ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN (1948) - Review

Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein

Comedy/Fantasy/Horror
1 hour and 23 minutes
Rating: Passed

Written by: Robert Lees, Frederic I. Rinaldo, and John Grant
Directed by: Charles Barton
Produced by: Robert Arthur

Cast:
Bud Abbott
Lou Costello
Lon Chaney, Jr.
Béla Lugosi
Glenn Strange

Jeepers! The creepers are after Bud and Lou!

The 1940s saw the Universal Monsters movie canon taken to its ultimate limits. With the success of all of the original monster flicks, Universal utilized the growing popularity of motion-pictures as well as the aforementioned success to build an empire off of various sequels, spinoffs, and ripoffs of these movies. While the decade was waning however, interest in the Universal Monsters seemed to be dimming. In another attempt - or gimmick if you prefer - to stir the crowds' interest, Universal decided that it might be best to add a little bit of the comedic flair to these horror films, á la the stylings of Bud Abbott and Lou Costello - the most slaptsticky duo in show business.

The film utilizes the same ideas of previous movies in the Universal Monsters canon, in particular House of Dracula, meaning that the producers thought it best to give the audience not one, not two, but three monsters in one movie. Getting Béla Lugosi to return triumphantly as Count Dracula - his second appearance as Bram Stoker's famous vampire - and of course Lon Chaney, Jr. as the Wolf Man, proved to be a major benefit to the film overall. Only Boris Karloff is missing, but given the little amount of screen time dedicated to Frankenstein's monster, his lack of presence isn't as sorely missed as one would ultimately imagine it to be. The story follows Abbott and Costello as they team up with Chaney to stop Lugosi from reanimating the monster with Costello's "dumbed down" brain. Pretty straight forward given that it's essentially the plot of Frankenstein but funnier and with more monsters.

The story's simplicity allows for the film's comedic elements to really shine forward. When it's all said and done, it is the comedy of Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein that really carries the film. Abbott and Costello themselves offer enough yucks to surely make anyone scared of Lugosi's evil, peering eyes feel comfortable yet again. But herein lies the biggest issue about all of this. Because the movie is a comedy, it begs the question of was this the moment of Universal jumping the shark with these monster movies. With no more room to explore the horror genre (let's face it, House of Dracula was an absolute dud), they decide to start over as a comedy. When Count Dracula and Frankenstein's monster became so mainstreamed that they were opened up to this kind of parody, the question of "Why even bother anymore?" has certainly got to be asked. Yes, the humor is fun and does make the movie all the more enjoyable than a lot of its predecessors in the Universal Monsters canon, but in the end this movie signifies the beginning of the end of something wonderful that Universal had created and built an empire off of.

All of that aside, it is enormously wonderful to see Béla Lugosi play Count Dracula yet again. Here he is a little more talkative than you might expect, and one gets the feeling that Lugosi was either enjoying the slapstick nature of the film a little too much or that he was blazed out of his mind during the entire shoot off of morphine or probably both, because he clearly isn't taking his performance as seriously as his previous roles. Gone is the intimidating Lugosi of Tod Browning's Dracula, gone is the horrifying performer that was present in White Zombie or Black Dragons. Here we only see Lugosi going through the motions knowing that he will be praised simply for his Hungarian accent and leering eyes. After all, when we think of Dracula, most of us do think of Lugosi - even if we don't know who the man is.

The real standout is Lon Chaney, Jr. as the Wolf Man. Here, just like in House of Dracula, Chaney's Wolf Man gets to play the film's hero. The final moments of this movie - despite being laugh out loud hysterical - are truly thrilling and it is a major joy to see the Wolf Man go toe-to-toe with Count Dracula. It is a little upsetting that more isn't discussed surrounding this character's sacrifice in the film's denouement, but since this is a comedy and not a serious movie this makes it a little more forgivable. Chaney - like his father before him - shows that he is capable of not just mastering truly physically driven performances, but that he can win you over just as easily from dialogue heavy scenes. He was truly an under appreciated talent just like many of the men who made a name for themselves within the Monsters canon - Lugosi included.

It ought to be noted that the film's special effects work is equally as impressive and praiseworthy as its comedic elements. Chaney's makeup - done by Chaney himself, who like his father preferred things done that way - is as authentic and creepy as it was within the original film, The Wolf Man. Lugosi similarly is cast in the palest of tones, truly looking like Stoker's living dead Count. There are several moments where Dracula transforms to and from a bat done through various animation work, but the animation moves seamlessly and is fun to see - especially since the original Dracula hardly included anything in the way of transformation sequences.

