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:
All posts by ERTorre
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:
Phantom (2013) a (mildly) belated review
One of my all time favorite movie reviews was made by a now forgotten (by me) local movie reviewer on television who noted of 1989’s James Cameron directed The Abyss that it was like watching a marathon runner having the run of his life and being way, waaaay out in front and heading to the finish line in triumph…only to stumble and fall just before the end. I love and remember that review so vividly because it perfectly encapsulated the movie to me.
Ironically enough, that film featured actor Ed Harris in (double irony) a film set for the most part underwater. So here we have the barely-released-to-theaters film Phantom which features Mr. Harris in the title role of Demi, the Captain of an old, nearly obsolete Russian submarine during the height of the Cold War who has been sent on a mysterious mission that might well result in the end of the world as we know it. And like The Abyss, Phantom is a film that draws you in and keeps your attention…until it blows it big time at the very end.
The mission Demi is sent on appears, on the surface (ha!) to be a normal patrol. However, a few last minute -and mysterious- additions to his crew, including Bruni (David Duchovny), appear to have some kind of ulterior secret mission in the works. Are these new members of the crew part of a zealot Stasi group? Is their mission sanctioned by the government…or are they a rogue group out to start a war? And what of Captain Demi? We find that he suffers from epileptic seizures and may have a thin grasp of what is real and what isn’t.
All these elements mixed together form a potent, engaging brew that kept me intrigued as Phantom played out. This is old school movie making, where the action is limited but the tension and suspense are slowly built up, scene after scene. Ed Harris is pretty damn good in the title role. David Duchovny is good, though perhaps not quite as flashy in a role that required him to for the most part display an emotionless poker face throughout, leaving audiences to wonder whether he is good or evil.
And for approximately 90 or so minutes of the movie’s 98 minute run time I was thoroughly engaged.
But then came the movie’s climax and denouement and boy oh boy oh boy did things fall apart. The movie’s climax committed the lesser sin, being decent yet not-as-exciting-as-it-should-have-been all things considering. A better director and/or editor could have made this sequence a standout, with gunfire, factions fighting against each other for control of the vessel, another submarine taking aim at our protagonist’s vessel, and quite literally the fate of the world in the balance. Unfortunately, the sequence plays out in a rather drab way, ending without being all that terribly exciting.
And then came the denouement.
Wow. Just…wow. In the history of bad ideas, this one is right up there. I know the movie’s makers were trying to give us an emotional release, but this sequence was not only stupid but, frankly, borderline insulting….at least to me.
To describe it involves considerable SPOILERS, so I’ll leave you with the film’s trailer and get to that in a moment…
You still there?
Again…SPOILERS FOLLOW!
….
….
Ok, so this is the deal: Duchovny and his boys have crafted a scenario where Demi’s submarine is thought to have been already sold to the Chinese. Thus, when he launches a nuclear missile at the U.S., it will be thought the submarine was under Chinese command and a war between China and the United States will result, a war that his character coldly notes will be the only nuclear war Russia can “win”. This is really clever storytelling, in my humble opinion.
However, Demi and his faithful staff manage to send out a distress signal which brings in another Russian sub. The Russians are by now aware of what’s going on with the rogue group and are intent on sinking Demi’s sub and stopping them from launching their missile and starting a war. Duchovny’s rogue group is overtaken but Demi’s submarine is incapacitated and settles on the bottom of the sea (actually on top of a sea mountain). The crew is stuck and air is running out. Demi orders one of his crew to suit up and swim to the surface to try to get a rescue party down to the stricken sub. In the film’s final minutes, we see the crew on top of the sub and the sub in port, seemingly rescued.
Not so fast…
Turns out the entire crew is dead. The sub is indeed in port, having been salvaged, but now the corpses are being brought out. The ghostly crew stands on the sub, watching as Demi’s wife and child come to pay respects to those lost. The person they sent out of the sub wound up being the only survivor and thus was able to tell authorities what really happened on board, and that Demi and is crew did not go rogue.
Ugh.
A ghost crew, watching as their bodies are removed from the sub?! Demi’s ghost tearfully watching his wife and child, then saluting the surviving crewmate?!
Double Ugh.
Maybe this won’t sit so bad for other viewers, but for me this ending was beyond silly. It was manipulative and childish in concept, an ending that threw away all the good will the movie managed to offer throughout the rest of its run time.
To those who still want to watch Phantom, please please please shut it off the moment Ed Harris sees the light.
You’ll be doing yourself a favor.
On Joss Whedon…
So director/writer Joss Whedon (Buffy the Vampire Slayer and The Avengers) offered some opinions regarding popular films and, more specifically, criticism directed at them. His first major comment, regarding Empire Strikes Back, went like this:
“Empire committed the cardinal sin of not actually ending. Which at the time I was appalled by and I still think it was a terrible idea. Well, it’s not an ending. It’s a Come Back Next Week, or in three years. And that upsets me. I go to movies expecting to have a whole experience. If I want a movie that doesn’t end I’ll go to a French movie. That’s a betrayal of trust to me. A movie has to be complete within itself, it can’t just build off the first one or play variations.”
