HIGHLANDER II: THE QUICKENING (1991) - Review

Highlander II: The Quickening

Action/Fantasy/Sci-Fi
1 hour and 31 minutes
Rated R

Written by: Peter Bellwood
Directed by: Russell Mulcahy
Produced by: Peter S. Davis and William Panzer

Cast:
Christopher Lambert
Sean Connery
Virginia Madsen
Michael Ironside

It's a kind of magic.

"There can be only one." Someone should have told Russell Mulcahy that this famous line of dialogue was referring to the fact that there can be only one film within the Highlander franchise. Have you ever seen advertisements for Highlander conventions? No? Highlander II: The Quickening is the reason why.

Highlander may have been the most unlikely genre film to be worthy of a sequel since The Exorcist. Its story was muddled and confusing, and it failed to make much of a profit in the ever-so important US market. That being said, it wasn't an unimpressive film and it did manage to turn a major profit outside the United States.  Mulcahy apparently had the sequel green lit and financed as far back as 1987. With $14 million dollars (it would rise during the course of production to around $30 million), Mulcahy set about making one of the worst films I've ever had the displeasure of sitting through.

If you thought Highlander was confusing, Higlander II: The Quickening is impossible. It's filled with enough retcons and continuity errors to write a 30-page thesis paper on. One would think its saving grace would be its large budget, and impressive cast, but ultimately, neither was able to save the film from being an atrocious monstrosity.

The sets are dull, and lack any kind of wow-factor. In fact, the whole thing appears cheap, and if you watch carefully you can point out some sets being used multiple times with certain pieces rearranged in order to "fool" the audience. The special effects aren't up to par. Yes, the effects in Highlander are dated and unimpressive, but it was the 1980s. You would think with a huge budget and several years of technological advancement, the effects would have been considerably better than the predecessor's. One has to wonder, where the hell did the $30 million dollars go!?

I will not fault the story entirely. At its core, the film could've worked. Had it embraced its futuristic setting with its sci-fi themes, it probably would have been more impressive than it was. Highlander II: The Quickening suffered from the classic blockbuster disease known as "producer-take-over." Due to its going over budget, creative control is handed to the producers and well ... you get it. It's all down hill from there.

As for the cast, no one is capable of delivering a worthy performance - despite the A-lister status. Christopher Lambert (who without Highlander would undoubtedly be working at a McDonald's somewhere) is just as stone-faced and boring as he was in the first film. To his credit, he handles his own in the action and sword-fighting sequences (and trust me when I say this, if Mulcahy is the director, there's going to be A LOT of sword fights).Virginia Madsen has little more to do than run around and look pretty, and have random sex with our protagonist in the middle of the street. Sean Connery (who received $3 million dollars to work for 9 days), seems just as confused as the film's viewers. Honestly, if a character dies in the first film - don't bring him or her back in the second. I don't care how science-fiction-y it is, it's just confusing. Regardless, Connery manages not to embarrass himself, and it's obvious that he's way above this material. Michael Ironside honestly is supposed to be the "stand-out" character, but the psychotic, sword-wielding, tall man, antagonist was done in the first Highlander. By this point, its recycling is just lazy.

Also recycled are several scenes from the first Highlander film. For example, in Highlander the antagonist confronts the protagonist in a Church while the protagonist is praying for his dead wife. The exact same thing occurs about halfway through Highlander II: The Quickening.

Despite having turned a reasonable profit upon release (including in the US market), Highlander II: The Quickening is the only motion-picture where the director's cut couldn't even save the disastrous product. It's a classic example of a big-budget motion-picture gone wrong. There's a reason why Highlander fans refer to Highlander III: The Sorcerer as "Highlander III: The Apology."

0.5/10

THE AMITYVILLE HORROR (1979) - Review

The Amityville Horror

Horror

1 hour and 57 minutes

Rated R

Written by: Sandor Stern

Directed by: Stuart Rosenberg

Produced by: Samuel Z. Arkoff, Elliot Geisinger, and Ronald Saland

Cast:

James Brolin

Margot Kidder

Rod Steiger

Don Stroud

Murray Hamilton

Houses Don't Have Memories.

One of the most discussed and studied motion-pictures within the horror genre, The Amityville Horror has obtained notoriety for being "based on" a shocking and terrifying story. Regardless of what you choose to believe, the film itself has deserved all of the buzz surrounding it.

