Recommend a movie

[Silver Nemesis]

I didn't realise May couldn't speak English at the time. Considering she was only a teenager and had to spend 99% of the movie naked, it must've been a gruelling experience for her.

In many ways I find Lifeforce to be a frustrating film. Expectations must've been high when it first came out – it was written by Alien scribe Dan O'Bannon and it was Hooper's next project following the success of Poltergeist. Cannon had a lot invested in it, and its budget was bigger than those of The Terminator and Aliens combined. The finished product doesn't live up to its potential, IMO.

The second half of the movie is really good. You could argue that it coasts along on action and spectacle, but even if that's true, it works. The apocalyptic finale is well staged and there are some excellent special effects. The final act, with London tearing itself apart, reminds me of Quatermass and the Pit and James Herbert's 1975 novel The Fog. I don't think the Quatermass similarities are accidental, since Hooper described Lifeforce as "a 70 mm Hammer film" and O'Bannon had previously penned the script for an unproduced Hollywood remake of Quatermass. With most horror films I tend to prefer the slow-burn mystery of the first half over the FX-driven action of the finale, but Lifeforce is a rare exception. The second half of the movie is where it really comes to life.

I've always thought that lead actor Steve Railsback was an underappreciated talent. His performance as Duane Barry in the second season of The X-Files should have landed him an Emmy nomination. His first episode remains one of the most intense pieces of television drama I've ever seen, and a lot of that intensity comes from Railsback's acting.

He's got a strong supporting cast backing him up in Lifeforce: Peter Firth, Frank Finlay, Patrick Stewart and Aubrey Morris. And of course Mathilda May is hauntingly beautiful as the Space Girl. But again, the strength of the cast makes me expect something better from the finished product. That's not to say it's bad. It's a fun B or C grade movie. But given the talent involved, it should've been an A grade. And that's why I find it frustrating.

Hooper's Cannon trilogy marks an interesting stage in his career where the success of Poltergeist had opened the door to some major big budget projects. I rate Poltergeist as his finest film and the point where his career peaked, and I imagine Golan-Globus thought they were getting the talent behind that movie when they signed him up. However, we now know that Spielberg was responsible for at least fifty percent of that film's brilliance, if not more (I consider it a Spielberg movie), and without Spielberg's guiding hand Hooper's limitations as a storyteller were soon laid bare. As a solo director, he was better suited to making low budget movies like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and The Funhouse.

The thing that always stands out in my memory about his Invaders from Mars remake is the alien leader. He looks exactly how Krang should look in a live action Ninja Turtles movie.

"Shredderrrrrr!"

[The Joker]

I didn't realise May couldn't speak English at the time. Considering she was only a teenager and had to spend 99% of the movie naked, it must've been a gruelling experience for her.

It's discernible that it was a challenging shoot for May, but she also comes across as holding no ill will towards the production, and seems to chalk up her experience as being young, and "that's show business!". I've only watched the interview with her once, but Mathilda holds Hooper in high regard, and says something to the effect of that he always made sure she was comfortable, and was kind towards her.

Hooper, during his interview segment, obviously holds May in high regard as well, and basically says she was a godsend for casting in the part. Even during the Hooper commentary track, he is steadily complimentary of Mathilda.

In many ways I find Lifeforce to be a frustrating film. Expectations must've been high when it first came out – it was written by Alien scribe Dan O'Bannon and it was Hooper's next project following the success of Poltergeist. Cannon had a lot invested in it, and its budget was bigger than those of The Terminator and Aliens combined. The finished product doesn't live up to its potential, IMO.

The second half of the movie is really good. You could argue that it coasts along on action and spectacle, but even if that's true, it works. The apocalyptic finale is well staged and there are some excellent special effects. The final act, with London tearing itself apart, reminds me of Quatermass and the Pit and James Herbert's 1975 novel The Fog. I don't think the Quatermass similarities are accidental, since Hooper described Lifeforce as "a 70 mm Hammer film" and O'Bannon had previously penned the script for an unproduced Hollywood remake of Quatermass. With most horror films I tend to prefer the slow-burn mystery of the first half over the FX-driven action of the finale, but Lifeforce is a rare exception. The second half of the movie is where it really comes to life.

