James Horner – People Talking

Quick Thoughts – July Round-Up, Part 2 of 2

‘Kamikaze 89’ (1982)

I wish I could more effectively talk about this film, but it’s based on a book I’ve never read (“Murder on the Thirty-First Floor”) and produced in a language I don’t speak (German), so I’m somewhat limited in my understanding. However, I can tell you it’s a futuristic dystopian crime story.

‘Kamikaze 89’ is about Inspector Jansen (Rainer Werner Fassbinder, in his final film role), who is given charge of solving the case of a bomb threat at “The Combine”, which controls all media in the land. The biggest problem is that he only has a few days to pull it off, but, fortunately, the list of suspects turns out to be comparatively short. However, the more suspects he meets, the more he learns that things may not all they seem at “The Combine”.

I wanted to like this movie, I really did, but ultimately I’m going to have to throw it in with ‘High-Rise‘ as another dystopian film that looks good and has a lot of cool retro-futuristic elements, but ultimately is missing something. With ‘High-Rise’, I wasn’t really sure how to fix it, but with ‘Kamikaze 89’ it’s plain to see that it lacks energy. I’m usually the last person to call a film “boring”, but ‘Kamikaze’ was definitely leading me down that road.

Some more money in the budget may have helped as well, either that or a director who could do more with less. In the end though, I can’t give it a solid recommendation.

Rating: ★★½

‘Coming to America’ (1988)

It’s cliché, I know, but I honestly don’t know what to say about this movie that hasn’t been said already.

Everybody involved was firing on all cylinders: John Landis in the director’s chair; Eddie Murphy at his apex; Arsenio Hall threatens to steal the movie; Rick Baker with all the special make-up; Nile Rodgers with the musical score; all the supporting actors (too many to list). Everything comes together to make this a classic (not to mention the New York stuff is great to see).

There are so many great bits and little moments, from “Soul Glo”, to the barbershop, to Reverend Brown. It’s a wonderfully hilarious comedy, but, in addition, it has some real heart, in the form of Akeem and Lisa’s budding relationship.

I know I say this often, but if you’ve never seen it, get on it!

Rating: ★★★★½

‘Wolfen’ (1981)

ⅯⅭⅯⅬⅩⅩⅩⅠ – ANNO LVPVS

1981 – The Year of the Wolf

For those in my generation, the concept of “twin films” is quite familiar. You know, when two high-profile movies come out in the same year and have major similarities (not to say that they are the same, however): ‘Dante’s Peak’ and ‘Volcano’; ‘Antz’ and ‘A Bug’s Life’; ‘Deep Impact’ and ‘Armageddon’; and so on.

1981 offers us perhaps the ultimate example of “triplet films”, as it gave us three horror movies involving wolf creatures: first, in April, came Joe Dante’s ‘The Howling‘; then came ‘Wolfen’ in July; and then August gave us the most famous of the three, ‘An American Werewolf in London‘, directed by John Landis.

Now, I must specify that ‘Wolfen’ is not about werewolves, but about…super wolves? Honestly, the movie doesn’t do a great job of explaining exactly what they are, except that they are portrayed on screen by actual wolves, and somehow they tie into Native American history (in the movie; not in real life).

‘Wolfen’ is a movie I really wanted to love. It has such a cool vibe, it was shot almost entirely in NYC, Albert Finney plays a classic laconic detective, and Gregory Hines absolutely shines in his first movie (technically, ‘History of the World: Part Ⅰ’ was his debut, but ‘Wolfen’ went into production beforehand). And, of the three wolf films of ’81, I think it’s the scariest. The problem is that the story just doesn’t quite gel, especially compared with its siblings.

That said, I think it’s definitely a film worth seeing, and I’d be happy to watch it again. There’s more than enough good work to appreciate.

Rating: ★★★½

Quick Thoughts – Spring Round-Up

Someday I won’t be writing these posts months after the fact, but, for now, we press on.

‘Big Trouble in Little China’ (1986)

Sure, technically speaking, ‘Ghostbusters 2′ is the sequel to ‘Ghost Busters‘, but ‘Big Trouble in Little China’ isn’t exactly far off. The tone is similar, the stakes are about the same, and the proportion of comedy to horror is almost equal. The one major difference is John Carpenter was moving from horror into comedy whereas Ivan Reitman was moving from comedy into horror.

Point is, you’ve got Awesome Mode Kurt Russell as a fish-out-of-water on a great adventure against some dark Chinese magic. Throw in a diverse supporting cast (including, but not limited to, the ever-wonderful James Hong, as well as Kim Cattrall at peak loveliness) and some classic 80s special effects (led by Richard Edlund, whose team also did ‘Ghost Busters’), and you’ve got a recipe for a good time. I also think it might be the first Western production to make use of Chinese wire-fighting techniques, but I can’t confirm that.

If you still haven’t seen this one, I understand your trepidation. It took me a while to take the plunge on it, but, trust me, it’s more than worth your time.

Rating: ★★★★☆

‘Vigilante’ (1983)

I have to admit, I’m not sure how highly I’d rate this one if I hadn’t seen it complete with a Q&A session with both the director “Bill” Lustig and former NYPD detective turned all-around movie guy Randy Jurgensen, but they helped me put the film in its proper context, and hopefully I can do the same for you.

On the surface, William Lustig’s ‘Vigilante’ is a poor man’s ‘Death Wish‘, as evidenced by the inexplicably multi-racial gang members, but, more than that, it’s essentially a cinematic cartoon of New York Post headlines from the late-70s and early-80s. Many events and characters have some basis in reality (including the judge, who was based on Bruce McMarion Wright, aka “Turn ‘Em Loose Bruce”).