Are its scares gimmicky? Absolutely. But one has to understand, other than perhaps The Haunting, The Amityville Horror was one of the very first successful haunted-house-based horror films. Its story is simple, its scares are simple, but goddamn it - they work. Viewers need to grasp that this is the film that has gone on to spark a legacy of other motion-pictures based within the subgenre.

The film itself is a quintessential 1970s-horror film. In fact, I would go as far as to argue that it follows more of the template for European horror films of the 1970s. By this I mean, the plot isn't the most important factor. Let the atmosphere, the characters, the special effects, and the setting drive the storyline - and if they don't, well that's okay because the story wasn't the most important thing to take away from the movie. Amityville is no exception to this. Although the story is tangible, it kind of gets lost in its many layered subplots, and by the time the surrealistically colorful finale, that even the likes of Argento and Coscarelli can be proud of, rolls around one is so distracted by the visuals that the story is the furthest thing from their minds.

The majority of the performances within the film are handled well enough, and are believable, no doubt about it. But it is the performances of two actors that really stand out within the film. First, and most obviously, is that of James Brolin. The makeup for Brolin was done terrifically, but it could only drive his character so far. Brolin's performance as a man driven to the brink of insanity due to the spirits within the house is so convincing, one has to wonder why this isn't ever discussed as being a stand-out performance within his career. (Perhaps its the social taboo that surrounds horror films). Along with Brolin, Rod Steiger delivers an incredibly powerful performance as a Catholic priest who is simultaneously being tormented by the spirits within the house. Steiger steals the best scene within the film, where his character attempts to convince several other priests that Brolin's family is in serious need of help from the church. His pleas fall upon deaf ears, and his frustration is so tangible that it remains the one scene within the film that really stays with you.

Amityville is not without its flaws, however. I don't know if people are afraid to, or if they just don't notice it, but there are some pretty blatant similarities between this film and Stephen King's novel The Shining. One being, the storyline itself. A man, his wife, and their children move into a haunted location and the man is tormented to the brink of insanity and eventually attempts to kill his family. The kids talk to imaginary friends, and the father even tries to axe down a door of a bathroom that the children are hiding in. Good thing the wives are able to stop their demented husbands in both stories. I'm not positive when this script was written, but I think it's safe to say that Sandor Stern was a fan of Stephen King's novel. (I'm not sure what happens in the book version The Amityville Horror, but if these Stephen King similarities are there too ... something is fishy).

The atmosphere of the film is what drives it the most. The score as well as the cinematography are one hundred percent reminiscent of Polanski's film Rosemary's Baby. I'm not saying they stole from that film, more or less used it as inspiration. Like most 1970s horror films, one comes away feeling unsettled after viewing Amityville but can't really put their finger on why. The short answer to this feeling is the film's atmosphere. A slow build with creepy intervals added in until the big, trippy, and frightening finish comes along.

The Amityville Horror, while suffering from a few creativity issues, is an outstanding motion-picture that has earned its right as being called one of the better horror films of not just the 1970s, but of all time.

7.5/10

THEY LIVE (1988) - Review

They Live

Action/Horror/Sci-Fi
1 hour and 35 minutes
Rated R

Written by: Frank Armitage
Directed by: John Carpenter
Produced by: Larry Franco

Cast:
Roddy Piper
Keith David
Meg Foster

Who are they? And what do they want?

Roddy Piper, the man with the iron-mullet, stars in horror maestro John Carpenter's They Live, the story of a drifter's discovery of an alien species living among the human race. The film was released during Carpenter's downslide of popularity, but it is indeed worthy of its cult status - and is quite possibly one of Carpenter's better films.

The storyline itself is rather simple. In fact, it could be identified as being a science-fiction adaptation of a 1984-based idea. One man discovers the human race, mainly the lower class, is being manipulated by the demands of the upper class. 

It is not the story that makes They Live so impressive, but the very messages that it has to say about politics, society, and the American economy. Its messages are just as pertinent, if not more pertinent, today than they were in 1988. The alien race, represented as the rich and powerful, exploits man's greed and uses it to turn us on one another. As they pay out more money to buy off human beings with cash and power, the lower class grows and the middle class disappears entirely. The lower class perseveres with the hopes that if they work hard then they too will achieve money and power. Hope that is based on the false promises of the bought-off humans and the alien manipulators.