What's kinda amusing, is that Leonard Maltin gave the film a fairly positive review at the time of release. I think "Lifeforce" is an ambitious film, perhaps too ambitious, but at the same time, it feels like a Cannon production all the same. Personally, I like the plot, but I don't know how audiences inferred the marketing for the film back then. I remember seeing the VHS box cover at Blockbuster Videos as a kid, and couldn't make heads or tails on exactly what the film was about (and of course my parents were not going to allow me to rent such a movie back then ... and if they did I'm sure I would have hit puberty pretty damn quickly haha). Which I'm sure, did the film absolutely no favors at the box office.

Hooper's Cannon trilogy marks an interesting stage in his career where the success of Poltergeist had opened the door to some major big budget projects. I rate Poltergeist as his finest film and the point where his career peaked, and I imagine Golan-Globus thought they were getting the talent behind that movie when they signed him up. However, we now know that Spielberg was responsible for at least fifty percent of that film's brilliance, if not more (I consider it a Spielberg movie), and without Spielberg's guiding hand Hooper's limitations as a storyteller were soon laid bare. As a solo director, he was better suited to making low budget movies like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and The Funhouse.

For me, Tobe Hooper peaked right out the gate with the original "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", and though he had peaks and valleys following that, I don't think he truly captured the same 'lightning in the bottle' magic that TCM really was. I will agree that "Poltergeist" comes closest, but I think TCM is Hooper's masterpiece.

I also agree that Golan/Globus were indeed expecting a better box office reception with Hooper's Cannon trilogy, but that was unfortunately 'on par for the course' with many projects that looked great on paper, but didn't meet critical/audience/box office expectations with the final product. Hooper's films. He-Man. Superman IV. Even signing up Sly for "Over the Top" couldn't generate profits (TCM2 might've given Cannon a tidy profit due to a Japan pre-sale which locked Hooper having to meet a deadline come hell or high water, which subsequently caused one heck of a chaotic shoot).

The thing that always stands out in my memory about his Invaders from Mars remake is the alien leader. He looks exactly how Krang should look in a live action Ninja Turtles movie.

"Shredderrrrrr!"

Haha Yeah, I remember after seeing the 1990 TMNT film, wondering what Krang would look like in live action? Obviously he wouldn't be EXACTLY like the Fred Wolf toon (Shredder being an example), but whenever I first laid eyes on the martian leader, you simply couldn't help but think of Krang!

Honestly, as far as "Invaders from Mars" goes, I think the original 1953 film overall works better than the 1986 Hooper remake. However, it's clear that Hooper made the film with a lot of affection, and was obviously a fan. Just as John Carpenter is with the original 1951 "The Thing from Another World". Now where I do think Hooper's remake improved upon, was the martian leader. I still think the martian leader's line delivery towards the young boy protagonist, "Poor little guy." is both sinister and otherworldly.

[Silver Nemesis]

For me, Tobe Hooper peaked right out the gate with the original "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", and though he had peaks and valleys following that, I don't think he truly captured the same 'lightning in the bottle' magic that TCM really was. I will agree that "Poltergeist" comes closest, but I think TCM is Hooper's masterpiece.

On reflection, I'd agree with this. I like Poltergeist more than The Texas Chainsaw Massacre – it's more my kind of horror movie – but I can't say that it's entirely Hooper's film. TTCM, on the other hand, is purely his. It's the only really classic film that he directed on his own. He made some other decent movies, like The Funhouse and Lifeforce, but I expect most people would agree that his two best works were TTCM and Poltergeist. And only one of those is 100% a Hooper film. The rest of his career was built on the success of TTCM, so it's most accurate to say that that was where he peaked.

I also agree that Golan/Globus were indeed expecting a better box office reception with Hooper's Cannon trilogy, but that was unfortunately 'on par for the course' with many projects that looked great on paper, but didn't meet critical/audience/box office expectations with the final product. Hooper's films. He-Man. Superman IV. Even signing up Sly for "Over the Top" couldn't generate profits (TCM2 might've given Cannon a tidy profit due to a Japan pre-sale which locked Hooper having to meet a deadline come hell or high water, which subsequently caused one heck of a chaotic shoot).

His Cannon films aren't great works of cinema, but they're entertaining. They were obviously well produced and had decent budgets. The special effects for both Lifeforce and Invaders from Mars were handled by John Dykstra, who'd previously won an Academy Award for his work on Star Wars. Stan Winston handled the creature effects on Invaders from Mars, which was the same year he did his Oscar-winning work on Aliens. The director of photography on Lifeforce was Alan Hume, who'd previous shot Return of the Jedi and various David Lean and James Bond films. Lifeforce and Invaders from Mars both had talented composers in the form of Henry Mancini and Christopher Young respectively. And The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 starred Dennis Hopper, the same year he delivered his iconic performance as Frank Booth in David Lynch's Blue Velvet. So Cannon clearly spared no expense in equipping Hooper with top talent, and it shows in the polished quality of the productions.