While it may not be as memorable as its predecessors, and it certainly is far from groundbreaking in the way that those movies were, Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein is a wonderful comedy that manages to charm its way past all of its shortcomings with terrifically funny moments and engaging performances thanks largely to the veterans of this genre, Lugosi and Chaney. Its only major - and without a doubt its biggest - flaw being what it symbolized for these films overall regarding their future and their legacy.

7/10

THE MOLLY MAGUIRES (1970) - Review

The Molly Maguires

Drama/History
2 hours and 4 minutes
Rated: PG

Written by: Walter Bernstein
Directed by: Martin Ritt
Produced by: Walter Bernstein & Martin Ritt

Cast:
Sean Connery
Richard Harris
Samantha Eggar
Frank Finlay

The year 1970 proved to be a rather important year for the careers of both filmmaker Martin Ritt and star Sean Connery. Ritt, who shot to stardom helming such films as: The Long, Hot Summer, The Spy Who Came in from the Cold, and of course his magnum opus, Hombre, was just off of the financial and critical failure of his mobster film, The Brotherhood. Connery, who had similarly shot to superstardom starring in the James Bond franchise, had also felt the sting of box office failure with his western Shalako having previously tanked with critics and audiences. Both Connery and Ritt were desperate to prove that they were still credible forces working within the industry. In order to do that the two men came together to work on a big-budgeted, studio backed historical drama, The Molly Maguires.

Set against the backdrop of late-1800s Pennsylvania, The Molly Maguires is a story of exploited coal miners working in perilous conditions for little to no pay for men who grew richer off of their physical labor. The film's title refers to a group of miners who fought back against the oppression often through means of violence. The film's interesting premise undeniably caught the eye of its stars and filmmaker as being a story that would translate well to the tumultuous racial conditions of 1970 (though the film's premise could parallel today's conditions even better regarding wealth inequality in America). Unfortunately for all those involved, audiences did not pick up on this and The Molly Maguires was a financial flop at the box office.

Despite this, however, The Molly Maguires is a film with many merits. For starters, as stated above, there's its social commentary. The film does a terrific job of placing its viewers into the harsh conditions that its heroes have to endure day in and day out. It is a film that in order for it to succeed in effectively getting its point across has to have the audience on its heroes' sides. Martin Ritt's pacing and direction throughout the film do a tremendous amount in accomplishing this. The film is over two hours long, and it is a slow burning two hours, but within that time Ritt tremendously is either allowing us as an audience to become better acquainted with the film's characters or showing us the dangerous conditions of their work. When the film was released many critics lamented that it was completely devoid of any humor. And while this is true and undeniably will upset some viewers and/or cause them to call the film boring and slow, the lack of humor brings the audience closer to the film's characters and setting. This was a time and place lacking much in the way of humor. These were people who did not have much to be jovial about, and Ritt does an incredible job at effectively getting that across to the audience.

Contributing to the film's excellent pacing is its smooth editing done by Frank Bracht and its absolutely gorgeous cinematography by James Wong Howe. Howe captures the coal region of Pennsylvania with such smoothness and beauty that the coal dusted sets and surrounding lush greenery have audiences completely sucked into the setting from the start. Similarly, Henry Mancini's score is truly beautiful and plays its cues effectively throughout the film.

Not surprisingly, the film's performances are topnotch. Connery and Richard Harris naturally steal the show, and the scenes that the two men share together - especially their final scene - are wondrous to behold. Harris does an excellent job portraying his deeply conflicted hero, making us as an audience forever unsure of what he may do regarding his overall motives. And while Harris may hold our interest, it is Connery who holds all the sympathy. His character's blind quest to seek justice for his fellow working man is an honorable one, even if his actions are brutal, and ultimately by the film's conclusion one can't help but feel a slight pain in their gut regarding his character's fate. The supporting cast all deliver talented performances and hold their own against these titanic leading men.

Despite its enormous amount of merits, though, The Molly Maguires does happen to have a major problem, and that would be its resolution. An effective ending would have shown Harris's character actually taking on sympathy for his comrades and thus changing his entire outlook as a character from what it was at the start of the film. Unfortunately, the film does not do that, and its conclusion hits harder than a sledgehammer to the gut. It's unforgivably surprising to the point that one cannot believe Ritt had the intention to keep Harris's character flat by the film's conclusion.

The Molly Maguires may be a slow-burning historical drama that is over two hours in length and is almost entirely devoid of all humor, but the film is a beautiful character study with an important social commentary that has grown to become even more important today than it had been when the film was released. And despite its deeply troubling and disappointing ending, it is a film that is a triumphantly carried to overcome its shortcomings through its incredible performances, outstanding technical qualities, and brilliant direction.