The film also touches upon commercial consumerism in society. Subliminal messages are sprinkled throughout both advertising and the media, and what Carpenter does so hilariously is cut to the chase. Adds featuring semi-naked women really boast the words "Marry and Procreate". Pictures of political figures have the words "Obey", "Stay Asleep", and "Don't Question Authority".

The performances in They Live are decent. The actors take the roles seriously enough to the point that you buy into what the film is selling, but none of them deliver anything Oscar worthy. Roddy Piper's 10+ minute fist fight scene with Keith David may be the only moment where you find yourself coming out of viewing the movie. It just seems that it was extended as long as it was in order to make the film's running time longer. It takes away from a serious moment, where Piper's character needs David's to see what he sees in order to survive, and makes it ridiculously hilarious. If you don't find yourself laughing at the absurdity of the sequence's length, than chances are you weren't interested in viewing this movie to begin with.

They Live proves to be a strong entry to filmmaker John Carpenter's filmography, mainly due to its messages concerning social standings of the American class system, economic policies, and political statements. 

8.5/10

DEATH PROOF (2007) - Review

Death Proof

Action/Thriller
1 hour and 53 minutes
Rated R

Written by: Quentin Tarantino
Directed by: Quentin Tarantino
Produced by: Elizabeth Avellán, Robert Rodriguez, Erica Steinberg and Quentin Tarantino

Cast:
Kurt Russell
Rosario Dawson
Vanessa Ferlito
Jordan Ladd
Rose McGowan
Sydney Tamiia Poitier
Tracie Thoms
Mary Elizabeth Winstead
Zoë Bell

A White-Hot Juggernaut At 200 Miles Per Hour!

Fasten your seat belts, and hold on for dear life, as I examine Quentin Tarantino's homage to the carsploitation genre: Death Proof. If you're not familiar with the genre, understand that it is one to be thoroughly appreciated. Muscle cars, square-jawed actors, exhilarating chase-sequences, and of course beautiful ladies - how could you not love carsploitation films?

Tarantino obviously has a strong love and admiration for the genre, mainly evidenced by the references sprinkled throughout the Tarantino-typical dialogue, as well as the vehicles themselves. Kudos to Mr. Tarantino for using the actual cars throughout the chase sequences, as opposed to taking the easy way out with CGI.

For all of its carsploitation beauty, Death Proof is not a film without flaws. As mentioned already, the film has the classic Tarantino-dialogue added throughout, which any fan of his would find enjoyable. The problem is, Death Proof is a carsploitation film - or at least it's trying to be one. The carsploitation films of the 1970s (e.g. Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry or Vanishing Point) aren't dialogue heavy films. In fact, the dialogue in most carsploitation movies is pretty poorly written. The point of this is to not take away from the gloriously choreographed car-chases and car-crashes. With Tarantino's film, we get about 90% decently-written dialogue, and about 10% car-chase. Not the proper ratio for success within this genre.

Besides this, the film is incredibly conflicted. It can't make up its mind as to whether it's a dialogue-driven-Tarantino-drama, a creative new take on the slasher film, or a blatant homage to the carsploitation genre. The film moves from one genre to the next in a helter skelter fashion that's very untypical of its filmmaker.

The performances in Death Proof are all handled well by capable performers (including the then-newcomer Zoë Bell), but the problem rests within the dialogue. While decently written, the film's dialogue is nowhere near Tarantino's best work. The character's in the first half of the film are obsessed with 1970s music, the character's during the second half of the film are obsessed with 1970s movies, and the film's antagonist is obsessed with 1970s television. This is all cool and everything, but it comes across as being too much of the writer's voice, and not enough of the character's. Also, the scene with Michael Parks right in the middle of the film is totally unnecessary. He's a very fine actor, and I know Tarantino likes to use him in the recurring role of Texas Ranger Earl McGraw, but in this film his presence is totally unnecessary.

All-in-all, Death Proof boasts some terrific stunt work and beautifully shot car-chases and crashes, but falls short in comparison to Tarantino's other works - mainly due to its inner-conflict concerning its own genre identity.

6.5/10

JACKASS PRESENTS: BAD GRANDPA (2013) - Review

Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa

Comedy
1 hour and 32 minutes
Rated R

Written by: Johnny Knoxville & Jeff Tremaine
Directed by: Jeff Tremaine
Produced by: Derek Freda, Spike Jonze, Johnny Knoxville and Jeff Tremaine

Cast:
Johnny Knoxville
Jackson Nicoll

I was late to the Jackass scene, not catching onto the humor of it all until I saw Jackass 3D in theaters (I'm still very confused as to why they felt it needed to be in 3D). The show was on when I was 8 and 9 years old, so unfortunately I never got to appreciate it while it ran its course. Nevertheless, I know what the premise is all about, and understand the appeal.

If you're looking for something in the vein of the Jackass film series, then Bad Grandpa is most definitely for you. The situational humor is on par with some of the previous films' greatest moments, and it is without a doubt hilarious. I usually don't go in for comedies that are repulsively crude, but based on my liking of everything Sacha Baron Cohen, I usually feel a bit guilty if I at least don't give them a try. Crude humor is all this movie is about. Everything from penises, testicles, excrement, and even a segment during the end credits featuring a gag with breast milk. In fact, within the first ten minutes of the movie, Johnny Knoxville's (fake) penis is out.

But none of this can really be said to hurt Bad Grandpa. This is what the hordes of Jackass fans have come to expect, and they certainly won't be disappointed. But it doesn't present anything new. Most of the gags can be pinpointed as being recycled or in the styling of the bits from the Jackass films. Does that mean the film isn't funny? No, absolutely not. The reactions of the everyday people who aren't in on the obvious physical and crude hilarity, is what makes the film salvageable as a comedy. 

The story is incredibly predictable. In fact, the woman sitting next to me in the theater told her friend what she believed was going to happen at the end maybe fifteen minutes into the film, and low and behold she was correct. If you've ever seen any "road-trip" film where the two protagonists begin the journey with one not feeling so sure about the other, chances are you've seen a movie containing the plot of Bad Grandpa. Perhaps if the story had been worked out a little more, and really had some thought injected into it, Bad Grandpa would've been a triumphant comedy built upon more than just excrement sharted on a wall.

With enough situational and physically crude humor to appease any Jackass or Johnny Knoxville fan, Bad Grandpa is a middle-of-the-road comedy, with a weak story, that really could only fully appeal to certain individuals.

6/10

PREDATOR (1987) - Review

Predator

Action/Adventure/Sci-fi
1 hour and 47 minutes
Rated R

Written by: Jim Thomas & John Thomas
Directed by: John McTiernan
Produced by: Lawrence Gordon, Joel Silver and John Davis

Cast:
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Carl Weathers
Bill Duke
Jesse Ventura
Kevin Peter Hall

Soon the hunt will begin.

The 1980s was a time when action and science-fiction films flourished. The Valenti era in the MPAA allowed for films to contain more and more graphic content. Films like Commando, RoboCop, Terminator and Aliens raised the bar for creativity and graphic content within mainstream box-office blockbusters. So why should Predator have been any different?

What's unfortunate about this motion-picture is that it was in the hands of people who were more than capable of delivering an amazing film. John McTiernan especially, who has given us such wonders as Die Hard, The Hunt for Red October, and Medicine Man, should have been able to deliver a great action film. Disappointingly so, Predator may be McTiernan's weakest film.

The storyline lacks anything in the way of intelligence. In fact, I would go as far as to say that Predator is a direct knock-off of John Carpenter's far superior film The Thing. Don't believe me? Watch the very first scene of The Thing and then the very first scene of Predator .... they're completely identical. Both movies play off of man's basic fear of the unknown, and the unseen. The difference is, The Thing uses the fear of the unknown to its advantage, showcasing truly horrific moments, while Predator is more concerned with being an entertaining shoot-em-up fest - keeping in the lines of the past works of its leading men. The story is also clearly a sci-fi adaptation of the Richard Connell short story "The Most Dangerous Game".

But Predator is not all unforgivable. In fact, the action sequences are wonderfully choreographed and entertaining to watch. The dialogue - what little there is - is irrelevant, and while viewing the film you sometimes wish that Schwarzenegger would just shut up and shoot something. Nevertheless, it is the action sequences that are its saving grace, thanks to its more than capable cast of macho-performers. Had the film stuck to this and left any science-fiction undertones out, it would've been a much better film.

The creature effects in the film are undeniably impressive. Stan Winston, the man behind Terminator, Aliens and Jurassic Park is to thank for this. While it isn't Winston's best, or most memorable work, the final product is one to be proud of. 

A mixed bag of a film, that doesn't deserve as much of the hype as it's received, Predator is an over appreciated knockoff of The Thing. 

5/10

ROBIN AND MARIAN (1976) - Review

Robin and Marian

Adventure/Drama/Romance
1 hour and 47 minutes
Rated PG

Written by: James Goldman
Directed by: Richard Lester
Produced by: Denis O'Dell

Cast:
Sean Connery
Audrey Hepburn
Robert Shaw

Love is the greatest adventure of all.

If you had asked me years ago, prior to my knowing anything of this motion-picture, if the classic story of Robin Hood, Maid Marian, and the sheriff of Nottingham deserved a continuation piece, I would've said absolutely not, and that in a million years it would never work. I would've been wrong on both accounts.

Filmmaker Richard Lester, the man behind the Beatles' A Hard Day's Night, brings to life the most mature, entertaining, and visually moving adaptation of the classic Robin Hood story that I have ever seen. The story follows an aging Robin, many years after his famous battles, as he and Little John join Richard the Lionheart on the last endeavors of the crusades. When Richard is killed (in the film's one moment of unjustifiable unbelievability), Robin and John return back to England to find the sheriff of Nottingham still in control of things, and Maid Marian now an abbess. When Robin rescues Maid Marian from the sheriff the old rivalry is reignited, and Robin recruits his now older group of merry men to fight the sheriff once more.

If this sounds all relatively like the plot/storyline of the original Robin Hood tale, it's because it is. One of the major themes throughout Robin and Marian is that history will inevitably repeat itself, often in a cruel fashion. Unlike other Robin Hood adaptations, the film is very light on comedy. The witty moments within the film are so brief that one barely has a chance to smile at something before the tone becomes serious once again. It is this seriousness that makes Robin and Marian a beautiful masterwork. The characters have aged, they're wiser, yet their desire for their youthful days is so strong it cannot be ignored.

The performances are the film's strongest aspect, mainly the relationships between the characters. Connery's Robin Hood, Hepburn's Maid Marian (a performance delivered by Hepburn after a nine-year hiatus from films entirely), and Shaw's sheriff of Nottingham are noteworthy performances in all three of their careers. The love affair between Robin and Marian feels so genuine and sincere, that you're able to easily believe the moment when Marian renounces her faith to be with Robin once again. The sheriff and Robin's relationship is a little different than it's usually portrayed. Shaw and Connery add a sense of respect to one another's characters that also feels truly genuine. The inevitable final battle between the two is incredible to watch, but it's heartbreaking in a way to know only one of these likable titans will triumph.

With excellently choreographed fight sequences, a beautiful score and cinematography, and an amazing set design, Robin and Marian is able to triumph over any minor substandard moments mainly due to the amazing performances of its more than capable cast.

9/10

NIGHT OF THE LEPUS (1972) - Review

Night of the Lepus

Horror/Sci-Fi/Thriller
1 hour and 28 minutes
Rated PG

Written by: Don Holliday & Gene R. Kearney
Directed by: William F. Claxton
Produced by: A. C. Lyles

Cast:
Stuart Whitman
Janet Leigh
Rory Calhoun
DeForest Kelley

How many eyes does horror have? How many times will terror strike?

If you're anything like me, sometimes you'd just like nothing more than to get your friends together, cram into your car, and head out to the closest drive-in theater to catch a creature-feature double-feature. These are the kind of movies popcorn was invented for. If you're ever in a serious drive-in movie kind of mood, Night of the Lepus is one to check out.

The story is a by-the-books eco-terror exploitation film; giant hungry animals attack a small town, and the people living there have to deal with it. In this case the giant hungry animals are giant hungry rabbits ... that's right .... rabbits .... and they're not interested in carrots. Though this may seem ridiculous or laughable, you have to give it credit for creativity - no one else has ever thought of giant killer rabbits ... although maybe there's a reason for that.

The special effects are to be expected - again this is an eco-terror exploitation film from the early 1970s. The giant rabbits are actually normal sized rabbits running around on blatant miniature sets (seriously, you could've accomplished more believable miniatures with popsicle sticks) and captured through trick low-angle closeups. But how do they accomplish interaction (eating) people if they're normal sized bunnies? Stuntman in a bunny suit captured with quick cuts and closeup shots focusing on the blood and gore (surprisingly, a lot of which is in this film - how it got away with a PG rating baffles me).

