Archive for the Screaming Streaming Category

Screaming Streaming Hires THE COURIER (2012)

Posted in 2013, Action Movies, Crime Films, Gangsters!, Killers, Michael Arruda Reviews, Screaming Streaming with tags , , , , , on February 22, 2013 by knifefighter

SCREAMING STREAMING!
Streaming Video Movie Review:  THE COURIER (2012)
By Michael Arruda

The Courier poster

I decided to check out the action thriller THE COURIER (2012), now available on streaming video, because it starred Jeffrey Dean Morgan, an actor whose performances I’ve enjoyed of late in such films as WATCHMEN (2009) and THE POSSESSION (2012).

Well, the first thing I’ll tell you right now is I enjoyed Morgan much better in WATCHMEN and THE POSSESSION than in THE COURIER.   Sadly, his performance in this one is uninspiring.  And that’s just the beginning of what’s wrong with this clinker.

The movie starts off well.  In fact, its best scene and most memorable image might be its opening one.  It opens at an abandoned (or, at the very least, closed) amusement park, with two thugs holding a woman hostage at the top of a roller coaster track.  The Courier (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) races through the park to reach her, climbing all the way to the top of the tracks to hand deliver the package of money to the thugs for her release.  He makes it in time, but not before the kidnappers push her off the top track, but the Courier leaps to her rescue (I guess he doesn’t get paid unless the victim is returned safely) and somehow, miraculously, manages to grab onto the line tied to her and pull her to safety.

No, this Courier doesn’t work for UPS.   He’s self-employed, a man hired to find people and to deliver ransom packages.  Nice job.  You wouldn’t think he’d be all that busy, though.  How many ransom packages need to be delivered on a regular basis?

But, because he’s the best there is (of course), the Courier is sought out by a man (Til Schweiger), who forces him to find a mysterious person named Evil Sivle.  If not, this man and the people he works for will kill the daughter and grandchild of the Courier’s best friend, Stitch (Mark Margolis).

The Courier searches New Orleans for Evil Sivle with the help of a young woman Anna (Josie Ho), a friend of Stitch’s, who it seems Stitch would like to set up romantically with the Courier.  Nice matchmaker.  Why don’t the two of you go to New Orleans on the trail of a bloodthirsty killer and go out for a couple of drinks afterwards, it might be the start of a beautiful relationship.

It seems, however, according to the information that the Courier uncovers, that Evil Sivle is dead, but that doesn’t stop a guy named Maxwell (Mickey Rourke) from trying to kill the Courier.  Why?  It’s all part of the mystery, I guess.

The Courier is eventually captured and tortured by a pair of married assassins, Mr. Capo (Miguel Ferrer) and Mrs. Capo (Lili Taylor).  But being the best there is, the Courier escapes from their clutches to continue his quest to find Evil Sivle.

To confuse matters even more, it turns out that the man who forced the Courier to take this job is really an FBI agent.  It seems the FBI are the ones who want Evil Sivle found.  Why?  I wish I could tell you.

In the end, the Courier proves he’s the best by finding the reclusive Evil Sivle, whose identity is revealed in one of the more ridiculous plot twists I’ve seen in a long time.

Hands down, the biggest problem I have with THE COURIER is its story stinks.  It plays like a movie that started with a clever concept—a courier who gets involved with a seedy underworld full of undesirables—but couldn’t come up with a decent storyline that made any sense.  And that’s the bottom line with this one, folks.  It doesn’t make sense.

The Courier is forced to take this job, and it’s questionable why he would accept the job when the threat— we’ll abduct your best friend’s daughter and her child—hasn’t even happened yet.  I just didn’t buy the plot point that a guy like the Courier would simply roll over and do what these guys wanted.  He would have fought back.  He accepts their terms way too easily.

Then there’s Evil Sivle.  Nice name, but just who the hell is he?  Why is he so sought after?  The film never really makes its case that this guy is a legendary villain, someone the FBI would kill for just to find.

Other characters aren’t fleshed out either.  The FBI agent who coerces the Courier in the first place disappears half way through the film.  And Maxwell, played by Mickey Rourke in a wasted role, shows up so fleetingly that his presence in the movie is nothing more than an afterthought.

And the final plot twist is embarrassingly bad.  Screenwriters Pete Dris and Brannon Coombs should have gone back to the shop with this one for a long time before calling it a final product.

Jeffrey Dean Morgan, so memorable as the Comedian in WATCHMEN doesn’t impress here as the Courier.  Perhaps for his next role he’ll consider a character whose name doesn’t begin with “the.”  His performance as the Courier simply lacks the necessary intensity needed for the character.  I didn’t really buy him in this role.  He seemed too clunky to be the efficient swift-footed Courier.

Mickey Rourke is on screen so briefly as Maxwell I almost forgot he was in the movie.  I did enjoy Miguel Ferrer and Lili Taylor as Mr. and Mrs. Capo, the torture couple, but they’re not in the movie much either.  The other actor who stood out was Mark Margolis as Stitch.  Margolis has been in a lot of movies and TV shows and always adds a sense of realism to the proceedings. His Stitch was a convincing guy in a movie full of unconvincing characters and plot points.

COURIER01

THE COURIER does have some interesting ideas and some curious characters, but they’re never developed to any degree of satisfaction.

Director Hany Abu-Assad seems to have handled this one with an eye on something else.  It’s as if he were driving while texting or something.  The action scenes, fight scenes, shoot- out scenes, all seemed rushed.  None of it comes off as convincing because there isn’t much attention given to detail here.  In fact, there’s something rushed about this whole production, including the script.  Perhaps they were trying to make a same-day delivery.

Anyway, THE COURIER is a disappointing thriller that is too muddled to be effective.  It’s about as intense as a trip to the post office.

It gets one knife.

—END—

© Copyright 2013 by Michael Arruda

Michael Arruda gives THE COURIER ~ one knife!

Leave A Comment »

Screaming Streaming! Presents: THE MANSTER (1959)

Posted in "So Bad They're Good" Movies, 1950s Sci-Fi Films, 2012, B-Movies, Bad Acting, Deformed Freaks!, Evil Doctors!, Mad Doctors!, Michael Arruda Reviews, Monsters, Scientific Experiments, Screaming Streaming with tags , , , , , , , on November 2, 2012 by knifefighter

SCREAMING STREAMING!
Movie Review:  THE MANSTER (1959)
By Michael Arruda

One of my favorite things about streaming video is the wide selection of older titles readily available.  I’m having fun catching up with movies I’ve never seen before and obscure oddball gems I haven’t seen in ages.

Today’s feature falls into the latter category, although I hesitate to call it a gem.  It isn’t.

It’s THE MANSTER (1959), a film that’s been on my mind since Craig Shaw Gardner mentioned it this past summer after reading my review of THE INCREDIBLE TWO HEADED TRANSPLANT (1971).  He pointed out that along with TRANSPLANT and THE THING WITH TWO HEADS (1972) it made up the full complement of two-headed men monster movies.

I hadn’t seen THE MANSTER in years, so I was happy when it turned up on my streaming video menu.

THE MANSTER takes place in Japan and opens with a weird ape-like creature on the loose, the result of an experiment gone wrong by a certain Dr. Suzuki (Tetsu Nakamura). Suzuki promptly destroys his creature, but like all good mad scientists, vows to try again.

Enter American reporter Larry Stanford  (Peter Dyneley), about to conduct his final interview before returning home to the States to spend some much needed time with his wife Linda (Jane Hylton).  His last interview subject—unfortunately for him— is Dr. Suzuki.

Dr. Suzuki privately tells his female assistant Tara (Terri Zimmern) that the reporter is perfect for their next experiment.  And so, while Larry is interviewing Suzuki about his work— some crazed notion about harnessing rays from outer space which, when aimed at animal life, cause changes in evolution, resulting in a new species of life— yeah, doc, whatever—Suzuki slips Larry a drug in his drink which knocks him out.

