Based on All You Zombies, a justifiably famous (and crazy) Robert A. Heinlein short story, Predestination adheres to that story’s plot faithfully, though it does add elements, particularly those involving a mysterious bomber, to the story to expand it to the feature’s length while providing some action/suspense. This expansion didn’t bother me at all and, when the film ended, proved to cleverly form a “loop” to all that we had seen up to that point.
But as I said before, the film left something to be desired, and it is frustrating how close it was to being a great work. In the early going the film spends, in my opinion, waaaay too much time on Sarah Snook’s (who is absolutely terrific) Jane character. While much of the information is pertinent to what follows, other parts could, and should, have been trimmed down (just off the top of my head: Did we need to see the child Jane spying her orphanage handlers having sex? Did we need to see the character getting into so many fights?)
Toward the end (and I’m trying to avoid spoilers here), when the revelations started coming as to who is who, it became too obvious where we were going with the added story elements. Again, brevity might have been better here as well. Also, some of the dialogue, while clever in the opening bits at the bar (the chicken/egg joke clues you in well with what’s coming), became so obvious in the later parts of the film, especially when John talks to a woman about a typewriter, that I felt I was being hit over the head with “meaningful” lines.
Having said all that, Predestination is nonetheless a good film worthy of your time. It offers a faithful take on Robert A Heinlein mind-altering story yet adds its own decent elements to the mix. While the film does dwell a little too much on details that might have been better cut and some of the dialogue towards the end is way too obvious, the film is nonetheless still worth seeing.
Though probably not as well known today as it was for much of the twentieth century, author Leslie Charteris’ character Simon Templar aka The Saint was a fixture of the entertainment media for many decades. From his first appearance in 1928, Mr. Charteris would pen novels featuring the character until 1963, when he allowed others to ghost write the character’s adventures. The Saint would subsequently appear in movies, comic books, and the radio during that time. He was perhaps most famously featured in a TV show starring soon-to-become 007 Roger Moore between 1962-69.
The series showed how much of an influence The Saint had on James Bond and vice-versa and I wouldn’t be surprised if this series proved an extended audition for Mr. Moore as Bond.
For in The Saint you had many of the elements that would appear in the James Bond series. Simon Templar, like James Bond, is a suave, sophisticated yet deadly man who the police and society at large view as a criminal yet who works against the criminal underworld from within (a spy, you might say). While he doesn’t have a “license to kill”, he is not at all adverse to knocking out villains with extreme prejudice. His adventures, like James Bond, would take him to exotic locales where he would confront at times garrish villains. He would also meet intriguing women who he’d seduce or who would, alternately, try to seduce him.
Way, waaaaay back in 1938, a mere decade from The Saint’s first appearance in print, the character would make his first theatrical appearance in The Saint in New York. Louis Hayward would be the first actor to portray the character, though this proved his one and only time doing so.
The plot of the movie goes as follows: New York is in the middle of a deadly crime wave. A council of high level functionaries meet to discuss what can be done. A (presumably) high up inspector in the police department is the last to arrive at this meeting and shows his incredible frustration in the current situation. He states that the police have no problems arresting the criminals out there but these same criminals walk within a day or two after being arrested thanks to the courts. (Sounds familiar?)
After the chief of police leaves, the remaining members of the council mull what to do. One of them notes the actions of The Saint and the members resolve to find and hire him to take out the trash.
I guess its a sign of my aging, but these early scenes, frankly, struck me as chilling. These high level members of society effectively decide that the only solution to their criminal problems lies in hiring an outside vigilante, a man the world thinks is a criminal himself, to (let’s not mince words here) murder the criminals plaguing New York.
To that end, one of the members of the meeting flies off to various countries in search of Simon Templar, eventually finding him in South America, where he is about to start some kind of revolution.