The rest of Hooper's career, from 1990 onwards, was characterised by cheaper films made with less talented people, and that's clearly reflected in the inferiority of his output. But his Cannon films are ok. They're not as good as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Poltergeist, but better than the movies he made later on.

Haha Yeah, I remember after seeing the 1990 TMNT film, wondering what Krang would look like in live action? Obviously he wouldn't be EXACTLY like the Fred Wolf toon (Shredder being an example), but whenever I first laid eyes on the martian leader, you simply couldn't help but think of Krang!

Honestly, as far as "Invaders from Mars" goes, I think the original 1953 film overall works better than the 1986 Hooper remake. However, it's clear that Hooper made the film with a lot of affection, and was obviously a fan. Just as John Carpenter is with the original 1951 "The Thing from Another World". Now where I do think Hooper's remake improved upon, was the martian leader. I still think the martian leader's line delivery towards the young boy protagonist, "Poor little guy." is both sinister and otherworldly.

As with Lifeforce, I'd say the final act of Invaders from Mars is the best part of the movie. The sets and creature designs during the finale are fantastic. I don't think the movie as a whole is anywhere near as good as the original, mainly because it doesn't recapture the intensity of paranoia and dread that made the 1953 film so effective. But the ending is a blast.

I'll always prefer the original though. I first saw it at a very young age and back then found it quite frightening. Especially the creepy vocal music whenever someone sank into the sand, and the scenes with the dad suddenly acting hostile towards David. I like how Hooper brought Jimmy Hunt back to play one of the cops in the remake.

That was a nice touch.

[The Joker]

His Cannon films aren't great works of cinema, but they're entertaining. They were obviously well produced and had decent budgets. The special effects for both Lifeforce and Invaders from Mars were handled by John Dykstra, who'd previously won an Academy Award for his work on Star Wars. Stan Winston handled the creature effects on Invaders from Mars, which was the same year he did his Oscar-winning work on Aliens. The director of photography on Lifeforce was Alan Hume, who'd previous shot Return of the Jedi and various David Lean and James Bond films. Lifeforce and Invaders from Mars both had talented composers in the form of Henry Mancini and Christopher Young respectively. And The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 starred Dennis Hopper, the same year he delivered his iconic performance as Frank Booth in David Lynch's Blue Velvet. So Cannon clearly spared no expense in equipping Hooper with top talent, and it shows in the polished quality of the productions.

Nice. I wasn't aware of a lot of this. Very interesting.

The rest of Hooper's career, from 1990 onwards, was characterised by cheaper films made with less talented people, and that's clearly reflected in the inferiority of his output. But his Cannon films are ok. They're not as good as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Poltergeist, but better than the movies he made later on.

Oh, for sure. The Cannon films essentially represent Tobe Hooper's last hoorah as a theatrically produced filmmaker. Shame that "Lifeforce", and "Invaders from Mars 1986" didn't succeed at the box office, but they pretty much the final examples of Hooper being uninhibited by financial considerations from a studio. As Golan/Globus were very generous with the budgets for those film. "Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2" was an entirely different story as Cannon was going thru financial difficulty at the time, and to which the production had no choice but to endure a breakneck pace to get the film in the can. From what I've read about the making of TCM2, Hooper was a big fan of Dr. Pepper, basically a chain-drinker, but would only drink it out of a bottle. As a result, it was the main job of a few members of the production, to keep Hooper well supplied with bottled Dr. Pepper. At all times. Otherwise, hell was going to break loose.

As with Lifeforce, I'd say the final act of Invaders from Mars is the best part of the movie. The sets and creature designs during the finale are fantastic. I don't think the movie as a whole is anywhere near as good as the original, mainly because it doesn't recapture the intensity of paranoia and dread that made the 1953 film so effective. But the ending is a blast.

I'll always prefer the original though. I first saw it at a very young age and back then found it quite frightening. Especially the creepy vocal music whenever someone sank into the sand, and the scenes with the dad suddenly acting hostile towards David.

Agreed. There's just something about the 1950's aesthetic that makes the original work on different levels. I tend to think the same with the original 1958 "The Blob" compared to the 1988 remake.