8.5/10

IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS (1994) - Review

In the Mouth of Madness

Fantasy/Horror/Mystery
1 hour and 35 minutes
Rated: R

Written by: Michael De Luca
Directed by: John Carpenter
Produced by: Sandy King

Cast:
Sam Neill
Julie Carmen
Jürgen Prochnow
Charlton Heston

Lived Any Good Books Lately?

What would happen if one were to take the cosmic dread and unspeakable horror themes within the stories of HP Lovecraft and combine them with the visually striking and universally groundbreaking horror movies of John Carpenter? Madness. And out of that madness's very mouth, a story that will leave some viewers captivated, some viewers exasperated, and others scratching their heads in wonder at the web of madness they've been captivated into. Whichever camp within one may fall, John Carpenter's In the Mouth of Madness undoubtedly has a raw power behind it - a power that is bound to move people to have one extreme response or the other - a power the likes of which the horror master hasn't tapped into since.

Because the film is meant to be a love letter to HP Lovecraft, it lacks in much of the visual amazement that John Carpenter's previous cosmic and not-so-cosmic horror films have presented us. With The Thing, Carpenter dared to show the monsters in full lighting, knowing that the effects work would speak for itself. With In the Mouth of Madness, he is presented the challenge of doing what Lovecraft did with his monsters: keeping them in the dark and letting the viewers' minds try to comprehend just what it is they are seeing ... or in this case experiencing. This restraint on Carpenter's behalf is remarkable to see done, especially given just how wrong the whole thing could have gone. After all, Carpenter and Lovecraft have about as much in common as Poe and Eli Roth. But somehow the combination of the two styles works with some truly effective scare moments that only solidifies the fact that Carpenter is one of the most under appreciated auteurs to have ever worked in the film industry.

The story is challenging, but then again it is meant to be. Surely the viewers who find this film to be exasperating and troublesome think so because of the film's story. And yet, those who love it and defend the film arguably do so for the same reason. Carpenter understands that like much of Lovecraft's fiction, multiple visits to the story make for a more comprehensible and even enjoyable experience. As viewers begin to piece it together, and work the film's plot from end to beginning, what they will find will either delight them or agitate them at all the convoluted mess they had to go through. Yet it is because In the Mouth of Madness's story dares its audience to come back, to return to the madness, that there's something to be said in favor of the overall intelligence of the piece. This is not "popcorn" horror - this is old school, cosmic horror in the best sense.

The special effects work, done by KNB, is really quite remarkable, although there are problems with some particular moments. Luckily, Carpenter shrouds the creatures in extreme closeups, low level lighting, and with brief cuts - courtesy of editor Edward A. Warschilka, who does a tremendous job with the film's overall pacing. When the monsters are on screen the effects work furthers the audience's sense of wonder, amazement, and dread. Tentacles, blood, gore, claws, teeth, disfigured children, and one creepy old hotel owner are all standout moments that occur - luckily enough - throughout most of the movie. The effects do, however, fall flat in a few moments. In a sequence where Julie Carmen's character crab walks with her head spun completely around, the effect looks like someone wearing a cheap Halloween mask over his or her normal face. A young boy riding a bicycle and suddenly becoming old looks fake and rubbery. And the aforementioned hotel owner in her "true" form seems just a bit too robotic in movement. Perhaps Carpenter couldn't contain himself and he let the cameras roll on these lesser effects just a tad too long. The good news is, the cameras aren't on them long enough for the whole film to be completely undone.

The performances, like in damn near every John Carpenter movie, are terrific. Sam Neill delivers one of the best performances - if not the best performance - of his career. His journey from calculating cynic, to broken and mentally frayed maniac (believe me that's not even coming close to spoiling anything) is so amazing to watch that one has to wonder why this brilliant character actor hasn't been seen in more commercial work. Charlton Heston plays his role as well as anyone would hope, yet one wishes he were given more screen time, especially with Neill. The two men carry a scene together so well they make it look easy. Similarly, David Warner's cameo feels senselessly short. One can take solace that such an outstanding performer known for his work in the horror genre was at least cast in the film, despite being in say five to ten minutes of the movie if that. Jürgen Prochnow's performance is enormously more subtle than Neill's and yet, the two go toe-to-toe in their scenes together providing the film with its most memorable and unnerving sequences. Julie Carmen holds her own throughout the film, but out of all the performances she is the only one that feels flat at certain times that you'd wish she wasn't.

While its old school, Lovecraftian style assuredly will upset the horror fans of today who are so used to being spoon-fed plot points, In the Mouth of Madness is a triumph within filmmaker John Carpenter's career, mainly because it challenged him as an auteur to deliver something entirely outside of his wheelhouse, just as it challenges its viewers to approach the film from an entirely new perspective than other horror movies ask for. In the Mouth of Madness is pure madness - but for some of us, there's nothing else we'd prefer more.

7.5/10

THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME (1923) - Review

The Hunchback of Notre Dame

Drama/Romance
2 hours and 13 minutes
Unrated

Written by: Perley Poore Sheehan
Directed by: Wallace Worsley
Produced by: Carl Laemmle & Irving Thalberg

Cast:
Lon Chaney
Patsy Ruth Miller
Norman Kerry
Nigel de Brulier
Brandon Hurst

Victor Hugo's Immortal Classic

For nearly a century now, Universal Pictures' Monster Universe has remained iconic in the annals of cinema. With numerous reboots (sometimes not even by Universal - hello, Hammer) done throughout this stretch of time, the most successful outside the original and Hammer films being the reboots of the 1990s, it only makes sense that Universal is looking to reboot these old monster movies and cash in on the growing "universes" that various production houses are currently creating. While I will not comment on the latest attempt at rebooting these films (Mummy: Impossible or whatever it's called) it may be worth while (pay attention here, Universal executives) for audiences to go back and reexamine the original Universal Monster films in order to understand why these movies have remained so iconic for nearly a century. And what better place to begin than with the first of Universal's Monster movies: The Hunchback of Notre Dame.

Starring the iconic Lon Chaney in his first of only two appearances in the Universal Monsters oeuvre, The Hunchback of Notre Dame remains a wonderfully engaging film ninety plus years after the fact for an enormous amount of reasons. It unquestionably is a flawed and dated film, that cannot be denied, but when it comes down to it what silent film isn't by today's standards? No, Hunchback is an endearing movie largely for its story. Despite the enormity of Victor Hugo's novel, screenwriter Perley Poore Sheehan did an excellent job at keeping the film very true to Hugo's book. There are many sequences missing, and even some that are relocated in setting, timing, or both, but ultimately the heart of Hugo's novel - the vast majority of the story - remains intact completely unaltered. There's no doubt in my mind that if Hunchback were adapted today Universal would take drastic leaps and bounds at changing the story to fit a much more fast-paced retelling, geared for audiences of films like .... well, Mummy: Impossible or whatever they called it. But there's something to be said about the slow pace of the story. Hugo's novel is gargantuan, but that serves the readers quite well. This adaptation also has a longer running time and does not shy away from the enormous amount of exposition that its story demands. Viewers of today may find it a struggle to get into at first, but those who stick with it will undeniably be glad that they did, because this story is full of heart, love, suspense, drama, and sorrow.

As impressive and as meaty as the film's story remains, nothing is more impressive than the film's sets. Constructed under a period of six months, Universal went through painstaking lengths to recreate the cathedral of Notre Dame as well as the surrounding streets according the specifications of the 1400s setting. This meticulous construction pays off, especially considering most films of this era lack in the way of set design (many often used sheets with paintings upon them as backdrops). It's hard not to be drawn into this movie and no doubt viewers will question how none of it was shot on location. Even the statues and facade work of the reconstructed Notre Dame seem impossibly identical to the original.

Adding to the character of the set is of course the film's central performance of Quasimodo by Lon Chaney. Despite the film's title, Quasimodo the hunchback actually does not appear in the vast majority of this film - at least not until the end. This is largely because Quasimodo in Victor Hugo's novel also is absent from a great deal of the story. And yet he is forever the heart of the story. We leave him to engage in other characters such as the lovely Esmerelda (here portrayed rather unconvincingly in then-normal white-washed fashion by Patsy Ruth Miller), the charming Phoebus de Chateaupers (played by Norman Kerry), and the sinister Jehan (who was not the book's villain interestingly enough - here portrayed by Brandon Hurst). We are willing to travel away from the lovable hunchback due to the fact that we as an audience know the multiple stories that are occurring will all weave their way back together to Notre Dame and thus to Quasimodo - which they do. Here it is easy to see why Lon Chaney is so highly regarded in discussions of acting or film. Through the vast amount of prosthetic and make-up work (which Chaney often did himself) and without the ability to speak dialogue, Chaney brings Quasimodo to life very much in the way that he would later bring the Phantom to life in his second Universal Monster movie: The Phantom of the Opera - sheerly through his physicality. He creates a character that can be frightening and charming all at once; one that we as an audience have no trouble at all feeling sympathy toward in any capacity.