When Larry awakens, he has an aching shoulder, and soon things grow much worse.  His personality changes, he’s suddenly ignoring both his job and his wife, and he’s spending his evenings enjoying the Japanese night life, getting drunk and hooking up with other women.  And, oh that pain in his shoulder keeps getting worse!  It leads to the best image in the movie, when Larry looks at his shoulder and sees a monstrous eye sticking out of it gazing up at him.

“Someone’s watching me! I just know it!”

Eventually, Larry sprouts a new head (I guess this is that new species Suzuki was so excited about!) and soon afterwards Larry becomes a homicidal two-headed maniac, killing people left and right.  Ultimately, the head grows into an entire body and splits apart from Larry, making it easier for the police to chase the monster and leave Larry alone, conveniently enabling his wife to rescue him from all this madness.

The significance of THE MANSTER is that it featured a two-headed man monster long before its two-head cousins from the 1970s, THE INCREDIBLE TWO HEADED TRANSPLANT (1971) and THE THING WITH TWO HEADS (1972).  Other than this, the movie is just okay.

The acting is pretty good.  Peter Dyneley isn’t bad as American reporter Larry Stanford.  He has a “Lon Chaney Jr.” thing going, as there’s something about his look in this movie which reminds me of Chaney.   Dyneley plays Larry as more than just a wise-cracking American reporter.  He gives him a sincerity not often found in these roles.  Dyneley would go on to provide many of the voices for the popular 1960s TV show THUNDERBIRDS, which featured some pretty cool puppetry.

“So what do you think of this movie?”
“Be quiet, I’m sleeping.”

Dyneley’s real-life wife, Jane Hylton, appeared in many movies with him, and she’s on hand here as his wife Linda.  She’s pretty awful, unfortunately.

Tetsu Nakamura fares much better as Dr. Suzuki.  Nakamura makes for a very smooth mad scientist and gets to deliver lines Bela Lugosi would have been at home saying.  Nakamura appeared in a decent amount of Japanese monster movies, including THE MYSTERIANS (1957) and MOTHRA (1961).

Directors George P. Breakston and Kenneth G. Crane include the one memorable scene of the eye emerging from Larry’s shoulder, but other than this, there isn’t much to remember about THE MANSTER.

The two-headed “Manster” is pretty fake looking, but doesn’t look any worse than the 1970s incarnations.  Dr. Suzuki keeps mutants imprisoned in his lab, the results of previous experiments gone wrong.  These mutants are kinda creepy, but ultimately they’re a disappointment, as the make-up job on them is pretty bad.

Director Breakston also received story credit, and as monster stories go, it’s a pretty good one, but the screenplay by William J. Sheldon is not so good, as most of the dialogue in this one is plain awful.

I first saw THE MANSTER as a teenager on late night TV, and I remember liking it a lot.  I’d seen it a couple of times since, but not in a while.  Admittedly, the movie doesn’t hold up as well as I remember it.

Sure, the two main players, Dyneley and Nakamura, turn in professional performances and make their characters believable, but they’re surrounded by lesser performances.  The fright scenes are few and far between, and I guess that was my biggest disappointment seeing this movie again.  The Manster scenes really weren’t all that exciting, nor were they campy enough to make me laugh out loud.  And the murder scenes were rather lame as well.  I remember this one having more of an edge to it.

When you come right down to it, THE MANSTER is really just a mediocre B monster movie.  While it does contain a novel concept, really, at the end of the day, there’s nothing that makes it head and shoulders above the rest.

—END—

© Copyright 2012 by Michael Arruda

3 Comments »

Screaming Streaming Looks at NIGHTMARES IN RED, WHITE, AND BLUE: THE EVOLUTION OF THE AMERICAN HORROR FILM (2009)

Posted in 2012, Documentary, George Romero, Horror Movies, John Carpenter Films, Michael Arruda Reviews, Monsters, Movie History, Screaming Streaming with tags , , , , , on July 4, 2012 by knifefighter

SCREAMING STREAMING!
Movie Review:  NIGHTMARES IN RED, WHITE, AND BLUE:  THE EVOLUTION OF THE AMERICAN HORROR FILM (2009)
By Michael Arruda

Let’s shake things up a bit and look at a documentary for a change.

NIGHTMARES IN RED, WHITE, AND BLUE:  THE EVOLUTION OF THE AMERICAN HORROR FILM (2009) is a documentary directed by Andrew Monument and written by Joseph Maddrey, that examines American horror movies from the silent era up to the 2000s. It’s now available on Streaming Video.

The film definitely takes a psychological and sociological approach to looking at American horror movies. It attempts to explain why Americans love horror movies so much, what the filmmakers were trying to say with their movies, and how horror movies are tied into the times in which they were made.

NIGHTMARES begins with the silent horror movies of the 1920s, and it makes the argument that horror movies of the 1920s, especially the films of Lon Chaney Sr.,  were interested in deformities because after World War I soldiers were returning home maimed and injured, often without limbs, and these injuries were a large part of the American consciousness.

Horror in the 1930s picked up steam and most of the horror movies made during this decade, specifically the Universal monster movies, were true classics of the genre. These movies struck a chord with audiences and heavily influenced future filmmakers. I loved the comment made in one of the interviews about why boys loved the Wolf Man, because he was the perfect adolescent and they related to his problems:  he got hairy and lost control of his emotions. Yep, the Wolf Man does remind me of some teenagers I know.

The movie argues that horror was toned down in the 1940s because of the real-life horrors of World War II and the Holocaust. Budgets were reduced as well, and people like Val Lewton had to do more with less, and as a result he made his movies much more artistic.

Into the 1950s the movies reflected Americans’ fears of the Cold War and atomic bombs, and thus we had giant atomic monsters like TARANTULA (1955) and the giant ants in THEM!  (1954). Americans also feared UFOs, which gave us movies about alien invasions like THE WAR OF THE WORLDS (1953), INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS (1956) , and THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD (1951).

Alfred Hitchcock changed things with PSYCHO (1960), and suddenly audiences had to expect the unexpected, such as lead characters getting killed early in the movie, and the most sympathetic character in the whole movie turning out to be the villain. As the 1960s went on and the United States became bogged down in the Vietnam War and race riots at home, films like NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (1968) emerged, mirroring the horror and disillusionment Americans were feeling at home.

In the 1970s, horror went through a movie boom again, with films like THE EXORCIST (1973) and JAWS (1975). As a big budget movie, JAWS  made horror mainstream, and had it been made in the 1950s it would have simply been a B movie.

In the 1980s, NIGHTMARES covers George Romero’s zombies and some of John Carpenter’s movies. It was interesting to listen to Carpenter as he explained that he made THEY LIVE (1988) out of anger and frustration with the Reagan administration.

NIGHTMARES definitely runs out of steam as it moves into the 1990s and 2000s, and only briefly  covers the movies from this period, with  fleeting mentions of THE SIXTH SENSE (1999, )and THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT (1999), the SAW movies and HOSTEL (2005).

The film was narrated by Lance Henriksen, and he does a good job, as his voice is a natural fit for the subject matter. Some of the people interviewed in the movie include Larry Cohen, Joe Dante, John Carpenter, George Romero, and Roger Corman, among others.

NIGHTMARES IN RED, WHITE, AND BLUE:  THE EVOLUTION OF THE AMERICAN HORROR FILM is an enjoyable way to spend an evening, but it does have a couple of drawbacks. Since it covers so many years in just 90 minutes of running time, it moves quickly and never really provides an in-depth look at the movies it covers. As a result, while entertaining, NIGHTMARES IN RED, WHITE, AND BLUE is rather superficial. It might have worked better as a TV series, where the filmmakers could have given the films and the people they interviewed more screen time. Personally, I would have loved to have listened to John Carpenter or George Romero go on for thirty minutes or so.

