King of Kong Island (1968)

Introduction:

The description on the 100 sci-fi classics actually got me excited for this one. It promised mad scientists creating gorilla warlords. There was to be adventure on a mysterious island, and best of all – a descendent of King Kong in the finale. I knew it would be low budget, but hey that would make it for fun, right.

Summary:

Burt Dawson (Brad Harris) is out for revenge against the men who set him up during a payroll robbery gone bad. Along the way he runs into Forrester (Mario Donatone), his old pal who may have a job for him. Forrester’s daughter, Diana (Ursula Davis) has been seized by a man named Turk (Paolo Magalotti) and the diabolical Albert Muller (Marc Lawrence). They are holding her hostage to get at Burt. But Burt is no slouch he jumps into the jungle and tries to find the kidnappers, doing battle with zombie apes and meeting Eva “The Savage Girl” (Esmeralda Barros). And because it’s a jungle movie there will be a ton of stock footage and lots of walking scenes. Can you stay awake long enough to discover who is the King of Kong Island?

Good Points:

• Want beefcake or cheesecake – this movie’s got both!
• A fun and funky late 60’s vibe
• The killer gorilla/zombies are hilarious

Bad Points:

• Lots and lots of walking scenes
• The entire middle portion is duller than dirt
• How does this relate to King Kong again?

Overall:

I think this movie was made to show off the assets of Brad Harris, Esmerelda Barros and Adriana Alben. Because it wasn’t for the plot or the creating anything really entertaining. Some comedy can be mined from the oh so 60’s party at the beginning or the bad monkey outfits, but really this one’s a dud.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 2

Sound: 3

Music: 2

Acting: 2

Script: 1

Direction: 2

Entertainment: 1

Total: 1

In Depth

I don’t expect much form these movies. I just want some cheesy entertainment. So when you promise some giant apes, I just expect to see some giant apes. Instead the King of Kong Island is one let down after the other.

The basic story about Burt wanting revenge on the men the betrayed him during a robbery is dull. We never get a good look at the traitors, and so it actually took me a while to realize these were the same men. Then Burt behaves like such an ass, that I don’t care what happens to him, and hope that Kong comes and squishes him like a grape. Alas, Burt gets to wander around the jungle, take his shirt off and splash around (for the ladies) and then come to the rescue, kinda, at the end. So our protagonist is worthless.

Our villain fares a bit better. Muller is your typical mad scientist type who wants to conquer the world with radio-controlled apes. You know the type. He chews the scenery, threatens the hero, laughs like a loony and makes gross advances on his captive Diana. I think Mr. Lawrence knew just what kind of a dumb movie he was in and just went for it. He played two different mafia toughs in two different Bond movies with the same bit of zeal (Diamonds are Forever and The Man with the Golden Gun).

Then there’s Eva the jungle goddess person or some such stupidity. She basically wanders around the jungle topless (with her long hair in front of her chesticular region, calm down boys), and talks to a chimp. Yeah I guess the chimp is supposed to be the descendent of Kong. She does some stuff to save Burt, but mostly I think she supposed to be a combination of titillation and comic relief she doesn’t do very well with either. Adriana Alben steams up the screen a bit more in her shower scene, but she’s doesn’t really have a point in King of Kong Island other than to have the shower scene and get beaten up by Forrester.

Yeah the nice movie has a scene where a woman gets slapped around and an scene where the villain threatens to rape his captive or have his zombie apes rape her. Jeez! Some movies have no class.

Really that’s what this stupid movie boils down to. It has no class, and no point of really existing. It’s dull in the middle with endless walking scenes and stock footage of African animals. The thrilling scenes make you snore and only the ludicrous apes (and horrific dubbing) provide any laughs. But they honestly aren’t worth it. Stick with any other version of King Kong  or Tarzan if you are in the mood for jungle fun. Or heck even watch Queen of the Amazons over this stupid turd. You’ll be glad you missed this one.

Movie Music Musings: Nosferatu (1922)

On Halloween night my wife and I decided to watch a few creepy movies. On the list was the silent classic from 1922 “Nosferatu”. I had seen the movie quite a while ago (when I was watching all the movies that influenced Coppola’s version of “Dracula”), and I remembered finding it creepy but a bit on the slow side.