Simon Templar is exactly as described above: Suave, sophisticated, well dressed and well versed. He hears the offer and decides traveling to New York isn’t such a bad idea. Once there he gets a lay of the land and a list of five or so criminals he needs to take out. In short order he takes the first of them out just before the criminal shoots the high level police inspector who walked out of the initial meeting at the start of the film.
As Templar continues his “work”, he acquaints himself with that inspector (who is more than willing to look the other way) and a mysterious and beautiful woman who is somehow in the middle of this criminal lot but who is more than willing to help Simon take them out. As things move along, Simon realizes there is one big man above them all, and that once he takes that master villain out, New York will be “free”.
For a 75 plus year old “B” film, The Saint in New York isn’t all that bad though, again, the implications of the story are alarming. One would hope the highest levels of governmental official would have some confidence in their justice system rather than bringing in an outside gunman to clean up their mess. But if you can overlook this rather startling concept, the movie proves a decent enough distraction.
The movie’s age and pace will probably be difficult for some modern audiences to take. We’re very far down the road from the action-fests that populate modern cinema. Yet there is a fascination in seeing a prototype of a James Bond-like character, minus the gadgets, on screen.
There’s something intellectually satisfying in seeing a film that challenges your imagination in all the right ways. If done well, you leave the experience with a sense of wonder. You admire the fact that the creators of this work have delivered something truly new and (hopefully) unique. Something that keeps the gears in your brain moving as you sort out the pieces in this particular jigsaw puzzle…
Which is a very nice way of saying the James Ward Byrkit written/directed Coherence is one hell of a mind-fuck of a film.
The story starts out simple enough: A group of disparate friends get together for a dinner. Though they are all friendly enough, there are noticeable tensions here and there between them, though nothing Earth shattering or soap opera level outrageous.
That same night a comet is scheduled to pass close to Earth and, as it does, the electricity in the household -and neighborhood- is knocked out.
But the friends in the house realize that another home some two blocks down still has light. Two of the guests decide they should go there and investigate…
What follows from that point on is quite the journey.
Before I get to the very good of this film, first let me point out the not so good. To begin with, Coherence is a very, very low budget feature and it shows. The direction/lighting/editing, while not terrible, isn’t as sharp as one would like and at times, especially toward the beginning, it feels as if you’re watching home movies of a not so interesting party.
But if you get past these opening scenes (about fifteen minutes or so worth of them), the film suddenly takes off and finds its voice and pace. By then you understand the individual characters (the cast consists of only eight people) and are as fearful for their situation as you are curious about what will happen next.
For that’s when all the really trippy stuff begins.
I’m tempted to not go any farther than that for fear of spoilers, but offer this much: The movie involves split realities and the interactions between alternate versions of these eight characters. There are many surprises, both subtle and not so subtle, and an ending that kicks you in the teeth (pay attention to protagonist Em’s story of the Norwegian comet early in the movie…it clarifies what happens toward the end).
Though low on budget, this movie’s story is incredibly, deliciously high in concept and very smart. The best way to describe Coherence is that it is like a really great extended Twilight Zone episode. Considering how much I admire The Twilight Zone, this is very high praise.
If you like your science fiction to be challenging and intellectual, Coherence is a (pardon the pun) no-brainer.
Way back in 1965 cult Italian movie director Mario Bava directed Planet of the Vampires, a stylish sci-fi horror movie that would inspire (some would argue be shamelessly copied by) 1979’s Alien. Though the creators behind Alien may deny it, it is hard to argue Planet of the Vampires didn’t do just that.
The movie begins with two spaceships chasing down an emergency signal originating from an unexplored planet. The ships head in to investigate and that’s when all hell breaks loose. One of the ships is temporarily lost, the other nearly crash lands and, afterwards, the crew loses their minds and starts viciously fighting each other. It’s as if they’re no longer in control of themselves.
The crew manages to recover before anyone is killed and, eventually, they find their lost sister ship and go investigating. Later still, they find another, more ancient vessel that comes complete with giant skeletons of that ancient crew.
And did I mention our hero’s horseshoe shaped ships and the foggy, eerie planet they’ve landed on?
There is simply no denying it: Watching Planet of the Vampires is like seeing the visual -and to some degree writing- inspiration for Alien. But does that make this now fifty year old film worth checking out?
Let’s be blunt here: The acting is for the most part quite wooden. The dialogue has been dubbed (the film was likely made in some Italian/English combination -the movie’s lead is played by American actor Barry Sullivan). The effects are decent enough…for a very low budget film made in 1965, but anyone looking at them today will find them varying from ok to deficient.
But what makes the movie worth watching besides its obvious inspiration to Alien, is the eerie environment and the visuals it presents. Planet of Vampires is essentially a “haunted house in space” movie, where our protagonists are presented with a fearsome and deadly set of circumstances and try to beat them…all the while members of their group slowly are picked off.
While the story may ultimately not be as memorable as the visuals it presents (I saw the film before, maybe five or so years ago, and was surprised by how little I recalled of the actual story), in some cases this is arguably enough to get you to see a film.
In the case of Planet of the Vampires, despite the wooden acting and some less than great special effects, any fan of Alien or science fiction films in general should get a kick out of seeing this work. I most certainly did.
Recommended.
(Watch the below original trailer for the film at your own peril…first because it is so grainy. The film, especially on BluRay, looks quite beautiful, but secondly and more importantly the trailer gives away pretty much all the movie’s mysteries!)
After a pretty dry period, movie-release wise, I’m suddenly finding myself with a full slate of films I’m considering or have already ordered/pre-ordered.
While only a few of the ones mentioned below are considered “classics”, they all hold memories for me. Some, like the already frequently mentioned (and already bought) Supernova are not for everyone. But if you’re like me, you may find these fascinating. I certainly do.
The big question is, if I get all these films, when the hell will I have the time to see them?!?
To be released on March 17: The Lady From Shanghai. Orson Welles and Rita Hayworth in an intriguing noir that features a terrific climax…
Already released: Sorcerer. Director William Friedkin followed up his dual hits of The Exorcist and The French Connection with this Roy Schneider-starring vehicle, a remake of the French film The Wages of Fear. I haven’t seen it in a while but never forgot the terrifying crossing of the bridge scene.
Already released: The Swimmer. Fascinating symbolic movie. Burt Lancaster stars as your “ordinary” man who, for whatever reason, decides to “swim” back to his home, passing through one neighbor’s pool after the other. During the trip, he effectively relives his life and its many, many failures.
Already released: Capricorn One. When I was younger, I absolutely loved this conspiracy film. Astronauts are sent to Mars and it turns out the whole thing is a hoax. When the empty Mars probe destructs on its way back to Earth, the shadowy government men behind the hoax have to kill the still very much alive astronauts to keep the public from knowing what really went on…
To be released April 28th: The White Buffalo. Absolutely bizarre film (I reviewed it here) about the quest for a White Buffalo. A mix of Jaws and Moby Dick set in the wild west! Like many of the films mentioned, I’m curious to see it in high definition and, I’m assuming, at the proper aspect ratio.
To be released March 10: Firepower. I saw this film way, waaaay back when it was originally released and I’m really curious to see it again. I don’t know what to expect…for all I know it could be a total dud although any film with both James Coburn and Sophia Loren in it can’t be all that bad, right? Right?! Then again, O.J. Simpson is in the film as well…
To be released April 7: A pair of Burt Reynold’s post Smokey and the Bandit films, Sharky’s Machine and Hooper. I hope both films are cleaned up and presented in their proper aspect ratio. Sharky’s Machine is a more serious detective drama while Hooper falls into Mr. Reynold’s “good ol’ boy” realm. I haven’t seen Hooper all the way through since it was originally released and I’m equally curious to check out Sharky’s Machine. They are both on sale for the ridiculously low price of $9.99 each at Amazon so this pre-order was a no-brainer.