NIGHTMARES is definitely interested in how American horror movies are connected to American audiences, and how American filmmakers were influenced by their times. Now, this is an interesting angle, but I have to admit, I prefer stories about how the movies were made. I find the historical backgrounds of the people and events behind the movies much more interesting, but that’s not what this documentary is about. You won’t be learning how Willis O’Brien created King Kong, or about the thought processes of James Whale when he made FRANKENSTEIN (1931) and THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935). You won’t hear John Carpenter talk about how he filmed certain scenes in HALLOWEEN (1978).

There really isn’t a whole lot of new information in NIGHTMARES. It’s not an eye opener filled with fascinating facts and tidbits about horror movies. But it does do a good job selling its angle, that American filmmakers and their movies are tied into the American experience. Based on the material presented in the film, I bought this argument.

NIGHTMARES IN RED, WHITE, AND BLUE:  THE EVOLUTION OF THE AMERICAN HORROR FILM is a mildly entertaining documentary on American horror movies, mostly because it contains interviews with some of the greatest horror filmmakers who are still with us today. Hearing what they have to say is always a rewarding experience. But in terms of new or insightful information, especially regarding the older movies, NIGHTMARES is lacking. Sure, you’ll get to see lots of neat film clips and see snippets of neat interviews, but it’s definitely a movie in need of more meat on its bones.

It’s a tasty appetizer rather than a satisfying meal.

—END—

© Copyright 2012 by Michael Arruda

2 Comments »

Screaming Streaming: THE PERFECT HOST (2010)

Posted in 2012, Michael Arruda Reviews, Mystery, Psychos, Screaming Streaming, Suspense, Thrillers with tags , , , , , on May 11, 2012 by knifefighter

SCREAMING STREAMING!
Movie Review:  THE PERFECT HOST (2010)
By Michael Arruda

 THE PERFECT HOST is not the perfect movie.

Sure, it’s entertaining, in a sugary “oh-aren’t-we-clever sort of way,” but that’s not the best recipe for a thriller, which is why, ultimately, this one simmers rather than boils.

Career criminal John Taylor (Clayne Crawford) has just robbed a bank.  He’s injured, on the run, and he desperately needs a place to hide, so he cons his way into the plush home of one Warwick Wilson (David Hyde Pierce, who played Niles on TV’s FRASIER) by pretending to know one of Wilson’s friends.  John got the name of the friend from a postcard in Wilson’s mail.

At first Wilson declines to invite John inside, as he’s preparing dinner for guests, but he changes his mind, saying it would be rude of him to turn away a friend of a friend.  He even invites John to stay for dinner, an invitation that John grows anxious about when he learns that one of the guests is a prosecuting attorney who works for the D.A.’s office.

When news of the brazen robbery plays over the radio, John realizes his cover has been blown.  He holds Wilson at knifepoint and tells him he’s going to kill him, and the only way he’s going to change his mind is if Wilson does exactly as he says.  At first, Wilson appears to be terrified, but his behavior changes when John passes out, and Wilson announces that he had drugged his guest’s wine.

When John awakes, he finds that he is tied to a chair and discovers that his host is not the man he thought he was.  Suddenly, it’s Wilson who’s doing the terrorizing and John who’s the victim.  For a while, it seems as if Wilson is just a nutcase, but later, the plot takes several twists and turns, and we learn that there’s more to Wilson than his just being a lonely psychopath.

 

THE PERFECT HOST is a decent thriller that’s fun at times, but you really have to suspend disbelief to truly enjoy this one.  I found its convoluted story hard to swallow, and as result I never really bought it.  It’s a case where less would have been better.  David Hyde Pierce makes for a perfectly creepy psycho, and had the story left it at that, it would have worked better instead of the direction the movie ultimately takes.

You see, Wilson is not just some random psycho, which makes John’s stumbling into Wilson’s home by chance such a coincidence it doesn’t work.

But the movie’s not all bad.  The initial twist works, and there are a lot of fun scenes where Wilson torments John.  These scenes work so well because, by far, the best part of THE PERFECT HOST is David Hyde Pierce’s performance as oddball host Warwick Wilson.  He’s deliciously over the top, and he provides the movie with its best moments.  He makes a great psycho, up to a point.  One flaw is that he’s never as scary or as unsettling as he needs to be.  While I was certainly entertained by Warwick, I was never frightened by him.

As a result, THE PERFECT HOST is not much of a thriller.  It’s simply not dark enough to be taken that seriously, and it never really reaches the level of legitimate thriller.  It’s rated R, but for language, as the violence here is rather tame.

And while Pierce dominates his scenes, Clayne Crawford, who stars opposite him as John, lacks the necessary intensity to be a convincing criminal.  Also in the cast is Helen Reddy in a role that is about as integral to the plot as a loaf of bread.

There’s also something very cheap and low budget looking about this movie, as if it were filmed in the 1970s.  I wondered if this was done on purpose by director Nick Tomnay, because one of Wilson’s idiosyncrasies is his disdain for modern technology, and he doesn’t seem to have any modern electrical devices in his home, like a computer or a flat screen television, and he takes pictures with a Polaroid camera.

Come to think of it, John doesn’t carry a cell phone, and he drives a 1980s car.  Hmm.  Maybe it’s director Tomnay with the idiosyncrasies!

Tomnay also wrote the script with Krishna Jones.  Again, the first half of the story is fun, and I swallowed it hook, line, and sinker, but as it went on and added more plot twists, I simply stopped believing it all.

On a grander scale, THE PERFECT HOST could have been the type of movie Hitchcock would have directed in his day.  There’s something very claustrophobic about the first half of the film as it takes place inside Wilson’s home, which would have suited Hitchcock just fine.  But Hitchcock’s twists would have had more meat to them, and his characters would have had to suffer more angst and overcome truer obstacles than the folks in this movie.

THE PERFECT HOST has its moments—most of them provided by David Hyde Pierce—but, ultimately, it’s a light entry in the thriller genre.  More entertaining than thrilling, and hindered by a plot that lacks credibility, THE PERFECT HOST would have benefitted from the perfect re-write.

—END—

© Copyright 2012 by Michael Arruda

1 Comment »

Screaming Streaming: BLITZ (2011)

Posted in 2012, Action Movies, Cop Movies, Michael Arruda Reviews, Screaming Streaming, Serial Killer flicks with tags , , , , on February 24, 2012 by knifefighter

SCREAMING STREAMING!
Movie Review:  BLITZ (2011)
By Michael Arruda

 

Jason Statham has been making movies for over a decade, but he’s still not a household name.  He should be.  As action heroes go, he’s one of the best in the business right now.

Statham stars in the new serial killer thriller BLITZ (2011), now available on Streaming Video.  BLITZ is one efficient little actioner, clocking in at 97 minutes.  Like its hard-hitting star, there’s not an ounce of fat on this one.

A British cop with anger issues, Brant (Jason Statham) is one step away from being thrown off the force.  He’s angry, impulsive, and violent, a liability to his fellow officers and the work they’re trying to do.  But when a serial killer who calls himself “Blitz” (Aidan Gillen) begins targeting police officers, the department wants every available man on the case, including Brant.

Brant teams with his newly appointed superior officer Nash (Paddy Considine) to hunt down Blitz, and it becomes a race against time as Blitz continues his brash daytime murders of police officers, even announcing to the press how many officers he intends to kill.  As the pressure mounts and emotions on the force skyrocket, Brant remains icy cold, focusing all his energies on one target, Blitz, who he intends to capture, dead or alive.

If BLITZ sounds like DIRTY HARRY GOES TO LONDON, you’re right.  There are obvious parallels connecting Statham’s Brant to Clint Eastwood’s iconic Dirty Harry character.  I was especially reminded of the original DIRTY HARRY (1971) because Aidan Gillen’s performance of the over-the-top brazen psycho killer Blitz reminded me a lot of Andrew Robinson’s Scorpio, the crazed killer in DIRTY HARRY.

However, BLITZ doesn’t play like a rip-off of DIRTY HARRY, or of other serial killer movies.  It stands on its own and plays much better than its material.  One of the major reasons it rises above the standard serial killer clichés is the presence of Jason Statham.

Statham is an extremely watchable actor, mostly because he’s very believable as an action hero.  In the film’s opening, when he confronts three thugs on the street and handily kicks their butts to kingdom come, you believe it.  Moreover, Statham’s cool no-nonsense style is easy to digest, making him very likeable, even when he’s kicking the crap out of someone.  I had really enjoyed Statham in KILLER ELITE (2011), and he’s every bit as good here in BLITZ, maybe even better.

BLITZ has a very efficient screenplay by Nathan Parker, based on a novel by Ken Bruen, and presents a story that is as compact as it is effective.  Sure, it’s nothing we haven’t seen before, but sometimes banalities can be overlooked if they’re done right.  Such is the case with BLITZ.  The killer is a lunatic.  You want to see him stopped, and you want to see a guy like Brant be the one to stop him.  Pure and simple, the film works on this level.

I also liked that the action took place in London.  It was just different enough to be refreshing.  And while the story is definitely driven by the desire to see Brant catch Blitz, the movie also does a good job showing us the stresses of police life without beating us over the head with it.  The story provides just enough police drama to serve as a realistic reminder that a cop’s life can be hell, day in and day out.

In addition to Jason Statham, the rest of the cast is also very good.  Paddy Considine is excellent as Nash, Brant’s superior officer.  Nash is another officer who was about to be booted off the force but then receives a transfer to Brant’s department to earn a second chance.  No clichés here, no “the new captain’s a phony or a jerk who talks big but knows nothing.”  No, Brant and Nash bond immediately, mostly because Brant tells Nash at the outset that in spite of all that has happened, he knows Nash is a good cop.  It’s a refreshing moment as those things go.

One of my favorite scenes in the movie has Nash pouring out his soul to Brant as they sit in Nash’s apartment having a drink.  Nash tells Brant the awful story of what happened to him earlier on the force, and how he almost threw his life away.  It’s a completely engrossing moment, and when he’s finished telling his tale, Nash looks at Brant, and Brant’s sleeping.  I laughed out loud.

Aiden Gillen is also very good as the killer Blitz.  He really makes you hate him, and you can’t wait for Statham’s Brant to catch up with him.

Zawe Ashton turns in a believable performance as Brant’s buddy on the force, Falls.  She plays yet another officer plagued by personal problems.

BLITZ was directed by Elliott Lester, and he has a quick, likable style.  The movie packs a punch as it flies by rapidly.  It’s also not overly gratuitous.  Blitz’ execution style murders are bloody and intense without being over-the- top violent.  This is an action film, not a horror movie.

I liked BLITZ a lot.  Jason Statham is fun to watch, and he’s supported by a fine group of actors who make this one a winner.  You’ve got a crazy serial killer on the loose and a rogue tough-as-nails cop going up against him, who’ll stop at nothing to get the killer’s head on a platter.  What’s not to like?

So, if you’re in the mood for hard-hitting action tale, one that’s as believable as it is entertaining, then you should check out BLITZ.   You won’t be disappointed if you’re a Jason Statham fan, and if you’re not a fan yet, chances are you will be after seeing this movie.

—END—

© Copyright 2012 by Michael Arruda

Leave A Comment »

Screaming Streaming: THE FIGHTER (2010)

Posted in 2011, Boxing, Michael Arruda Reviews, Screaming Streaming with tags , , , , , on December 9, 2011 by knifefighter

SCREAMING STREAMING!
Movie Review: THE FIGHTER (2010)
By Michael Arruda

 

The recent passing of boxing great Joe Frazier had me reminiscing about days long gone when, as a child, I followed the careers of Frazier, Muhammad Ali, and George Foreman. Their exploits were grand theater, and their bouts were the Super Bowls of their time.

So, with boxing on my mind, I thought it would be the perfect time to move beyond my reservations and finally watch a movie that people had been recommending to me for quite a while, THE FIGHTER (2010), starring Mark Wahlberg and Christian Bale. The reason I held out so long, in spite of the positive word of mouth about this movie, and the Oscar buzz surrounding Bale’s performance, was the simple fact that the trailers just never did anything for me. It didn’t look like anything I hadn’t seen before, and so it didn’t exactly make me feel like running to the theater to see it.

But now it’s available on streaming video, and so I thought, it’s about time to check it out. I’m glad I did. THE FIGHTER is as good as its hype, and better yet, it plays well on the small screen, so you won’t miss much watching this one in your living room.

Less an excellent boxing movie than an excellent slice-of-life movie about a family in Lowell, Massachusetts, THE FIGHTER is nonetheless A+ material, a tour de force for both its ensemble of actors and team of screenwriters, because when it comes to phenomenal acting and superior writing, THE FIGHTER delivers a knock-out blow.

Welterweight boxer Micky Ward (Mark Wahlberg) has spent most of his life in the shadow of his older half-brother Dicky Eklund (Christian Bale) who’s known as the “Pride of Lowell,” famous for knocking down Sugar Ray Leonard in a classic boxing bout. Still, it was Leonard who won the fight, and from that moment it’s been downhill for Dicky, who’s now addicted to crack.

Meanwhile, Micky’s boxing career is gradually getting stronger, but with his brother Dicky as his trainer, who regularly misses or is late to their training sessions because of his crack addiction, and his domineering mother Alice (Melissa Leo, who also won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress, and deservedly so) as his manager, others around Micky, including his father George (Jack McGee), begin to wonder if he’d be better served with someone else calling the shots.

Things come to a head for Micky when Dicky and Alice allow him to fight a much bigger and heavier fighter, and Micky gets his lights knocked out. The final push comes when Micky becomes involved with a new girlfriend Charlene (Amy Adams) who straight out tells him after listening to his doubts about his family that in order to take his career to the next level, he needs to do it without his brother and mother.

This does not sit well with his domineering mother Alice, and the fights between Alice and her clan of daughters (seven of them!) vs. Charlene rival any of the fights conducted in the ring. On his way to a title shot, Micky has to decide whether his chances are better with or without his troubled but boxing smart brother by his side.

Even though he didn’t receive as much hype as his co-star Christian Bale, Mark Wahlberg does play the lead role in THE FIGHTER, and his performance as Micky Ward is one of his best. True, I may have enjoyed Wahlberg more in THE DEPARTED (2006) but as Micky, he creates a complete character with nuances and angles most “nice guy underdog” characters don’t possess. Wahlberg delivers an understated, restrained performance, showing us a young man who loves both his girlfriend and his brother, the two polar opposites in his life, and who, in spite of this capacity, is also a fierce fighter in the ring.

Of course, most of the hype surrounding THE FIGHTER went to Christian Bale for his performance as Dicky Eklund, and while I’ve never been a big fan of Bale, in this case, the hype is deserved. By far, this is the best performance I’ve seen Bale deliver in a movie. He changed his entire appearance for this role, looking noticeably thinner and drawn. His Dicky is thoroughly believable.

Dicky is also a multi-dimensional character. In lesser hands than Bale’s, Dicky could have come off simply as a bum, a has-been, a guy who may think he’s looking out for his younger brother but really isn’t. The strength of Bale’s performance, besides the fact that he nails the look and behavior of a crack addict, is that he makes us believe that he really does love his younger brother, and that, in spite of himself and his family, he really does want to help his brother become the best fighter he can be. He’s just not doing a very good job at it. His conversation towards the end of the movie, when he tries to convince Charlene that he really does care for Micky, is one of the best moments of the film.

I really enjoyed the relationship between Micky and Dicky. They were like real brothers. They got along, they fought, they suffered deep rifts, but at the end of the day, they were brothers, and they loved each other.

As Charlene, Amy Adams also delivers a first rate performance. Adams was also nominated for Best Supporting Actress, but she lost out to co-star Melissa Leo. Adams makes Charlene one tough cookie, and she does this without sacrificing beauty or sex appeal. She’s still very sexy as Micky’s girlfriend. She also kicks butt. It’s a great performance.

