.” I can’t even begin to go into how much is wrong with that.

So, does “Leprechaun 3” hold up as a good bad movie? Honestly, it is way better than I remembered (on a good-bad level, of course). The characters are all hammed up to the max, the plot is the perfect sort of nonsense. I would recommend this one over the original or “In The Hood” in a heartbeat. In general, this is a movie that bad movie lovers should not miss by any means. The only big problem with it is the casino boss sequence’s sexual assault overtones, which could have been fixed really easily with a quick rewrite. It isn’t just unnecessary for the story and shitty to include, but it also messes with the whole tone of the movie. With that caveat, this is a solid good-bad movie recommendation from me.

Uncategorized

We Hate Movies on “Winter’s Tale”

Leave a comment

When I wrote up my post on The Worst Movies of 2014 last week, I neglected to include a personal ranking in there. I saw a good number of bad movies in 2014, but for me, nothing stood out quite like “Winter’s Tale.” I mean, it got me to do a write-up on a current movie, which isn’t something I make a habit of.

winters-tale4

This week, the We Hate Movies podcast put out an episode on “Winter’s Tale” as part of their Worst of 2014 retrospective, and it reminded me of just how much baffling, nonsensical fun it was to watch that movie. The WHM gang didn’t recommend the film, which is a point where I am definitely going to disagree with them. If you watch any bad movies from 2014, “Winter’s Tale” should be one you check out. If you need any more selling on it, check out the “How Did This Get Made?” and “Cinema Snob Midnight Screening” episodes on the movie, and look at how much fun they all have with this incomprehensible mess.

winters-tale1

“Winter’s Tale” wasn’t the worst film of 2014 by any kind of honest metric, but it was almost certainly the strangest Hollywood film product to come out of the year. Personally, I think it was the best good-bad movie to come out of the year, because the entertainment value to the film is off the charts if you go into it knowing what to expect. And what you should expect, to be specific, is a magical flying horses, bad Irish accents, and some of the most nonsensical dialogue-babble you will ever hear. More people really need to see this movie.