HELLS ANGELS ON WHEELS (1967) - Review

Hells Angels on Wheels

Crime/Drama/Thriller
1 hour and 35 minutes
Approved

Written by: R. Wright Campbell
Directed by: Richard Rush
Produced by: Joe Solomon

Cast:
Adam Roarke
Jack Nicholson
Sabrina Scharf
Jack Starrett

The violence, the hate, the way-out parties ... exactly as it happens!

 

The 1950s saw the emergence of the exploitation genre known as the biker film. During this decade, these films concerned the rugged outlaw - referred to as a greaser - who appeared as a tough and dangerous figure, but one that was fascinating to audiences nonetheless. As the 1950s became the 1960s, audiences' interest in rebels only increased with the growing unrest within American society. Greasers gave way to outlaw biker gangs, and a newer, tougher, type of biker film was born. The country was fascinated with real life outlaws like the Hells Angels, and filmmakers intelligently cashed in on that fascination.

Hells Angels on Wheels came during the era when biker films were at their zenith. Roger Corman's movie The Wild Angels used real life Hells Angels as cast members, and showcased the rowdy, rambunctious nature that these outlaws lived on a day-to-day basis. Peter Fonda at the end of Corman's movie sums up precisely what it was that fueled these movies as well as the real life Hells Angels in his monologue declaring that they "want to be free."

Freedom to do whatever they want and being able to get away with it is why American audiences loved The Wild Angels. Hells Angels on Wheels followed just one year after wanting to cash in on this exploration of outlaw freedom, making it essentially a mocksploitation biker flick. Regardless of it living in the shadow of Corman's superior film, Hells Angels on Wheels is a fun movie with plenty of merits.

While there is hardly a tangible story - which is the case for most of the best biker movies - the film does contain an interesting plot. An outsider, a young middle-class, American - played by Jack Nicholson - is clearly fed up with the restraints of his day-to-day life, working as an attendant at a gas station. When a gang of Hells Angels crosses his path, he gives up the rat race of normal life and joins in on the chaos. It's a fascinating way to take us as an audience into this chaotic, and somewhat fascist, lifestyle that the Hells Angels lived - as opposed to the approach in Corman's movie where the audience is essentially just thrown into it all blindly.

As the main character embraces the freedom, so does the audience. When he defends his brothers in the film's countless brawls, the audience cheers him on, not giving a damn that the men the Angels are actually beating up are working-class Americans. The audience becomes an Angel with the film's hero. And as the story progresses, and Nicholson's character finds there to be a particular lack of freedom with all of the Angels fascist rulings, the audience grows tired of the nightmare, hoping that the hero will just walk away and ultimately do the right thing.

The film's most commendable aspect is its cinematography. László Kovács, most famous for shooting Easy Rider and Five Easy Pieces (both of which also starred Nicholson), showcases brilliance in regards to the film's camerawork. It is clear that Kovács worked hard to make the audience feel completely submerged within each moment of the film. During the party sequences, the camera moves around, effectively hand-held, zooming in on women's bodies, tilting, twisting, and dancing as if it were one of the Angels at the party. During the brawls, the camera is equally effective in its movements, perfectly spliced together by editor William Martin. Hells Angels on Wheels may be scolded for its lack of story, but it must be held in high regards for its technical brilliance.

Jack Nicholson is impressive as the film's hero, and even in this early film of his it is apparent that something special lurks within him. He is ever the professional, and one gets the impression that he gave this role one hundred percent - never once thinking this kind of exploitative storyline was beneath him or his talents (whether he'd think the same today ... who knows?) Sabrina Scharf is an interesting choice as the love interest. There are moments where she seems outstanding in the role, and moments where she seems miscast. Her intelligent dialogue with Nicholson's character being the stronger of her moments, while the bimbo, motorcycle-babe moments being the weaker. The film's strongest performance is delivered by Adam Roarke, who as the head of the Angels is truly believable. Roarke is commanding, he looks the part with his beard and dirty features - cruising on his bike with his 1960s sunglasses and torn denim vest. He is a quintessential tough guy, and his believability certainly trumps Nicholson's, and it is an absolute pleasure to watch him play a role that may have been better received if it had been in a much more serious movie. It's a shame his career never amounted to the potential it should have.

Despite decent performances and truly innovative technical qualities, Hells Angels on Wheels suffers in that it never breaks out of the cinematic shadow of its predecessor: The Wild Angels. By this point, The Wild Angels had effectively showcased the truly chaotic and fascinating lifestyle of the Hells Angels and outlaw motorcycle gangs to American audiences. Hells Angels on Wheels almost feels like a redo that is totally and utterly ineffective. It's fun, it's wild, and it has its merits, possibly enough to make it an entertaining cult movie. But despite this, none of what it showcases can be regarded as important to the canon of cinematic history.

5/10

JENIFER (2005) - Review

Jenifer

Horror
58 minutes
Rated: TV-MA

Written by: Steven Weber
Directed by: Dario Argento
Produced by: Lisa Richardson & Tom Rowe

Cast:
Steven Weber
Carrie Anne Fleming

The Masters of Horror TV series ran on Showtime for two seasons in 2005 and 2006. The idea was simple, present a platform where famous horror directors - "the Masters of Horror" - could each direct a 60-minute mini-movie to be presented as an episode within the show. Each episode would be directed by a different horror master and would not relate or tie into other episodes. With it playing on Showtime, the filmmakers essentially had carte blanche as far as explicit content within their mini-movies (although both Argento's episode and Japanese horror filmmaker Takashi Miike's episode received cuts due to content).

When Masters of Horror was beginning to conceptualize and move forward into its first season, the career of legendary Italian horror filmmaker Dario Argento was at a bit of a crossroads. His 2001 giallo film Sleepless had been a major hit for him in his home nation, and even received kinder reviews than any he had been given in the 1990s. However, following Sleepless, Argento made the rather uninspired giallo The Card Player and the made-for-TV movie Do You Like Hitchcock? of the same sub-genre. Both were poorly received, and since their release have been attributed to being forgettable parts of Argento's waning career. Argento needed a hit and because of this he had gone to work on his long anticipated The Third Mother - the sequel to his most famous works Suspiria and Inferno, and the last chapter in his magnum opus Three Mothers Trilogy.

Luckily, Argento was asked to participate in Masters of Horror, and he put the brakes on The Third Mother so he could fly to Vancouver and film his segment for the first season: Jenifer.

Because it was filmed in Vancouver, as opposed to Argento's usual urban settings of Turin and Rome, Jenifer doesn't have the usual look associated with the maestro's work. The setting in the end, however, attributes nothing to the overall tone of the film - which is purely Argento - and it could have easily been set in a number of urban locations.

For the first time in his career, Jenifer was a movie completely scripted without Argento's help. The film struggles with the pacing, rushing to its conclusion so rapidly it barely gives the viewer a moment to catch his or her breath. This really can't be faulted too heavily on actor/writer Steven Weber, since he was limited to the 60-minute time restraint. However, scenes could have been trimmed, re-written, or simply hacked to give Jenifer a smoother, easier flow. Whether this fast-paced nightmare is a plus or minus to the overall work is ultimately up to the viewer.

The story is indeed nightmarish, playing out like a dark fairytale, not unlike some of Argento's best works (Suspiria, Inferno, and Two Evil Eyes come to mind). None of it seems real, and yet at the same time its dreamlike tones make you accept that what you're watching is reality ... at least for the 58-minute running time. Its circular conclusion is both satisfying and heartbreaking, and ultimately serves to further the idea that Jenifer is a bad dream one cannot wake up from. Jenifer ultimately seems less jumbled than previous and later films in Argento's career, with a coherent plot-line followed all the way through. It deals strongly with the Biblically-routed idea that sex is the ultimate sin, the corrupter of man, and it is through women - a fully realized succubus in this case - that a hero is tragically corrupted. It's a fascinating tale that keeps the viewer's attention at all times.

Furthering the film's fairytale quality is the score by veteran-Argento composer Claudio Simonetti. Simonetti uses a whimsical, almost childish, musical score peppered in throughout - making it seem like a Disney film gone horribly wrong. During this time of his career, Argento seemed to be accepting his once self-criticized title of being "the Italian Hitchcock" more and more, and Simonetti's score at times takes on tones reminiscent of Bernard Herrmann's score for Psycho. There is one moment within the film where the score takes on the synth-heavy tones of a 1980s backwoods slasher flick, and it is so jarring it takes the viewer out of the film entirely. An odd miss for Simonetti, but given his disappointing score for Argento's The Card Player, perhaps he too was trying to recover his overall sense of quality at this point in his career.

