FIRST KNIGHT (1995) - Review

First Knight

Action/Adventure/Romance
2 hours and 14 minutes
Rated: PG-13

Written by: William Nicholson
Directed by: Jerry Zucker
Produced by: Hunt Lowry & Jerry Zucker

Cast:
Sean Connery
Richard Gere
Julia Ormond
Ben Cross

Their greatest battle would be for her love.

The tale of King Arthur, Sir Lancelot, Lady Guinevere, and Camelot is one that has been told so many times in countless mediums of storytelling that it has become all but impossible to decide whether each new telling ought to be classified as a "remake" or as a "re-imagining". Perhaps it all comes down to the connotations behind those words that any given viewer might choose to assign to them. Nevertheless, First Knight, happens to be a very stylized retelling of this story that wants very badly to succeed in doing what it hopes to do. In some areas it is successful. In others it is a miserable failure.

Director Jerry Zucker had managed to earn some notoriety by the mid 1990s due the unexpected success of his film Ghost. Given his previous goofball comedies like Airplane! and The Naked Gun films, no one saw Zucker's crossing over into the world of serious dramas as being a successful endeavor. They were wrong. Given his new found claim-to-fame as a dramatist and no longer a satirist, Zucker wanted to helm an expensive retelling of the King Arthur love triangle.

Credit must be given to both Zucker and screenwriter William Nicholson. As far as other retellings of this story go, First Knight handles its content with a sense of realism and maturity. Gone are the dragons, gone is the Holy Grail, gone is Merlin and any signs of magic. Instead, what we are left with is the story's humanity, and the raw emotions that these characters - now presented as being more human than ever before - all must go through given the challenges they face.

But this is of course problematic too. At over two hours in length, the film becomes quite boring at times - often dragging through generic romantic speeches that after awhile one feels were lifted from Hallmark cards. There's only so much of this viewers can honestly take - and as impressive as they are, the performances and the action sequences aren't enough to break apart these lulls with moments of genuine entertainment. Had the film been tightened up a tad around its edges, perhaps these romantic moments would have come across as being genuinely romantic and not monotonous.

Composer Jerry Goldsmith offers some truly remarkable scores, as is expected given his level of talent. Less impressive are the film's CGI effects. While they are few and far between considering the amount of CGI the films of today are given, they have since dated poorly and work entirely against the atmosphere of realism that Zucker was hoping to create. Production designer John Box must be commended for his enormous undertaking of making Camelot and other locales come to life. There are moments where things look too polished - too pristine - for medieval times, but one quickly gets the sense that this was Box's intention all along. We're not supposed to believe that this is Camelot had it existed in reality of the times, but rather that this is the Camelot we've all envisioned in our heads - shiny and glorious.

The film's performances range from entirely unimpressive to absolutely outstanding. Ben Cross does an alright job as the film's antagonist, but guaranteed by the film's conclusion no one discusses him as being a standout performer. He does offer genuine moments of conflict, but one gets the impression that any of-the-right-age British actor could have accomplished this - maybe even better. Julia Ormond is exceptional, but again is forced to deliver most of her dialogue through boring and repetitive romantic sequences that may have some viewers routing against her rather than for her. The film's standout performance - not surprisingly - is Sean Connery's Arthur. Connery embodies this character as if it were the role he were born to play. His Arthur is a deeply troubled and tired man whose greatest fear is having to die alone. We see the humanity that Zucker so desperately wanted this film to have through Connery's performance alone. Richard Gere, conversely, is so horribly miscast I dare anyone to find a greater example of miscasting in cinematic history (just kidding - John Wayne as Genghis Khan was way worse, I know). Still, why Gere was even considered by Zucker is unfathomable. If Zucker wanted First Knight to be an Arthur story grounded in realism, then casting a young, heart-throb, American actor as the French knight Lancelot was the worst decision he could have made. And despite Gere handling himself very well during the film's action sequences, his performance plays an enormous part in the disappointing overall effect of this film.

Despite its wanting to be grounded in realism and humanity, its having some truly terrific action sequences, and one of Sean Connery's greatest performances, First Knight is a movie that greatly fails at communicating the intentions it so desperately hoped to convey to its viewers. It's far from any of the persons involved worst piece ... but it is nowhere near any of their best.

5.5/10

THE CAT O' NINE TAILS (1971) - Review

The Cat o' Nine Tails

Horror/Mystery/Thriller
1 hour and 52 minutes
Rated: GP

Written by: Dario Argento
Directed by: Dario Argento
Produced by: Salvatore Argento

Cast:
James Franciscus
Karl Malden
Catherine Spaak

Caught between the truth and a murderer's hand!

The King of Italian Horror Cinema, Dario Argento, directed his second film: The Cat o' Nine Tails after the enormous commercial success that his debut motion-picture The Bird with the Crystal Plumage had earned in both his home nation of Italy as well as the enormously profitable United States. Naturally, the film's distributors were itching for Argento to create a sequel - something Argento had no intention of doing. He caved, in the sense that both Bird and Cat are gialli films - horror/mystery movies created by Mario Bava, but later popularized by Argento - but as far as comparisons go, that is really all that Argento's first two motion-pictures have in common.