I like how Hooper brought Jimmy Hunt back to play one of the cops in the remake.

That was a nice touch.

Exactly right. Just as it was labor of love for John Carpenter to film "The Thing", I believe the same holds true with Tobe Hooper with "Invaders from Mars". The affection these men have for those films is palpable during interviews/commentaries.

[thecolorsblend]

Capture Kill Release does offer a pretty original take on the faux documentary style. You can't call it found footage, exactly.

Anyway, the basic pitch of the story is a boyfriend and girlfriend decide they want to kill somebody. But as the film progresses, you realize that only one of them is truly committed to doing it. And frankly, the trailer gives that much away.

I think what makes the film work is the sheer plausibility of the premise. I can't speak for anyone else. And maybe I'm a jaded, cynical jerk. But I find it ridiculously easy to believe that two idiots would want to "experiment" with murder and film the entire thing. That requires pretty much zero credulity on my part.

Also, using cameras rather than phones to document the "action" also rings true. If you use your phone to record this stuff, that's evidence that could easily be found by any number of parties. But cameras and tapes can always be destroyed if things go sideways. So, it's easy to understand why the couple favored cameras over iPhones for this "project".

The editing can get a little wonky at times. Some unmotivated (borderline non sequitur) jump cuts occasionally distract the viewer. It's easy to understand the behind the scenes reason for the jump cuts. The actors largely improvised their dialogue. They barely had a script to work with. The director gave them instructions for how the scene needed to play out and what needed to happen. But the ebb, flow and dialogue were all left to the actors to decide. And clearly, there were times when the director wanted a more rapid fire pace than the actors offered.

Even so, it's rare to see a main cast credited as screenwriters. But in this case, it's reasonable that the two leads deserve credit for the level of effort they put into their performances.

Obviously, the standout performance is the actress Jenn Fraser. The character of Jenn Fraser (yes, the cast has the same name as their characters) is a truly terrifying villain. Her absolute amorality and her penchant for cruelty is kind of a rarity in cinema. It's shocking mostly because of how visceral it is. Again, it's not a stretch to think that someone like this probably does exist. And she might even be your next door neighbor for all you know.

Spoiler: Arguably, the scariest aspect of this movie is that while Farhang has plenty of reservations about actually going through with it, the ending suggests that ultimately, Jenn just went too fast. If she'd given Farhang more time to gradually adjust, he might have turned out even worse than she did. And she's bad enough all by herself if you ask me.

Fraser doesn't have anything else listed on her IMDB. Which is kind of a surprise considering how effective she is in this film. No idea what her story might be. But without question, she gives the standout performance in this film. I don't think anybody doubts that.

For horror fans, I do recommend this film. The low budget necessitates a minimum of gore. On that basis, splatter fans might be disappointed. Still, I prefer atmosphere over gore anyway. And there are plenty of chilling moments in Capture Kill Release to choose from.

Capture Kill Release is (apparently) streaming for free on Tubi.

[thecolorsblend]

Margin Call

I love Margin Call. It's a talky-talky movie. But that's a-okay in my book.

Long story short, it tells part of the story behind the 2008 financial meltdown that affected us all. Basically, a bunch of rich a-holes wanted to get even richer, they got greedy (which is to say, greedier than usual) and in a sense, we're still paying the price for this today.

Oh, and Kevin Spacey's dog died so we're supposed to feel sorry for him. Or something.

There's a remarkable amount of tension, drama and stakes considering what a-holes most of the main characters are.

Highly recommended. Plus, you can watch it for free on YouTube (at least in the US) (for now).

[The Laughing Fish]

The Insider is yet another terrific film by Michael Mann. The way its shot with its frantic pace is very similar to Heat, but instead of the cops and robbers crime drama, this is based on the true story about whistleblower Jeffrey Wigand exposing the Brown and Williamson Tobacco Company for its lethal cigarette products back in the mid-Nineties. The film captures the emotional and family turmoil the corporation had impacted on the family with threats and harassment, and the political impact it had on 60 Minutes.

Russell Crowe was stellar as Wigand as he carries the burden of the situation as a man whose life is getting torn apart, Al Pacino as tenacious as ever as Lowell Bergman, and Christopher Plummer played Mike Wallace as blunt, fearless, and pompousness. The best scene is when he tells off some of the 60 Minutes executives for cutting his news footage short explaining why his interview with Wigand was not being shown to the public.

