Jurassic World (2015)

Jurassic World (2015)

Director: Colin Trevorrow

Cast: Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard, Ty Simpkins, Nick Robinson, Irrfan Khan

The concept of an amusement park filled with dinosaurs is an attractive one because, let's be honest, who wouldn’t kill to see living breathing dinosaurs? In the Jurassic Park franchise genetic manipulation and biological tinkering have made it possible for us to see ancient creatures that were once extinct, same as if you were visiting a zoo. Unfortunately, as the last three films have taught us, giant meat eating dinosaurs are not that easy to keep in captivity. This is the fourth film in the beloved Jurassic Park franchise, and it’s only now, after four films and three failed test runs, that the park finally opens its doors to the public. Only now it’s called Jurassic World. Why would anyone want to visit a park where many people have died at the hands of genetically mutated dinosaurs is beyond me, but I guess the idea behind Jurassic World is that people have gotten over the events that occurred in Jurassic Park (1993), The Lost World (1997) and Jurassic Park III (2001). I guess the curiosity of seeing real live dinosaurs is just too much, people just don’t care, they’re going anyway. Chalk it up to confidence in human superiority. Our conquest over the natural world, we’re the kings of the planet and all that. I guess its similar to how people still go on roller coasters rides, even though people have died riding them. Just google the words “roller coaster tragedy” and you’ll see what I mean.  The premise for Jurassic World is that the park has been up and running for some time now, and that seeing a T-Rex or a Velociraptor is now commonplace. What can park owners do to keep the masses entertained?  And how long before the shit hits the fan?

Jurassic Park are a series of films with strong foundations on Michael Crichton’s book about genetic manipulation being conducted in secret islands, unbeknownst to the rest of the world. I remember reading Jurassic Park eons ago, it had an essay that talked all about how these genetic experiments are actually conducted with sheep, we just don’t know it. This gave the whole novel and subsequent film a scary legitimacy; a plausibility that might not have been there otherwise. Suddenly the story had foundations in the real world. Mix that idea with an amusement park gone berserk and you have a winner. Genetic engineering has always been a scary sort of concept; it makes humans seem like gods, playing with life, this is the reason why it’s always been a controversial matter in the real world. To this day, Crichton continues exploring this theme in his post Jurassic Park work, like for example, his 2006 novel entitled ‘Next’, a novel in which he continues to explore genetic research and corporate greed.  Jurassic World explores these ideas via these scientists that splice DNA from different dinosaurs to create entirely new species of dinosaurs. This is how we come about the main baddie in this film, the new dino created solely for Jurassic World, the ‘Indominous Rex’, a mix between a Velociraptor and a bunch of other dinosaurs. 

  

The concept of an amusement park in chaos is nothing new to Crichton, who explored this premise in the film Westworld (1973), a film Crichton himself directed about an amusement park that reproduced the old west, down to having cowboys walking down the streets, cantinas you could visit and horses you could ride. Tourists could come in and live in the old west for a couple of days. Things get crazy when robot cowboys malfunction and start shooting the tourists. As you can see, Crichton has been toying around with these ideas since the 70’s. In fact, Hollywood has used this concept before in films like Jaws 3-D (1983), were a vengeful shark runs amok inside of a Sea World, eating the people on the water rides. So to the seasoned movie buff, this concept is nothing new. What does Jurassic World have to offer that we haven’t seen before? A whole lot as it turns out because we’d never seen this concept played out with dinosaurs! These films strive on that one moment when it’s all about the chaos and the thousands of park goers running for their lives! There’s an awesome moment where Pterodactyls break loose and start snatching up tourists! Chaos indeed!

Of course comparisons to Jurassic Park (1993) are inevitable, so let’s get them out of the way. True there are nods to the original film, which fans will immediately spot. We revisit places from the first film, we see certain recognizable props and vehicles from Spielberg’s original. Some scenes in Jurassic World pay homage to Spielberg’s film, but that’s just director Colin Trevorrow respectfully acknowledging Spielberg’s genius. Thankfully the films offers us original elements as well, it’s not all one big homage like some reviewers are making it out to seem. In terms of the way it was made, well, Spielberg’s Jurassic Park is special in the sense that it mixed practical, physical effects with digital ones. Back in ’93, when Jurassic Park was made, it was the first film that showed the world how far digital effects could go when done right. I remember the first time I saw Jurassic Park in theaters! I was blown away, and yes, why not, I’ll admit it, when the T-Rex first roared, I got goose bumps. It looked so real. A lot of it had to do with the use of amazing puppets built for the film. If you go back and see Jurassic Park(1993) you’ll see, most of the time, the T-Rex is not computer animated, most of the time; it was all done through giant, life size puppets. Fast forward 22 years into the future and filmmaking has drastically changed, today computer animation has completely taken over movie making and so, we don’t see many puppets on this film. Most of the time, the dinosaurs are entirely computer generated. That’s just the way cinema is nowadays, so I guess we just have to accept it and enjoy those few moments when an adventurous filmmaker decides to make things the old fashioned way. Yet, when computer effects are done right they can blow us away and Jurassic World has good computer animation, so in that area, you won’t feel let down. We get top notch computer animation here.   We also get to see dinosaurs we haven’t seen before, like the giant whale dino.  