But these special effects/maybe-too-creative-storyline don't hurt Night of the Lepus, in fact they help it. If you're sitting down to watch this film, or any eco-terror exploitation film, with the mindset that it's going to be a serious movie, then you're not viewing this film correctly. Bad special effects and weak plots are what's to be expected. Anything else is just a disappointment.

The performances in Night of the Lepus are decent enough, but again, it's hard to really sit and focus on the acting when giant bunnies are jumping in through windows and ripping people's throats out. Janet Leigh (yes, the Janet Leigh) apparently agreed to star in the film only because filming took place near her home. Even still, I can't understand why this film would have been appealing for her to star in. Perhaps her career had taken a serious nosedive after Psycho.

All in all, Night of the Lepus is a standard, comical-for-all-the-wrong-reasons, exploitation creature-feature. And if you're looking to fill that drive-in movie nostalgia, or perhaps have a laugh-fest with some friends, it may be the perfect movie for you.

6.5/10

HALLOWEEN II (1981) - Review

Halloween II 

Horror/Thriller
1 hour and 32 minutes
Rated R

Written by: John Carpenter & Debra Hill
Directed by: Rick Rosenthal
Produced by: John Carpenter & Debra Hill

Cast:
Jamie Lee Curtis
Donald Pleasence

More Of The Night He Came Home

The first in a slew of sequels to John Carpenter's 1978 slasher film, Halloween II is probably the best out of the seven followups. That being said, it is not without its problems.

Right off the bat, the film opens with a retcon, and a pretty obvious one. Intending to begin the film with the end of the original, Halloween II starts out with Dr. Loomis (Pleasence) saving Laurie Strode (Curtis) from Michael Myers by shooting him out the window of the second floor of the Doyle's house. In the original, Michael falls out of a window on the side of the house - in Halloween II he falls off the balcony on the front of the house. Also, in the original, Loomis looks down from the second story to see Michael has disappeared. In Halloween II, he physically goes downstairs to find Michael is gone.

Once you've moved past that, Halloween II appears to be moving in the right direction. Everything feels correct for it to work as a continuation of the first film. From the mood to the lighting to the pacing, Halloween II should've been retitled Halloween part II. Alas, here-in lies the problem. Rick Rosenthal wanted the film to be identical in as many ways as possible to Carpenter's film. He even stressed that most, if not all, the kills shouldn't really be seen and that there really shouldn't be any blood. Rosenthal recognized that the reason why Halloween worked as a low-budget film was because it played on the audience's fear of the unknown. Show them just enough for them to understand somebody is being killed, but not enough to give them all the details.

Carpenter, forever the auteur that he is, didn't want to make the same film twice. In direct contradiction to Rosenthal's direction, Carpenter felt the film needed kill-sequences with intense violence. By this time, other horror films were considerably more violent than Halloween was, and Carpenter felt that in order to become a successful horror flick, Halloween II needed the violence that horror fans had come to expect by this time.

So the film feels conflicted. At times you get these beautiful sequences that you really do believe could be placed into the original film, and then you immediately are hit with a shot of a violent, bloody death. Adding to the conflict, is the film's budget. Halloween was a low-budget motion-picture. Halloween II was most definitely not. Rosenthal's ultimate problem is that he set out to make a low-budget film with a large amount of money.  Not a dime is wasted either - and it's apparent from the start.

The plot itself is subpar, with most of the action taking place in the most understaffed hospital in America (seriously, what hospital has 2 paramedics, 4 nurses, 1 security guard and 1 doctor?). The supporting characters are all cookie-cutter slasher stand-ins, and even Jamie Lee Curtis isn't much in the way of impressive. The real scene stealer is without a doubt Donald Pleasence, one of the most underrated actors of all time. But what's unfortunate is that it almost feels like his scenes were written just for filling in more time.

The ending is predictable (the whole Samhain-kill-it-with-fire speech Pleasence gives doesn't help with the surprise) and is where the film takes a fast and hard nosedive into the ludicrous.

I would say, it's worth the time of any film buff - but probably doesn't merit more than one screening.

4.5/10