It’s always fascinating to read stories like this, concerning the above:
For those who just want to see the painting and aren’t interested in the fascinating story behind it, here you go:
Monthly Archives: September 2013
Maximum Overdrive (1986) a (very) belated review
Found this under the IMDB entry for the film:
When asked why he hasn’t directed a movie since Maximum Overdrive, horror writer Stephen King responded “Just watch Maximum Overdrive.”
I first saw the film when it reached the home video market some time after a weak theatrical outing. I recall when the film was first released the critics were really savage toward it, one even stating something along the lines of “Stephen King is a master of horror. So how did he do in his directorial debut? Horribly.”
Nonetheless, being a fan of the “machines gone homicidal” sub-genre of horror (My favorite of which is Steven Spielberg’s first big splash, the film Duel), I had to give it a look.
At the time I did…and I found it to be a pretty weak film. Since sometime in the late 1980’s or early 1990’s I haven’t seen it again. Until yesterday.
So…what do I think of it now?
Well, let’s face it, Maximum Overdrive isn’t a very good film. But I have to admit it isn’t the complete wreck that I felt it was when I first viewed it. In fact, when viewed in its proper (cheesy) light, there is some fun to be had…
Based on the very downbeat King short story “Trucks”, Maximum Overdrive involves Earth coming into the tail of a comet whose radioactivity causes all manner of machines to come to homicidal life. Almost immediately there is a big glitch here, as a pair of characters, the newly married couple (which includes the voice of Lisa Simpson, actress Yeardley Smith), manage to drive their car for quite a while after all the machines have supposedly come to life.
After a (somewhat) gory opening where we witness the end of the world, we settle upon the patrons of the Dixie Boy truck stop (Included among this group is our protagonist, Bill Robinson, played by Emilio Estevez). The patrons and staff of the truck stop quickly find that they’ve been surrounded by the homicidal trucks and are forced to deal with them and, eventually, escape.
And that’s pretty much all there is to the story. It should become pretty clear pretty quickly that Maximum Overdrive lies in the genre of “siege” films. The trucks outside could easily be George Romero’s zombies or Indians surrounding a fort or any other number of scenarios. Alas, when one makes a siege film, one goes up against some truly great works, from Gunga Din to the original Assault on Precinct 13.
The worst aspects of the film wind up being the script and some shoddy directorial work, both of which were Mr. King’s responsibility. This is a film that in more experienced hands could easily have been far –far– more suspenseful. However, Mr. King’s story is at times very campy while his (for the most part) hillbilly characters are difficult to root for. As for the direction, it does try to go for gore (and succeeds, though we’ve seen worse by now) but never quite delivers the scares promised by Mr. King himself in the film’s admittedly memorable trailer.
Still, I can’t entirely hate the film. It is what it is: an attempt to create a cheesy horror film without any pretensions to a more lofty or classic film standard. Maximum Overdrive is dispensable entertainment, and some might even argue it is little more than a good guilty pleasure.
So yes, while there are far better siege films out there and I recommend them highly over Maximum Overdrive, I’ll also turn around and say that if you’re in the mood for cheesy no-brain entertainment, you could do worse.
P.S.: Intriguingly, the very end of this film was essentially lifted whole in the 2004 remake of Dawn of the Dead. I can’t help but wonder if this was done on purpose.
Erased (2012) a (mildly) belated review
I spotted the trailer for the film Erased on, I believe, the video release of Solomon Kane. It had me intrigued…
Not bad, right?
So I looked up the film and it was (and still is as of this writing) available on Netflix for instant viewing so I loaded her up and…
Wow.
Let’s face it, one shouldn’t expect much from films that are, as far as I know, not formally released to U.S. theaters and arrive via direct to home video formats. While you may find overlooked gems here and there, the majority of such films are usually features movie studios have looked at and don’t have all that much faith in. Rather than invest (and lose) more money on the work via advertisements for a theatrical run, studios are content with collecting what they can through the home market and moving on to their next project(s).