Argento in his later years played less and less with lighting the way he did in his early works, and that is the case with Jenifer. The film is rather cold, flooded with the natural light of British Columbia, with no sense of a broad color-scheme. There are interesting moments, however, a scene where Steven Weber's character inquires as to the whereabouts of the titular succubus is lit terrifically and showcases Argento hasn't lost his eye for technical magic.

The gore effects are impressive - done by Greg Nicotero - now a legend within the industry. Argento cranks up the dial on the blood and gore, bringing his work back to the shocking value it had in his early days. He's once again unafraid to blur the lines between sex and violence, hoping to challenge his audience and make them uncomfortable seeing the connection played out on screen.

While it is far from his best work, and an argument can be made that it is the least "Argento-esque" entry of his works, Jenifer plays a significant role within the filmography of Dario Argento. It showed audiences he was not afraid to return to the shocking imagery that set his early films apart from others, that he still had his genius, talented technically-oriented eye, and that Argento was ultimately worthy of being called a true Master of Horror.

6/10

LIVE AND LET DIE (1973) - Review

Live and Let Die

Action/Adventure/Thriller
2 hours and 1 minute
Rated: PG

Written by: Tom Mankiewicz
Directed by: Guy Hamilton
Produced by: Albert R. Broccoli & Harry Saltzman

Cast:
Roger Moore
Yaphet Kotto
Jane Seymour

Roger Moo7re is James Bond

For a large generation of James Bond fans, Roger Moore is in fact James Bond. His seven film run as Ian Fleming's famous secret agent ran from 1973 until 1985, and as far as the Eon produced Bond films are concerned, holds the record for most appearances as the tuxedo-clad secret agent (Connery also played Bond seven times but only if one includes the non-Eon Bond movie Never Say Never Again). For Roger Moore, and producers Harry Saltzman and Albert R. Broccoli, Live and Let Die was the film that would either make or break the entire franchise.

Live and Let Die is a motion-picture that is deeply rooted within the 1970s. Coming from a time when blaxploitation cinema was on the rise with American audiences, the film plays up to this popular movement of cinema by incorporating a plethora of references to the subgenre as a whole. Not just African-American principle actors being cast - a feat largely unheard of at this time in most mainstream movies - but the inclusion of urban, predominantly black settings (Harlem, New Orleans, the Caribbean, etc.) as well as an outstanding soundtrack composed by George Martin that probably would have felt just as at home within one of blaxploitation actress Pam Grier's movies. Paul McCartney's rock-oriented opening theme song also gives the impression that this is a movie that could only have been made in the 1970s.

Screenwriter Tom Mankiewicz has to be commended for his dedication of sticking to the source material of Fleming's novel and keeping Bond's villains within Live and Let Die black characters. While some have argued that the film tends to toe the line of racism in regards to this, the general disagreement seems more reasonable, in that during a time when most mainstream movies were not offering major roles to black actors, Live and Let Die had the courage to do so.

Yaphet Kotto gives a credible performance as Bond-villain Kananga, but unfortunately in the annals of the Bond canon, Kananga remains a less-than thrilling villain. He lacks the sinister qualities that almost all of the more memorable Bond villains. Kotto himself is a fine actor and has proven so over the course of his lengthy career (just look at the films Across 110th Street and Alien and you will be impressed), but in Live and Let Die he was obviously given the direction by Guy Hamilton to not take the role too seriously, and have fun playing it. The real sinister villain of the film is Julius Harris' portrayal of henchman Tee Hee. His moments on screen with Roger Moore are some of the more entertaining ones within the film, and his final brawl with Bond on board a moving train is possibly the most exciting fight sequence within the movie.

Jane Seymour is a decent enough Bond girl, proving she has just enough skill to play the damsel in distress. It would have been interesting if her part had been given to Diana Ross, as was the intention of Mankiewicz. It does seem a tad ridiculous that a white, British, female character is a high priestess of voodoo, who is capable of seeing into the future with her deck of tarot cards. Nevertheless, Seymour is far from being the worst Bond girl ever portrayed.

As for Roger Moore, his portrayal of Bond in Live and Let Die effectively sets in place the tone of the Bond movies to follow over the next decade of the franchise. Arguably, this tone had even been set in place prior to Moore's involvement with Sean Connery's final Eon Bond movie Diamonds Are Forever. Bond has moved away from a man of action, and has become a refined, English gentleman, who can win over any woman with a mere smile, and still manage some sort of comedic quip after having just disarmed the bad guy. Moore's comedic style is either a godsend or a tragedy depending on one's specific opinions, but it is a shocking deviation from the way Bond is written within Ian Fleming's novels. It could also be that director Guy Hamilton is responsible for creating this "comedic" Bond, simply due to his having directed Moore's first films and Connery's final film in the Eon series where they all showcase a Bond of this nature. Understandably, there was pressure on Moore to differ from Connery (as there had been with George Lazenby, too), so the upping of the comedic elements may have been in regards to this. In Live and Let Die, Bond feels like a completely different man than he was in the previous films. He no longer drinks vodka martinis, but instead bourbon with no ice. He's exchanged his cigarettes for cigars, his Walther PPK for a .44 Magnum (hello, Clint Eastwood), and his physicality for comedy. Is Moore's interpretation of Bond different and entertaining? Sure. Is it anywhere near the Bond that was established by Ian Fleming. Absolutely not.

Like any James Bond movie Live and Let Die includes some truly impressive action sequences and stunt work. A record breaking speedboat jump is the centerpiece of a truly breathtaking chase sequence through the swampy bayou of Louisiana. Despite Moore being less physical than his predecessor, he does have several hand-to-hand combat sequences that are exciting. And of course, Bond's impressive stunt of escaping an island surrounded by crocodiles by running across the creatures' backs to the safety of the shoreline (a stunt that was performed five times and unluckily enough injured the man performing it with a nasty bite to the foot). All of these moments are what keep Live and Let Die an entertaining movie. There are sheer moments of absurdity though that more than often occur within any of Roger Moore's Bond movies. The crocodile sequence would be one if it were not for the impressiveness of the stunt itself. But specifically, it is Bond's killing of Kananga that is just so asinine one has to wonder if it was a last minute write-in and why the hell did producers Harry Saltzman and Albert R. Broccoli approve it? In the sequence, Bond has Kananga swallow a gas-filled bullet, causing the villain to literally inflate like a balloon, float to the ceiling, and explode. Stupid. Ridiculous. Unbelievable. 

Despite being riddled with the pie-in-the-face humor of Roger Moore's portrayal of James Bond, Live and Let Die is an entertaining entry to the James Bond franchise that has enough thrilling action-sequences to keep any fan of the films ultimately happy with its content.

 7/10

Ranking among other Bond films: 17 out of 26

THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS (1987) - Review

The Living Daylights

Action/Adventure/Thriller
2 hours and 10 minutes
Rated: PG

Written by: Richard Maibaum & Michael G. Wilson
Directed by: John Glen
Produced by: Albert R. Broccoli & Michael G. Wilson

Cast: 
Timothy Dalton
Maryam d'Abo
Joe Don Baker
Art Malik
Jeroen Krabbé

This BOND is dangerous

Dangerous indeed. Before there was Daniel Craig, James Bond's darker moments were expressed on the silver screen by veteran Shakespearean Welsh actor Timothy Dalton. Dalton was first offered the role in the late 1960s after Sean Connery stepped out (for the first time) and turned it down surprisingly feeling he was too young to play the part. Nevertheless, he must have made a strong impression upon Bond producer Albert R. Broccoli, and in The Living Daylights it's easy for us all to see why.

After the seventh and final Roger Moore James Bond film A View to a Kill in 1985 it was beginning to seem as if James Bond had become a joke. Sean Connery recalls Moore's Bond as having all the subtlety of a "pie thrown in the face". Upon Moore's exiting, the franchise's producers - Albert R. Broccoli and his stepson Michael G. Wilson - had two concerning questions to tackle: first and foremost, who would be the next James Bond? And second, what direction did they need to take the franchise in now that the absurd Roger Moore-era had come to an end? Regarding the first question, Pierce Brosnan was originally cast to play James Bond in The Living Daylights, but had to drop out of the role due to a prior commitment to his Bond-esque TV show Remington Steele. Dalton ultimately was asked again to play James Bond and this time around he didn't let the opportunity pass him by. In regards to question number two, it was actually Dalton who had stipulated that if he were to play Bond he had no intention of portraying him any other way than how he is written in Ian Fleming's novels. Dangerous, dark, mysterious - these are all words to encapsulate Fleming's Bond and it was what Dalton and the producer's went for in The Living Daylights.