(You can read more about this here: http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/08/26/star-wars-joss-whedons-critique-of-the-empire-strikes-back)
I couldn’t agree with Mr. Whedon more. It is my opinion that if you intend to end a film (or a book, for that matter) with the glimmer of a possibility of a sequel, you should nonetheless make sure that whatever work you are creating is as complete as possible on its own terms. Compare, for example, the original Star Wars to Empire Strikes Back. In Star Wars, the film clearly gives us a hint of a sequel (the main villain, Darth Vader, gets away), yet the film accomplishes everything -storywise- it intended, from setting up the “big danger” and the heroes’ quest to their ultimate triumph in ridding their world of this threat. Empire, on the other hand, seemed to present a series of events culminating in nothing at all being resolved…and indeed all the characters in flux…until the next film.
Now, does this necessarily diminish the film? Empire is considered by many to be THE BEST of the Star Wars films, so clearly Lucas and company did something right. Yet Mr. Whedon’s comments, I feel, are nonetheless on target. Empire is a film without an ending, and as such is ultimately an incomplete experience…until you see Return of the Jedi.
(An admission: I am not a big fan of the Star Wars films. I don’t hate them, mind you, just never got into them as my peers did back in the day.)
Mr. Whedon’s made another comment, this time regarding self-referential humor -and the problem with it- in movies like Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. I find this comment even more intriguing:
A movie has to be complete within itself; it can’t just build off the first one or play variations. You know that thing in Temple of Doom where they revisit the shooting trick? … That’s what you don’t want. And I feel that’s what all of culture is becoming — it’s becoming that moment.
Germain Lussier at /Film takes up Mr. Whedon’s comment and offers a wonderful explanation/examination of what he is essentially saying. I underlined what I believe really gets to the heart of the matter:
The bigger issue Whedon is getting at here is that Spielberg relied on what had already happened for a cheap joke. Magnify that onto a larger scale and you have Saw VII, The Amazing Spider-Man reboot, The Real Housewives of Atlanta, and One Direction. Things that are simply copying creative endeavors that have proven to be successful. Whedon’s issue is very few people create something new these days. And, even scarier, no one seems to care. They simply consume the same crap over and over again. This sentiment is a valid one.
(You can read the entire article here: http://www.slashfilm.com/joss-whedon-points-at-temple-of-doom-scene-as-example-of-cultural-problem/#more-192045)
There is, of course, some irony to be found in Mr. Whedon’s comments, even while I generally agree with them. Wasn’t Mr. Whedon responsible for a TV show which essentially featured a character versus vampires (and other evils) as threats week in and week out? And wasn’t that vampire show given a spin off series? Yes, they were both very entertaining shows, but still. And wasn’t Cabin in the Woods, a film he produced and co-wrote, essentially a long riff on many horror movie tropes/cliches? Does one not need to know many of these horror movie tropes/cliches coming into that film to truly appreciate it?
Given that, how is Mr. Whedon’s use of such tropes/cliches to create his work all that different from the same example he points out in Temple of Doom?
Setting that aside, and going back to Mr. Lussier’s wonderful comments, the underlined elements are, in my opinion, the meat of the matter. Thanks to the internet and new technologies, we live in a society where we are stimulated more than we have ever been, be it via video games or music or movies or shows. We consume entertainment near constantly, and are always looking for the next fix.
Thing is, the next fix requires an awful lot of work.
Making a TV show or an album or a book or a movie isn’t something you can (in the most vulgar terms) “shit out” in your free time. It requires hours and hours of heavy work and, once it is ready, there is the very real possibility that it never catches fire and is immediately forgotten or, worse, completely ignored.
Audiences are hard -if not impossible- to judge. You may work your tail off and come up with something you feel is worthwhile and original and are meet with little more than yawns. You may do a riff on something currently popular (yesterday it was Vampires, lately it seems to be either Zombies or superheroes) and instantly connect with audiences and have great success. You may even hit it big with something that wasn’t so big before and, to keep the success going, start making your own spin-offs of said material…over and over again, to keep up your success.
The copying and re-copying of material carries with it, even in these over-stimulated days, diminishing returns. What was popular can become tiresome and audiences might suddenly decide to turn off.
I suppose pop culture has always worked this way. There are those who create material that offers a path for others to follow (and, if you want to be blunt about it, rip-off) until that path and creative direction is worn out and the “new” material -whatever that may be- takes over. Until it becomes old and worn out as well. Then the new-“new” material takes over, and off we go again…
Worst Baseball Card of All Time…?
When I was very young, I collected a lot of things, from coins to stamps to (of course) books and comic books.
One thing I never got into, however, was collecting baseball cards.
Even so, this story, concerning the “worst baseball card of all time”, had me laughing:
For those too lazy to click the above link (I highly recommend it…the story behind the card, and other examples of terrible sports cards, is worth your time), this is the notorious card:
Hard to believe such a terribly, terribly designed card was approved and released. Not only is the photo itself strictly amateurish, but the flourishes added to the card (in particular the bit at the bottom with the player’s name…covering the player’s mug-shot looking photo and identification!).
Very weird -and hilarious- stuff.