We ended up using a direct download via Netflix. The only reason I mention this is because there was no way to change the audio track. Since this is a silent film, each version on DVD has a different musical score. A quick check on Amazon leads me to believe that I watched the version of the movie that Image released. Supposedly it has a score performed on pipe organ. I wish I had seen that version.

Instead we heard the other track, an “experimental” score performed on a synthesizer. Now I have nothing against electronic music. I even enjoy film scores with completely synthetic scores (Vangelis and Wendy Carlos have done some great stuff in my opinion). But the big difference here is that electronic scores are still film scores. Their first goal is to support the film and enhance the story telling. This alternate musical score did the exact opposite.

“Nosferatu” has some issues that it can’t overcome. The first is that the acting is very stylized and over the top. It also has some pacing problems, taking its sweet time moving the story along. All these things are actually enhanced by the poor score.

What makes it so poor? The biggest offender is the use of some seriously distracting sound choices. During scenes of pastoral beauty and when Hutter (the protagonist) is wandering around blissfully ignorant of his danger, the music is incredibly bubbly and upbeat. A steel drum sound effect is used in many scenes, making me wonder when this little German man wandered into Jamaica. It was so incongruous I had to laugh, not the kind of response you want when you’re building tension. But that was just it, there was no tension.

In early scenes as Hutter approaches Count Orlok’s castle, the music attempts a sinister turn, but instead it just kind of meanders around, not creating dread or suspense. It just flails about in the most distracting manner. Now, I’ve heard some excellent suspense music done in an electronic way. Check out Kenji Kawai’s score for “Ghost in the Shell”, which uses a creepy meandering, atonal drones and rumbling to create a building of danger and suspense. It’s still musical, but in a very Japanese way, and very effective in the scenes of the film (even if it isn’t something very listenable on an album). Something like that could have worked wonders in “Nosferatu” but instead what you get is something that would sound pathetic in an 8 bit Nintendo game.

My wife had never seen the film before and quickly lost interest because of the distracting score. We started coming up with other instruments that would have worked better. A simple string quartet could have really worked wonders here.

Finally I couldn’t stand it anymore, I grabbed my iPod dock hooked it up, and played the wonderful musical scores to “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” and “The Ninth Gate” by Polish composer Wojciech Kilar. Sure the music didn’t match the scenes, but the tone was right, with Kilar’s utilizing his orchestra and lush writing to create beauty and horror in equal amounts. It was a vast improvement, and actually allowed us to watch the rest of the film and actually be creeped out by the visuals.

This hammered home the importance of music in film. It’s such a powerful tool, and a director must really be aware of how to use it. As this little experiment proved the music for films serves one purpose first – to support its film. I sometimes forget as a lover of film music that scores that I may not enjoy may work wonders in their film.

Still I feel a bit cheated by that version of “Nosferatu”, maybe I should pick up a version on DVD with an actual workable score and watch this again. I tried to imagine what would happen if someone did s similar treatment to The Adventures of Prince Achmed and shuddered at the thought of synth steel drums during the wizard battle. “Experimental”? No.

The Informant (2009)

Introduction:

The ads for this one made it look like a nutty bit of fun with Matt Damon playing a funny part. But when you’ve got Steven Soderbergh directing you know that there might be a bit more to it. What finally pushed me into wanting to see the film? Why a retro musical score by 70’s master Marvin Hamlisch.

Summary:

Mark Whitacre (Matt Damon) is in a tough spot. The company he works for appears to be engaged in price fixing with their competitors, and he can’t stand it any more. He approaches the FBI with his information, and they convince him to become an undercover mole, gathering more and more information, eventually finding a deeper conspiracy. But the FBI agents begin to see cracks in Mark’s story. Is their “Informant” nothing more than a gifted storyteller?

Good Points

• Matt Damon is perfect in the role
• The story is interesting and moves along at a good pace
• Hamlisch’s score is perfect for the tone

Bad Points:

• The character of Mark Whitacre may annoy viewers
• The tone is very light and maybe too light
• The music is so retro it may actually cause damage to more hip viewers

Overall:

This was an entertaining film, worth checking out if you are interested in seeing Damon’s take on the character. We’ve seen this story before but Soderbergh uses so many interesting elements that it all works well. He captures the period with his production design and music. The result is a fun little movie.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 4

Sound: 3

Acting: 4

Script: 4

Music: 4

Direction: 3

Entertainment: 3

Total: 3

Curious about a full review, send me an email and I'll make additional thoughts to this review.

Young Sherlock Holmes (1985)

Introduction:

I never really asked myself the question, what was Sherlock Holmes like as a youth. Well that might have been because I had only ever read one Sherlock Holmes story. But someone must have asked this question – because they made a whole movie about it!

Summary:

John Watson (Alan Cox) arrives at his new school in London a bit nervous but ready to make new friends. The first bloke he meets is Sherlock Holmes (Nicholas Rowe) a rather aloof chap who has keen powers of deduction. The two become good friends, and spent their spare time hanging out with Elizabeth (Sophie Ward) and her oddball uncle Professor Waxflatter (Nigel Stock). But Waxflatter is embroiled in a mystery as one by one former colleges die under mysterious circumstances. Holmes and Watson start to investigate, but soon find that the answer to the mystery is tangled in a web of revenge, cultists and a mind almost as keen as the one possessed by “Young Sherlock Holmes”.

Good Points:

• The script and the acting for Holmes and Watson are well executed
• The production for Victorian England is top notch
• The musical score by Bruce Broughton is a forgotten gem of the 80’s

Bad Points:

• Hard core Holmes fans are going to shudder in horror at the changes to the characters
• Has a serious 80’s Spielberg touch to it
• Not so much a mystery as it’s more of an adventure film

Overall:

While the plot maybe outrageous and the coincidences laughable, this movie has a wonderful spirit of fun to it. The whole relationship between Holmes and Watson and how it may have been forged in their youth is handled really well. It carries the movie past the more ridiculous moments. As far as pure entertainment goes, this movie is a solid pick.

Scores (out of 5)

Visual: 5

Sound: 4

Music: 5

Acting: 4

Script: 4

Direction: 4

Entertainment: 5

Total: 4

In Depth Review

There’s an odd set of connections between “Young Sherlock Holmes” and “Harry Potter”. First off, both films feature a supporting antagonist named Dudley. Chris Columbus wrote the screenplay for the 1985 film and directed the first two Harry Potter films. Both films take place in and around a boarding school. Both films have a Victorian feel to them (especially obvious in “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone”). Both films feature insane cult leaders bent on revenge. Ok, maybe I’m stretching it a bit, but I always found it funny that whenever I hear the name Dudley the first thing I think of is the slimy jerk in “Young Sherlock Holmes”.

Let me get this out of the way. I grew up with this movie. My sister and I really enjoyed watching it as kids, and it was on regular rotation on our VCR back in the day. We liked the adventure, the bizarre hallucinations and the fact that there was a dog named Uncas in it. So it’s a bit tough for me to view the film completely objectively. So if this review sounds a bit too fond… well you know why.

The main issue I see raised against this film is Chris Columbus’ over the top script. It isn’t good enough for Holmes to solve murders, these have to be completely insane murders conducted by a Egyptian cult that practices their death religion in a giant wooden pyramid. The movie never takes the leap into fantasy. The strange imagery you do see is because the victims are hallucinating. But the film really stretches credibility when you see a huge bald killer chasing kids through a cemetery while wielding a sword. No one notices this or thinks it’s odd?

But check it out, Columbus wrote this screenplay right after he wrote “Gremlins” and “The Goonies”. Steven Spielberg was on the production credits for all three films, and I think its safe to say that he had some input into how the story was going to play out. It explains why this film could easily be called “Sherlock Holmes and the Temple of Doom” a name a few critics gave it. Or maybe you prefer “Sherlock Holmes and the Pyramid of Death” which is the films name in some international markets. That oh so 80’s Spielberg touch is all over the film, even if Barry Levinson was helming it.