As Micky’s and Dicky’s mother, Alice Ward, Melissa Leo did win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress, and it would have been shameful had she not won. Bale got all the hype, but Leo gives the best performance of the entire troupe in this movie. I wouldn’t call it my favorite performance, because she’s so damn annoying, but she dominates every scene she’s in.

Jack McGee is also excellent as Micky’s father, George Ward, as he represents the voice of reason in the family, and he’s one of the first to recognize that Micky needs to break away from his mother and brother to take his career to the next level. However, while he may be the voice of reason, he’s not the loudest voice in his family, and he’s also not the one wearing the pants. When Alice finds out that he encouraged Micky to drop Dicky as his trainer, she rewards him by firing a frying pan at his head.

I said earlier that THE FIGHTER is less a boxing movie than a movie about a family in Lowell, Massachusetts. Having grown up in Massachusetts, I’ve seen my share of Massachusetts families, and I believe they are an entity in and of themselves. I’ve seen my share of Alice Wards in real life as well, mothers who think they are queens of the world, who believe their families cannot survive without them, who make all the decisions, and who make those who cross them feel helpless, unless they let their mother run the show. Melissa Leo nails Alice Ward and all those like her. It’s a frightening performance.

While the acting is first rate in THE FIGHTER, the writing is every bit as good. Screenwriters Scott Silver, Paul Tamasy, and Eric Johnson have written a phenomenal screenplay, based on a true story, giving us layered multi-dimensional characters with lots of depth. I really cared for Micky, Charlene, and George, was terrified and aggravated by Alice, and while I disliked Dicky for most of the movie, towards the end, he becomes difficult to dislike anymore.

Director David O. Russell also does a nice job with the Massachusetts locations, and, for the most part, the movie looks great, but one drawback is I didn’t find the boxing scenes all that compelling. ROCKY (1976) this ain’t, nor RAGING BULL (1980), nor even CINDERELLA MAN (2005). For a boxing movie, the boxing scenes are miles away from being the highlight.

Watching THE FIGHTER is like reading a good novel. There’s a depth to the characters and to the story that is very rare in a motion picture. Its richness is much more akin to what one usually finds on the printed page. As such, THE FIGHTER is an immensely enjoyable movie, highly recommended.

With its one-two punch of superior acting and rich writing, THE FIGHTER is more than just a contender. It’s a champion.

—END—

© Copyright 2011 by Michael Arruda

2 Comments »

THE KILLING JAR (2010)

Posted in 2011, Action Movies, Killers, Michael Arruda Reviews, Screaming Streaming with tags , , , , , on November 3, 2011 by knifefighter

SCREAMING STREAMING!
Movie Review:  THE KILLING JAR (2010)
By Michael Arruda

 

This week on SCREAMING STREAMING! we dine out at the Copall Grill, the setting for the graphic thriller THE KILLING JAR (2010), now available on Streaming Video.

THE KILLING JAR is a low budget flick that nonetheless boasts a strong cast, and these folks don’t disappoint. Even better, it has a gripping story that is as unsettling and nerve-racking as it is claustrophobic, as the entire tale takes place within the greasy walls of the Copall Grill.

Noreen (Amber Benson) is a waitress at the Copal Grill, and while she dreams of leaving her small rural town and seeing the world someday, she knows she’s stuck in her rut of a life, married to a no good husband and working for a grumpy cook Jimmy (Danny Trejo). But she remains happy and positive all the same.

While she serves coffee and pecan pie to her regulars Deputy Lonnie (Lew Temple) and Hank (Kevin Gage) and strikes up a conversation with a traveling salesman from New York City (Harold Perrineau), she, along with the patrons, hears a report on the radio of a brutal murder in the next town, where a family including young children were all shot to death execution style.

When a strange man (Michael Madsen) enters the grill and is extremely rude to Noreen, she gets a bad vibe about him and feels he might be the murderer. She asks the deputy to have a word with him, and when he’s just as rude to the deputy, the redneck officer pulls a gun on him and threatens to shoot him if he doesn’t answer his questions. The stranger does answer the questions, then leaves, only to return moments later with a shotgun.

There is a shooting, and the patrons the stranger doesn’t shoot he holds hostage. A short time later, a man enters the diner with a briefcase full of money, which leads to an intriguing plot twist that drives the rest of the story, leading to an explosive conclusion that is as satisfying as it is gruesome.

THE KILLING JAR was written and directed by Mark Young, and he does a nice job with this movie, as at every turn, he seems to push all the right buttons, resulting in a brutal and bloody movie that is both intense and flat out entertaining. I started watching this one on a night when I was exhausted and close to falling sleep. Within 10 minutes, I was wide awake and stayed that way for the rest of the movie.

Young’s screenplay creates a group of characters that I really liked, and we get to know them quickly, and so when their lives are threatened by the gun-wielding psychopath, the tension goes up several notches. I also loved the story, and even better, I enjoyed the plot twist. As a result, THE KILLING JAR is compelling from start to finish.

It’s also very violent, as the people are shot execution style, and these scenes are graphic, and they’re not pretty. In spite of the graphic violence, it wasn’t gratuitous, in that we aren’t subjected to long drawn out scenes of painful torture, a la some of the more violent horror movies lately. There is lots of bloodshed though, and so this movie is not for the squeamish, especially since the death scenes are rather realistic.

For a low budget movie, THE KILLING JAR sports a great cast of actors.

Michael Madsen, from RESERVOIR DOGS (1992) and the KILL BILL movies, is excellent as the rifle-wielding maniac. He delivers a dominating performance, and once he appears in the film, it takes off and never lets up. He’s also extremely believable in this role, and better yet, he’s scary.

Amber Benson is cute as Noreen, the waitress whose life isn’t going anywhere. She realizes this could be the last night of her life. She comes off as very sincere and likeable, exactly the kind of waitress you’d like to meet at a place like the Copal Grill.

Kevin Gage is very good as Hank, a tough-guy hostage. For most of the film, he represents the best bet for fighting back against the stranger. I remember Gage in the low budget horror flick LAID TO REST (2009), a film I didn’t like. Gage is much better here.

Lew Temple does a nice job as the hapless redneck deputy, Lonnie. Temple had a more memorable role in the recent thriller UNSTOPPABLE (2010). It was also fun to see Danny Trejo (MACHETE himself) as the grumpy cook and owner of Copal Grill.

One of the best performances other than Michael Madsen belongs to Harold Perrineau as the New York salesman. Perrineau played Michael on the TV show LOST, and I saw him recently in the direct-to-DVD sequel, 30 DAYS OF NIGHT: DARK DAYS (2010). His performance in THE KILLING JAR blows his 30 DAYS performance out of the water, and I think I even liked him better here than in LOST.

There’s also an effective music score by Elia Cmiral.

THE KILLING JAR is certainly not perfect. It begins with a glimpse of the shooting scene, then offers us a flashback to show us how the characters reached this moment. I’m really kind of sick of flashbacks, as too many of today’s movies begin their stories with this device. It does nothing for me, and it certainly didn’t add anything to this movie, other than I knew beforehand there was going to be a shooting. Whoop-de-doo!  The film would have been better without this.

And although I enjoyed the plot twist, it is a bit unbelievable. The odds of more than one threat appearing in the tiny little diner on the same night, I find that hard to believe. Ultimately, though, I didn’t care that I didn’t believe it, because the movie was a lot of fun, in a disturbing sort of way, and I had a good time watching it.

So, in spite of these few flaws, THE KILLING JAR is a really good movie, one that I enjoyed from start to finish. It’s well worth checking out on streaming video. Just make sure you grab some extra napkins when dining there. Things get rather messy inside.

—END—

© Copyright 2011 by Michael Arruda

Leave A Comment »

Screaming Streaming: JUGGERNAUT (1974)

Posted in 1970s Movies, 2011, Action Movies, Disaster Films, Michael Arruda Reviews, Screaming Streaming with tags , , , , on September 16, 2011 by knifefighter

SCREAMING STREAMING!
Movie Review: JUGGERNAUT (1974)
By Michael Arruda

 

My jaunt through the 1970s continues with today’s SCREAMING STREAMING! column, a look back at Richard Lester’s suspenseful disaster flick JUGGERNAUT (1974).

I loved JUGGERNAUT when I first saw it on TV back in the 1970s, and seeing it again today, I liked it even more. While JUGGERNAUT is a contemporary of disaster flicks like AIRPORT (1970), THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE (1972) and THE TOWERING INFERNO (1974), it has more in common with John Frankenheimer’s BLACK SUNDAY (1977), in terms of grittiness and edge-of-your seat suspense.

On the luxury liner Brittanic, Captain Alex Brunel (Omar Sharif) has little to worry about other than rough seas and keeping his lady friend Barbara Bannister (Shirley Knight) happy, until that is, Nicholas Porter (Ian Holm), the man who runs Brittanic’s parent company, receives a phone call from someone who calls himself “Juggernaut.” Juggernaut informs Porter that he has rigged the Brittanic with seven bombs that are set to go off within 24 hours unless Porter pays him an exorbitant amount of money. To demonstrate that he is serious, Juggernaut detonates one of his bombs immediately, and it causes only minimal damage. The others, he says, will sink the ship.

Porter informs all the necessary authorities, and to his disgust, he’s informed by the British government NOT to pay the money, not to give in to the demands of this madman Juggernaut. Scotland Yard dispatches Inspector John McLeod (Anthony Hopkins) and his team of agents to find Juggernaut before the bombs explode, and McLeod is particularly interested in this case because his wife and young kids are on board the Brittanic.

Bomb specialist Anthony Fallon (Richard Harris) and his crack team of explosives experts led by his protégé Charlie Braddock (David Hemmings) are sent to the Brittanic via military plane to diffuse the bombs, which are booby trapped. Fallon and his men must first endure a parachute drop into very rough seas to reach the ship, and one of Fallon’s men is lost in the drop. The rough seas also prevent Captain Brunel from lowering his passengers into lifeboats. They wouldn’t survive the treacherous ocean.

Fallon and his team set to work on diffusing the bombs, a process that quickly becomes a cat and mouse game between Fallon and Juggernaut. The bombs are housed inside steel barrels, so even the first step, how to enter the barrel- through the top? Through the sides? Through the sealed hatch in the front?— becomes a guessing game, and initially, Fallon and his team guess wrong and one of the bombs explodes.

Meanwhile, on land, McLeod and his team of Scotland Yard agents are having no luck locating Juggernaut, as they fail to turn up any promising leads. On the ship, as Fallon and his team get deeper and deeper into the bombs, the booby traps get trickier and costlier, until ultimately the solution comes down to a 50-50 choice- cut one wire and the bomb is diffused, but cut the other, and the ship explodes. As Fallon asks, is it the red or the blue?

The most impressive thing about JUGGERNAUT is that it’s a movie made for adults. So many of today’s movies are geared for teens, and, as a result, hard-hitting adult thrillers are difficult to come by. In that light, JUGGERNAUT is exceedingly refreshing.

JUGGERNAUT is a suspenseful edge-of-your-seat thriller that is compelling and thoroughly believable, not silly or superficial, and certainly not filled with elaborate CGI effects of bombs exploding on a cruise ship. Obviously, these effects didn’t exist in 1974, but the good news is JUGGERNAUT is a better movie without them.

JUGGERNAUT is driven by the strength of its talented director, Richard Lester, who makes this one gritty and even scary, a superb script by Alan Plater and Richard Alan Simmons, who create memorable characters by showing us what these folks do in times of stress and panic, and an absolutely wonderful top-notch cast.

Leading the way is Richard Harris as bomb expert Anthony Fallon. In Fallon, Harris creates a cool confident character who is certainly up to the task of solving the booby traps planted in the bombs by the evil Juggernaut. Fallon oozes confidence as he hums “Fallon’s the champion” repeatedly. But he’s not stupid, and he knows one wrong move and he’ll be blown to bits. Like the rest of his team, Fallon does his share of sweating, in moments captured brilliantly by director Lester in extreme close-ups during some of the more suspenseful bomb diffusing scenes.

Richard Harris as bomb expert Anthony Fallon in Richard Lester's JUGGERNAUT.

Harris had me hooked instantly when I first saw this movie when I was just a kid, and his performance is just as good now, all these years later. It remains my favorite Richard Harris performance. Harris, a fine actor, died in 2002.

Another favorite actor, David Hemmings, who I mentioned in my previous column on MURDER BY DECREE (1979), is excellent here as well as Fallon’s protégé and right hand man, Charlie Braddock. It’s my favorite Hemmings performance, and the sequence where Fallon and Braddock work as a team on two separate bombs, Fallon making the first move and Braddock following, the plan being that if Fallon makes a mistake and blows up, Braddock will correct the mistake and continue, is a classic, and is so brilliantly filmed by Richard Lester that at times the suspense is painful.

A very young Anthony Hopkins plays Scotland Yard inspector John McLeod, whose wife and kids are on the Brittanic, and Hopkins is excellent. Ian Holm (ALIEN [1979]) and Bilbo in the LORD OF THE RINGS movies) is also very good as Nicholas Porter, the man who wants to pay the ransom money to save the lives of the people on his ship and does not see eye- to- eye with his government’s decision to play hardball with the madman.

Omar Sharif makes a very distinguished Captain Alex Brunel, and JUGGERNAUT is blessed with a fine supporting cast as well. Shirley Knight is memorable as Barbara Bannister, the woman who’s vying for the captain’s attention, and when she realizes he’s not all that interested, and that she might die alone, she begins to wonder about her life’s worth. Clifton James, who played the memorable sheriff J. W. Pepper in the Roger Moore James Bond films LIVE AND LET DIE (1973) and THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN (1974), plays a politician here and makes the most of his scenes. Roy Kinnear [THE THREE MUSKETEERS (1973), TASTE THE BLOOD OF DRACULA (1970)] is social director Curtain, who has the dubious job of trying to keep the passengers happy, but he’s not a very successful “clown” and you get the impression that even on a normal cruise, Corrigan would have had trouble entertaining the guests.

And Freddie Jones— who debuted as the tortured “monster” in the Peter Cushing Hammer Frankenstein movie FRANKENSTEIN MUST DE DESTROYED (1969), and went on to play numerous madmen in the movies, and has always been one of my favorites— is Sidney Buckland, aka Juggernaut. He’s excellent here.

But the biggest star of JUGGERNAUT is its director, Richard Lester. The movie is chock-full of suspense, and it’s more than just the subject matter. It’s the style. There’s a real gritty feel to JUGGERNAUT which distinguishes it from Hollywood disaster pics like THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE. Lester also does remarkable work with close-up shots during some of the movie’s more suspenseful scenes, as we get in real close to the characters’ hands and fingers as they cut wires and feel around inside the bombs.

JUGGERNAUT is full of memorable scenes. There’s the aforementioned bomb diffusing sequence involving Fallon and Braddock, which is intercut with scenes of the passengers dancing to fend off their anxiety; the scene where the little boy wanders into the bomb area; and McLeod’s frantic search for the bomber.

Richard Lester has always been one of my favorite directors, with films like the Beatles’ A HARD DAY’S NIGHT (1964) and HELP! (1965), THE THREE MUSKETEERS (1973) and THE FOUR MUSKETEERS (1974), and SUPERMAN II (1980). JUGGERNAUT is one of his best.

JUGGERNAUT works because it’s thoroughly believable. It tells an exciting tale of bombs on board a cruise ship and shows the professionals in a race against time doing what they do best to stop the disaster from striking. It’s well-acted, well-written, and deftly directed by a talented director at the top of his game. I bought it all, hook, line and sinker.

JUGGERNAUT is a classic of the “disaster” genre, just as powerful today as it was in 1974, maybe even more so since it was largely overlooked back then, as it was released in the shadow of bigger budget “disaster” flicks like THE TOWERING INFERNO (1974). Unlike those Hollywood big budget disaster movies, JUGGERNAUT is much more gritty and realistic, and as a result much more satisfying.

JUGGERNAUT is now available on streaming video. I recommend you take the voyage.

—END—

© Copyright 2011 by Michael Arruda

1 Comment »

MURDER BY DECREE

Posted in 1970s Movies, 2011, Jack the Ripper, Michael Arruda Reviews, Mystery, Psycho killer, Psychological Horror, Screaming Streaming, Sherlock Holmes with tags , , , , , , on August 19, 2011 by knifefighter

SCREAMING STREAMING!
Movie Review: MURDER BY DECREE (1979)
By Michael Arruda

 

Today on SCREAMING STREAMING! it’s MURDER BY DECREE (1979), an atmospheric mystery/thriller that pits Sherlock Holmes against Jack the Ripper, and it’s now available on streaming video.

I remember liking MURDER BY DECREE when I first saw it back in 1979 . I was especially intrigued by the Sherlock Holmes/Jack the Ripper storyline . Unfortunately, I have seen a lot of Jack the Ripper movies since then, and so the plot points and revelations made here in MURDER BY DECREE regarding the identity of Jack the Ripper don’t possess the power they once did.

And if you’ve seen any movies or read any books about Jack the Ripper (and who hasn’t?), the plot of MURDER BY DECREE offers nothing new . Yes, prostitutes are being viciously murdered in Whitechapel by Jack the Ripper, and the world’s greatest detective Sherlock Holmes (Christopher Plummer) is called in to investigate, along with his partner Dr. Watson (James Mason).

A psychic named Robert Lees (Donald Sutherland) informs Holmes that he believes the Ripper murders are the result of a government conspiracy, and the clues that Holmes and Watson uncover during their investigation seem to back up this premise . Holmes is led to Mary Kelly (Susan Clark), who confides in him that she is protecting her friend Annie Crook (Genevieve Bujold) and her child from threats which she intimates are from the highest positions in the British government, including the crown itself . Holmes finds Crook in an insane asylum, and what he learns from her confirms his theory regarding the identity of Jack the Ripper . He and Watson then set out to catch the Ripper and expose the conspiracy.

If you’re looking for an atmospheric period piece, you can’t go wrong with MURDER BY DECREE . The film looks terrific, as it depicts 19th century London at its foggy best . It has the look of the Hammer Films period pieces from the 1950s and 1960s .

And if you’re looking for good acting by veterans of the field, MURDER BY DECREE satisfies here as well . The film enjoys strong acting performances, especially from its two leads: Christopher Plummer, as Sherlock Holmes and James Mason, as Dr. Watson. They share an amiable chemistry, and when they are onscreen together, they are fun to watch . The rest of the cast is also excellent.

The film even gets off to a good start with some creepy murders in the London fog .

But then it slows down halfway through and never really picks up again . Towards the end, when the story should be picking up steam, it falters, and its conclusion, whereby Holmes explains all that he has learned and proved, is interesting, but it’s nothing new nor all that dramatic.

Even though there are some eerie murder scenes, MURDER BY DECREE is rated PG, so don’t expect much blood and gore . FROM HELL (2001), this ain’t! Further complicating matters is that some of the key murder and action scenes are shot in slow motion, and this doesn’t work at all, as it only results in slowing down the suspense.

The two main reasons to see MURDER BY DECREE, then, are the strong acting performances from its veteran cast, and the atmospheric photography of this period piece thriller.

Christopher Plummer is very good as Sherlock Holmes, and he plays the world’s greatest detective as a more compassionate and human man than he’s usually portrayed in the movies . Plummer’s Holmes is also very emotional, especially when the investigation brings him closer to the lives—and deaths— of the women he’s investigating .

James Mason, one of my all-time favorite actors, makes a very likeable Dr. Watson . Mason was an accomplished actor who starred in all types of films, and he enjoyed some memorable roles in genre movies, from the heroic Sir Oliver Lindenbrook in JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH (1959), to the conniving Dr. Polidori in FRANKENSTEIN: THE TRUE STORY (1973), to the evil Straker in Stephen King’s SALEM’S LOT (1979), to name just a few . Here, he makes a very distinguished Watson, applying some understated humor to the role.

The rest of the cast is full of veterans of the field . David Hemmings, a popular actor from the 1960s, who I remember most from movie roles in the 1970s, plays Inspector Foxborough, a Scotland Yard inspector with ulterior motives . Hemmings made a ton of movies, and one of his last was THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN (2003) with Sean Connery, before his death later that year at age 62.

Frank Finlay plays Inspector Letrade, and he’s another actor I’ve always enjoyed, from his performances in Richard Lester’s THREE MUSKETEERS movies in the 1970s to Tobe Hooper’s LIFEFORCE (1985), that bizarre space/vampire movie that should be on everyone’s “must see at least once” list . Finlay was also in THE PIANIST (2002), the film in which Adrien Brody won the Best Actor Oscar, but my all-time favorite Finlay role was his portrayal of Professor van Helsing in the 1977 Great Performances production of COUNT DRACULA, a neat and faithful retelling of Bram Stoker’s tale . Alas, as good as Finlay is, he doesn’t do much here in MURDER BY DECREE.

Donald Sutherland fares better as psychic Robert Lees, and his performance serves as a solid reminder as to why he was such a popular actor in the 1970s . Genevieve Bujold makes the most of her one scene as Annie Crook, so much so that she delivers probably the best performance in the film, other than Plummer and Mason . She’s really good . Susan Clark is also very good as the tragically doomed Mary Kelly.

MURDER BY DECREE was directed by Bob Clark, the man most famous for directing the Christmas classic A CHRISTMAS STORY (1983) . Of course, Clark is also known for a less family-oriented Christmas movie, the 1974 Christmas horror movie BLACK CHRISTMAS, starring Margot Kidder . Clark also directed PORKY’S (1982) . Quite the varied resume!

MURDER BY DECREE doesn’t showcase Clark’s best work . The film lacks effective pacing, and the murder scenes don’t really pack the punch that they should, hindered by the annoying slow-motion photography .

John Hopkins wrote the screenplay . Hopkins is one of the writers who worked on the Sean Connery Bond film THUNDERBALL (1965) . In MURDER BY DECREE, there’s entertaining dialogue between Holmes and Watson, but there’s not much else that makes this one special in terms of writing .

Neither the direction nor the writing does much in the way of building suspense in this movie.

I remember liking MURDER BY DECREE when I first saw it back in 1979, but watching it now, all these years later, it doesn’t hold up all that well . It’s a beautifully photographed movie, it enjoys solid acting, and the first third of its story is rather compelling, but then it slows down and it remains slow all the way to its dramatic revelations, which, if you know the Jack the Ripper conspiracy theories, really aren’t that dramatic or surprising.

MURDER BY DECREE is one of those movies that, if you catch it in the right frame of mind, you might like it, but the fact is, there are better Sherlock Holmes movies, and there are better Jack the Ripper movies .

Watching MURDER BY DECREE is like looking at a mediocre painting . It catches your eye, and as you stay to look at it, you like what you see, but before long you tire of the experience and move on, and since it didn’t knock your socks off, you see no need to look at it again.

—END—

© Copyright 2011 by Michael Arruda

1 Comment »

Screaming Streaming: TO THE DEVIL A DAUGHTER

Posted in 1970s Movies, 2011, 70s Horror, Devil Movies, Hammer Films, Horror, Michael Arruda Reviews, Satanists, Screaming Streaming with tags , , , , , , on July 20, 2011 by knifefighter

SCREAMING STREAMING!
Movie Review: TO THE DEVIL A DAUGHTER (1976)
By Michael Arruda

 

Welcome to the first ever SCREAMING STREAMING! movie review column, where I’ll be reviewing movies available on screaming— er, streaming video. I’ll cover a mix of old movies and new releases, as well as different genres, including horror, action, thriller, mystery, and comedies. Chick flicks?— no.

