Francis Ford Coppala's Dracula-Director of Apocalypse Now and The Godfather does Vamps. I'm in.

Ok, I saw this in the theater in 92 when it first came out.  I remember enjoying it, but thinking that much of it was ridiculous and over the top.  Also, at the time I was working at an AM gospel radio station and one of my co-workers asked me, "What was the message of the movie?"  That's the thing about some Christians, is that they want to know what the "message" of the thing is and if it squares with their faith.  I hate that question, considering it irrelevant, as I like to appreciate a story on it's own merits, rather than does it pass the litmus test of an "ism".  But anyway, I threw her the tag line of the film, "Love never dies."  She looked skeptical.  But then, I don't think she would have been satisfied by any answer short of "Dracula renounces darkness and embraces Christ before self staking, or some such".  But anyway, love you and miss you, Carmen!

Dracula 92 ws directed by Francis Ford Coppola and when I heard that, I expected great things.  This is the guy who does lush, grueling epics like The Godfather and Apocalypse Now, so the idea of him doing a period adaptation of the most famous of vampire stories?  Not only that, but with a star studded cast?  I was so in.

At the time, I did like it, as I said before, but so much of it, especially the tie in to Vlad the Impaler of Romanian history, which is NOT in the book, just some took the implication from the information on the character in the book and ran with it.  Dracula is from Transylvania.  Vlad Tepes was a reputed bastard of a Romanian ruler known as Dracula, well obviously he was cursed by God with undeath...though Bram Stoker never said this.  The identity of his Count was a mystery. 

But Mr. Coppola was having none of this and went with the Vlad tie, showing his Prince Dracula winning in battle but losing his love, cursing his God and being granted unlife, an immortality separating him from humanity, pining for his lost love. Planning a move to London, he puts the mojo on Renfeild (Tom Waits, playing the bug eating man-bitch with fervor), so the firm sends Jonathan Harker (Keannu Reaves) to conclude the deal.  Yes, his accent is bad, but he's not bad in the role, playing it with plucky earnestness which suits it.   Mina Murray, played by Winnona Ryder, is delivered with innocence, a touch of nerve and a dash of gothines when she begins falling under the good Count's spell.  Speaking of the count, Gary Oldman can handle regal charm and creepiness in his sleep, so the legendary vampire is a natural for him.  But the superstar of the proceedings, IMO, is Anthony Hopkin's Van Helsing, played with equal parts humor, grimness and eccentricity, kind of a Victorian Fox Mulder, brilliant but clearly marching to the beat of his own drum.  Any pursuer of mysteries on the fringe necessarily would be.

Further kudos to Mr. Coppola, not only with capturing the period and book with sets and costumes, but eschewing computer FX and going with traditional visual trickery for his vampire spookiness.  It works wonders.

This one is excellent and if you are a fan of the book or good vampire movies, this one is a must.

Day of the Dead-George Romero, Do You Even Know Any Soldiers?

I have seen the latter day George A. Romero zombie movies like City of the Dead. Sad to say, I think they are awful, dealing completely in caricature and social commentary that begins to feel like stereotypes rather than thoughtful observations.  That trend clearly started with Day of the Dead.  The scenario begins with a helicopter on some kind of recon mission.  You have a group of civilians, including a communications expert, a pilot and a "leader" whose skills remain undefined.  They are with a soldier who clearly drew the short straw that day, as he is coming apart at the seams, nerves-wise.  They are going up and down the coast, apparently seeking contact with living humans.  All they get is more zombies.

They go back to their base and find a group of probably some of the most unsoldierly soldiers since Stripes.  Just as undisciplined and slovenly, but they are supposedly veterans, not basic trainees and also some of the most brutal, bullying and borderline psychotic.  One could rationalize they are degenerating due to their circumstances and quality of leadership re. utter lack thereof.  More likely, George A. Romero didn't bother to do his homework on how troops tend to act and behave, even the "bad" ones, and went with the worst of ill-informed Hollywood stereotypes.  You want examples of "bad soldiers" still being convincing ones?  Check out Platoon, or Casualties of War or Ronald D. Moore's Battlestar Galactica.  Real military people, especially veterans, tend to carry themselves a certain way.  And on that score, Romero really didn't do his homework. 

The civilians hold up better, and bear up far better under the crisis than the troops do (which is silly, but again...).  Except for the scientist among them.  This cat they call Dr. Frankenstein  is convinced they can be tamed.  He has a pet one named "Bub" that he has made some breakthroughs with.  However, there are lots of crazy cat bizarres running under that hood as well.

It is a totally messed up situation, but very few of the characters come across as full characters.  They aren't archetypes, either.  Just stereotypes of a most ignorant, lazy sort.  The military stuff was distracting, even borderline insulting.

You so can't relate to the characters, that when the dying starts, you can't really care.  When it is all over, it is kind of, well, that's that, then.