In order to obtain the serious tone set within Fleming's novels, the screenwriters used one of Fleming's short stories as the jumping off point for the film's plot. Following the supposed defection of a Soviet general, Bond and his superiors are told about a secret operation by the KGB to eliminate Western spies. As the story unfolds, things are not as they seem - revealing double-crossings throughout, and a back story set against the Soviet/Afghan War. While this dates the film, it still functions as an effective period piece. This is certainly a more serious plot than the megalomaniac themed stories of the previous Bond films. Even Bond's enemies in The Living Daylights seem more human than possibly ever before - a lot of this contributed to strong dialogue.

The dialogue can only sell the movie to a certain degree, and it is the performances within The Living Daylights that ultimately do the trick. Dalton portrays Fleming's Bond so expertly that he is perhaps only rivaled by Daniel Craig in regards to which actor portrayed Bond the closest to how he appears within the novels (at least Dalton looks the way Bond is supposed to, as opposed to the blond-haired, machismo Craig).  Maryam d'Abo does a good job as the love interest, but she often feels like a character whom Bond has to drag along for the ride out of pure obligation. More impressive are Bond's villains and allies. John Rhys-Davies is excellent as the head of the KGB - pulling off what may be the perfect impression of a communist bureaucrat. Jeroen Krabbé plays the role of the supposed defector with all the sly sleaziness you'd expect for such a part, and finally Joe Don Baker's amusing portrayal of a military-obsessed arms dealer is so great that one can't help but want to see more scenes with his character as the focal point.

The film contains some strong action-sequences, and many are extremely impressive given Dalton's physicality. While Connery previously also participated in most of his stunts, Dalton's commitment to doing so is a breath of fresh air given Moore's almost non-committal attitude towards action sequences (the man didn't even run in his movies - he had stunt men do it). The film's opening sequence (involving Dalton jumping on top of a moving Jeep), a gadget-laden Aston Martin, a gun fight at a Soviet air base and Bond's final confrontation with Joe Don Baker's character Brad Whitaker are some of the standout action sequences. Also to be commended is the return of Bond-composer John Barry who conducts the music throughout. Barry also helped collaborate with 80s band a-ha who did the film's catchy rock title song. This would be Barry's last time around composing music for any Bond film.

Less impressive are the film's throwback moments to Roger Moore-era comedy. While they are small in comparison to Dalton's more serious scenes portraying Bond, these comedic and kitsch moments threaten the dark overtone that the producers were going for. One such moment - the most absurd throughout the entire movie - involves Bond and Bond-girl Kara Milovy escaping Soviet troops by sledding down a snowy mountain ... in a cello case. This stunt would certainly feel more at home within Octopussy or The Man with the Golden Gun, but in The Living Daylights it just seems uncomfortable. Other awkward moments include Dalton delivering the kitschy one-liners that were often the bulk of Roger Moore's dialogue.

In the end, The Living Daylights is a highly impressive Bond movie despite its bit of transitional awkwardness. The realistic storyline and characters all set the mood that this is an era of a darker, more serious James Bond. Timothy Dalton and his costars deliver outstanding performances, the film is scored with an excellent soundtrack throughout, and the impressive action sequences remain some of the most memorable within the Bond canon.

9/10

Ranking among other Bond films: 4 out of 26

JACKIE BROWN (1997) - Review

Jackie Brown

Crime/Drama/Thriller
2 hours and 34 minutes
Rated: R

Written by: Quentin Tarantino
Directed by: Quentin Tarantino
Produced by: Lawrence Bender & Paul Hellerman

Cast:
Pam Grier
Samuel L. Jackson
Robert Forster
Bridget Fonda
Michael Keaton
Chris Tucker
Robert De Niro

Six players on the trail of a half a million dollars in cash. There's only one question... Who's playing who?

The combination of Quentin Tarantino and Elmore Leonard is simply a match made in heaven. With wordy, well thought out dialogue, Tarantino's early crime films (even the ones he simply wrote and did not direct himself) had the feel of an Elmore Leonard storyline without actually utilizing an Elmore Leonard storyline. It's no surprise to learn that the author was one of Tarantino's favorites, and that he had planned a Leonard adaptation as far back as the early 1990s.

Several of Leonard's books were optioned, and at first Tarantino wanted to make Killshot into a major motion-picture (something that filmmaker John Madden did eleven years later with actor Mickey Rourke), but eventually Tarantino turned his sights on Rum Punch instead. With a plot line that follows the illegal exchange of money, and contains very little violence, Rum Punch may appear to have been an odd story for Tarantino to fall in love with. On the contrary, it was filled with rough, criminal characters, and blue collar people in tough situations, and Leonard's use of everyday but humorous dialogue is already enough for anyone who reads the novel to understand why Tarantino loved it so much.

Jackie Brown is one of those rare occurrences where the movie is actually just as good, if not better, than the book. Out of respect to Leonard, Tarantino keeps his story intact, but changes quite a great deal within. Many of the scenes are jumbled around, the Miami setting has been transposed to Los Angeles, the main character's name and ethnicity have been altered, and the ending is completely different. All of this being said, this is why Jackie Brown triumphs over its novel companion Rum Punch. It showcases Tarantino's own creativity without disrespecting Leonard's. It's no wonder Elmore Leonard referred to it as being his favorite film adaptation of one of his own works.

The characters within Jackie Brown are more clearly painted, and go much deeper than anything Tarantino had come up with before. Sure, films like Reservoir Dogs, True Romance, and Pulp Fiction had likable, and memorable characters - but the characters in Jackie Brown seem to be the filmmaker's most thought through. Perhaps having Leonard's characterization of them as a jumping off point helped him tremendously when portraying them in the script.

Like most Tarantino films, the cast is perfectly hand selected to tackle these incredible roles, and none of them lets down the filmmaker's vision. Pam Grier is truly amazing, and makes this rundown, criminal flight attendant truly relatable. In fact, it's almost impossible to cheer against her in the end when she steals money that isn't hers. Grier showcases her tremendous talent and proves that she's more than just something to gawk at or idolize for her cult performances in blaxploitation classics. Robert Forster is charming, and like Grier, shows that he is a truly gifted actor who perhaps is better than his body of work (Alligator) would suggest. Samuel Jackson is pure gold, and at this point it just seems that Tarantino writes dialogue simply so that Jackson can perfectly deliver it. Michael Keaton and Bridget Fonda are both good, but unfortunately neither have enough screen time. The characters are well showcased, and perhaps that's why viewers may feel cheated that they don't spend enough time with either of them. Robert De Niro expertly portrays an ex-con just out of prison. His mannerisms and lack of dialogue give him a truly believable performance. Despite very few lines, and his lack of an essential part in the story until the film's climax, De Niro delivers one of the best performances of his career in Jackie Brown.

The film's soundtrack is terrific. Tarantino's films always showcase wonderful and well-placed music. But Jackie Brown may showcase this best of all. With scores from Jack Hill blaxploitation staples such as Coffy and Foxy Brown, it is quite clear that this film is Tarantino's love letter to not just the films of Pam Grier, but the films of the 1970s in general. Soul classics from The Delfonics, Bobby Womack, and The Supremes certainly are appreciated as well.

There is one major issue with the film, which is rather unfortunate. By its third act, Jackie Brown begins to run out of some serious steam and drag to the point that it becomes a test of will for a viewer to finish it. After the film's exciting climax, its conclusion is rather ... well, frankly its dull. Most of Tarantino's films finish in a grandiose moment, but Jackie Brown ends on a sour note. It's unfortunate seeing as how maybe had Tarantino left the original Elmore Leonard ending in his film it could've been a lot better.

With some of the best characters that the filmmaker has ever written, all portrayed by an incredible cast of extremely talented actors, Jackie Brown is a damn near perfect film that is fun, hilarious, and entertaining for anyone who watches it. And despite a slow and somewhat dissatisfying ending, it may very well be Quentin Tarantino's greatest movie.