The film moves at a great pace, it slowly introduces us into the whole world. We get to see how the park works, who runs it. It takes its time to set things up properly, which is something I liked. You feel like you’re watching a real movie as opposed to a movie that’s in a hurry to get to the “good stuff” without setting up things properly first. In my opinion it’s a very well structured film. In fact, if you ask me, I say that that this film is better than The Lost World (1997) in the sense that The Lost World, though entertaining, felt like it was an unnecessary sequel which ran on one simple premise alone, putting the dinosaurs within the context of the city landscape. The third one was also pointless to me. In contrast Jurassic World feels like a natural continuation of the original story line which had everything to do with opening the park to the public, which finally happens here. I loved the way they portrayed the fully functional park, you’ll wish that it existed! Another plus is of course Chris Pratt as Owen, playing the role of what can only be described as a ‘Raptor Whisperer’. Chris Pratt looks like Indiana Jones on this one, it wouldn’t surprise me if he actually ends up wearing the Fedora hat at some point in his career, especially now that he is working with Spielberg. So that’s it ladies and gents. What we got here is a film that doesn’t surpass the original but is better than all previous sequels. All in all, a fun time at the movies.

Rating: 4 out of 5  

Kingsman: The Secret Service (2015)

Kingsman: The Secret Service (2015)

Director: Matthew Vaughn

Cast: Taron Egerton, Colin Firth, Samuel L. Jackson, Michael Caine, Sofia Boutella, Mark Hamill

I love it when I go into a film expecting little and come out completely excited because the movie I just saw exceeded my expectations. This is what happened to me with Kingsman: The Secret Service a movie I only had a vague idea about suddenly falls right into my best of the year list. This magnificent James Bond spoof comes to us from Matthew Vaughn, the guy who brought us Kick Ass (2010), X-Men: First Class (2011) and Stardust (2007) all entertaining films in my book. Vaughn wanted to make this movie so badly he said no to directing X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014), so that’s how much of a passion project this movie is to Vaughn. Not every director will have the guts to say no to a sure hit that will make millions in order to make a risky film that’s totally original. Sure Kingsman is based on Matthew Vaughn’s own comic book ‘The Secret Service’, but it’s not a household name. It’s not a sure thing. You have to respect a director who believes so much in his film that his willing to do that. The thing is that I see why he did it. Turns out Kingsman was way more entertaining than the last X-Men movie every step of the way, so I’m actually happy Vaughn eschewed X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014) for Kingsman.

In Kingsman: The Secret Service we are introduced to Eggsy, a young man who is going down the dark path. He’s all about being a trouble maker. He likes to go to bars to pick fights and cause a ruckus. But there’s something about him, he’s got potential to be something great. Secret Service Agent Harry Hart recognizes this, so he gives him a chance to apply to become a Kingsman. Just what the hell is a Kingsman and does Eggsy have what it takes to become one? Or is he just another loser?

What is so awesome about Kingsman is that it has all these old James Bond movies to build upon. What Matthew Vaughn did was he watched every single James Bond and spy movie ever made, and then he made this one. He cleverly avoids the famous clichés and makes fun of them while at the same time being a good spy movie. It’s a rule of thumb I have for all spoofs. If you’re going to spoof a genre, you still have to be a good film within the genre you are spoofing. Good examples of this are Young Frankenstein (1974) and Spaceballs (1986), two of Mel Brooks most famous spoofs. Young Frankenstein is a damn good Frankenstein movie (actually it was nominated for Best Screenplay in 1974) while still making fun of all those Frankenstein films that came before it. Young Frankenstein is such a good Frankenstein movie that it even surpasses many of the films it is spoofing. Same with Spaceballs, there’s no better Star Wars spoof out there. Funny, yet mindful to the type of film it is. And this is what Kingsman does so well. It takes all those elements you know and love from James Bond films and then twists them around and takes them to another level. If you are a fan of Bond movies, you will have a blast with Kingsman: The Secret Service. It’s always referencing some cliché from the Bond films. In this sense it reminds me William Dear’s If Looks Could Kill (1991), which was also about a teenager who turns into a super spy. It was also a lighthearted, fun film that poked fun at Bond movies, but trust me, Kingsman does it a million times better. Still, if you enjoy Kingsman, check out If Looks Could Kill (1991).

But aside from the spoof aspect of this film, as it turns out, it is also an extremely well written film saying a whole lot about the society we live in and what is wrong with it and boy, I wasn’t expecting this at all, but Kingsman: The Secret Service is one of the most subversive films I’ve seen in a while. It’s a film that sends a big ‘screw you’ to politics and religion. There’s an outstanding sequence that takes place inside of a Christian church that showcases everything that is wrong with religion today. What this story is saying is that politicians and religious leaders are total whackos, they just happen to be running the world, making all the wrong choices for all of us. How do you save the world from these madmen? By becoming a true gentleman, ridding the world of evil. I loved the message that the films puts across. It’s basically saying we can become something better, we can improve ourselves, we can do some good in the world. We have the potential, we just need to focus. It also speaks about the manipulation of the masses, and the control of how they perceive things. I can see why the film is rated ‘R’, it has profanity, nudity and subversive ideas. Its violence quotient is pretty high. It feels as if the filmmakers decided that if they we’re going to go with an ‘R’ rating, they were going to go all in. And that they did; which was awesome. It was so refreshing to see a film that wasn’t worrying about being politically correct.

Final words:  this movie turned out to be one of my favorite of the year; it was entertaining every step of the way. One of the biggest compliments it gets from me is that it was never boring. Not for a second. It brought back that fun element that modern James Bond movies lack. If you take a look at Bond films of today, they are currently on a ‘deadly serious’ phase, all the silly fun from the old movies has been sucked right out of that franchise.  And while I absolutely loved Sky Fall (2012), I miss the whacky element from the old ones, but don’t worry if you’ve been missing that sense of fun adventure from your spy movies, Kingsman: The Secret Service brings it all back.  So remember, what you guys have here is a film that’s very self conscious, it knows the cliché’s and staples of a good spy adventure and plays with them in innovative ways. And one more final note, the Matthew Vaughn’s direction on this one is top notch, his camera moves and angles, the over all direction of the film is truly fantastic. It’s dynamic, the camera angles are interesting, innovative. Case in point? The fights scenes on this movie are a blast! Really fun to watch! Now go see Kingsman: The Secret Service and have a blast, it just might blow your head into a million colorful pieces.