What a step down.

Dawn of the Dead-When George A. Romero Peaked

I LOVED the Zach Snyder remake of Dawn of the Dead.  It took the survival in the mall zombie apocalypse scenario and made it it's own, yet clearly there was great affection for this original tale of the hungry dead rising en masse.  In this case, you have four people, (two SWAT cops, a helicopter pilot and a TV journalist) who find their way into a mall as civilization collapses around them.  As they settle into their shelter, they have a rich environment full of items that not only can make their survival more probable, but even comfortable.  They just have to deal with the ravening hordes of the undead...and eventually, humans who have let their humanity lapse in the collapse of civilization.

Sure, the characters aren't well developed (one thing Snyder's version did better), but Romero isn't really going for a character study with Dawn of the Dead anyway.  He is doing more of a study in archetypes and making comments about the nature of humanity, in terms of civilization, economics and class.  The zombies are clearly the ravening hordes of the dispossessed, at the window, pounding, but separated eternally, wanting, but not having.  The gangs are the criminals, those looking to live in lawlessness, with "ordinary" people caught in the middle.

The original Night of the Living Dead also had threadbare characters, more interested in cultural commentary as well, in that case, more race than class or economics, but that is how George Romero works as a storyteller.  With those two films, they were assembled well, the characters were interesting enough and the setting worked well enough to transport it.

Too bad it couldn't last (see review of Day of the Dead)...

PS.  This movie was a clear inspiration for Edgar Wright's Shaun of the Dead, title pun aside, astute movie viewers and fans of Shaun will spot obvious cues.  Listen to the music...

Scanners-Cronenberg Blowin' Your Mind

Michael Ironside is simply magic playing entertaining bad guys.  He can take schlock (Highlander 2, Spacehunter) and make it a cheezerific feast.  Sure, he's not all-powerful (sorry, Terminator Salvation), but his powers are mighty.  So when he is coupled with material that works, playing the psychotic psychic, er, Scanner, Darryl Revok, whose evil will literally blow your mind, the result is a good time at the movies. 

So, let's go over to Cameron Vale, who is apparently another one of these "Scanners", people with various kinds of mind powers, described as remote connecting to nervous systems of others.  Most Scanners are unhappy people, who can't control their powers, and are flooded with information they can't control.  So they end up neurotic and anti-social.  Dr. Paul Ruth is a scientist employed by a particular corporation who is seeking Mr. Vale.  He recognizes Vale's potential, sees his need and sees him as a potential counter-weapon against Revok and his organization.  Revok, btw, is gathering Scanners underneath is fold for reasons to be determined.

So you have all these elements in play, with these powered people drifting in the world.  They have no focus and are a threa to themselves and others.  If they find focus, they achieve power  and influence in the world.  So, like all gatherings of power, when said power is manifest, how will it be focused?

Probaby heads will explode when the answer is revealed.

Ironside is his usual bad self.  Patrick McGoohan (Number Six in The Prisoner) makes a great morally adrift Professor X type, training the Scanner Vale and seeming to treat him with kindness.  The location of his heart, though, seems a bit suspect.

This is a good, gory thriller that has some deep thoughts murmuring under the visceral pyrotechnics.  I recommend.

The Descendant-Drinking Life In The Islands

I'm normally not a family drama movie kind of guy.  Too much...regular people stuff with lots of blah blah of the sort that doesn't provoke any interesting thought or moments of "hm".  However, direct Alexander Payne seems to be the magic bullet that makes it past my geek and snob sensibilities and says, "I can make you a people centered drama and have you like it."  With Sideways, mixing human slice of life drama with wine culture, he made me believe.  And somehow, just seeing the trailers for The Descendants had me falling under his spell once again.  Not that his movies are sappy, Waltons-esque affairs, not at all.  He clearly has affections for his characters, but puts them through painful gyrations of life not only to examine them, but to make fun of them and the human foibles we know oh so well.

In this case, George Clooney plays Matthew "Matt" King, attourney at law and trustee of a real estate inheritance that dates back to Hawaiian royalty and the original American settlers of the islands.  It is clear that he is a wealthy man, as is his family, but he still lives modestly, compared to his means.  The idea is that is how you save the trust, but not being a spendthrift.  Gotta say, I see the logic in that.  So he is quite comfortable and ensures his family is, too, but avoids spoiling them...in his eyes.

However, he is a hardworking attourney and as such, does spend lots of time in the office.  So his wife, who is the primary parent, suffers a boating accident which puts her in a coma.  So he has to come off his professional Mt Olympus to take care of his family and get them through this time of trauma.  He begins finding out things he previously was unaware of.  Like...he doesn't know his daughters.  They exhibit behavior that he finds perplexing, disturbing and he has no idea where it came from.  He finds out things about his wife that he previously was not aware of.  And while investigating all this, it puts his family's fortune into perspective, guiding his hand as trustee.

This is a quiet, whimsical movie about some quirky characters in a tough situation and beautiful settings.  As Matt King says right up front, living in Hawaii is like living anywhere else.  It is not a perpetual vacation.  Those living there  also have to deal with...life.

A slice of life, pineapple flavored with a hint of sea salt.

I recommend.

The Wolverine-It Tries Really, Really Hard...

I do not begrudge the heavy lifting of James Mangold to try to helm the sophomore Wolverine feature starring Hugh Jackman to the silver screen.  James Mangold is a very able director, with films such as the terrific Cop Land and the remake of 3:10 to Yuma under his belt.  But...he has to direct a film that Darron Aranofsky stepped away from (much to my disappointment).  He has to direct a film based on one of the best Wolverine stories ever, a mini-series written by Frank Miller when Wolverine was getting on top of his popularity but before he was buried under overexposure and an abused and convoluted backstory.  AND he has to direct a film that acknowledges but tries to bury two horrible X films, X-Men 3 directed by that hack Brett Ratner (which butchered the Dark Phoenix story) and X-Men Origins Wolverine, which the studio hack assembled title alone told you all you needed to know about the bloated mess it would be.  The only thing it was missing was "Rises" somewhere in there, but you know some suit suggested it.  Hopefully someone punched him in the face.

Anyway, the good.  Hugh Jackman owns Logan, hands down.  He has from the first X-Men movie and now slipping into the claws, he does it just like the rest of us put on a comfortable pair of shoes.  Claws, check, ok, ready to rock.

The film opens in WW2, where Wolverine, operating as an agent in Japan, saves a Japanese officer who tried to give him the same just before the atomic bomb drops.  Later, in the present day, Wolverine is recovering from the events of X-Men 3, clearly just as depressed about that mess as we are.  Feeling you, brother.  He is visited by Yukio, a swordswoman acting as a messenger to this officer he saved, who is now a rich head of a corporation, with a beautiful daughter, Mariko, standing in as heir apparent.  The gentleman offers Logan a chance to relieve him of his burden of regenerative "immortality" to allow him a normal life, wanting to take on that "burden".  Logan refuses and tries to leave, which plunges him into this world of Japanese corporate and organized crime intrigue.

The pluses?  This is a thoughtful film that gives Hugh Jackman some meatier stuff to do, more than growl, snarl and hack-slash.  He does with a vengeance all that is asked of him, showing the heart and soul of Wolvie, as well as the muscles and claws.  The supporting cast also brings it, without a dud in the bunch.

And the train fight scene is badass.

The minuses?  Well, for one thing, Wolverine in the comics in this story is far more up on Japanese customs and culture than he is here, and it seems discordant.  Especially since they are going with post ret-con Wolverine who has been around forever.  The original mini-series took place at a time this stuff had not been established for Wolverine, and it feels off.

Too many mutants where it isn't even necessary.  Yukio is no mutant, she is just a very skilled swordswoman and freelance black operative.  To make her a mutant, to make Madame Viper a mutant, when in the comics, again, she is just a black ops type (working for Hydra) cheapens both of them.  THEN, they turn the Silver Samurai from a mutant to just some hulking robot/cyber suit thingie...

...it is amazing that the movie is enjoyable as it is with some of the WTF choices they made with it.

This is a good one, even though it may not have the right to be.

We're The Millers: Americana Familia, Good Natured and Vulgar

We're The Millers is an odd little film starring Jennifer Anniston and Jason Sudeikis which kind posits the idea of a local pot peddler as being the most responsible and savvy member of a group of people with nothing to lose and nothing better to do, so they assemble as a fake family to cover a pot smuggling operation.   How did they get roped into this little sojourn?  Not to spoil, but here is the setup, lords and ladies...

Sudeikis plays David Clark, a smart guy who seems to have a level head on his shoulders who pursues his daily bread selling pot.   He likes his lifestyle and loves his independence, shuddering at college mates who have gone onto stifling suburbanation.   But...they seem to be living, while watching them, he starts to feel he is just existing.  So, when he interferes when street thugs are harassing Casey, a homeless teen girl and Kenny, a dorky neighbor kid who went to rescue her, he ends up getting robbed and being in hock to his supplier.  So he is offered a chance to make good and make some cash...go to Mexico, pick up a load of pot, return it to him.  Easy money, right?  David, thinking that no one pays attention to families, recruits Casey, Kenny and Sarah, a neighbor who works as a stripper, who has found herself in economic double jeopardy, due to a scummy s-o who cleaned her out and an employer who wanted her to start turning tricks.  So...his weird and vulgar "family" assembled, off they go, renting a Winebago and making a run to the border.