We begin with an oldie, the Christopher Lee/Hammer movie TO THE DEVIL A DAUGHTER (1976), notable because it was Hammer Film’s last horror movie, that is, until its recent comeback film LET ME IN (2010). And that’s really all that’s notable about it. It was a flop back in 1976. I saw TO THE DEVIL A DAUGHTER several years after it was released, in the early 1980s on HBO, and I hated it. Other than Nastassja Kinski’s full- frontal nude scene, there was nothing memorable about it. In fact, as I sat down this week to watch the movie again, that’s the only thing I remembered about it!

TO THE DEVIL A DAUGHTER is a story about Satanists, which comes as no surprise, since it’s based on the best-selling novel of the same name by Dennis Wheatley, who also wrote the novel THE DEVIL RIDES OUT, also about Satanists, also filmed by Hammer in 1968, with the U.S. title THE DEVIL’S BRIDE, also starring Christopher Lee. Wheatley died in 1977 at age 80.

In TO THE DEVIL A DAUGHTER, a distraught man, Henry Beddows (Denholm Elliott) seeks out the help of an American occult novelist John Verney (Richard Widmark) to protect his daughter Catherine (Nastassja Kinski) from an evil Satanist, an excommunicated priest named Father Michael (Christopher Lee). It seems, years earlier, at Catherine’s birth, her parents made a “deal with the devil” promising the girl’s soul to Father Michael on her eighteenth birthday. Father Michael intends to hand over Catherine to Satan for reasons we can only imagine— let’s see, she’s 18 and beautiful, what do you think he wants her for? Sounds like a marriage made in Hell.

It also sounds like a plot I just saw in a movie a few years ago, THE HAUNTING OF MOLLY HARTLEY (2008), as that film was also about parents who made a deal with Satanists to turn their daughter’s soul over to them when the girl turned 18, and in that movie the dad also changed his mind and tried to protect his daughter.

And that in a nutshell is the plot of TO THE DEVIL A DAUGHTER, as Verney vows to protect Catherine from Father Michael, and Father Michael vows to find Catherine and get her to the altar in time to make whoopee with Satan. Along the way there are some satanic goings-on by Father Michael and his cohorts, including the painful birth of a baby which they plan to sacrifice later. What is it about Satanists and babies, and why do they always want to sacrifice the little infants? I just finished watching DRIVE ANGRY (2011) on DVD starring Nicholas Cage, another movie about Satanists, and what did these folks want to do? Sacrifice a baby, only they picked the wrong baby, Cage’s granddaughter, and he’s not about to let that happen, which is why he’s driving angry.

Anyway, back to TO THE DEVIL A DAUGHTER. In addition to the Satanic shenanigans, we also get to watch John Verney try to solve the mystery of what’ s up with Catherine, since her daddy wasn’t exactly truthful in his explanation of why he wanted Verney to watch over his daughter. Of course, Verney eventually figures everything out, being the intelligent occult novelist that he is, which sets us up for the final and dramatic confrontation between tough guy Richard Widmark and Dracula himself, Christopher Lee.

All of this sounds better than it actually is. Truth be told, age hasn’t really helped this movie. It’s still all rather dull.

A lot of the blame here falls on the shoulders of screenwriter Christopher Wicking, who wrote the screenplay. There really isn’t much of a story, which is why it’s so dull. Not much happens, and the little that does is painfully stretched out to fill the 90 minute running time.

The characters aren’t fleshed out. We know very little about the evil Father Michael. Christopher Lee is fun to watch, as he does evil as good as anybody, but Father Michael isn’t developed beyond being a bad guy. Lee looks like Dracula wearing a priest’s collar. Since Lee always looks good as Dracula, he looks good here, too, but other than being a straightforward evil baddie, he does little else. Compared to Lee’s Lord Summerisle in THE WICKER MAN (1973), a character who was chilling because he was an oddball who was difficult to gauge, Father Michael is a one-trick pony.

Richard Widmark’s occult author John Verney is dreadfully dull, about as boring a hero as you’re going to find in a horror movie. He has very little personality, and comes off as wooden as a fence post. Nastassja Kinski’s Catherine is also a bore. She hardly says two words, but she’s beautiful in this movie, and that’s probably all the filmmakers were going for here.

Some memorable dialogue would have helped this movie. Christopher Lee gets one of the best lines in the movie, and really, it’s memorable not so much because of the line, but because of the way Lee delivers it. After the woman has given birth to the Satanists sacrificial baby, Lee leans close to her and says with a smile, “You can die now.” It’s Lee at his evil best.

Christopher Wicking also wrote the screenplay for Hammer’s BLOOD FROM THE MUMMY’S TOMB (1971), Hammer’s final Mummy movie, and for the movie SCREAM AND SCREAM AGAIN (1970), famous for the first-time triple teaming of Vincent Price, Christopher Lee, and Peter Cushing, and also famous for being one of the most confusing horror movies ever made!) Storytelling with clarity doesn’t seem to be Wicking’s strong point.

Wicking died in 2008 at the age of 64.

TO THE DEVIL A DAUGHTER was directed by Peter Sykes, and he does an okay job at the helm. And, photography wise, the film looks good. It’s handsomely photographed and makes good use of some on-location filming in the German countryside. But in terms of memorable scenes, there’s nothing.

For a movie that compared itself in its original theatrical trailers to ROSEMARY’S BABY (1968) and THE EXORCIST (1973), it forgot one very important ingredient: it forgot to be scary, and that’s really the major problem with TO THE DEVIL A DAUGHTER. It’s NOT scary. Not a good thing when you’re a horror movie about Satanists.

It’s no surprise then that Hammer struggled in the 1970s and eventually went out of business. Their style of movies couldn’t compare to the other horror movies of the 1970s. Just look at THE EXORCIST, for example. Besides the obvious, that THE EXORCIST is scary, it also has realistic and very memorable characters. Father Karras (Jason Miller), for instance, seems like a real person. The characters in TO THE DEVIL A DAUGHTER don’t seem real at all.

If there’s a reason to watch TO THE DEVIL A DAUGHTER, it’s the cast, which is the best part of the movie. Father Michael may be a one-dimensional character, but Christopher Lee at least makes that one dimension— evil— fun to watch. Over the years, nobody has done evil as well as Lee, and in TO THE DEVIL A DAUGHTER, he’s at his evil best. Plus at this point, pretty much anything Lee has done is required viewing. Just don’t expect THE WICKER MAN.

Richard Widmark runs hot and cold as American author John Verney. When he’s doing his “tough guy” routine, and he gets to be physical and fight, he looks more at home. When he’s talking about the occult and Satanists, he seems out of place. He also doesn’t really sound like an author. He sounds like a police detective. Widmark died in 2008 at 93.

Honor Blackman (Miss Pussy Galore herself from GOLDFINGER (1964), and from THE AVENGERS TV show (1961-69), is on hand as Verney’s agent Anna, and she adds style and class to the proceedings with a very good performance.

Denholm Elliott as scared daddy Henry Beddows gives the best performance in the movie, other than Christopher Lee. He seems scared to death throughout. Elliott died in 1992 at age 70.

And while Nastassja Kinski is beautiful in this movie, her performance is blah, and other than her beauty, she doesn’t stand out a bit.

But in spite of its strong cast, TO THE DEVIL A DAUGHTER is slow and dull. Hammer had much more success with their other Dennis Wheatley film, THE DEVIL’S BRIDE, but of course that one was directed by their best director, Terence Fisher, and Richard Matheson wrote the screenplay. TO THE DEVIL A DAUGHTER can’t boast of such talent.

TO THE DEVIL A DAUGHTER is a mixed bag, with very little to offer other than Christopher Lee’s demonic performance. Of course, there IS that Nastassja Kinski full-frontal nude scene.

—END—

© Copyright 2011 by Michael Arruda

1 Comment »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 80 other followers