It's a slow drama and it goes for two and a half hours, but it's very well-acted and engrossing. Top quality drama.

[Silver Nemesis]

COUNT DRACULA (1977)

The BBC's 1977 adaptation of Dracula is one I'd never gotten around to watching until now. The main thing that distinguishes it from other Dracula films is its accuracy to the source material, with most critics agreeing it's the most faithful adaptation of Bram Stoker's 1897 novel. Having now seen it, I concur with that assessment.

The TV movie does change a few things from the book. Dracula doesn't start off looking like an old man and then de-age like he does in the novel, nor does he bear his literary counterpart's facial hair or the scar inflicted when Jonathan Harker strikes him with a shovel. Mina and Lucy are portrayed as sisters, Arthur Holmwood and Quincey Morris are amalgamated into a single character, and during the denouement it is Van Helsing who kills Dracula.

Aside from these changes, the TV movie follows the book very closely. This is its greatest strength, but also leads to some pacing issues in the second half. A problem I have with every version of the Dracula story, including the original novel, is that I feel the plot loses steam after vampire Lucy is killed. This criticism also applies to the '77 Count Dracula, though in fairness to the BBC all of its pacing issues stem directly from Stoker's narrative blueprint. To their credit, the makers of the TV movie still manage to keep things interesting and omit the Victorian sentimentality that all too often pollutes Stoker's prose.

The limited use of music and special effects lends the film a more realistic feel than many other Dracula movies, and Louis Jourdan's performance as the title character is suitably restrained. For me the definitive cinematic Van Helsing will always be Peter Cushing, but Frank Finlay's interpretation is probably the closest I've seen a screen version get to Stoker's original. He and Jack Shepherd, who portrays Renfield, are both excellent. And I've always liked Judi Bowker, who's probably best known to international audiences for her roles as Saint Clare of Assisi in Franco Zeffirelli's Brother Sun, Sister Moon (1972) and as Andromeda in Ray Harryhausen Clash of the Titans (1981). Here she makes for a winsome and delicately beautiful Mina Harker.

The use of trippy filter effects can feel dated in places, and some viewers might find the mix of 16mm film stock and videotape jarring (for many years it was standard practice on British TV to mix the two). Anyone looking for an FX-heavy action packed take on Dracula will be disappointed by the deliberate pacing. However, fans of the novel or viewers inclined towards a more grounded and literary take on the familiar story will find much to enjoy. I thought the scenes with Dracula's brides were particularly chilling in this version. Gore is used sparingly, but is all the more effective because of it.

Is it the best Dracula film? I don't think so. But it is the most faithful screen adaptation of Stoker's novel, and I recommend it to anyone who likes the book. I've read that it influenced the 1979 Dracula movie starring Frank Langella and Laurence Olivier, but I haven't seen that yet so I can't comment on the similarities.

Here's the 1977 Count Dracula for anyone who fancies watching it before Halloween.

[The Laughing Fish]

I finally watched The Super Mario Bros. Movie the other night. A nice little children's film, the animation was excellent and ripped straight out of the games. I was pretty impressed with how multiple sequences mimicked the 2D-scrolling platform action from the classic gameplay during the 8-bit to 16-bit era.

I remember there was a bit of a fuss among ragebait anti-SJW YouTubers accusing the film was going to be woke because Princess Peach had a more prominent role, as they assumed she was going to be the "strong waman" stereotype. That turned out to be bullsh*t. Yeah, she was able to defend herself and she was a mentor to Mario in the beginning, but I don't see this as a big deal at all when A) Mario was sucked into a new world that he had to learn to adapt so he could rescue Luigi and B) Princess Peach being a playable character in Super Mario Bros. 2 shows she could always be a fighter.

There may be some woke nonsense in Hollywood nowadays, but The Super Mario Bros. Movie isn't one of them. A good video game film.

[thecolorsblend]

It reminded me of As Above, So Below (2014) – both being English-language horror movies set in France and starring an adventurous British-American couple, who descend into a claustrophobic environment where walls mysteriously appear to block their paths, and demonic apparitions haunt them as they try desperately to escape to the surface.

An apt description.

Finally watched this. I enjoy how the tension gets ratcheted up from the start. And after that, there are ebbs and flows but the suspense is maintained pretty well through the whole runtime.

Not sure I'd recommend it. It was good but not THAT good. Still, it was an enjoyable way to spend an hour and a half.