To some degree I can’t blame them for wanting to halt these productions. As stated in the article, the fear is that a) the productions might become targets themselves, and b) people might be confused by the productions and, given the heightened sensitivity, might mistake a movie production for something “real”.
As I’m currently not working on any action film set in Paris (!), it doesn’t affect me at all, but there have been some interesting action set pieces filmed in the city before and its a shame there may, at least for the near future, be no more such sequences filmed now.
Perhaps when the world calms down and becomes just a little more sane things might go back to how they were.
When John Wick was released last year, I was really intrigued. The critics were for the most part warm to the film, noting it featured terrific stunts and a driving, hard edged plot.
Sounded like my cup of tea!
Though I tried hard to catch the film in theaters, my free time remains very tight and there simply was no chance to catch it. The inevitable wait followed as the film left theaters and, eventually, made it to home video. Yesterday, finally, I got a chance to see it.
And for the most part, I wasn’t disappointed.
John Wick is indeed a hard charging, lean and mean action film. The plot is incredibly simple: John Wick (Keanu Reeves) is an ex-assassin and general bad-ass who left behind his life of crime for the love of his life. Unfortunately, his wife succumbed to one of those trademark Love Story-type movie diseases that kill you slowly yet leave you looking absolutely beautiful. In anticipation of her eventual death, Mrs. Wick has a puppy delivered to her husband after her passing. The puppy punctures Wick’s sadness (and possible suicidal feelings following his wife’s death) and gives him a small amount of joy in a dark time.
Unfortunately, while out to get gas for his screamin’ 69 Mustang (oh the troubles that might have been avoided had Mr. Wick opted for a Prius!), the car catches the eyes of a trio of unsavory Russian mobster types. They approach Wick and ask him how much he wants for the vehicle. He tells them he isn’t selling it. The leader of the group, unaccustomed to not getting his way, then says something profane in Russian and Wick surprises the man by responding in kind…in Russian.
Later that night, Wick’s house is broken into and Wick is beaten and his puppy killed. This is done to rob him of his Mustang.
As the saying goes, these guys messed with the wrong man. What follows is Wick’s journey back into his old environs where he takes revenge on the man (and, eventually father of the man and his one-time boss) who robbed him of his car and killed his puppy.
The best thing about John Wick is that the movie doesn’t waste time. As mentioned before, this film is a lean machine, propelled from one set piece to another with almost no filler. The action sequences are for the most part terrific, with my personal favorite perhaps being the confrontation between Wick and Ms. Perkins (Adrianne Palicki), a very adept femme fatale assassin.
The film builds on and on, reaching its climax and conclusion and leaving at least me hoping to see more (word is, a sequel will be made).
Having said all those positive things, the movie does have a couple of problems that, frankly, irritated me.
First up, it seems awfully coincidental and hard to believe the people who initially assaulted John Wick so soon after his wife’s funeral happen to be related to the man Wick worked for up until his retirement…and neitherknew the other! In terms of coincidences, that’s a pretty big one to swallow.
My second issue is with the fate of the already mentioned Ms. Perkins. Without giving too much away, I thought the filmmakers missed out with her character. She deserved far better than the fate given within the film. At the very least, there should have been a re-match, right? If not in this movie, then perhaps in the sequel?
Anyway, apart from these two issues, I thoroughly enjoyed John Wick. No, the film isn’t Citizen Kane or The Godfather. No, it won’t scare away any other Oscar contenders, but it is a pure escapist action/adventure film that delivers on the goods. Recommended.
I have a great deal of fondness for the works of writer/director/actor Mel Brooks. Many of them, anyway.
I loved the original movie version of The Producers (1967) and found myself roaring with laughter at the scheming of Zero Mostel’s Max Bialystock and the nebbish performance of Gene Wilder. Seven years later in 1974, Mr. Brooks co-wrote and directed not one but two absolutely fantastic comedies: Young Frankenstein and Blazing Saddles. Just those three films alone raise Mr. Brooks -in my humble opinion- to the upper echelons of movie producing comics, even as I have to admit to not being a big fan of the works he did afterwards.
Mind you, I haven’t see them all. I saw both History of the World Part 1 (1981) and Spaceballs (1987) and thought they were decent comedies with some inspired bits but weren’t quite on the level of those earlier works. Of the films he made that remain, I’ve heard enough bad things about Life Stinks, Robin Hood: Men in Tights, and Dracula Dead and Loving It to know these are probably not for me. If I catch ’em, fine, but if I don’t…
Which leaves the two “in between” films (not counting The Twelve Chairs) that were released between Mr. Brooks’ peak and his later works. I’m referring to Silent Movie (1976) and his parody of Alfred Hitchcock films, High Anxiety (1977). I saw bits and pieces of both films but never quite got to see the whole thing. So when TCM offered a block of Mel Brooks films a couple of weeks ago and those two films were part of it, I set the DVR to record. Thus far, I’ve seen Silent Movie aaaaannnnnndddd…
…it wasn’t my cup of tea.
Mind you, there were some very clever jokes scattered here and there, but overall this film, a homage to the silent comedies of yesterday, fell very flat.
Silent Movie is a silent movie about making a silent movie. Mel Brooks, in his first actual starring role in one of his films, plays Mel Funn, a washed up director who had an alcohol problem but has cleaned up his act and now, with his companions Marty Eggs (Marty Feldman) and Dom Bell (Dom DeLouise) at his side, wants to make a comeback with a (you guessed it) silent movie.
His first step is to convince the head of the movie studio (Sid Ceasar) to go along with his scheme. Naturally, this being 1976 and the last silent film was released an awful long time ago, the Studio Chief is completely against the idea. However, things are tough for the studio and there is a threat they might be taken over by a large conglomorate. After Funn promises to get a bunch of A-List actors to appear in his movie, which may help it be a success, the Studio Chief accepts and we’re off to find the stars.
What follows is the bulk of the film, where our three leads bump into several at that time very big name stars, including Burt Reynolds, James Caan, Liza Minnelli, Marcel Marceau, Anne Bancroft, and Paul Newman. Each star has a humorous encounter with our leads but, frankly, other than a very clever gag involving Marcel Marceau and a more energetic meeting involving Paul Newman, I found the whole thing rather flat.
Perhaps part of the fault lies in the passage of time. Sometimes comedy (and action) is like that. While there are many delightful and hilarious comedies from the silent era, there are others that show their age. In the case of Silent Movie, this now nearly forty year old film simply doesn’t work for me. I found the slapstick lacking and the star appearances, which I’m certain at the time were incredible to see, today don’t have quite the same resonance.
On the plus side and as mentioned before, there are some very clever jokes, particularly the one involving famous mime Marcel Marceau. I also like the meta nature of the film, where Mr. Brooks plays a man who is trying hard to make a silent film, something I’m certain must have been hard to convince the studios to allow him to do despite his previous successes. And how best to sell your silent movie than by having a bunch of stars show up in it?
Despite this, the film just didn’t do all that much for me and I can’t recommend you go see this Silent Movie.
I can’t help but think about the changes that have come to the entertainment industry since the arrival of the internet.
For music, the effects have been pretty devastating. Pirate copies of songs are all over the place (should you be so inclined to find them) and what was once a staple of malls, the music store, is long gone.
For reading material, a similar thing is happening. With computers and tablets and smartphones, we now have more and more people reading books/newspapers through their personal devices. Piracy is a threat, again.
With movies, we have essentially eliminated the video store (Blockbuster, R.I.P.). But a bigger problem is the fact that it takes a while to make movies and, again because of the proliferation of tablets/smartphones/etc. leaks are becoming far too prevalent. Spoilers regarding storylines or guest stars are becoming an issue to the point where there seems to be no movie released that you don’t have at least some idea of what’s going on, if not the entire plot. Screenplay leaks are particularly damaging, but so too are sequences filmed by passerbys who witness something being made.
I pointed out before how I first learned about films like Escape From New York and Robocop (the original) by seeing their posters at a movie theater. These films were literally a week or so from being released and that was the very first I ever heard of either! I’m sure there were articles regarding the features released beforehand, but back in those pre-internet days, unless you actually had the articles/magazines, you didn’t know about the features until you either saw the previews or the posters.
Hell, I recall going in to see Raiders of the Lost Ark when it was first released back in 1981. At that time, I lived outside the USA and when I traveled back and noted there was a new film by George Lucas and Steven Spielberg released, a film I had seen absolutely no commercials and knew nothing about, given the talents behind it I assumed it had to be a cosmic saga, perhaps a mash up of Star Wars and Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind. Boy was I surprised when the film’s opening crawl noted it took place in the 1930’s!
This kind of cinematic surprise is practically unknown today. Getting the word out on your film can be a good thing, but at what point does it become too much spoiler information?
And more importantly, is there anything we can do about it?
I doubt it. We’re in the rapid information age and every one of us quite literally has the world at our fingertips, for better or worse.
There was a time, briefly, that I imagined it would be absolutely great to have a career as a movie critic. I absolutely loved going to the movies back then and had plenty of free time to do so. In those pre-internet days I devoured reviews in various newspapers and books and would regularly watch Siskel and Ebert on TV.
As I grew older, I realized I’d make a terrible movie critic. The fact is that I like certain types of films and, conversely, don’t like others. While I’m sure every critic out there has their personal likes and dislikes, the best movie critics -one hopes!- should enter a film with as neutral a stance toward the material they’re about to see as possible. Their review, therefore, should be about what they saw and how they felt about it and remove any potential prejudices.
I couldn’t do that.
Yesterday evening, my wife and I were sitting in the living room considering what to watch. Though I had several shows waiting to be seen on the DVR, I wasn’t in the mood to watch them, even though we needed to free up some memory in the DVR (is it me or does there never seem to be enough space?!). I pointed out to her we had the 2014 Cameron Diaz/Leslie Mann/Kate Upton movie The Other Woman and asked her if she wanted to see it. Unlike me, she doesn’t mind watching romantic comedies and so we started the sucker up, even though I had a pretty good feeling what my opinion of the movie would be.
I wasn’t wrong.
The first forty or so minutes of this film were…how to put it kindly?…not very good. One could see where the movie was going but it felt like you were watching a early screenplay draft pushed into film. Plain and simply, this section of the film could have used some judicious trimming to get to the point faster. I also realized that the movie’s storyline was somewhat given away by the commercials and movie posters which were eager to point out Kate Upton’s role (and, more importantly, the fact that she’s in a bikini!) in the film, as you can see here:
Watching that commercial, you have the first forty minutes of the movie condensed into the first fifty seconds and it works much better!
Despite a sluggish start, things got cooking when the movie’s three stars were (finally) brought together and the central point of the plot, that of taking revenge on the husband/cheater, was initiated. Much of it was juvenile stuff but it wasn’t the worst I’ve seen and at least things were moving.
I missed some ten or so minutes toward the movie’s later half (which is why this is a sorta/kinda review) just before coming back to see the movie’s rather violent and bloody (!!!) end (I half expected the women pull out a gun and shoot the bastard!). I don’t think I missed all that much. By the time I briefly left the film, it was obvious where things were headed and they pretty much got there as I expected.
As I said before, I have my prejudices regarding feature films and going into The Other Woman I knew this wasn’t a film made for someone like me. And that’s ok. I wouldn’t want all movies to fit my definition of “good”. My wife liked it fine, though she thought the opening act was as tedious as I did, so at least we were in agreement there.
In conclusion, if you’re into romantic comedies and are willing to sit through a dull and too prolonged opening act, you may find some fun in The Other Woman. If, like me, you’re not really into these modern romantic comedies, steer clear.
![Capricorn One [Blu-ray]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/5193RuvXoYL.jpg)