Argento himself has expressed nothing but hatred toward The Cat o' Nine Tails. He has called it too cold, too "American, with no love whatsoever present throughout it." While arguably it is perhaps one of Argento's least memorable films, The Cat o' Nine Tails is still unquestionably an important movie when it comes to the brilliant career of Italy's most famous auteur du macabre.

For starters, this is the first Dario Argento movie that is less concerned with why violence occurs and more focused on how it occurs. In Bird with the Crystal Plumage, Argento was more focused on story and plot than he has ever been since that debut film of his. The Cat o' Nine Tails saw him stepping away from this. The film seems to be expressing to its audience that moments of violence occur, and they occur randomly. We should not be worried about why they're happening simply because that won't solve anything in a preventative sense. Argento would carry this theme throughout every film that would follow The Cat o' Nine Tails - especially in his later gialli like Deep Red, Tenebre, and Opera.

The Cat o' Nine Tails also introduced audiences to the signature camera style of Dario Argento. Cinematographer Enrico Menczer captures moments on film that are pure Argento through and through. Characters are framed around glitzy and glamorous settings - precursors to such shots and camera angles in Argento's films Suspiria and Inferno. The performers are often seen from above or below heading up and down Italian spiral stairs. But most importantly, The Cat o' Nine Tails is the first Dario Argento giallo - or film for that matter - to put the camera into the point-of-view of the film's murderer. This is something that would become so uniquely Argento it would be imitated by every filmmaker to ever follow him in attempting a giallo film - including Alfred Hitchcock, whose film Frenzy is no doubt Hitch's response to the critics' comparison of Argento to him. The Bird with the Crystal Plumage may have began Argento's career with a brilliant splash, but it was The Cat o' Nine Tails where Argento really established his own creative voice, technical style, and visionary eye as an auteur.

But even though The Cat o' Nine Tails is one hundred percent a Dario Argento film through and through, it is not without its flaws. For starters, its story just really is not that interesting. While story and plot have never been Argento's major concerns - this was before his abandoning them altogether in favor of surrealism (e.g. Suspiria, Inferno, and Phenomena), Argento may have wanted to focus more on technical aspects of making this film, and he certainly didn't like the idea of making a follow-up to Bird in the same style. But the film's rather lazy and uninspired storyline is completely sub par when it comes to the man handling it all. Especially considering the really amazingly brilliant plots Argento conceived for his films: The Bird with the Crystal Plumage, Deep Red, and Sleepless.

The film's performances are a mixed bag. At best, one can say that its two leading men are delightful to watch, and that there is genuine chemistry between them. James Franciscus is charming when he needs to be, but completely believable when it comes to his stunt work in the film's impressive confrontational climax. Karl Malden is the film's real shining star, though. His portrayal of a blind puzzle maker caught up in this world of mystery and violence is truly brilliant, and a must see for any performer having or wanting to tackle a role of a blind character. However, the film's supporting cast is nothing to really brag about. Still, a few brilliant performances delivered in a Dario Argento movie is worthy enough in itself to be mentioned.

Italian maestro Ennio Morricone provides the film's score, and much like his contributions to Argento's other works of this era - The Bird with the Crystal Plumage and Four Flies on Grey Velvet - Morricone's compositions are truly incredible. They are minimalist and jazzy in proper segments to create suspense where it is needed - the film's climax and murder sequences provide some truly edge-of-your-seat tension - and the lighter more melodic score is placed wonderfully during scenes of real intimacy between the film's characters.

While The Cat o' Nine Tails is one of Dario Argento's more middle-of-the-road movies, with its unimpressive story and rather bored direction, it is unquestionably an incredibly important motion-picture when it comes to Argento's career. It is the film that would help the young director work out his brilliant visionary eye and technical genius that everyone would later come to praise, admire, and attempt to replicate in his later work. It is a must see for all fans of Dario Argento and the giallo subgenre.

6.5/10

31 (2016) - Review

31

Horror/Thriller
1 hour and 42 minutes
Rated: R

Written by: Rob Zombie
Directed by: Rob Zombie
Produced by: Mike Elliott, Andy Gould, Matthew Perniciaro, Michael Sherman, Eddie Vaisman, and Rob Zombie

Cast:
Sheri Moon Zombie
Lew Temple
Jeff Daniel Phillips
Lawrence Hilton-Jacobs
Meg Foster
Richard Brake
Malcolm McDowell
Judy Geeson
Jane Carr

Welcome To Hell

Rob Zombie has always been a filmmaker that has throughout his career managed to split audiences - specifically, the legion of us horror junkies - right down the middle. Some praise his work, often citing his rather laissez-faire attitude toward naysayers and blatant contempt for critics of his work. These same people seem to enjoy Zombie's work for the fun thrill that it provides for the hour and a half or so that it remains in front of them. Several others, however, including most critics, tend to find Zombie's work to be rather uninspired and nothing more than a bland and boring celebration of senseless gore. 31 was no exception to all of this. The film has its defenders, just as it has a legion of horror fans and critics who seemed to not be impressed. Sadly, this reviewer falls into the latter category.