Despite these two major assets The Hunchback of Notre Dame is problematic largely for what it has changed regarding the novel's conclusion. In this adaptation, the story is tied together with an unquestionably sad note, but one that leaves us as an audience with a sense of optimism and pride in the film's unlikely hero at disposing of the film's wicked villain. Hugo's novel was very dark and bleak like the era it was set within. Sheehan and director Wallace Worsley unquestionably felt that audiences of this era couldn't handle seeing a film like this and having it end on such a sad and bleak note. So, not surprisingly they changed the conclusion. Those who have not read Hugo's novel will most likely find themselves unbothered by this change. But those familiar with the book's extremely tragic and haunting ending will be very surprised by the change (it's been years since I've seen the Disney adaptation but I highly doubt they kept the original ending either so, kudos to Universal for keeping most of Hugo's story intact).

Despite a white-washed cast and a rather too optimistic ending for what this story calls for, The Hunchback of Notre Dame is a triumph of cinema that remains - nearly a century later - something both beautiful and magical that is well worth the time of anyone who calls him or herself a movie lover.

8/10

ALIEN: COVENANT (2017) - Review

Alien: Covenant

Horror/Sci-Fi/Thriller
2 hours and 2 minutes
Rated: R

Written by: John Logan & Dante Harper
Directed by: Ridley Scott
Produced by: David Giler, Walter Hill, Mark Huffam, Michael Schaefer, and Ridley Scott

Cast:
Michael Fassbender
Katherine Waterston
Billy Crudup
Danny McBride
Carmen Ejogo
Demián Bichir

Run.

Since its creation, the Alien franchise has been a cultural phenomenon that has seen droves of loyal fans and cinephiles eager and excited about any and every new installment within the series. And yes, some installments have faired better in the long run than others (surprisingly, Alien: Resurrection has developed a bit of a cult following and to be fair even Alien 3 has its merits - although they are hard to find through all the nonsense). When Ridley Scott, the man who began it all, announced in 2011 that he would be returning to the Alien universe with a prequel, naturally all the fans of his original film became ecstatic. And while Prometheus did see a mix of responses from fans and critics, its enormous box office success prompted Scott to have a spark of creativity and understand that the hype for these films is still very much alive and well, even forty-seven years after his original film (it's now been almost fifty!). Thus, we were promised more from the franchise's original auteur.

One of the largest complaints critics and audiences had regarding Prometheus was that it seemed too distant from the Alien universe. While there were overlaps and similarities, some wanted more and felt snubbed by the film lacking the franchise's iconic monster. With Alien: Covenant, Scott has made it clear that he has heard those concerns. Unlike Prometheus, Alien: Covenant is a return to the more horror and monster-movie elements that made the original Alien so incredible and memorable in all of our psyches. Once the story's action begins, the monster and creature effects hit the audience so fast and so hard we're barely given a moment to catch our breaths. Admittedly, it is a refreshing change of pace from Prometheus, which at times did feel majorly bogged down with philosophical discussions. Unfortunately, Alien: Covenant has a lot of this too and it actually doesn't work as effectively as it did within Prometheus. In the previous movie, we saw a group of scientists and rich corporatists searching for the creators of human life and discovering an unnerving truth. In that context, the philosophical dialogue made sense. In Alien: Covenant, the film concerns a ship that is carrying hundreds of colonists looking for a new home world to call their own. While some philosophical discussion in the way of dialogue makes sense (the sequences between the two Fassbender robots are truly remarkable), Alien: Covenant does feel a bit more weighty than Prometheus, meaning there are moments that feel to be moving much more slowly. The exposition at the film's start seems to drag on much longer than it ought to, and one is left wishing some cuts had been applied.

Not helping the lengthy exposition is the film's call-to-action, which is virtually identical to that of the original Alien. Anyone who has seen the original - or probably any Alien film - can guess what happens next. Not even halfway through Alien: Covenant, the entire story becomes evident and predictable to the point that one is left feeling disappointed Scott didn't notice just how predictable the movie really is.

Once the chaos begins, however, the film really does take a major turn for the best. Ridley Scott understands that the xenomorph creature has become such a cultural icon (you can buy plush children's toys of them - thanks a lot, James Cameron) and because of this perhaps isn't as terrifying as it used to be in Alien. It was terrifying in the original film because it played with our fears of the unknown. We never truly saw the creature in its entirety, as it was hidden in shadows, mechanical backgrounds, close-ups, and quick cuts. But Scott understands we all know what the xenomorph looks like now and it can no longer be a symbol for our fear of the unknown. Therefore, he brilliantly introduces a solution. He makes them fast - faster than they've probably ever been seen before. Most of the sequences with the xenomorph are filmed in low levels of daylight, allowing us as an audience to see the creature we all know and are familiar with. What we are ultimately scared by is our knowledge that these creatures are an unstoppable force of violence (as Ash said in the original film when Ripley asked him how to kill it, "You can't"). Add the unprecedented speed into the mix and we as an audience get a horrible feeling in our guts regarding the fate of the film's heroes.