9.5/10

TIME LOCK (1957) - Review

Time Lock

Thriller
1 hour and 13 minutes
Not Rated

Written by: Peter Rogers
Directed by: Gerald Thomas
Produced by: Peter Rogers

Cast:
Robert Beatty
Betty McDowall
Lee Patterson
Vincent Winter
Sean Connery

An Inpenetrable Vault Becomes A Clockwork Tomb!

The 1950s was a wonderful time for what has become known as "B films". The drive-in/grindhouse culture saw that these films not only had a venue in which they could be screened, but that they also had an audience. Interestingly enough, these B films didn't survive as well outside the US market since foreign theaters were more inclined to show studio pictures made in America. Not surprisingly, B films were shot in nearly every country that had low budget filmmakers/studios on hand. And whether or not these films were screened in their own country of origin was not a matter of concern. Just as long as a few US theaters (drive-in or not) picked up a film it was considered a big deal, especially for films made from mere peanuts.

Such was the case with the British-made thriller Time Lock. Surprisingly, the film did actually do better in its nation of origin - screening all over the UK for several months in various theaters before fading away into obscurity. Time Lock did have a US theatrical release, but it was incredibly spotty and lasted much shorter than its UK run. For decades after its initial release, however, Time Lock did air on US and UK television every once in a blue moon.

Time Lock has perhaps earned most of its notoriety (and trust me, it doesn't have much) among cinephiles for being one of Sean Connery's earliest films. The film was in fact Connery's third motion-picture, and compared to the two films that he starred in prior, it was a step back for his career - for it was the smallest role he had seen up until that point.

The film has a wonderfully engaging premise, and it engulfs its viewer into the action almost immediately. The title refers to a lock set within a bank vault that won't allow said vault to open until a designated time. Trouble is encountered after the small child of a bank manager is trapped inside a vault whose time lock has been set to open three days from it being shut. It is engaging, it is thrilling, it is harrowing, it is simple, but above all else it is entertaining.

Despite having an incredibly strong premise, Time Lock does have a few issues that it can't overcome. For starters, the film is much too short. The audience is told that the rescuers only have ten hours to get the child out before he suffocates. From the start of the film, until the final opening of the vault, the story moves much too quickly. While there is never a dull moment, there needs to be more thrilling moments added to believe that the final seconds before opening the vault are really quite in fact the final seconds. Because of the film's short and fast pacing, the film leaves its viewers wanting more. Perhaps a few more botched rescue attempts could have filled in the gaps giving the film additional length.

Another issue with the film is the performance of Vincent Winter, who plays Steven - the young boy trapped inside the vault. The story stays with Steven in the beginning, but quickly abandons him after Steven fails to open the time lock from the inside. This may seem foolish, but it isn't. It allows more tension to build as the story grows and the audience can speculate if the heroes will find Steven alive or dead once the vault has been opened. But the time spent with Steven is unconvincing. His dialogue would give the impression that Steven should be panicked, but unfortunately its delivery is all too calm which creates an almost comical undertone that most definitely hurts the overall suspense that the film is trying to create. Luckily, Winter's scenes are kept brief.

What is impressive about the film is that it doesn't appear to be a cheaply made B movie. While there are few locations, the picture itself is one that wouldn't require much money to be made, studio financed or not. This helps with the overall tone, since cheaply made films can sometimes be more distracting than anything else. What is also impressive is that the film was shot entirely in England, but was set in Canada. All of the film's actors, with the exception of Sean Connery, deliver performances in perfect Canadian accents. Several of the key leads were either Canadian or American, but many of the minor parts that play pivotal roles were British, Scottish, or European of some sort.

The performances, minus Winter's, are all truly believable - an impressive testament to a cast of mostly unknowns. Alan Gifford, who plays the bank manager, gives an incredible performance as a man struggling to keep his mind on freeing the boy, while attempting to come to terms with the fact that he is ultimately responsible for the boy's condition. Lee Patterson and Betty McDowall give moving performances as the boy's parents - although they both fit gender stereotypes a little too neatly. The boy's father never once loses his cool, while the mother is reduced to hysteria by the film's climax. A showcase of 1950s gender roles, I suppose, but nevertheless none of this really hurts the film overall. Sean Conney handles his few lines of dialogue well, and although it is an incredibly minor role - Connery's role is pivotal to the story, and he is given quite a bit of screen time despite very little dialogue.

While it may not be the most impressive movie ever made, and it certainly isn't perfect, Time Lock is an entertaining example of a B movie made correctly. And if one ever does have the distinctive pleasure of viewing this obscure gem, chances are it isn't a film they'll likely forget and push to the obscure regions of their mind in the way it has been pushed into obscurity over the course of cinematic history.

6/10

HALLOWEEN 5 (1989) - Review

Halloween 5

Horror/Thriller
1 hour and 38 minutes
Rated: R

Written by: Michael Jacobs, Dominique Othenin-Girard, and Shem Bitterman
Directed by: Dominique Othenin-Girard
Produced by: Ramsey Thomas

Cast: 
Donald Pleasence
Danielle Harris
Ellie Cornell
Beau Starr
Wendy Kaplan
Tamara Glynn

He's Back With A Vengeance

While they're never, creatively speaking, a particularly good idea, horror film franchises are an unwelcome inevitability in life that we all just have to hold our breath and accept. Most of us, myself included, are completely guilty of badmouthing the entire concept of sequels/prequels/remakes and still shelling out the money to go and see them - 99.99% of the time being totally disappointed as was to be expected. The Halloween franchise is no different than any other, in that it has its highs and it has its lows (most sequels proving to be more low than high). Halloween 5 should've been another warning indicator to the producers of the franchise (specifically executive producer Moustapha Akkad who is the only man to be involved with all of the Halloween films) that perhaps this cash cow wasn't worth milking anymore.

Halloween 5 is a bridge movie through and through. What is meant by this is that it serves the purposes of being a sequel for another sequel to follow immediately. It picks up where its predecessor, Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers, left off - which makes about as much sense as Halloween 4 picking up where Halloween II left off .... slim to none. One of the brilliant factors to Halloween 4 (and Halloween II while I'm at it) is that it has a nice, solid, conclusive ending. One that assures its viewers that this is it concerning the conclusion of Michael Myers. Unfortunately, as horror fans know all too well, nothing is conclusive in successful horror franchises, and more sequels are waiting to be made upon the immediate release of their predecessors.

Halloween 5 is a jumbled, chaotic mess, and the story is so ridiculous at times it is comically painful. This is undoubtedly due to the fact that the film was entirely rushed. After the major success of Halloween 4, Akkad was so eager to get Michael back up on the silver screen that filming of Halloween 5 began before a script had even been finalized! This is absolutely noticeable and detrimental to the film and its legacy in the Michael Myers cannon. The story has too many subplots to count and none of them are ever fully explained (perhaps intentionally so). Jamie Lloyd's telekinetic link to Michael, for one, is really quite an embarrassing subplot. While supernatural elements were previously present in other Halloween films, this telekinesis story is so ludicrous it is abandoned completely halfway through the second act of the film. Jamie's mute condition is also irritatingly unexplained and abandoned altogether.

What is also irritating about Halloween 5 is the open-ended conclusions to the characters and the film itself. Many of the main players, Jamie, Dr. Loomis, Tina, Sheriff Meeker, etc., all are left in situations by the end of the film where it becomes unclear as to whether they are dead or alive. This is intentionally poor film-making at its finest, with the producers clearly using it as a gamble. They're unaware if Halloween 5 will be a success, so if it bombs and there's no sequel, they can say the characters died; the opposite for if the film succeeds. Although, less of a gamble is the film's cliffhanger conclusion. Regardless of Halloween 5's success or failure, Akkad was clearly already planning Halloween 6 before Donald Pleasence was even out of his makeup chair.

The kills within the film seem rather tamed down. This is shocking giving the nature of 1980s horror films, and in particular horror film sequels. Surprisingly, the effects were handled by the masters at KNB EFX Group! It makes one wonder why they were even called? It'd be like hiring Michelangelo to do a paint-by-numbers portrait. Though its predecessors were less gory, Halloween 5's deaths feel more dull and stale, and certainly less imaginative.