Levinson does a good job with the film balancing the large set pieces and special effect heavy scenes with the intimate character scenes between Holmes, Watson and Elizabeth. The character interaction is essential for the film to work. Holmes and Watson must have that warmth and understanding of each other’s talents or else it will feel wrong. Rowe and Cox do a great job, each one nailing their characters as well as creating a valid friendship. Sure the Watson of this film is more Nigel Bruce than David Burke, but it still works well. On the other hand Ward is a little flat as Elizabeth. The part is underwritten, but Rowe’s reactions to her make the connection between them work.

The supporting cast is very good all around. Of special note is Freddie Jones as Chester Cragwitch. This poor man is saddled with a large chunk of exposition, but his great voice combined with his off beat performance makes it all work. Also key to the film is Anthony Higgins as Professor Rathe, Holmes fencing teacher and mentor. Rathe seems to really like Holmes even when events take a turn that pits them against each other. When things get serious, Higgins is able to turn the man into a much darker character, one consumed by hate and willing to do anything to achieve his ends. It’s a good villainous performance.

The large set pieces including the ones revolving around the ceremonies in the pyramid are staged well and filmed with skill. The sets and location shooting in general is top notch and really adds to the film. But Levinson makes sure the action sequences are clear and easy to follow. But one of my favorite sequences is when Holmes accepts Dudley’s challenge to find a lost statue. Levinson takes us all around the school editing together a montage of deduction that leads up to the resolution of the mystery. Combined with Bruce Broughton’s score, it’s a great scene.

Broughton isn’t known to most moviegoers and that’s a shame. He’s done some wonderful work, especially in the Western genre (his scores for “Silverado” and “Tombstone” are excellent). But this is one of the few times he delved into this type of adventure scoring and he does an amazing job. He takes some of the styling of John Williams and combines it with a very English tone and creates a superb musical adventure. There are two main themes that appear in the film, one that surrounds the mystery sequences and seems connected to Holmes. The other is linked more to the friendship sequences and seems connected to Watson. These two fuse together to create a wonderful musical cue that can be enjoyed during the end credits. I also have to mention the choral powerhouse of the Ceremonial chant that is heard twice in the film and is warped into the villain theme by the end of the film. Great stuff. I heartily recommend this score to fans of big adventure music in a John Williams style. This is an 80’s classic.

This was a visual effects movie in many respects and most of it’s notoriety today is based on the fact that the first completely computer generated character was created for this film. During one of the hallucination scenes, a stain glass window of a sword wielding knight leaps from the window to threaten a priest. Back in 1985 this effect was jaw dropping. On top of that all kinds of other effects were used, including stop motion creatures as well as traditional blue screen and miniatures. Using this vast array of effects keeps things from looking too over top and lets them blend into the film.

Here’s what it boils down to: the film is fun. It was made to entertain and it does just that. All the production elements work well together and while it wears its oh so 80’s heart on its sleeve, it never really was shooting for anything more than that. I recently revisited the film and had a blast watching it again. Yes nostalgia played a part in my enjoyment, but I also think that this is just a well-made adventure film. If you’ve never seen it, give it a shot. At the very least you’ll enjoy a great musical score and see some pioneering visual effects from the day. At the most you’ll have a great movie to watch on a wintery weekend.

Please Murder Me (1956)

Introduction:

It's time for another trip to the 100 Mystery films and time for Raymond Burr. When I popped in the disc I was surprised to see Angela Lansbury getting top billing. Parry Mason and Mrs.. Potts in a 50's noir? Sounds like this could get good.

Summary:

Attorney Craig Carlson (Raymond Burr) breaks it to his best friend Joe Leeds (Dick Foran) that he has fallen in love with Joe's wife Myra (Angela Lansbury). Joe is calm about the whole thing and says he needs a few days to think over a divorce from Myra, so she can be with Craig. A few days later, Joe is found dead and Myra is the main suspect. Craig ends up defending Myra, not revealing that the two were having an affair. But the trial is just going to the first obstacle for Craig, because the more that comes out about Myra, the darker their future becomes. Eventually circumstances will drive Craig to say, "Please Murder Me".

Good Points:

• Solid acting by the three leads
• The second half of the film provides an interesting premise
• Some of the noir camera work is effective

Bad Points:

• The resolution to the trial stretches all kinds of credibility
• The story mis-uses flashbacks
• The print I saw was in poor shape with major sound issues

Overall:

This is a solid mystery flick. The acting really helps keep the story moving especially when the story goes that extra step too far. The trial revelation actually had me chuckling. But the decidedly dark path the film takes in the second half was surprising and refreshing. It's a shame that the print was so bad, it ended up affecting some key dialogue scenes, and hurt my enjoyment of what otherwise is a good film.

Scores (out of 5)

Visual: 2

Sound: 2

Music: 2

Script: 3

Acting: 3

Direction: 3

Entertainment: 3

Total: 3

In Depth Review:

To be honest the appeal of this film are the performances by Raymond Burr and Angela Lansbury. Fans of either of the two should check this out to see some interesting work by them. Burr seems to be warming up for Perry Mason which he ended up working on a year later. Lansbury was still a few years from "The Manchurian Candidate" where she played a sinister role as well, but she's just as effective in this film. The bulk of the film rests on Burr's shoulders and he carries it off well, convincing as the lawyer as well as the lover. When he realizes the depths that Myra has sunk to, the affect is startling. He plays the part of the broken man very well and we see the cold desperation in his eyes for the remainder of the film. Lansbury isn't in the film as often, but makes the most of her scenes, playing a role that requires her to be a woman pretending to be something quite different than what she is. What is interesting is that Myra's desperation mirrors Craig’s but for different reasons. When she finally cracks at the end she does it well.

Two other actors deserve mention. Foran's role as Joe is small but vital to the film. His interaction with his business partner Lou (Robert Griffin) and Craig gives the audience enough to determine how they feel about the circumstances of his murder. These scenes are necessary for the first half of the film to work well and Foran does a very good job building an interesting character. The other role is of the artist Carl Holt (Lamont Johnson). When Craig first meets him we are unsure what kind of man he is, but Lamont plays him as a genuine nice guy, one who has no clue what Myra is really like. He bonds with Craig and it causes events in the second half to shift in a new direction. Again, without a solid performance in this role, the finale of the movie wouldn't work.

As I mentioned the script needs all the help it can get. The basic ideas are fine, and they make for an entertaining and dark little movie. It's the particulars that sink the script. I've mentioned the trial a couple times and for the most part it’s handled well. But the resolution is pretty bad. Craig's revelation that he is sleeping with his client would get the case tossed from court, instead it frees Myra? Um, I don't buy that for a minute. Beyond that there are other story items that just fall apart if you look at them too closely. The script needed another couple passes to smooth out the rough edges. But the characters are intriguing enough to keep me involved.

The technical elements all suffer a bit. The noir looks is effective, but at the same time doesn't really do too much to the mood of the film. A few moments work better than others, especially in the second half. But for the most part you've got decent enough visuals and sound. But the print just hurts the whole thing. Some scenes are way too dark or murky, and the dialogue in many scenes in the middle portion of the film is really difficult to hear. And some of the key lines required me to do some creative lip reading to make it work. The music is a mixed bag, ranging from effective to annoying. This is typical from composer Albert Glasser who worked on a lot of films for Bert I. Gordon. In this film he uses what sounds like a Theremin and it stands out pretty badly, not adding to the film much at all (as opposed to Bernarrd Herrman's work in "The Day the Earth Stood Still").

The direction is a mixed bag. Some of the shots are composed well with some good lighting and tension work building well. It's difficult to judge some of the editing because the print is so damaged in places that actual frames are missing, but for the most part you can see that it was put together fairly well. Director Peter Godfrey knew enough to step back and let his actors work, maybe providing some guidance here and there. It's very good, but one thing keeps things from really clicking and that is the use of the flashbacks. It just makes the story feel convoluted instead of clean and simple. I've seen others say that this structure was influenced by "Double Indemnity" the classic noir. This may be the case, but the film doesn't need it, and it actually ends up being annoying when we cut back to Craig narrating his story. If this element had been cut the movie would have been better for it.

This is a movie that works in spite of some major handicaps. But the actors pull you in and keep you interested in the characters. It's makes for an entertaining evening of noir, but if you aren't willing to deal with the poor sound and visual quality - I say skip it. For anyone else who wants to see Burr and Lansbury, I recommend it.

Check out what James Lileks thought of the movie here.

The Black Cauldron (1985)

Introduction:

For the longest time all I know about Disney's "The Black Cauldron" was that it was the black sheep of the animated film family. It failed in the theaters and Disney hated it so much that they refused to release it ever again in theaters or on video. But at the end of the 1990's, Disney relented and released the film on VHS and DVD. Did this film deserve to be smothered and hidden away?

Summary:

Taran (Grant Bardsley) is your typical assistant pig keeper who yearns for adventure. He gets his chance when the diabolical Horned King (John Hurt) discovers that Hen Wen is a magical pig who can reveal the location of the Black Cauldron. Once the Horned King has the cauldron in his possession he can create and invicible army of undead to sweep the land. Taran is tasked to with protecting Hen Wen, but things go very wrong and he begins a quest to find her. Along the way he meets the magical princess Eilonwy (Susan Sheridan), the flusterd bard Fflewddur Fflam (Nigel Hawthorne) and the obnoxiously cute Gurgi (John Byner). Will Taran and his friends be able to stop the Horned King from finding and using "The Black Cauldron"?

Good Points:

• Disney attempted a new look with the animation
• The voice acting is well done and fitting to the story
• Avoided shoehorning musical numbers into the story

Bad Points:

• The script is very rough and needed another draft or two
• A few sequences are executed poorly, forgetting other characters are present
• Never really grabs the viewer

Overall:

This was Disney's animation team experimenting and attempting to shake the doldrums they had fallen into since Walt's death. It's a worthy effort, but never really takes off. Blame should not be placed on the darker tone of the film or it's fantasy setting - but on a script that is in desperate need of polish. Had the script been better, this film might be remembered with more fondness. As it is, it is more of a curiousity for animation enthusiasts.

Scores (out of 5)

Animation: 4

Sound: 4

Music: 4

Voice Acting: 4

Script: 2

Direction: 2

Entertainment: 3

Total: 3

Curious about a full review, send me an email and I'll make additional thoughts to this review.

Percy Jackson & The Olympians: The Lightning Thief (2010)

Introduction

My wife started reading these books and really got into them. I read the first and was surprised how good it was. It had a fun mix of Greek mythology, humor and adventure. I figured you could make a really entertaining movie out of this. But I also feared that it could go horribly wrong. Let’s see what happened.

Summary:

Percy Jackson (Logan Lerman) just found out he’s the son of the sea god Poseidon (Kevin McKidd). Turns out that all the Greek gods and monsters are real and still hanging out in our times. But things aren’t going so well for the Olympians. The master lightning bolt of Zeus (Sean Bean) was stolen and he is certain that Percy is the culprit. Now Percy has to team up with Annabeth (Alexandra Daddario) daughter of Athena and Grover (Brandon T. Jackson) a satyr to find out who really is “The Lightning Thief’.

Good Points

• The cast seems game to have some fun – especially Uma Thurman
• A couple key moments from the book are well executed
• Some cool visual effects for the mythological creatures

Bad Points

• The script is missing a lot of the humor from the book
• Much of the magic and wonder is missing from the movie
• Never pulls the viewer in

Overall

What a missed opportunity this was. Even if I’d never read the books I’d wonder what happened here. The mythological elements are toned down, the humor is bland and almost all the character and quirkiness from the books is missing. The result is a humdrum adventure that has some pretty moments but is lacking anything to draw you in. The cast does a good job, with Joe Pantoliano and Uma Thurman stealing their scenes with relish. But the script is so limp its all for naught. Stick with the books.

Scores (out of 5)

Visual: 4

Sound: 4

Acting: 3

Music: 3

Script: 2

Direction: 2

Entertainment: 2

Total: 2

Curious about a full review, send me an email and I'll make additional thoughts to this review.