Rating:  5 out of 5  

The Maze Runner (2014)

 The Maze Runner (2014)

Director: Wes Ball

Cast:  Dylan O’Brien, Kaya Scodelario, Aml Ameen, Ki Hong Lee, Thomas Brodie Sangster, Blake Cooper

The Maze Runner comes as a direct response to the success of The Hunger Games (2012) and its sequels. After The Hunger Games made huge bank at the box office, suddenly there’s been a rash of subversive films aimed at the teen audience. I’m talking about films like Divergent (2014) and The Host (2013), films where youth resist the status quo, films where the young want to stand up for themselves and change things. To tell you the truth, I’m not a huge fan of The Hunger Games, I don’t know what it is about that franchise, to me it isn’t as big of a deal as they make it out to be. I mean, I love Subversive Cinema, but that doesn’t mean I’m gonna love everything that shows a bit of a rebellious streak to it. I mean, there is such a thing as subversive crap. So yeah, of course I rolled my eyes a little bit when I heard about The Maze Runner because honestly, it just seemed like more of the same, and in many ways, it is. But then I saw the trailer and the whole idea behind the maze grabbed me; cause I’m a sucker for movies about mazes, puzzles and labyrinths. So anyhow, was The Maze Runner subversive crap, or what is a decent film?

This film has a lot of similarities with an obscure science fiction flick from the 90’s called Cube (1997), in fact, it plays with essentially the same idea, but on a much bigger scale. Cube was the little engine that could, a completely independent film that became a cult success and spawned two sequels: Cube 2: Hypercube (2002) and Cube Zero (2004). All these Cube films played with the same premise; that of a group of strangers with their memories wiped out, who suddenly find themselves trapped inside of a mysterious cube that seems to change every now and again. Together they have to get past their differences in order to survive the deadly cube and escape to the outside world, if there in fact is one.  The Maze Runner uses that same exact premise, but in a giant moving labyrinth! The problem is that the kids trapped in the labyrinth don’t know why they are there; they don’t even know who they are. To top things off, they are afraid to venture out into the Labyrinth. What mysteries lie beyond their comfort zone?

So yeah, this movie was pressing all the right buttons for me cause I like movies that want to expose how crazy the world we live in is, I mean, society, it’s all kinds of messed up. We gotta live in this crazy world, and we gotta figure it out. Like a maze, that literally wants to kill us. In this sense I dug The Maze Runner, which is saying a lot because I went in ready to hate the hell out of it. Thankfully, it had some interesting themes to it. The movie is basically saying we’re all part of some sort of an experiment that the powers that be are conducting on us. That idea that the system is always watching us, that there is some ulterior motive behind their actions, that they are analyzing us and that we are oblivious to it, or choose to ignore it and conform. This is one of those movies where ‘they’ want to know what makes us tick, why we are who we are, so they can control us better. In this way, The Maze Runner also reminded me of Alex Proya’s Dark City (1998), a film that plays with similar themes. For example, in Dark City humanity is also part of an experiment and same as the labyrinth in The Maze Runner is always changing so does Dark City’s constantly changing city, hell, even the idea that the main character does not remember who he is was also used in Dark City. So we could easily say that The Maze Runner is a mix between Cube and Dark City, with a bit of The Hunger Games.  In other words, not terribly original.

What I did like was the maze itself which is this huge mechanical thing, constantly changing, usually trying to kill the young kids trying to solve it. Whenever the kids would run into the maze, the film turns infinitely more exciting. My only gripe with the film is these CGI monsters that the kids have to fight when they go into the maze. For me it’s snoresville whenever characters start to fight computer generated beasties, I don’t know, it just bores the hell out of me; to me all these creatures look the same, to me they are all in one big blur. Thankfully, the movie doesn’t solely focus on these creatures and the story moves on, digging deeper into the mystery behind the labyrinth. Ultimately, what I enjoyed the most about the film is how it mirrors life. We are born into this world not knowing anything, others guide us, teach us. Then comes a point where we take the reins of our own life and become masters of our own destinies, searching for that ever elusive truth; which is usually covered by an avalanche of lies. Only the ones curious enough dare to begin that search, dare to ask the questions.  

So in conclusion, The Maze Runner is an amalgamation of many films and books that came before it. I’ve already mentioned some of the films that influenced The Maze Runner, but I’d also add a little bit of William Golding’s Lord of the Flies into the mix of influences because same as Golding’s classic book, the film also speaks of mans natural tendency to fight each other, to form clans, to separate and of course, the resulting clashes that come from difference of opinions.  My last take on The Maze Runner is that it isn’t ground breaking cinema, but it will keep you entertained for a while. This is what Hollywood is churning out now, cause it's a theme that's hot and it's also a reflection of how we are feeling about society. On the negative side of things, you do get the feeling that they are not giving you a whole lot of information because they are looking to set up a sequel, so this first film feels like an introductory tale, where they aren’t really giving you the whole story, there’s a lot of exposition, a lot of introductions. You kind of feel like they are stretching things a bit, as if they want to save more of the story for future installments, so yeah, this is obviously another franchise wannabe. Will it succeed at the box office? Will it spawn more sequels? How The Maze Runnerfares at the box office will decide that, I personally wouldn't mind seeing where the story will go from here on in.

Rating: 3 out of 5

Hudson Hawk (1991)

Title: Hudson Hawk (1991)

Director: Michael Lehman

Cast: Bruce Willis, Danny Aiello, Andie McDowell, Sarah Bernhard, Richard E. Grant, James Coburn

Sometimes we like a movie even though everybody else thinks its crap, and Hudson Hawk is one of those movies for me. Lambasted by critics when it was first released, Hudson Hawk was deemed “unspeakably awful” by Rolling Stone magazine and “implausible” by AMC Film Critic; to that I say “where’s your sense of humor people?” Yeah it’s silly and over the top, but when was that a sin? Last time I checked there’s room in the universe for films like this; in fact, sometimes it’s exactly what I need to watch. Bruce Willis was part of the group of writers that were responsible for the film; that’s right my friends, Bruce Willis partially concocted the story for this film. The film was such a horrendous flop that Willis never dabbled in the script department of any film ever again. The thing is that I perfectly get what Bruce Willis wanted to convey with Hudson Hawk, I get the vibe, I get the style of comedy, I get the tone of the flick, what I don’t get is why other people don’t find it as entertaining as I do! Really this movie is tons of fun!

Eddie Hawkins a.k.a. ‘Hudson Hawk’ is a master thief who has just gotten out of jail. He’s done his time, it’s over, he’s out. Problem is that he is such a great burglar that the minute he steps out of jail, he is immediately offered an irresistible job to steal a famous work of art from an auction house. The piece? None other than Davinci’s ‘Sforza’. And so the tale unfolds, soon Hudson Hawk learns that the ones who want to steal these famous works of art are the head honchos of a corporation known as Mayflower Industries; a corporation run by two genuine whackos know as Darwin and Minerva Mayflower, a husband and wife duo who want nothing more than to destroy the very economical foundations of society! So once Hudson Hawk realizes what the deal is, of course, he has to stop these two power hungry megalomaniacs.

So Hudson Hawk is the kind of movie that doesn’t really care much for logic and reason, it simply wants to be fast paced, tell a couple of jokes and one liners along the way, maybe put a smile on your face and finally entertain ya. This isn’t Shakespeare and it never tries to be; this is a heist movie tinted with a little bit of adventure and  sprayed with a little bit of gangster film shenanigans for good measure. You see, Hudson Hawks best buddy is a guy called Tommy Five Tone, the owner of a bar where gangster go to talk shop, eat and drink. Cool part is that Tommy Five Tone is played by Danny Aiello and what says “gangster movie” more than Danny Aiello right? There’s a group of actors out there who always end up in gangster movies because they have that Italian gangster face and Aiello is one of them. So anyways,  Tommy Five Tone runs this bar, but on the side he sometimes organizes a heist or two, and Hudson Hawk is his right hand man. Here’s an element of the film that lets you know how lighthearted it is: Tommy and Hawk pull off their heists while singing Bing Crosby and Paul Anka songs! They actually time their heists to however long the song lasts. The chemistry between these two characters is one of the elements that keeps the movie entertaining, the one liners, the jokes, the funny back and forth. Listen carefully; the subtle word play is hilarious on this one. I mean, one of the crime families in the film is named The Mario Brothers! 

Calling this movie implausible, as a critic called it is simply stupid, because plausibility is not something I look for in a movie like Hudson Hawk, in fact, in this kind of tongue in cheek movie, plausibility is the last thing on the list. On this kind of movie you get the complete opposite, which is why I enjoy the elements in Hudson Hawks that border on fantasy, I like the over the topness. I like seeing Willis pulling off a heist while singing ‘Swinging on a Star’. I like how the fights and the action where pulled off in a cartoonish fashion, it at times feels like you’re watching a Three Stooges short. And speaking of over the top, out of all the performances, Sara Bernhard’s ‘Minerva Mayflower’ stands out as the most over the top character of all! Bernhard has been a comedian for many years, even performing to sell out crowds in Broadway. I remember her the most from her role in Martin Scorsese’s  The King of Comedy (1983), a film in which she played opposite Robert DeNiro and Jerry Lewis. On this one she is loud, intimidating and larger than life. It is obvious she relished playing the lead villain. As a suggestion, if you feel like checking out the special features, check out this really funny featurette in which Bernhard explains how she loved playing Minerva, its hilarious!

The film was directed by Michael Lehmann, the same director behind such films as Heathers (1988) Airheads (1994) and Meet The Applegates (1990), here he does a good job, in my opinion the film has slick production values, they even shot some scenes in Rome which was pretty cool. Unfortunately for Lehman, Hudson Hawk was shot down from the skies, it was a bomb, probably because it was a very misunderstood film. It was marketed as an action adventure film, and so people were probably expecting something along the lines of what they’d seen Willis successfully pull off in Die Hard (1988) and Die Hard 2 (1990) and so that probably caught people off guard. They weren’t expecting a goofy, cartoonish action/comedy, heist movie, they wanted more of John McClain! Instead they got John McClain via The Three Stooges, not a bad combo if you forget all about expectations!   

Just how cartoonish was this film you ask? Well, during some of the fights you’ll hear cartoon sounds, just like you’d hear in those old Warner Bros. cartoons that’s how cartoonish this movie was! The fights? Very slapstick in nature, usually, the main characters will be in peril, but everything turns out good in the end, it’s that kind of movie. I say that if they had marketed the film for what it was, it wouldn’t have disappointed audiences and it might have had a chance. When released in theaters, it was marketed with the tagline “Catch the Adventure, Catch the Excitement, Catch the Hawk!” which suggests it’s a full blown action flick. Yet, after the film tanked, they switched the word “Adventure” for “Laughter” for the films Home Video release, but by then it was too late. My take on it is that audiences don’t like to be lied too. I’ve seen this happen with many other movies, the first one that comes to mind is Nicholas Cage’s Vampires Kiss (1989) which was marketed as a comedy, but was actually a dark, weird film. Lesson for Hollywood: don’t lie to your audience just to get their butts in the theater, your film will suffer for it. Now here’s The Film Connoisseur telling it like it is, now you know what kind of movie Hudson Hawk is, go check it out, you’ll more than likely have a good time.

Rating:  3 ½ out of 5

The Phantom (1996)

Title: The Phantom (1996)

Director: Simon Wincer

Cast: Billy Zane, Treat Williams, Catherine Zeta-Jones, James Remar, Kristy Swanson

My introduction to the Lee Falk’s The Phantom was by way of a cartoon show from the 80’s called Defenders of the Earth; boy I was a fan of that show! It united Flash Gordon, Mandrake the Magician (another one of Falk’s creations) and The Phantom in a show that turned them into a team of super heroes who in every episode would go up against Ming the Merciless in his attempt to conquer the earth. Back then I must have been about 11 or 12 years old but little did I know that The Phantom had such a legacy as a character! Here’s a character that started way back in the 1930’s as a syndicated comic strip. It has gone on to appear in all sorts of media outlets including films, cartoons, video games, comic books and novels. Sad part about the character is that even though Lee Falk constantly made efforts to get the character out there to the public, for some reason modern audiences never connected  with the character, which is probably the reason why the film made back ’96 flopped in such a big way.

After the mega success of Batman (1989) and its sequel Batman Returns (1992) all the major studios were looking for a way to duplicate the success of those films and so suddenly, comic book films where the hot ticket. Before Burton’s Batman, big budget comic book films were a rarity. Yes my friends, there was a time when comic book lovers were starving for superhero films! We earned for worthy adaptations of our favorite comic book characters. A glimpse of light showed itself on the horizon when Burton’s bat films made it so big. After Batman comic book fans got least one big budget comic book movie every summer. The problem was that most studios didn’t go for modern comic book characters, for some reason they opted to go with old comic book heroes, like The Rocketeer (1991), The Shadow (1994) and the film I’ll be reviewing today, The Phantom (1996). I guess studios wanted to go the safe route by making films of these established characters. No matter how old they were, studios thought movies based on these characters would make huge bank at the box office because they were classic super heroes. But boy were they wrong! Studios didn’t know it back then, but people didn’t want to see super heroes from the 30’s, they wanted to see modern day super heroes brought to life. The disappointing box office success of these three super hero films based on old characters taught film studios that what people wanted was something else, something modern. It was 20^th Century Fox who finally went the right way and did a film based on Marvel comics X-Men (1999). Comic book movies haven’t stopped since, the new age of comic book films was born. But it seems studios haven’t learned their lesson entirely, cause they’ve just gone and spent 200 million dollars in making The Lone Ranger (2013), which has immediately lost a ton of money at the box office and is poised to become this year’s runaway turkey.

The Phantom, next to his horse 'Hero'

But what of The Phantom? Why did it flop? Aside from it being an old comic book character? Well, to be honest, the film isn’t all that exciting. I mean, be it old or new, what really matters at the end of the day is if the film is worth a damn, if it entertains. So doe it? Well, in my book it half way does. For me the film never truly takes off. Even though it was written by Jeffrey Boam; the guy who wrote Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade (1989), The Phantom still managed to be boring and flat. Even the fights were filmed in a boring way! Here I was watching the climactic fight between the good guy and the bad guy and I was like, that’s it, this is the best they could muster? The film isn’t impressive enough. I mean, I did appreciate the way the film tried to convey this feeling of old adventure films, of the old cliffhangers from the 50’s. Hidden caves, hidden treasures, good guys chasing bad guys while riding horses, the hero jumping off planes, pirates, swords…cool ideas, my only problem is in the execution, it all amounts to a boring film, which is a sad thing to be if you’re a superhero film.

Another thing that rubbed me the wrong way was how many elements were ripped off from the Indiana Jones films. I mean, okay, you got the same guy who wrote Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade to write this, but damn the similarities are so many that you almost feel like you are watching the Indiana Jones films all over again. Let’s see, the whole film is about these three magical skulls, kind of like those three magical stones from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)? When they get together they are all powerful? Been there seen that. They have this scene where the bad guys unite the three magical skulls and laser lights come out of the skulls eyes and the lasers point out a spot on the map that shows the bad guys where they need to go to get the third skull….which instantly reminded me of a similar scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) in which Indy does the same exact thing. There this scene in which The Phantom jumps off a plane with his girl and the plane crashes on a mountain, a scene plays out in the same exact fashion in Temple of Doom, even the shots are similar! Even the opening of the film takes place in an old bridge, same as that old bridge that Indy dangles from in Temple of Doom, so yeah, the filmmakers behind The Phantom used the Indiana Jones films as a blue print. Unfortunately, they were unable to duplicate the excitement behind those films.

On the positive side of things, the film does scream Saturday Morning Matinee, and it does manage to have that old fashion sense of adventure to it, and come on, let’s face it, that cheesy, cliffhanger stuff is cool if you’re a genre fan. The overall vibe is fun and nutty, and when we take in consideration Treat Williams performance as the villain ‘Xander Drax’, the film is also over the top, not meant to be taken seriously at all. This is not a serious or close to reality take on a super hero like The Dark Knight (2008), in fact, this is the complete opposite, pure ridiculousness. In fact, the writer of the film, Jeffrey Boam, wrote his original script as a spoof. Unfortunately, the director didn’t go with the funny vibe, he tried playing it straight. Still, you can see glimpses of the comedic elements that Boam put into the script. I mean, we are talking about a guy wearing a purple skin tight suit while swinging from tree vines in the middle of the African jungle! In fact when I think about it, this film has a lot in common with the Batman television show from the 60’s! You almost expect a WHAM! to appear on the screen when The Phantom punches a bad guy. So I guess if you go in expecting pulpy, over the top, campiness, then you should have a better time watching this, but still, there are many things that hinder the enjoyment of the flick, for example, the sets are so obviously sets! They didn’t even try to make them look realistic. The ending of the film, which takes place inside of a cave is so obviously a sound stage it’s not even funny! The whole thing looks so cheap.