Just as a movie though, ‘Vigilante’ is a solid enough exploitation revenge film. Robert Forster brings his unique everyman quality to a character pushed to the limit by violence against his family, and Fred Williamson brings his imposing screen presence (and perfectly manicured beard, of which I am jealous) as a man who’s long decided he’s not going to take it anymore.

Perhaps what’s most interesting about ‘Vigilante’, like many movies of its era, is simply New York City as a location. It really is like another character on screen.

Other than that, it’s pretty standard fare.

Rating: ★★★☆☆

P.S.
One note of particular interest from Bill Lustig was that when the film got distribution in countries with oppressive governments (including Brazil and the Philippines, which were under dictatorships at the time), there had to be a title card inserted at the end of the film stating that the vigilante was brought to justice himself. This reminded me of the end of ‘Blood Debts‘, famously highlighted by Red Letter Media, in which a similar title card exists, no doubt because it was a 1985 Filipino production.

‘Alien’ (1979) + ‘Aliens’ (1986)

I’ve heard people accuse me of not being very festive, and I don’t know where they get the notion; you have to be pretty festive to go see ‘Back to the Future 2‘ on October 21, 2015, or go to an ‘Alien’ double feature on 4/26 while sitting in seat 426, but I digress.

I’ve been familiar with ‘Alien’ at minimum since I watched it to prepare myself for ‘Prometheus’, but obviously it’s a different animal on the big screen As I’ve said on many occasions, I’m not a big horror guy, but ‘Alien’ is transcendent, thanks largely to its hard sci-fi base. To say it’s a great looking movie is an understatement; everything has substance, everything feels lived-in, and it’s all in service of what is essentially a blue collar sci-fi story, which is rather uncommon.

What also helps ‘Alien’ in its effectiveness is its small cast (not unlike ‘Predator‘ in that regard). The low number of space truckers and focus on their daily grind ensures we get to know them all pretty well, not to mention a good bit of improvised dialogue in group settings. Sure, it becomes a bit of a haunted house movie in the final act, but between the limitations they had in 1979 and the groundbreaking design of the alien monster, I’m not taking points off for that.

All-in-all, the movie is a timeless classic.

Now, ‘Aliens’ I had never seen before, on any sort of screen. We can debate til the end of time which movie of the two is better, but one thing for certain is that they are different.

‘Aliens’, like most great sequels, builds upon and expands the world we already know, and in this case switches up the genre as well, adding in a whole mess load of action thanks to our friendly neighborhood space marines. James Cameron was correct in keeping the visual aesthetics of the first movie while also adding his own signature touches and new bits of lore (like the M41A Pulse Rifle and the Alien Queen). It’s a fairly unique watch in terms of the simultaneous level of action and terror.

Of course I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the true thread holding these films together, that being Sigourney Weaver. Her portrayal of Ripley is nearly flawless (although I like her hair better in ‘Alien’, but that’s superficial).

Ultimately, both ‘Alien’ and ‘Aliens’ are must-see, Whether you prefer more slow-moving hard sci-fi or futuristic action will likely determine which you think is better, but, personally, I don’t feel compelled to choose.

Ratings:
‘Alien’ ★★★★☆
‘Aliens’ ★★★★☆

P.S.
Shout out to NECA Toys for showing off some wares and doing some giveaways before each movie.

Movie Review – ‘Southpaw’ – I AM PREDICTABLE

Southpaw

Directed by Antoine Fuqua
Written by Kurt Sutter
Cast: Jake Gyllenhaal, Rachel McAdams, Oona Laurence, Forest Whitaker, 50 Cent, Naomie Harris, Beau Knapp
Soundtrack: James Horner (God rest him)

What a disappointing week.

First, the USMNT gets knocked out of the Gold Cup by Jamaica, and now I have to talk about this movie.

Let me say this first: if, for some reason, you have not seen the trailer for ‘Southpaw’, but still want to see it, do it; you have my blessing, but do not, not, not watch the trailer before paying to see it.

Because, for whatever reason, the people marketing this film decided to put all of us moviegoers in a Catch 22. They wanted to draw us in by capturing our attention with the trailer, but, unfortunately, seeing this movie after seeing the trailer is a largely futile, and, dare I say, boring experience. I hate using the word ‘boring’. I like to think my attention span is better than the vast majority of people out there, but ‘Southpaw’ forced my hand on this.

I hope I’m making myself clear here.

I desperately wanted to like this movie, I really did, and it almost, kind of, sort of won me over in the end, but not enough to recommend it; because right off the bat I spent more than 55% of the running time feeling my buttocks go numb, because no matter how hard the movie tried to grab me by the heartstrings, it just couldn’t, because I almost always knew what came next, because the trailer had already told me.

And it really is a waste, because, by and large, ‘Southpaw’ is well done. It’s competently shot, the performances are pretty good all around, and they did a great job of getting the real world of pay-per-view boxing (including HBO’s Jim Lampley and Roy Jones, Jr.) into the film, but there’s nothing special enough to transcend the predictability of the script. To be sure, it starts to get better in the second half, and eventually it did tug on my heartstrings, but it took way too long to get there, and for that reason I can’t recommend people seeing this theatrically if they’ve already seen the trailer.

The production values are certainly better than most direct-to-video garbage out there, but, unfortunately, ‘Southpaw’ is barely worth a rental.

Rating: ★★½ out of five

P.S.
Despite being a movie about a boxer, I would not call this a “sports movie”. It’s more of a straight drama that happens to be about an athlete. Just to be clear.