The genuine truth is that 31 is an absolute mess of a movie with poor writing constructing random grab bag moments from other, more successful horror films. It follows the story of five carnival workers who are kidnapped on the road in 1970s America and who are forced to play a sadistic game called, well: 31. The characters must survive twelve hours as wave after wave of psycho killers come after them all. This idea itself is not a new one, as admitted by Zombie, as it bares resemblance to that old classic tale The Most Dangerous Game, but given Zombie has proven himself a talented filmmaker in the past with The Devil's Rejects, the promise of something both intellectually stimulating and insanely violent was one that could easily wet any horror fan's appetite. The film is neither intellectually brilliant or particularly violent.

The story manages to ripoff elements of so many other stories - besides The Most Dangerous Game - that it becomes nauseating. The idea of people traveling across 1970s America and being kidnapped or having their journey interrupted by killers has been done so many times since its first inception within Tobe Hooper's masterpiece The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. In fact, Zombie himself has previously utilized this trope in his debut film House of 1000 Corpses - and this is why 31 is particularly nauseating. Had it just been a Texas Chain Saw ripoff, it might have gotten away with it. But the abduction sequence in 31 plays out nearly to a T the same way the abduction sequence in House of 1000 Corpses does. Don't believe me? Creepy scarecrows come to life and either kill or kidnap their intended victims. This is either pure laziness on Zombie's part, or it is just a showcase for an uninspired lack of creativity.

The film's conclusion also borrows enormously from House of 1000 Corpses. Viewers are, in both films, treated with the belief that the "final girl" has finally made her way through Hell, and although she's battered, bloodied, and bruised, we are left with the genuine hope that there is a chance - in that moment more than ever - for her character's survival. And in both films, Zombie chooses to conclude with a rather nihilistic fake out where we as an audience see this final girl confronted again with the killer or killers. We know that her conclusion will be death. This disturbing lack of creativity and surprising amount of self-referential nonsense from Zombie is just flat out gross.

The characters in 31 are incredibly flat, which might come as a surprise given the amount of talent that graces this film. Sheri Moon Zombie, while someone who is in no way expected to win any Academy Awards in her lifetime, has proven her acting strengths in previous outings directed by her husband. She of course played the freaky psycho chick well in his first two films, but by Zombie's remake of Halloween, Sheri Moon Zombie showed that she is an actress capable of creating a believable amount of depth to the characters that she portrays. Unfortunately, that does not shine through with her performance in 31. Similarly, Jeff Daniel Phillips delivered a terrific performance in Zombie's film The Lords of Salem, and yet in 31 his character is one of the weakest and most annoying figures on the screen. In interviews, Phillips stated that in earlier drafts of the script his character was a writer and a single father. Perhaps had the film been given more money, characters' back stories wouldn't have changed and performers like Phillips and Sheri Moon Zombie could have shined to the level that they are capable of. Meg Foster, who gave one of the best performances of her career in The Lords of Salem, is also uninspiring here - although, it must be said that to see a woman her age playing a strong and heroic female character in a horror film is refreshing. And Judy Geeson and Malcolm McDowell are not afforded the screen time that actors of their caliber deserve.

The film's saving grace is unquestionably the performance of Richard Brake as Doom-Head. Brake brings a refreshing sense of reality to his psychopath that none of the other onscreen killers can achieve. While they tend to prance about, scream in redneck accents, or in the German and Spanish language, Brake's sense of levelheaded intimidation is contrary to the other performances and is truly remarkable to see. He is capable of showing full on moments of a raging psychopath, but he is just as capable of showing an even tempered killer. The movie opens with a long monologue delivered by Brake to one of his intended victims - a preacher. As it turns out, this discussion between the two characters is an example of the brilliant level of writing that Zombie is capable of and achieved in his earlier film The Devil's Rejects. Brake's Doom-Head challenges the preacher's fear of death, stating this man should be grateful to him for delivering him up to the Pearly Gates. He speaks in beautiful existentialist ways regarding life, death, and killing that unfortunately don't permeate throughout the rest of the film.

I wrote that I am sadly a detractor of this movie because of that reason most of all. There is a capable and brilliant filmmaker within Rob Zombie. Audiences saw that in The Devil's Rejects and even in moments within Halloween and The Lords of Salem, whatever one may think about those two films overall. And yet in 31 there is the same problem, and more. With 31 Zombie refused to use the brilliant talent within him, and instead decided to deliver up an uninspired and completely derivative motion-picture that I'm sure in several years time he will like to have completely forgotten. This is not the work of a brilliant man, but rather 31 is the work of a bored filmmaker.

2/10