The acting is handled decently enough. Beau Starr is terrific as Sheriff Meeker once again, but unfortunately is given perhaps ten minutes of total screen time, and his character plays no significant role in the film's climax. Danielle Harris is kept mute throughout the first half of the film, and it's rather embarrassing to watch. When she's not allowed to scream and cry, Harris becomes a much less convincing performer. Besides, who the hell wants to see a scream queen not screaming? Donald Pleasence proves he is the strongest actor in the entire Halloween franchise yet again, however, the character of Dr. Loomis feels mistakenly written here. In previous films, it is the impression of the audience that Loomis feels obligated to stop Michael before he hurts anyone else. Because he fails so many times, and ultimately feels he failed Michael as a patient, Loomis can't rest until this obligation is fulfilled. In Halloween 5, however, Loomis is a reckless lunatic who has become obsessed with the cat-and-mouse game between himself and Michael. He still wants to stop Michael, but ultimately doesn't seem to care who gets hurt in the process (he even blatantly offers up Jamie to Michael just so Michael will walk into his trap).

The film does have a nugget or two of decently written, suspenseful moments. There are a few good jump scares, and Donald Pleasence's performance alone is engaging enough to keep anyone interested. The film's climax does build some nice tension, although the conclusion to this is dull and once again unexplained. Somehow Michael is caught in a trap that was never mentioned previously in the storyline at any given time. When Loomis literally throws the switch, viewers are just as confused as Michael as to what the hell just happened.

While it has its moments of pure entertainment, Halloween 5 struggles to overcome its many problems that began with its hasty conception. The returning actors do their best, and Pleasence still appeases, but the storyline of the film is so messy that the performances are not strong enough to hide it from its own mediocrity. More annoying is its clear placement in the Halloween franchise as a "bridge" or "filler" sequel, and it is because of this that Halloween 5 has become, deservingly so, one of the more forgotten films within this iconic franchise.

3.5/10

THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE 2 (1986) - Review

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2

Comedy/Horror
1 hour and 41 minutes
Rated: X

Written by: L. M. Kit Carson
Directed by: Tobe Hooper
Produced by: Yoram Globus, Menahem Golan, and Tobe Hooper

Cast:
Dennis Hopper
Caroline Williams
Bill Moseley
Bill Johnson

After a decade of silence... The buzzz is back!

The 1980s became a prominent decade in the history of the horror genre mainly because it was the decade that dismantled exploitation cinema. Prior to the 1980s, exploitation and horror often leaked into one another, a perfect example of this is Tobe Hooper's original The Texas Chain Saw Massacre from 1974. But by the end of the 1970s, young Hollywood filmmakers like Steven Spielberg and George Lucas began blending the exciting elements of exploitation films into their large-budget Hollywood mainstream blockbusters (Jaws and Star Wars are really nothing more than big budgeted versions of Roger Corman's films).

Because of this new blending of exploitation to mainstream, horror films of the 1980s saw a wonderful new exploitable element given to them: gore. Not that gore hadn't been around prior to this - but for the most part it was really only present in those lesser seen exploitation flicks. By the 1980s, studios like New Line and Canon were cranking out gore-fests like A Nightmare on Elm Street, The Evil Dead, Hellraiser, Demons, Day of the Dead, and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2. These splatter-fest films brought the joy of ultra-gory horror films to the mainstream fold for new found audience members to enjoy, and will forever remain important in the discussion of horror cinema.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 is an interesting film mainly for what it tries to accomplish. Whether it was successful in accomplishing its goals remains completely debatable and both arguments could be made coherently. To decide whether one actually enjoyed this schlock sequel or found it to be an unbearable entry to the Leatherface saga, one first has to understand what was going on and why this film was made.

For starters - this is the only Texas Chainsaw sequel, prequel, or remake to date to be directed by Tobe Hooper, the visionary auteur who gave audiences the original fright fest that was 1974's The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. You would think that this could give Texas 2 some credit over its followers. And with the landing of cult stars Dennis Hopper as a derranged Texas Ranger hellbent on revenge, and Bill Moseley as Leatherface's lunatic brother Chop-Top, all tied together with the special effects work of Tom Savini, one of the greatest masters of practical effects, what could go wrong?

Well, unfortunately, a lot goes wrong. For starters, the script is a mess. The film moves so fast that there isn't enough time to breathe. While this fast-paced formula works well for most splatter films - including the original Texas Chain Saw Massacre - it doesn't work for Texas 2 mainly because Texas 2 more than anything else tries to be a comedy. Feeling he wouldn't be able to match the level of shock and horror that the first film generated in audiences, Hooper (either foolishly or heroically depending on your take of the film) decided to go for campy, comedic elements within this sequel. What's unfortunate about this is that the comedy, as dark as it is, takes away from the shock value that needs to be present within this film. With gore effects cranked up all the way to eleven by Savini, it's disappointing that by the end of the film they hardly remain memorable in one's mind. If comedy had been toned back, and horror really emphasized, Texas 2 could have been almost as good as Texas 1 ... key word there is "almost".

The actors handle their roles well enough, but unfortunately most of them treat the movie like a comedy too (most likely they were told to do so by Hooper). This has them camping it up in scenes that really ought to be generating fear. This is especially prevalent in the scene between Caroline Williams and Bill Moseley. Moseley is a creepy looking guy, in her office after hours, who won't leave. She should be terrified and the audience should be terrified. And yet what follows is a rather buffoonish exchange of dialogue that undoubtedly has most people who see this film shaking their heads. The saving grace of this film is the presence of Dennis Hopper. Hopper puts forth a performance so serious in this film that it's enough to have me believe he saw the movie for what it should've been: a gut-wrenching, splatterfest, horror flick. Watching him is really the only thing of entertainment value within this film. Unfortunately, Hopper is given very little screen time, and his deranged, yet lovable, Texas Ranger character is hard to sympathize with once his moment of revenge comes. More screen time would have allowed Hopper's character to show the audience just how personal stopping these crimes are to him. This is touched upon when Hopper finds the corpse of his nephew, but again the sequence is much too brief.

Overall the film feels campy and expensive, mainly because it was campy and it was expensive. Even Tom Savini's gore effects at times look like second rate Halloween store props. Texas 2 may be on the list for Savini's worst gore effects of all time. They're not bad, mind you, they're just not what you'd expect from the man who gave us the blood and guts of Dawn of the Dead. This campy and expensive atmosphere is a dramatic turn away from the gritty, cheap and harrowing atmosphere of the original Texas Chain Saw Massacre, and fans of the original will no doubt at first be completely upset by it all.

While it was a valiant effort to bring back a phenomenon by a more than capable filmmaker, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 is an unfortunate, campy, schlockfest mess that in the end produced more laughs (intended and unintended) than scares. 

4.5/10

DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER (1971) - Review

Diamonds Are Forever

Action/Adventure/Thriller
2 hours
Rated: PG

Written by: Richard Maibaum and Tom Mankiewicz
Directed by: Guy Hamilton
Produced by: Albert R. Broccoli and Harry Saltzman

Cast:
Sean Connery
Jill St. John
Charles Gray
Lana Wood
Jimmy Dean
Bruce Cabot

BOND IS BACK - Sean Connery is BOND

It's not surprising that many list Sean Connery's name when asked who played James Bond best. As the man who first put on the tuxedo and wielded the Walther PPK - he was the one who truly breathed life into the character. While Ian Fleming had his reservations about Connery playing James Bond - even he too came around to accept that Sean Connery was the man born to play his iconic character. And despite all their differences, Bond producers Albert R. Broccoli and Harry Saltzman knew this as well.

After the Bond series saw disastrous, but unfair, box-office returns with the exceptional 1969 George Lazenby Bond film On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Broccoli and Saltzman began to wonder where they went wrong. To find answers they turned to the past and noticed OHMSS, as far as the story was concerned, was the most serious Bond film that they had made to date. They also took notice that Goldfinger was the first in the series to give them enormous success. It was therefore decided that the next Bond film, Diamonds Are Forever, must return to the formula set in place by Goldfinger.

And who better to carry out this mission than Goldfinger director Guy Hamilton? Hamilton with his input had essentially created the successful Bond formula. He carries that exact same formula through again here in Diamonds Are Forever, although not as successfully. Also, returning from the Goldfinger fold are composer John Barry to provide the excellent score and Shirley Bassey to sing what would become one of the more iconic Bond theme songs.

The film's script is a jumbled mess. The plot jumps from here to there and by the time we end up there we wonder how we ever left here. Starting as a mission to stop diamond smugglers from stockpiling and ending up with a full on weapon of mass destruction story, it's complete madness, but nevertheless it remains entertaining. Bond is given more punchlines in the way of dialogue than in any of the previous films in the series, and in many regards this set the overly-comedic tone of the 007 films to follow during the Roger Moore era. (One could easily argue that the first Roger Moore Bond film is actually Diamonds Are Forever). It's really these humorous moments, and Connery's and St. John's excellent abilities to deliver them, that help make Diamonds more entertaining and less of a mess.