Scott also adds some new creatures into the mix - the not-fully developed neomorphs. We're introduced to these ghostly, speeding, demons right out of the gate in one of the most grotesquely brilliant moments of the film (a moment, that surprisingly, pays homage to Lamberto Bava's film Demons which - when asked about the effect in question - Demons' special effects artist Sergio Stivaletti said was an homage to Alien - thus Scott brings it back full circle with the neomorph birth). The neomorphs are utterly terrifying and the presence of these new and unexpected monsters does keep the film in line with Alien's elements regarding our fears of the unknown.

The film's cast is terrific, as surely was expected. Michael Fassbender - as was the case with Prometheus - absolutely steals the show. This time around, Fassbender plays two characters divided purely in morals and principles. It's incredible to see this titan of a character actor perform dialogue with himself and play two characters whose only similarities are that they look alike. Katherine Waterston does a good job as the film's leading heroine, although perhaps her character isn't as memorable or well rounded as Noomi Rapace's Shaw in Prometheus and certainly not as much as Sigourney Weaver's Ripley. But, Waterston is a capable performer who answers the call to action just as anyone would expect a female lead in an Alien movie to do so. The film's supporting cast also are great and Danny McBride gives a surprisingly lovable performance in what is perhaps his most serious role to date.

All of these wonderful things considered, Alien: Covenant does have another problem ... and it is a big one. What made the original Alien so frightening was - again - its playing on our fears of the unknown. In it, space truckers stumble upon an alien organism that acts as a parasite attacking them all one by one. The film shines due to its randomness. It succeeds because the events within the film are seemingly random and shake up the characters' abilities to deal with reality. The problem with Alien: Covenant (and Prometheus too while I'm at it) is that it seems to be saying the events of Alien weren't in fact random at all. These prequel films are suggesting that humans, xenomorphs, neomorphs, face huggers, and engineers are all connected in some mysterious convoluted back story all leading up to the events of Alien. This is a major problem because Scott is essentially stripping away that randomness of the first film - the elements that made it so brilliant and so terrifying - and he is providing us as viewers with explanations for things that ultimately feel like they didn't need an explanation. Is it necessary to know where the xenomorphs came from? Was it necessary to know who the space jockey in the original Alien was and what his intentions were? Hopefully, with the continuation of this prequel franchise, Scott will pull back and understand that by providing these explanations he is undermining his original masterpiece.

Once one gets past the film's weighty exposition and largely predictable plot line, Alien: Covenant is truly a thrilling film that returns the franchise back to its horror/monster-movie roots by placing its iconic villain front and center. And while it may be problematic overall for the franchise, the extent of which has yet to be determined. In the meantime, Alien: Covenant is a whole lot of fun.

7.5/10

THE LONE RUNNER (1986) - Review

The Lone Runner

Action/Adventure/Drama
1 hour and 29 minutes
Rated: PG

Written by: Chris Trainor & Steven Luotto
Directed by: Ruggero Deodato
Produced by: Ovidio G. Assonitis & Maurizio Maggi

Cast:
Miles O'Keeffe
Savina Gersak
Donald Hodson
Ronald Lacey
John Steiner
Michael Aronin
Hal Yamanouchi

A legendary desert avenger battles a savage outlaw empire!

The 1980s signaled the decline for a great many of Italy's filmmakers who earned their proverbial claims to fame in the decades prior. Despite having gotten his start in the 1970s with great films like Waves of Lust, Live Like a Cop, Die Like a Man, and of course Last Cannibal World, the 1980s seemed like they might have been a fruitful decade for filmmaker Ruggero Deodato given his starting the era with his two most discussed films: Cannibal Holocaust and House on the Edge of the Park. Unfortunately, with a few low budget pictures and one big budget film not adding up to much in the way of box office profits - by 1986 Deodato, like many other wonderfully brilliant Italian filmmakers, was finding financing his films to be much more difficult. Deodato, again like many of his cohorts, turned to becoming a gun-for-hire director in order to make money so that he might put together projects he later felt passionate about. Such was the case for his film The Lone Runner.

Producer Ovidio G. Assonitis hired Deodato to direct the film, hoping that this legendary master of the grotesque's name might add some weight to the film ensuring its success. Unfortunately for Deodato and Assonitis things didn't pan out in their favor. Assonitis initially told Deodato that the film was meant to be a made-for-TV movie, which undoubtedly led to Deodato toning back his usual amount of violence and gore (his previous three pictures: Body Count, Cut and Run, and Raiders of Atlantis were all signature, bloody Deodato). And yet when Deodato traveled to the United States after completing the film, he was surprised to find various B movie houses showing it. And that is exactly the point, The Lone Runner's biggest problem seems to be a major lack of communication between all the parties involved with making the film.

For starters, the story is an absolute mess. It follows the kidnapping of a rich king's daughter in a post-apocalyptic desert, her rescue, her being recaptured, her escaping, her being recaptured again, her being saved, her being recaptured yet again, her being rescued again, her being recaptured .... well, you get the idea. The film is so grotesquely cyclical that it reaches a point where while watching  it one feels that the actual experience is an hour or so over its real running time. Not even the film's script - what little there is in the way of dialogue - can make up for this lazy of a storyline.

Peppered in throughout these moments of rescue and recapturing is the film's running gag, where the hero, played by Miles O'Keeffe interacts with a wandering merchant - often stealing from the man promising to pay him back the next time. This happens EVERY time between a capture and a rescue to the point where it too becomes predictable, and whether or not anyone thought it was funny the first, second, and maybe third time - by the fourth and fifth time even people easily prone to laughter will find themselves growing angry.

The performances are a mixed bag at best, something that becomes a given with later career Deodato movies. Miles O'Keeffe actually is entertaining enough as the film's hero, but considering he is offered very little in the way of dialogue, his performance probably seems much better than it is. Let us not forget the Ator films, Sword of the Valiant, and even Tarzan the Ape Man where O'Keeffe shows off his particular lack of thespian talent. The rest of the performances are largely forgettable, although it should be said Deodato regular John Steiner is really a lot of fun to watch. This is largely due to his character in the film being completely unlike anything he has ever done before, for Deodato or anyone else. Hal Yamanouchi also holds his own, but like O'Keeffe he is offered very little in the way of dialogue and mostly impresses through his talent in the film's action scenes.

What action sequences are present - and trust me when I say there are quite a bit - are for the most part actually pretty entertaining, and remain The Lone Runner's greatest strength. Deodato proved himself worthy of directing exciting action sequences with Live Like a Cop, Die Like a Man, Raiders of Atlantis, and Cut and Run and here he continues to flex those talented muscles. O'Keeffe especially is a blast to watch fight - using crossbows, fists, and daggers - and he undoubtedly could have had a much bigger career in action movies (hey, if Schwarzenegger made it work, why not?) His fight scenes with Steiner and Yamanouchi in particular are really terrific and a lot of fun to watch play out on the screen.

The Lone Runner, unfortunately, offers nothing more than quick flash in the pan excitement. This is especially disappointing considering the talent of Ruggero Deodato as a filmmaker, but understanding his restrictions and limitations as a gun-for-hire director of the film, one is left with the impression that if this is what came out of his more than capable hands, then perhaps this motion-picture was never meant for greatness regardless of who made it. Still, a bad Ruggero Deodato film has more merits than a good M. Night Shyamalan film - as I always say.

4/10

THE DARK KNIGHT (2008) - Review

The Dark Knight

Action/Crime/Drama
2 hours and 32 minutes
Rated: PG-13

Written by: Jonathan Nolan & Christopher Nolan
Directed by: Christopher Nolan
Produced by: Christopher Nolan, Charles Roven, and Emma Thomas

Cast:
Christian Bale
Michael Caine
Heath Ledger
Gary Oldman
Aaron Eckhart
Maggie Gyllenhaal
Morgan Freeman

Why So Serious?

The Batman franchise - like all superhero franchises - has seen its fair share of reboots, reimaginings, or remakes (three now, which may seem like a small number but keep in mind its the same number that Superman and Spiderman have under their super belts as well). Super hero movies are a lot like ticks: for years you just heard about them, and now they're everywhere - especially during the summer season. They've flooded the market place faster and harder than any other genre over the past two decades. But can one blame the business side of Hollywood for this? After all, these films do tend to churn out enormous profits ... well, most of them do, and this alone might make their enormous budgets and constant reinventions all the more worthwhile for Hollywood. Personally, I'm of the belief that superhero movies have over stayed their welcome by about ten years. With my own prejudice against movies that heavily utilize CGI and fall outside the realm of realism aside, I'm willing to concede there are in fact some really remarkable entries within this cinematic phenomenon. One of them, of course, being The Dark Knight.

The film succeeds in many ways due to the fact that it is a superhero movie less concerned with CGI and wants to be remembered as being a film that grounded itself in realism - or at least as close to realism as a superhero movie can get. It's a far step away from the surrealist Batman films of Tim Burton and an even further step (thank goodness) away from the hokey, tongue-in-cheek Batman movies of Joel Schumacher (somebody please show this movie to Arnold Schwarzengger so that he can see how to deliver a pun effectively). And yet still, The Dark Knight succeeds further by improving upon the rather dull and unimpressive moments of its predecessor Batman Begins.

For starters, there's the story. Nolan is obviously a filmmaker who is much more interested in showcasing the humanity of these comic book characters and how they interact with one another. Unfortunately, in Batman Begins what we saw was a good performance from Christian Bale and nothing else really. Katy Holmes held her own, but by no means stood out. Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, and Morgan Freeman - obviously three of the most talented men in Hollywood - are never given more than brief moments of comedic relief. Caine and Oldman in particular merely serve as a backdrop for character development for Bruce Wayne. And the villains in Batman Begins were so laughably unimpressive, it makes you wonder what the hell happened during the film's development? (Sorry Liam Neeson, but even your performance in Taken outshines your work in Batman Begins). Did Nolan not know there were a slew of really great Batman villains to choose from? But thankfully, none of these faults exist within The Dark Knight. What we see is an elevation of the more than capable character actors within the film: Bale, Heath Ledger, and Oldman, to the point that all the other players within have stepped up their games in a big way. Gyllenhaal, who replaces Katy Holmes, actually feels more memorable of the two women, purely to the dedication she gives to her performance. Her struggle between the film's two heroes is one that is palpable and believable - just as the struggles of the other characters are. These performances elevate the story, allowing us as an audience to believe in what we're seeing (even the film's more unbelievable moments).

The film's action sequences are stunning and capably captured. In Batman Begins, cinematographer Wally Pfister appeared to have been drunk from watching too many Jason Bourne films. Action scenes were hard to follow with the handheld camera jumping all over the place. Here, Pfister seems to have woken up from that nightmare and instead the camera seems to have settled down some (I say some because, yes, there are a few action scenes one wishes hadn't been handled so shakily). Moments like an underground car fight/chase, a shootout inside of a building in Hong Kong, and the film's opening bank robbery are absolutely thrilling and they make the film all the more entertaining.

The film's pacing should also be commended. Nolan allows moments of tense dialogue - most of which is very well written, by the way - which builds character and subplots to be interrupted by these thrilling action sequences. What this all adds up to of course is a rather long film - long at least by most superhero movie standards - but one that doesn't feel that it's overstayed its welcome. Viewers unquestionably will be engaged by every single moment. Nolan creates such wonderful moments of tension through all of this, that when the unexpected occurs, the audience feels as blindsided as the film's characters.

And yet despite all of this, The Dark Knight is not the perfect movie so many have claimed it to be. For starters, it is so blatantly set in the real city of Chicago one wonders why even go through all the trouble of pretending it's the fictitious city of Gotham? Sure, I get it. Nolan wanted this film to be much more realistic than the previous Batman films, so logically I understand why he chose to shoot it in a real city. But he could have at least tried harder to hide the fact that the city this was shot in was Chicago. If you wanted viewers to believe Batman was in Gotham and not Chicago, maybe don't include a shot of him standing upon the Sears Tower ... just a thought.

The film does have its moments of cringeworthy dialogue and CGI usage, but most of these are few and far between. A particular moment where a boat captain on a ferry that left from Navy Pier ... I mean, Gotham Pier, says, "We're still here, which means they haven't killed us yet." It is so bad one wonders if it was suggested to Nolan by a less capable filmmaker like Michael Bay. Similarly, some of the dialogue delivered by Aaron Eckhart once his character has become Two-Face is painfully delivered. Not so much a writing error as a casting one, though. The CGI used on his face alsol at times feels a tad too distracting - especially given the amount of practical effects work used throughout the film. Imagine it, a good practical effects job of Two-Face's burns probably in the end would have looked much better.

Despite its minor issues, The Dark Knight remains unquestionably one of the best Batman movies, and even one of the best superhero movies of all time largely due to its attempts of toeing the line of realism, its thrilling and well-paced story, and of course its incredible performances - mainly that of Heath Ledger who undeniably has burned himself into the psyches of so many movie goers forever as being what they think of first when they think of the character of the Joker.

9/10