From there, hijinks ensue, from scary Mexican gangsters to spiders biting people in inappropriate places, to Jennifer Anniston showing she does have stripping chops.  Oh, and encountering another family where all kinds of oddness and warmness in almost equal measures ensue.

This is fun flick.  Light comedy with a fair amount of vulgarity, ie, though it is about "family", it is NOT a family film.  Not even.  Don't bring the kids.  It kind of makes fun of families, but celebrates them at the same time.  And it also has the big heart for those on the outs.

I liked it.

Star Trek Generations: Broken Bridges to A New Era

When I first saw this movie, I absolutely adored it.  "All Good Things", the final epic episode bookend of Star Trek The Next Generation had just aired and it was good to see our old friends of the Enterprise D were still boldly going, now on the big screen.  This story had lots of call backs to episodes and moments past in Trek, such as Data's emotion chip, and characters moving forward, like Worf getting promoted to Lieutenant Commander (how often do we see a promotion on screen on Trek?).  We also had Guinan and her race, the Al Aurians, and we saw a bit of their history as refugees after being driven from their home world by the Borg.  Of course, we also have the very cleavagy Duras sisters in all their glorious skankiness.

But now that I'm almost a generation removed from this adventure, how does it hold up over time?  Or does it?  Well...more or less.  What it does well, it does very well.  Our beloved crew, our first friends from Trek's 24th century, are right there, recognizable and lovable.  Our ship, the Enterprise-D, still there, still lovely.  We even get to see some new things, like the Stellar Cartography, a beautiful stellar mapping and plotting room.  We also see the launching of the Enterprise-B, whom lore suggest was one of the hardest luck ships to bear the name of Enterprise, some of the original crew (Kirk, Scotty and Chekov...after Nimoy and Kelly turned down the offers to appear).

The story in brief, the Enterprise-B on a brief pre-commissioning cruise, mostly for the benefit of the press, goes out on a jaunt and because it is the nearest available ship, gets thrown into an impromptu rescue mission for a couple of Al Aurian ships stuck in the pull of some kind of interstellar "energy ribbon".  The mission is partially successful, but history records Kirk was lost on this mission.  Fast forward to the twenty-forth century, the Enterprise D responds to a distress signal at a stellar observatory and finds Dr. Tolian Soran, an Al Aurian scientists, another survivor of the Borg massacre, one who lost his family, and one who has encountered this energy ribbon before...

SPOILERS...

I'm not going to rehash the whole thing, and again, it was great to see our beloved characters again and this, this attempt to bridge the old and the new.  But...what doesn't work...frankly, though it was great to see our people from the twenty-third century, Scotty and Chekov felt tacked on.  As spectacular as the crash scene with the Enterprise-D was, it partly felt like the merchandise people said, we need to clear out the old ship so we can sell new models.  And finally, Ronald D. Moore has expressed regret how Kirk's death was handled.  For such an epic character, his death felt...lacking in proper epicness.

A mixed bag, but again, if you love these characters, you love this universe, there is plenty to like, even now in the 21st century.  As the cinematic entry to the 24th century, there have been rougher landings...

Fireproof: Flame Baked Preaching To The Choir

Christian view based films are hard to review.  As I suspect they are hard to make.  Make an entertaining film that also has your message, but delivered in such a way that the converted are satisfied with, the unconverted give it a fair hearing and everyone going is entertained and hopefully edified.  Plus, Kirk Cameron has kind of become the poster boy for Christians in Hollywood and it is hard to evaluate his efforts fairly.  He is an outspoken Christian with a conservative bent, which automatically makes him a villain in the eyes of some, but like most idealogical conflicts, you aren't going to get the most even handed, fair evaluation of him and his views going to his critics.  Likewise, in the eyes of his fans, he can do no wrong.  So...you try to evaluate the work.

Fireproof stars Kirk Cameron as Caleb, a firefighter captain who is devoted to his profession and his men.  He has a wife, Catherine, who works in a hospital and who also helps care for her elderly mother.  The two have lots of strains and disparate schedules.  Plus, they don't know how to communicate with each other, leading to misunderstandings and acrimony.  Eventually, after one nasty exchange, Catherine wants a divorce.  This catches Caleb cold.  He still loves his wife, but does not know how to express that to her, much less how to win her back.  Caleb's father, John, offers the "Love Dare" 40 day devotionally based program to try to help him salvage his marriage.  So, in the midst of handling things in his job and fending off another suitor to his wife, he launches into this attempt to mend his marriage and win back his wife's heart.

Fireproof wears it's message on it's sleeve.  First, in the hustle and bustle of life, we sometimes forget about what really matters, the ties that bind.  Further, it suggests that when life does chase us into a deep dark well, a heavenly hand from above is there to help pull us back into the light.  That we often can't do it all by ourselves.

Looking around the world, I don't see how such a message is so out of place.

I enjoyed Fireproof, but just know what you are getting into.  It is a film with a most definite stance.