The cinematography and editing are handled both expertly well as is often the case with Bond films. Less expertly handled is the set design. Ken Adam, who had offered some of the most spectacular Bond sets in previous films and would go on to offer more in later ones, hardly delivers one set worth mentioning. The most impressive set wasn't even designed by Adam, but rather was a location found in pre-production! Perhaps the enormous amount of money given to Connery for his return to the role caused funds to be pulled from Adam's department.

Diamonds' action sequences are incredible and many of them standout in the annals of Bond history. This is largely due to Connery's physicality within the role, and his willingness to perform most of his own stunt work. The hand-to-hand fight sequence between Connery and Joe Robinson set in a tiny glass elevator is amazing to behold. Watching these six foot two inch giants go at it in the moving glass cage is more entertaining than any cage match ever offered on television. A car chase through the Las Vegas strip is also wonderful to behold, even if it does produce possibly the most blatant continuity error in cinematic history. Less impressive is the film's oil rig-set climax. The sequence is much shorter than most Bond climaxes and offers little more than a few explosions here and there. Even Bond plays no significant role in it, and dispatches maybe only two bad guys.

As stated previously, Connery and St. John deliver wonderful performances that charm and have us believing in their characters all the way through. Jimmy Dean - the sausage king - is surprisingly no different. It's entertaining to see this country-boy take on a Howard Hughes billionaire character. It allows Dean to go over the top in circumstances and scenes that normally wouldn't call for it, and still get away with it. Less inspired a casting choice is Charles Gray as Bond's archenemy Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Gray already has the disadvantage of not looking anything like the two previous actors - Donald Pleasance and Telly Savalas - who played Blofeld, but his main issue is he just isn't menacing. This is a character that is pure evil, has killed many of Bond's cohorts - including his wife - and Gray foolishly turns up the charm and goes for the humor, probably based on the direction of Guy Hamilton. A bad call that only adds to the film's over-the-top campy tone.

Despite being a lower ranking Bond film, Diamonds Are Forever still manages to deliver the goods: exciting action sequences, humorous - if albeit sometimes ridiculous - dialogue and double entendres, and of course brilliant performances, especially by the man born to play the role of James Bond 007: Sir Sean Connery.

6.5/10

Ranking among other Bond films: 19 out of 26

I VAMPIRI (1956) - Review

I Vampiri

Horror
1 hour and 18 minutes
Not Rated

Written by: Piero Regnoli, Rijk Sijöstrom, and Riccardo Freda
Directed by: Riccardo Freda
Produced by: Luigi Carpentieri & Ermanno Donati

Cast:
Gianna Maria Canale
Carlo D'Angelo
Dario Michaelis
Wandisa Guida
Paul Müller

Beautiful Parisian girls were his victims!

Here we have one of the greatest examples of Italian cinema to come out of the boom filmmakers were producing in that nation post World War II. During the fascist reign of Mussolini, Italian filmmakers were limited on the kind of films they were allowed to produce. As was the case in Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy was only interested in films that would depict "Il Duce" and the fascist state of Italy in a positive light. Obviously, horror films had no place under this agenda. Once Mussolini was overthrown, however, it was the brilliant auteur filmmaker Riccardo Freda that would bring about the first Italian-made horror film of the talking-pictures: I Vampiri.

Without I Vampiri, beautifully made Italian horror films of the later decades such as Suspiria, The Beyond, Cannibal Holocaust, and Blood and Black Lace may not have come about. I Vampiri therefore remains one of the most seminal and important horror films and has earned a respected spot in the annals of film history.

The story itself is not unique. Freda perhaps knew this and given that this was a total experiment (the first Italian horror film) he most likely wanted to cash in on other ideas being explored by low-budget American-made horror films. The film focuses on setting the ideas of vampirism in a modern-day context. You won't see Dracula in films like I Vampiri, Nightmare Castle, or Atom Age Vampire, but rather mad scientists chasing the idea that eternal youth can be obtained through copious amounts of fatal blood transfusions.

There is much argument as to who actually directed I Vampiri. Riccardo Freda is often credited, and indeed he played a major part in writing the film's screenplay. But there are also those who claim that the credit belongs to the film's director of photography: Mario Bava. The story goes that Freda became enormously frustrated with the film's limited shooting schedule and stormed off set, allowing Bava to step in and finish production. Bava, like Freda, would later become one of Italian cinema's most prolific auteurs, and would be given the handle, "The Godfather of Italian Horror." Because Bava and Freda were both auteurs with their individual styles it's easy to tell who I Vampiri really belongs to. With big, baroque set pieces, Gothic lighting, mad scientists laboratories adorned with "modern" technology - I Vampiri is unquestionably a Mario Bava film through and through.

Many of the elements in I Vampiri seem to be where Bava cut his teeth (quite effectively, I might add) before comfortably adding them to his later films. I Vampiri showcases a Gothic castle (something that appears in nearly every Mario Bava film) that has a secret passageway behind a fireplace leading to the castle's tomb. This exact castle/tomb passageway is again showcased in Bava's film Black Sunday. Also in both Black Sunday and I Vampiri are Bava's unique talent for makeup effects. In I Vampiri a young, beautiful woman is transformed in one single take into an old, hideous hag. The effect is so stunning and frightening, one can't help but wonder how Bava pulled it off.

The set pieces are beautifully photographed. Bava was a fan of wide shots, which allow the castles, tombs, and laboratories to become the film's main stars. The actors within these set pieces appear small, adding to the claustrophobia and discomforting atmosphere Bava knows how to handle so perfectly well.

While it isn't perhaps a stand-out, or unique motion-picture, I Vampiri remains vastly important for being the spark that ignited the explosion of Italian-made horror films that would flow from the 1960s until the mid to late 1980s. It showcases the supreme talent of Mario Bava, without really even giving Bava the credit (perhaps a good thing for Bava considering the film was a disaster upon its release).

With shocking special makeup effects, gorgeous cinematography, and stunning giant Gothic set pieces, I Vampiri remains one of the more important films in the long discussion of cinematic history - and a fine example of the talent within Mario Bava, "The Godfather of Italian Horror".

10/10

BODY COUNT (1986) - Review

Body Count

Horror
1 hour and 23 minutes
Rated: R

Written by: Alessandro Capone, Luca D'Alisera, Sheila Goldberg, and Dardano Sacchetti
Directed by: Ruggero Deodato
Produced by: Alessandro Fracassi

Cast:
Charles Napier
David Hess
Bruce Penhall
Mimsy Farmer

The woods are alive with the sound of screaming.

The 1980s saw a slew of backwoods slasher films being thrown at the horror-loving audiences of America. Indeed, the genre had been around prior to this specific decade - Tobe Hooper's The Texas Chain Saw Massacre and Mario Bava's A Bay of Blood both come to mind - but it wasn't until Friday the 13th became a cultural and cinematic phenomenon in 1980 that the subgenre of backwoods slasher flicks became extremely popular, with many being released directly to the brand new VHS market. Such was the case with Ruggero Deodato's entry into the subgenre: Body Count.

After the major financial success of Cannibal Holocaust and the cult following of House on the Edge of the Park it's no surprise that Deodato was given the reins to the mega-budget, ultra-violent, jungle adventure/thriller Cut and Run. Unfortunately, Cut and Run didn't fare as popular as its predecessors and Deodato's name never reached the iconic status it should have. Following Cut and Run, Deodato was given Body Count - a decent enough entry into a subgenre that by 1986 was already beginning to fade from the hearts and minds of most American horror fans. Hence, its only being released in America on VHS.

Body Count is by no means the greatest slasher film ever made, but it is certainly not the weakest one either. The film follows a genuinely interesting premise, combining both the ideas of the supernatural and the typical giallo idea that the killer, in the end, is merely one of the main characters who at some point in the past witnessed a psychologically damaging event that caused them to snap.