At best, Erased is a decent -if completely unexceptional- low budget thriller in the Bourne mold. The reliable Aaron Eckhart plays Ben Logan, an ex-pat living in Belgium and working for a high tech security firm. He lives there with his daughter Amy (Liana Liberato, who turns in a good performance as well) who, we find, has only recently moved in with him. Ben left his wife for mysterious reasons which are never entirely explained, though it might have been due in part to his original work and/or a relationship with fellow CIA agent Anna Brandt (Olga Kurylenko). All this is hinted more than outright stated, not that it matters all that much. After Amy’s mother gets sick and dies (more story material that happens off-screen), Ben takes her in but there is friction between them as Amy isn’t all that happy about living in this foreign land and clearly holds her father responsible for the dissolution of the marriage.
Anyway, one day Ben finishes one of his main projects in the company and goes to Amy’s school to pick her up. He’s a little late (something she also doesn’t appreciate) and finds his daughter is hungry. Ben offers her some cookies he’s carrying with him but it turns out there are peanuts in them and Amy is allergic. Off to the hospital they go.
Amy spends the night there along with Ben and, in the morning, they head out. Ben stops at his work for a moment to pick up a package he expected to arrive, but when he gets there the movie’s singular best sequence occurs (you can see it on the trailer): The entire floor is completely empty of everything. All the desks, computers, folders, etc. etc. are gone. Ben can’t understand and goes to the parent company. They have no record of him having ever worked for them. What happened to his company? What happened to his friends and co-workers? What is going on?!
Sadly, what follows from this point is pretty standard stuff. Ben’s company and its staff have been eliminated, and the only reason Ben and Amy are still alive is because they were at the hospital rather than their home the night all the skullduggery went down. Ben is forced to sort through the clues to find what exactly is going on, all while being pursued by his possible ex-lover Brandt. Her allegiances are, until the movie’s last act, never entirely clear.
As I describe the film, it sounds far better than what is ultimately presented. While the “agency-decides-to-eliminate-its-operatives-but-one-gets-away” has been done many times before, it can work well. With Erased, unfortunately, the end result are simply too damned bland. If you find the above plot description intriguing, however, and would like to see a film along these lines, my recommendation is to forget Erased and instead look up the Robert Redford/Faye Dunaway vehicle Three Days of the Condor. Far better film featuring many of the same elements.
10 movies that completely changed in one scene…
Interesting -though far from complete- list by Darren Ruecker, focusing on ten films he feels changed considerably and for the better, via tone or story, in one scene:
http://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/movies-completely-changed-one-scene/
The comments section lists films that Mr. Ruecker missed, one of the bigger being Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho. If there’s a film that deserves the designation of changing completely with one scene (and a very famous one it was!), then Psycho sure fits that designation. Then again, Mr. Ruecker’s focus appears to be on more recent movies, so anything released more than fifteen years before receives little -actually no- attention.
But the idea of the list reminded me of one of my favorite films featuring a twist that totally changed the direction and my view of the film…for the better.
I’m referring to the 1954 film The Caine Mutiny. If you haven’t seen it yet, don’t let the fact that its an older film keep you away. It is a great drama with an incredible payoff, and a twist that I didn’t see coming at all.
SPOILERS FOLLOW!!!!
For the first half of the film we follow the lives of several young officers are stationed on a training vessel under the command of the increasingly irrational Lt. Cmdr. Phillip Queeg (Humphrey Bogart, in a terrific performance). During this segment we, along with the cast, wonder whether Queeg has, to put it bluntly, “lost it” and is no longer fit for command. Ultimately, during a mission that endangers the vessel and crew, the officers decide to mutiny and take over command of the ship from Queeg.
This, in turn, leads to the film’s second part: the court-martial. For taking over a ship from a commanding officer in the navy is obviously not something one does lightly and it can lead to severe repercussions. It is during this court-martial trial that the mutineers and their actions are put under the microscope and what we thought we saw so clearly in the movie’s first act is subtly -than completely- subverted.
For it turns out that one of the officers, Lt. Tom Keefer (Fred MacMurray in another of the fillm’s incredible performances), is slowly revealed to be nothing short of an agent provocateur, a man who needled everyone into this mutiny and, now that the piper has to be paid, slinks away and tries his very best to not accept any responsibility for his actions. The fact that for most of the movie Keefer is presented as a “good old boy”, a mellow friendly sort who appears, at least on the surface, is a caring, engaging person but one who is ultimately revealed to be a despicable rat is an incredible change…made all the more amazing because when the realization hits, we as movie goers can’t help but look back at the movie and realize the evidence of his being a rat was there all the time.