Many directors were interested in bringing The Phantom to the big screen. At one point, even Sergio Leone himself expressed interest in directing the film! He even wanted to follow it up with a Mandrake the Magician film! Can you imagine that? The Phantom directed by Sergio Leone? Damn, that sounds cool just reading it! Joe Dante and Joel Schumacher were also at one time going to direct, but the project eventually fell on the hands of Simon Wincer, the director behind D.A.R.Y.L. (1985), Free Willy (1993) and Operation Dumbo Drop (1995). If you ask me, any of the previous directors that came before him would have made a better film. The studio had wanted to make this film since the late eighties and early nineties, but various factors stumped the production, one of the reasons why the project came to a screeching halt was because of the disastrous box office intake of The Shadow, which was also a period piece comic book movie, but it was also an abysmal failure. Still, the project pushed on and we got The Phantom, which while not the worst comic book movie ever made, leaves a lot to be desired. Still, the film does have a good performance from Billy Zane as The Phantom. He actually pumped iron for more than a year so he could get all beefed up for the part. He didn’t want to use fake muscles like other superhero films. But then again the mind wonders: what would Bruce Campbell have looked like playing The Phantom? That’s right my friends he was up for the part! So was Dolph Lungdren! Instead we got Billy Zane, a lifelong fan of The Phantom. So in the end, I’d say that The Phantom is still a fun watch, just go in with low expectations and you just might have some fun.

Rating: 3 out of 5   

Lee Falk and Billy Zane

Kon-Tiki (2013)

Title: Kon-Tiki (2012)

Directors: Joachim Ronning, Espen Sandberg

Cast: Pal Sverre Hagen, Anders Baasmo Christiansen, Tobias Santelmann, Gustaf Skarsgard, Jakob Oftebro, Agnes Kittelsen, Odd Magnus Williamson

Review:

Kon-Tiki is the real life story of a Norwegian adventurer named Thor Heyerdahl who in 1947 was hell bent on undertaking an expedition across the Pacific Ocean. But this wasn’t just any old expedition Heyerdahl wanted to put together, nope, Heyerdahl wanted to go on a wood raft across the Pacific Ocean. He wanted the raft to be constructed with the materials that people had in the past, nothing modern, just basil wood and rope. He wanted to prove that in the past, man could have traveled long distances on rafts made of wood. Heyerdahl wanted to prove that these long treks could have taken place and that technological limitations didn’t stop people of the past from achieving these journeys. Basically, he was kind of like a Jacques Cousteau, the famous biologist/adventurer; actually, Cousteau and Heyerdahl were contemporaries. I admire guys like these, I mean; they give up a normal life to live extraordinary ones. Their lives were filled with real life adventure; which is probably why the tagline for this movie is “Real Adventure Has No Limits”.

So yeah, this is one of those “based on real life events” type of films, even though from looking at the trailers, you might get the idea that it’s some sort of fantasy. And speaking of fantasy, the film has some similarities with a couple of movies out there, but the most blaringly obvious one is Life of Pi (2012). Both films are about people traveling on a raft through the perilous, unpredictable ocean. On both films the travelers meet beautiful marine life, gigantic whales, sharks, glowing sea creatures, flying fish. Both films also explore the validity of faith, of believing in what we can’t see. While Life of Pi preaches about the Christian concept of God, Kon-Tiki has a character fiercely believing in ‘Tiki’, a Polynesian God. At one point this belief in ‘Tiki’ is questioned when a character tells Heyerdahl “nobody believes in your Tiki story” to which Heyerdahl replies “Then why are you here?”  So Kon-Tiki has various levels of similarity with Life of Pi, the difference is that while Life of Pi is more of a fantasy film, Kon-Tiki happened for real. These crazy guys really did take this journey through the Pacific on a raft they built themselves. The film also had some similarities with a film I love very much called Joe Versus theVolcano (1990), a film in which Tom Hanks also embarks on a journey through the ocean on a small raft. Joe Versus the Volcano is a film that gets quite existential, it also touches upon the idea of god. At one point Joe actually looks up at the heavens, talking to a God whose name he does not know and thanking whoever that being might be. What is it with films about people taking perilous journeys on rafts and the theme of God? It might have something to do with pitting man vs. nature; nature on these films being the closest thing to God an idea that pops up in all three of these films, the idea that nature and life are so grand that they are worthy of our worship.

In Kon-Tiki, the part of the story that amazed me the most is the one about these guys building this raft all on their own and deciding to just do it. I mean, this took guts because they wanted to make the journey sans anything modern, save for a radio to communicate with in case of emergencies. Heyerdahl even tried looking for funding through National Geographic magazine, a help which the magazine denied because Heyerdahl’s journey seemed downright suicidal to them. Which made sense to me in a way, I mean, when the journey begins, you feel as if these guys are so green, they really don’t know much about traveling through the ocean, much less on a wood raft. You kind of get the feeling that the sea is going to give them a good whoopin’. But what they lacked in experience, they made up with sheer adventurous spirit. And a grand adventure it was, the film portrays all their adventures, their fights with sharks, whales, the weather and themselves. Those scenes where the men interact with nature bring up some of the most spectacular moments in the film, my favorite being their encounter with a whale, such an awesome scene. It reminded me a bit of that elusive mythical fish in Wes Anderson’s The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004), yet another film about a group of adventurous men in the sea.

Thor Hayerdahl wrote about his experiences and printed them in a book called The Kon-Tiki Expedition: By Raft across the South Seas. He also took Cousteau’s example and filmed the whole expedition with hopes of turning the footage into a documentary, which ended becoming a documentary called Kon-Tiki (1950). By the way, that documentary won an Oscar in 1951! Heyerdahl continued doing expeditions after this one, there’s actually a whole museum dedicated to all of his journeys where you can see all the different rafts he made for these different journeys. The guy dedicated himself to a life of adventure and exploration, so much so that he sacrificed his family life and this is something that the movie addresses a bit, how his journeys destroyed his marriage. This is a concept that’s been played out in films about people who are so devoted to achieving a certain goal, that they opt to sacrifice everything, marriage, love and even family life. These are people that feel that what they are doing is bigger than themselves, so they pay the price. At the end of the day I thought the film was very motivational, it also reminded me of Werner Herzog’s Fitzcarraldo (1982), yet another film about a determined dude in a boat going against all odds. Final words on this film is that even though it is a really beautiful film to look at and one with some amazing moments in it, it needed maybe a little more conflict, a little more intensity in its plot; but aside from that, I personally really dug this movie. The Norwegian directors of this film, Joachim Ronning and Espen Sandberg did such a swell job with this movie that they are now directing the fifth Pirates of the Caribbean film, looking forward to that, it will be interesting to see what kind of feel they can add to that franchise. Bottom line is, if you love nature, need to be inspired and have an adventurous spirit, this one comes highly recommended.  

Rating: 4 out of 5 

Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold (1986)

Title: Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold (1986)

Director: Gary Nelson

Cast: Richard Chamberlain, Sharon Stone, James Earl Jones

Review:  

 Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold is a sequel to King Solomon’s Mines (1985) which in turn was a cheesy, low budget Indiana Jones wannabe, mind you an enjoyable one. Yeah, these movies were cashing in on the popularity of the Indiana Jones movies in the same way that all those cheesy Italian Indiana Jones rip offs did during the 80’s, films like The Mines of Kilimanjaro (1986) or The Ark of the Sun God (1984). Cool thing about these Quatermain movies is that no matter how silly or stupid they maybe, I find them incredibly entertaining. Why? Well, probably because nobody takes themselves too seriously here, it’s all in good fun. The point of these movies is to be stupid and silly. Both of these Allan Quatermain movies were shot back to back and released various years apart. The first film, King Solomon’s Mines, received better reviews then its sequel, which many consider to be a lesser film. But if you ask this Film Connoisseur, I really can’t tell the two apart in terms of mood or quality, to me they are both goofy adventure movies, both of them are super fun in my book.  

On this one, Allan Quatermain must travel to Africa in search of a lost civilization, a “lost white tribe” that lives in a hidden city of gold. Apparently, his brother, who’s also an adventurer (adventure runs in the family it seems) went searching for the mythical “lost city of gold”, problem is he never came back. So of course, Quatermain must go in search of his sibling. On his journey he’s accompanied by his trusty sidekick/lover Jesse (Sharon Stone), an African adventurer, professional axe wielder and warrior called ‘Umslopogaas’ (James Earl Jones) and an Indian “wise man” who is more like a wise ass/comedic relief type of character; together they go in search of fortune and glory and Quatermain’s long lost brother. Of course perils await them along the way, including a tribe of blood thirsty cannibals! Will they ever make it to the City of Gold alive and find Quatermain’s brother?

The thing about this movie is that while most of the time it manages to be fast paced, adventurous and entertaining (with some silly dialog to boot!) what makes watching this movie a funny affair is that sometimes its low ‘budgetness’ is so blaringly obvious! For example, there are a couple of moments in which Allan Quatermain has to jump great distances, or hang on for dear life at the border of a cliff or something and right there above him you can see these huge fat cables holding the actor! I wouldn’t mind so much if it happened maybe once, but god, you can see those freaking cables so many times on this movie! They didn’t even bother hiding those suckers with lighting or trick photography or nothing, they just left them there! No time or money to hide them in post-production! It’s just hilarious when you can spot them, so knock yourselves out trying to spot them! Funny thing is that this movie comes to us from director Gary Nelson, the director who also made Disney's The Black Hole (1979), a film that also suffered from visible cables! 

Hey mister, Gene Simmons wants his hair back!

Another thing is that some truly nonsensical things will happen from time to time. For example, there’s this moment in which the characters are making their way through a cave, and these snake like monsters pop out from the ground and the walls! I say this is nonsensical because this is not a fantasy film or anything, this is an adventure film, not a monster film, so suddenly seeing these crazy snake monsters (that resemble NOTHING from the real world) popping out of these walls, you tend to question what the hell they are and why the main characters don’t even question their existence? They just chop them up and kill them and move on to the next action sequence. He he…those little creatures felt so out of place on this movie! It’s as if the filmmakers just looked for the silliest excuse to make the film more interesting, so yeah, let’s throw some snake creatures in there! Too funny! Another set piece hasthe ground open up for no reason whatsoever, as if some sort of earthquake suddenly occurs or something, but you can tell it’s just this big ass set, and the floor opens up like some giant ass elevator door! It doesn’t look like an earthquake; it looks like revolving doors opening up to some secret underground lair or something! Not realistic in the least!

Things get more hilarious when Quatermain and crew arrive at the titular “Lost City of Gold”. This is where things get just a little nuttier. The leader of the tribe is this crazy religious nut who looks like Gene Simmons from KISS, you gotta see this guy, he likes to dip people in gold for some reason. The religion he’s created for the people of the lost city require human sacrifices, but the people don’t want them anymore, so suddenly the film turns into a film about boycotting this crazy religious leader. Even crazier, the queen of this city is played by Cassandra Peterson! That’s right my friends, Elvira is their queen! By the way, she looks great in her queen regalia. To top things off, the City of Gold looks like a really cheap ass set, with stair cases meant to look imposing, but ultimately end up looking unimpressive. Want more nonsensical events? How about Quatermain charging up a sword with lightning like He-Man and then using the lightning infused sword to melt a golden statue? So he can bathe the bad guy in Gold? Crazy I tell ya! Bottom line with this movie for me is that it’s so bad it’s good. It’s so bad, it’s hilarious! This is the movie that Sharon Stone doesn’t want you to see, well, this and Catwoman (2004), but who cares what Sharon Stone thinks of this awesome slice of 80’s b-movie madness? I say give it a spin if you want to laugh yourself silly and have a fun night of cheese.

Rating:  2 1/2 out of 5  

The Golden Child (1986)

Title: The Golden Child (1986)

Director: Michael Ritchie

Cast:  Eddie Murphy, Charles Dance, Charlotte Lewis, Victor Wong, James Hong, Randall Tex Cobb

Review:

It is said that every thousand generations, a perfect child is born and that this child will come to free us from ourselves. This magical child is supposed to bring compassion to humanity. If for whatever reason, the kid dies, then all hope and compassion will disappear from the world, and the world will turn into hell itself, literally. This is the premise for Michael Ritchie’s The Golden Child, an Eddie Murphy vehicle that was released onto the world right after Eddie Murphy had completed his work on Beverly Hills Cop (1984), in other words, when his fame was really starting to take off. For a moment there, Murphy was on fire in theaters making people laugh with one great comedy after another. I’m talking he was making films like Trading Places(1983), 48 Hrs. (1982) and Beverly Hills Cop II (1987). If you ask me, Murphy got as high as he was going to go in terms of comedy and quality with John Landis’s super comedy Coming to America (1988); now there’s a funny Eddie Murphy movie! After that, he’d continue making movies, but he never reached the success or levels of funny he reached during his golden years; the 80’s. But amongst all those funny movies he made during the 80’s, one was a stinker in my book, and that was The Golden Child.  Let’s find out why shall we?

So yeah, there’s a magical kid who’s kind of like the second coming of Christ or something, he’s been kidnapped from his Buddhist temple by this bad guy called ‘Sardo Numpsa’. You see old Sardo wants to make the kid drink some blood in order to corrupt his pure body. Then he wants to kill the kid so he won’t bring goodness to the world or something like that. In comes Chandler Jarrell (Murphy) a private detective who specializes in missing children cases. He doesn’t know it yet, but he is “the chosen one”, destined to save and protect The Golden Child. Will his wise ass remarks get in the way of saving The Golden Child?

The Golden Child is one of these movies that was originally intended to be one kind of a film, and ended up being another. At one point, this film was going to be a serious adventure film starring Mel Gibson. Even cooler, it was going to be directed by John Carpenter! Imagine that? Mel Gibson passing up this project was fine by me because instead he went and did Lethal Weapon(1987), a far more memorable film. Interesting thing about Carpenter’s involvement with The Golden Child is that he passed on it but then went on to direct Big Trouble in Little China (1986), a film that also dealt with Chinese mysticism, and also starred James Hong, Victor Wong and Peter Kwong. I guess Carpenter decided to go and do his own Chinese mysticism flick; his way. And thank the movie gods for that! Otherwise we would have never had a Big Trouble In Little China! So suddenly we had two studios making similar films, who was going to beat who to premiere day? Story goes that Big Trouble in Little Chinawas rushed through post production in order to premiere before The Golden Child! Michael Ritchie was the guy who ended up directing The Golden Child; Ritchie’s a director who mostly specialized in directing comedies. He’s the director behind such comedy classics as The Bad News Bears (1976), Fletch(1985), Wild Cats (1986) and Fletch Lives! (1989), so in a way, it makes perfect sense that he’s the guy who ended up behind the cameras.

When Mel Gibson passed on the role of Chandler Jarrell, the producers opted to put Murphy in the starring role and had the script rewritten in order to turn it into a comedy. So what we have here ladies and gentlemen is one of those movies where everybody is dead serious, except for the main star who spends the whole film reacting to everything with a funny remark. Eddie Murphy literally replies with a funny remark to everything in this movie! So the comedy element of the film rests entirely on the shoulders of Eddie Murphy. Gotta admit he is one of the things that makes this movie watchable. The film might feel pointless and silly, but it had Eddie Murphy back when he was still a funny man, not the softy he’s become recently. Is there some sort of contract that prohibits Murphy from making films with some guts to them? All he makes now are freaking family comedies! So anyhow, it’s Murphy’s funny one liners that make this one bearable in my book.  

This movie gets lambasted by reviewers and critics everywhere, perhaps unfairly I might add. There’s this hive like mentality to immediately hate Eddie Murphy and everything he does, and I actually understand it because of the terrible films he currently makes, but once upon a time, Murphy was at the top of his game. He had an edge, he was actually funny. What happened to him that changed his persona so drastically? I don’t know, perhaps he became a dad and started seeing things differently? I don’t hate the Murphy’s old films; I find his early stuff truly hilarious. Try watching Trading Places (1983) and not laughing. I dare ya! I double dare ya! True, The Golden Child is not his brightest day in the sun, but hey, it’s got some fun things about it. For example, there’s this scene in the film that’s a flat out homage to The 36^thChamber of Shaolin (1978) but with Murphy saying jokes as he passes the tests. We get two stop motion animated creatures, a  half snake, half human lady, and a demon from hell that’s really weird looking in design, I don’t know what the inspiration was for that creature.  In terms of mood, they were obviously going for a mix between 36^th Chamber of Shaolin and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984), there’s this whole subplot about finding a magical dagger that reminded me of Indy searching for that idol. Overall, The Golden Child feels like a pointless movie that simply goes through the motions without any real impact. Still, if you want to see every film Murphy has made, there are far worse film on his repertoire for you to explore.

Rating: 2 out of 5