Even with a solid story Body Count's script is problematic. Of course with any made-for-American-market-Italian-made films there's going to be a few dialogue issues - these are both understandable and forgivable. Where this script suffers though is that it consists almost entirely of slasher movie clichés. Women are running and falling in the woods every single time they're being chased by a killer. The police characters are more of a nuisance than believable authority figures, and when they do finally save the day it feels more of a "cop out" than anything else and one can't help but wonder would the conclusion have been more satisfying if the killer were unmasked and killed by one of the main protagonists. These script issues are undoubtedly the direct result of having too many writers attached to the project. Shockingly, Dardano Sacchetti - the man behind many successful films for both Lucio Fulci and Dario Argento - had a hand in this film. Again, Body Count is not a bad film, but it is certainly below the status quo of both Sacchetti and Deodato.

The film's soundtrack is truly outstanding. Goblin's Claudio Simonetti, who had previously worked with Deodato on Cut and Run and is most famous for his scoring of Argento's Suspiria and George Romero's Dawn of the Dead, provides a terrifically frightening synthesizer-based soundtrack that is reminiscent of John Carpenter's score in Halloween. After the techno-80s-synth disaster of Cut and Run, it's most likely that Deodato told Simonetti to dial it back some for Body Count. Whatever the reason, less is more here and Simonetti did a fantastic job with it.

The performances in Body Count are a mixed bag at best. The veteran performers are a wonder to watch, while the unknown teenage cast give reason for the audience to ultimately cheer at their numbers being dwindled. Bruce Penhall is a good exception to this, however, he clearly isn't a strong actor. He simply plays a macho, dirt-bike-riding, teenager that seems to be second nature for him. Charles Napier is fantastic as the sheriff, but he isn't given enough screen time and his heroic contributions to the film's climax feel rather dull. John Steiner and Ivan Rassimov, two Deodato regulars, are fun to watch - but their scenes feel unnecessary and second nature. Almost as if Deodato called them up on a favor to play their parts and give the film a longer running time. Valentina Forte is given a cameo, but this is most likely due to her being romantically involved with Deodato at the time. She is murdered quickly in the story, and again the scene is rather unnecessary. David Hess is excellent, as always, as a psychotic campground owner. As Hess' wife, Mimsy Farmer is truly the standout performer. No stranger to the land of Italian horror, Farmer delivers all the goods and (other than Hess) gives the most believable performance. She's clearly more talented than this content could suggest, and it's rather a tragedy that she retired from acting after having completed Body Count.

With a relatively strong story, a moody atmospheric soundtrack by Claudio Simonetti, and a handful of cult actors delivering decent enough performances, Ruggero Deodato's Body Count remains a middle of the road film that perhaps doesn't deserve to be called the director's strongest piece of cinema, but still doesn't deserve to have faded so quickly into obscurity.

6.5/10

DESPERADO (1995) - Review

Desperado

Action/Crime/Thriller
1 hour and 44 minutes
Rated: R

Written by: Robert Rodriguez
Directed by: Robert Rodriguez
Produced by: Elizabeth Avellan, Bill Borden, Carlos Gallardo, and Robert Rodriguez

Cast:
Antonio Banderas
Joaquim de Almeida
Salma Hayek
Steve Buscemi
Cheech Marin
Quentin Tarantino

When the smoke clears, it just means he's reloading.

Along with his good friend Quentin Tarantino, Robert Rodriguez is one of the few directors that got his start from the 1990s indie-film-boom and is still today, enjoying a respectable reputation among the Hollywood elite. Sure, there are others - Kevin Smith comes to mind - but Rodriguez is unique in that he earned his fame with considerable talent, and rather than shift into large budget feature films (i.e. Tarantino), Rodriguez continues to stick with the low-budget, tight-scheduled flicks, proving that he is most likely the only man in Hollywood that can successfully pull off being an indie filmmaker and part of the Hollywood elite at the same time. Rodriguez earned this fame very early on with his first film, El Mariachi, but he solidified his creative talent with his second motion-picture, Desperado, its sequel.

Desperado is by no means a perfect motion-picture. It is a complete fantasy, nothing more than an entertaining tale of revenge. While revenge based movies have been done so many times that the majority of them prove to be stale, Desperado triumphs mainly for its pure entertainment value. When the plot is examined under the microscope it becomes clear that it most likely isn't the greatest revenge film ever written, but none of this in the end really matters.

The performances within the film are handled so terrifically that it is apparent that all of the actors assembled had just as much fun making this film as the audience is undoubtedly having watching it. Banderas is charming as ever, and I'll be damned if I ever hear that his most memorable role as an actor isn't as El Mariachi (yes, I've seen Zorro and no, I didn't like it nearly as much). Salma Hayek is stunning, but her believability as a naive girl caught up in the middle of the action just further shows her talents as an actress are just as rounded as her figure. Steve Buscemi has some memorable moments, although his screen time is both too much to be an enjoyable cameo and too little for him to really deserve his top billing. The opening monologue Buscemi gives sets the entire tone for the film - fun, campy, over-the-top, and just an all-out riot. Danny Trejo and Quentin Tarantino also have memorable cameos - although Trejo unfortunately is given no dialogue (not a bad thing considering how menacing he manages to appear).

The film's star though is undoubtedly its captain, Robert Rodriguez. Rodriguez wrote, directed, produced and edited - all of which are handled terrifically. It is clear he told his performers to have fun with the film, or else the audience wouldn't be willing to take this wild and campy ride with them. The editing is handled wonderfully, and Rodriguez is truly a believer in old-school methods. He uses steady shots within the action scenes, spliced together with quick cuts. None of that shaky camera work nonsense that is all too common in today's action films. Perhaps the only issue, as stated before is the so-so storyline, but again, Desperado manages to pull the audience past this and into the violently fun universe it has created.

While not the greatest revenge film to ever be told, Desperado overcomes its generic storyline by showcasing an extremely violent and fun fantasy that audiences surely will love. It remains one of the best, if not the best, of Rodriguez' films and shows perfectly his talent as a filmmaker.

9/10

JUST CAUSE (1995) - Review

Just Cause

Action/Crime/Drama
1 hour and 42 minutes
Rated: R

Written by: Jeb Stuart & Peter Stone
Directed by: Arne Glimcher
Produced by: Arne Glimcher, Steve Perry, and Lee Rich

Cast:
Sean Connery
Laurence Fishburne
Kate Capshaw
Blair Underwood
Ed Harris

Buried deep in the Florida Everglades is a secret that can save an innocent man or let a killer kill again.

The 1990s was a decade that saw a slew of "whodunnit" murder-mystery films being forced upon the public thanks to the wonderfully brilliant The Silence of the Lambs. With filmmakers like David Fincher emerging from this genre resurrection, it would appear to be enough to make Dario Argento assume he'd achieve an overdue Academy Award nomination. However, as is often the case when one genre cash cow is milked to its fullest excess, not everything produced therein could qualify as an instant classic. Such is the case with Just Cause.

The film starts off as a slow-burn-legal-thriller, and it remains that way for almost its entirety. It isn't until the very end that the motion picture takes on a dark, Silence of the Lambs-type atmosphere. This disjointed writing is seen throughout the film, and it proves to be perhaps its largest obstacle to which it never overcomes. Whether this is a result of the film having more than one writer is certainly possible - Sean Connery apparently even contributed to the film's script. Even key plot points seem to be completely disregarded. For example, early in the film Connery's character is informed that the murder victim had the murderer's blood in her mouth - meaning she fought back, but this is later contradicted when Laurence Fishburne's detective character tells him that she was unconscious while murdered. Perhaps the "logic" of the story wasn't what the writers wanted the audience to focus on - meaning that they just wanted them to be entertained and enjoy the ride - but whether in legal thrillers, or giallo-esque serial killer movies, both of which Just Cause tries very hard to be, the logic and realism of the story needs to be what's most important in order for it to be an excellent entry of said genres.

None of the other technical qualities are too troublesome within the film. Although, it should be said that the stock footage of Everglades' landscapes - alligators, whooping cranes, mangrove trees, etc. - cut in between the scenes makes the film feel more like a television program attempting to fill an allotted time frame. Whether this decision was the director's, the director of photography's, or the editor's is unknown - but regardless, it was a poor one.

The film's most favorable aspect is its actors. I'm sure with the amount of experienced performers within it, not much was needed in the way of direction. Blair Underwood does a convincing job, remaining levelheaded during all the right moments - and then slipping quickly to hateful and crazy. Laurence Fishburne is also terrific, but unfortunately his character never seems to fully develop into as interesting of an individual as he is introduced to be. In the beginning of the film he's showcased as a negrophobic, violent, African American, officer of the law. As the film fizzles out, his character is anything but this. An unfortunate misstep considering that this may have been a fascinating road to have gone down and explored - even more so in retrospect considering the racial tensions between law enforcement and African American communities today. The film's leading man, Sean Connery, neither embarrasses himself nor sets himself apart from the heard. Just Cause is certainly not his worst film, but it is unquestionably not a film one would use if they'd want to defend him as an outstanding actor.

The real scene stealer is Ed Harris. Harris, undoubtedly, had a blast performing this role of a deranged, Albert-Fish-like, serial killer. His scenes with Connery prove to be the least boring within the movie (and that includes the car chase, and final climax in the Everglades). Alas, one could fault Harris with overacting - but after the stamp Anthony Hopkins left on our minds, it is probably tough for many of us to picture serial killers as anything but cool, calm, and collected madmen. 

With an extremely convoluted story that is nowhere near as intelligent as it is trying to pass itself off as being, Just Cause remains neither memorable nor a complete waste of time thanks to the amount of talent its terrific cast can conjure up.

5.5/10

GONE IN 60 SECONDS (1974) - Review

Gone in 60 Seconds

Action/Crime/Drama
1 hour and 38 minutes
Rated: PG

Written by: H. B. Halicki
Directed by: H. B. Halicki
Produced by: H. B. Halicki

Cast:
H. B. Halicki
Eleanor
Marion Busia
Jerry Daugirda
James McIntyre
George Cole
Ronald Halicki
Markos Kotsikos

Let the wrecking begin.

With warmer weather on the way, several of us cinephiles are beginning to experience what I always refer to as: drive-in nostalgia. Tis the season to want to spend your summer nights under the stars, behind the wheel of your, with a big bucket of buttery popcorn, enjoying some of the more obscure selections that the art of cinema has to offer. Nothing cures these moments of drive-in nostalgia like a good low-budget exploitation flick from the 1970s.

Gone in 60 Seconds may just be the most perfect car-chase film to come out of the carsploitation craze of this era in cinema. The film boasts its exploitation formula to its own benefit - keep the plot simple, the dialogue minimal but entertaining, and add in as much car chases and car crashes as humanly possible. Where else in the history of cinema are you going to find a motion-picture that gives top billing to one of its vehicles?

Obviously, this type of film making presents multiple issues, and perfection can hardly be achieved from it. The film dives right into the central plot without much in the way of introduction to any of the characters. While this is the norm, considering the focus of carsploitation movies is simply the cars, it presents an issue within the story itself. When our hero (played by writer, director, producer H. B. Halicki) is double-crossed by a friend just before the film's explosive forty-minute climax, one can't help but feel that it'd be a more effective film if we truly cared about our hero being ripped off by his close friend. Similarly, there is clearly a love connection between the hero and the character played by Marion Busia, but this too seems to be abandoned rather than explored in order to make room for car crashes. None of this is really a bad thing that negatively hurts the film. It makes it less effective, but the beauty of Gone in 60 Seconds is that it's a film that never tries to be anything more than what it is: a made for shocks, carsploitation film.

The dialogue throughout the film is actually well-written. There are very few circumstances of dialogue, but what is present either drives the main storyline forward, or presents comical situations between the main protagonists. An especially effective scene involves a stolen car full of heroin nearly being discovered by a friendly police sergeant. In another sequence, one of the film's more likable performers is nearly mauled to death by a tiger after he discovers it asleep in the back seat of a vehicle he is trying to steal (hello future reference in The Hangover?). 

What remains clearly the most astounding thing about Gone in 60 Seconds is exactly what is meant to be the most impressive thing about it: the car chases and car crashes. Prior to the climax even, the film boasts some awe inspiring moments, including a theft gone-wrong that leads to a midnight car chase. Unquestionably, though, it is the forty-minute climactic car chase that will stick with audiences in regards to this film whenever it is mentioned. With Halicki doing most of the stunt work himself, and real police cars, pedestrians, bikers, and plenty of others who were at risk - the final result may be the most spectacular car chase to ever be recorded on film. Edited together with such technical precision by the film's editor Warner Leighton, and photographed from almost every angle imaginable by cinematographer Jack Vacek, the climactic chase is bound to keep any viewer's heart rate well above its average beats per minute.

Despite a paint-by-numbers exploitation formula, Gone in 60 Seconds manages to be an incredible motion-picture due to its embracing of its simplicity, and its really going for it attitude when it comes to its carsploitation moments. And with a plot that manages to be fun and entertaining enough, the film remains a likable staple of 1970s exploitation cinema that deserves much more recognition than it has earned from just its awful Nicolas Cage remake alone.

8/10

HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES (2003) - Review

House of 1000 Corpses

Horror
1 hour and 29 minutes
Rated: R

Written by: Rob Zombie
Directed by: Rob Zombie
Produced by: Andy Gould

Cast:
Sid Haig
Bill Moseley
Matthew McGrory
Sheri Moon Zombie
Karen Black
Erin Daniels
Chris Hardwick
Jennifer Jostyn
Rainn Wilson

The most shocking tale of carnage ever seen.

The film that introduced Rob Zombie's horrific visions to horror fans everywhere. Zombie's heavy metal background led him perfectly into the world of horror - as there is quite frequently a crossover of fans from the rebellious genre of music to the equally rebellious genre of film. With White Zombie, Rob Zombie proved he could handle directing within the medium of music videos - but does that make him qualified as a director of narrative film?

House of 1000 Corpses was apparently an absolute nightmare when it came to the actual production of the film. Executives didn't have faith in their debut director, and were deeply concerned with the direction of the violence within the film. Worried that an NC-17 rating would be inevitable, the film was shelved for a few years. Luckily for Zombie, the film found a foothold with Lionsgate who at the time was making a name for themselves within the realm of horror, just like Zombie.

What seems to be the biggest issue with House of 1000 Corpses is its central identity crisis. At its core, the film is a blatant knockoff of Tobe Hooper's The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974). A group of friends traveling cross country on a road trip through 1970s America stumble upon a hitchhiker who ultimately leads them back to a house full of maniacs, sadists, killers, and, oh of course - cannibals. This generic storyline is juxtaposed to a psychedelic, kaleidoscopic world that showcases the true genius of Rob Zombie. The film is clearly the work of a heavy metal music video director. There are moments throughout the film that just seem to be placed there because Zombie enjoyed the psychedelic look they had. They serve no purpose to the story. The strongest, most creative, part of this film ends up being its hypnotic climax that occurs within an underground labyrinth. This moment, however, is unable to undo the damage done by the first seventy minute Texas Chain Saw ripoff storyline.

The cinematography - the work of Tom Richmond and Alex Poppas - is excellent. The color scheme can only be described as vibrant and kaleidoscopic, really showcasing that brilliant psychedelic feel that Zombie undoubtedly was going for. At the same time, the film feels dirty, and homegrown. A lot of the shots are handheld, and with quick editing by Kathryn Himoff, Robert K. Lambert, and Sean Lambert, the scares within the film do elicit more than one moment with the "jump factor".

Much like the story and visuals, the performances too within House seems to be very split. The then newcomers: Rainn Wilson, Chris Hardwick, and Erin Daniels give rather bland performances that don't ever make their way out of the archetypical horror film victim. Perhaps the issue is the audience isn't given enough time to get acquainted with these characters in order to really feel any sympathy for them. In fact, this is why House of 1000 Corpses fails to be a scary film. The audience identifies much more with the film's killers - who are unquestionably interesting characters - than they do its victims. Not shockingly, it is the performances of the genre legends that stand out as excellent within House. Sid Haig is clearly having fun portraying what has easily become his most idolized character of his lengthy career. It's fun to hear him deliver one great line after another. Karen Black gives what is probably the most spectacular performance of the film (and of her career). She's sinister, diabolical, and yet there's something sweet and relatable underneath all of this that really makes her character that much more real. Walton Goggins and Tom Towles are excellent, but are not given enough screen time, unfortunately. Towles shares a brilliant scene with Haig about halfway through the film. And finally, Sheri Moon Zombie comes across as just annoying and clearly inexperienced. Her scenes with Karen Black and Bill Moseley are the most painful, where her inexperience is juxtaposed to their brilliant delivery.

In the end, House of 1000 Corpses is an incredibly conflicted film that can truly be said to be a cinematic mess. It has some truly creative and brilliant moments, but these are ultimately buried by the film's paint-by-numbers horror film storyline and characters. Its saving grace is the brilliant casting of genre legends, who truly give it their all in this one and deliver some of the best performances of their careers.

5/10