The Caine Mutiny is a classic film that justifiably deserves its place among them. A terrific piece of work that surprised and delighted me with its mind bending (yet logical) shift from first half to second.
Nullification everywhere…
Absolutely fascinating article by Emily Bazelon for Slate Magazine explores the state attempts to surmount federal law with regard to marijuana use and guns. Her thesis: Are liberals hypocrites when they cheer states that have circumvented federal law against the use of marijuana while booing states that have tried to do the same regarding guns?
I consider myself a liberal. I have never, in my entire life, ever used marijuana (or, for that matter, any illegal drug). Yet I feel that the laws against marijuana are way too stringent and support legalization (and taxation) of the product. Why? Because 1920’s era prohibition never accomplish eliminating the use of alcohol and I don’t believe these laws against the use of marijuana will do the same.
And yet, I’m alarmed by states attempting to remove all federal laws regarding the use of firearms.
Am I a hypocrite? I don’t believe so.
Marijuana is a drug that from what I’ve read is considered relatively harmless versus so many other, stronger and addictive drugs. One of the claims often made against marijuana is that it is “gateway” drug, a means by which people start using the “harder stuff”. If that’s the case, then wouldn’t alcohol be a gateway drug as well? And what about cancer patients (among others) who suffer crippling pain and low to non-existent appetites who claim the use of marijuana helps them ease both conditions over prescription pills? Why deny them the use of a potential day to day aid?
Guns, on the other hand, were designed and created for one use and one use only: To kill. And guns, unlike marijuana, are not illegal to own and purchase. What the gun lobby/nullification cause is trying to do is kick down whatever laws there are regarding federal regulation of firearms. Laws that, let’s face it, are fairly weak to begin with.
The article discusses in much more depth the legal issues regarding both gun and marijuana regulation and the pros and cons of each. As I said before, a fascinating read.
Never get another traffic ticket…?
Fascinating (and very short) article by Elliot Hannon for Slate.com regarding a move by the European Union to, and I quote, “introduce a new law requiring cars to come fitted with technology that would keep drivers from going over the speed limit.”
You can read the entire article here:
The other day I was watching a panel of reporters on TV (I believe the show was Chris Hayes on MSNBC) and they were talking about self-driving cars. The panel noted the technology to make self-driving cars existed already, and the only thing keeping self-driving cars from becoming a reality were issues regarding the law and insurance.
Mr. Hayes noted that the mortality/accident rates for air and rail travel were almost non-existent compared to the same for automobile travel, and that it is strange we as consumers aren’t more alarmed by this. He stated, quite rightly I felt, if the same mortality rates were present in air travel as they were in automobile travel, no one would use an airplane.
The article above notes that the European Union is being proactive in trying to lessen the mortality/accident rates on the road and that by having technology in a car that stops drivers from speeding those rates are bound to drop. I agree with this as well, but feel that if we go to completely driver-less cars, the rate will drop even more.
Granted, there will be people who want to keep driving on their own, just as surely as there will be a large contingent of people who will be only too happy to let a computer focus on their morning and evening commute while they engage in any number of things with their now free time, from reading the paper to watching a movie to checking their email/texts.
I suspect driver-less tech will slowly work its way into the big cities and will not only reduce the rates of mortality/accidents but also significantly reduce traffic jams and the rush hour commute. By the above action, the European Union is essentially taking the first step toward driver-less tech by implementing their system to keep drivers from speeding.
On the other hand, the book writer in me can’t help but think of the possible scenarios where a computer driven car might be a very big danger. Perhaps I should keep those scenarios to myself…there’s always the next book to write! 😉
We live in interesting times!
Cloudspotting…
Some days, you wake up angry at the world. This very funny cloud image captured by Jamie O’Connell while walking his dog in Scotland seems to perfectly encapsulate that feeling…in cloud form:
http://weather.aol.com/2013/08/29/cloudspotting-is-this-cloud-angry-at-the-world/
For those too lazy to click on the link, this is what Mr. O’Connell photographed:
