The Fantastic Four: First Steps. A Review

THE FANTASTIC FOUR: FIRST STEPS

The first family of Marvel goes for yet another round of cinematic adaptation in The Fantastic Four: First Steps. There is the added bonus that, unlike the first three efforts, First Steps is tied to the world's longest and most expensive soap opera of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. First Steps is not the reboot that the MCU desperately needs. It is fine, neither a return to form from past glories nor a horror to suffer through.

In our alternate Earth, the 1960's are a fantastic world of bright colors and immense optimism. That is due to the superheroes known as The Fantastic Four. There is Reed Richards or Mister Fantastic (Pedro Pascal), a brilliant scientist who can stretch his body to immense lengths. There is his beautiful wife Sue Storm, also known as The Invisible Woman (Vanessa Kirby). Her powers involve not just invisibility but creating force fields. Her literally hot brother Johnny Storm or The Human Torch (Joseph Quinn) can fly and light himself on fire. Their friend Ben Grimm (Ebon Moss-Bachrach) is a man who is virtually indestructible due to his almost brick-like skin, earning him the sobriquet of The Thing.

They are celebrities, but they use their powers for good. Sue has brought about world peace. Reed creates great inventions and even squeezes in a kids' science show, Fantastic Science with Mr. Fantastic. Things can only get better once Reed and Sue find that she is pregnant. The public at first is mesmerized by the newest arrival, speculating on whether or not the child will have superpowers like his parents.

The public's interests soon turn away from that to more pressing matters. An alien has come to warn Earth that it is doomed to die at the hands of a giant space being known as Galactus. Despite Johnny's best efforts to catch someone whom he described as "a sexy alien", this Silver Surfer (Julia Garner) is the herald of Earth's doom. 

It is now up to the Fantastic Four to stop Galactus from destroying the Earth. Efforts at negotiations fail and nearly cost them their lives. It also causes Sue to go into labor and give birth to her and Reed's son, whom they name Franklin. The child has become important to Galactus. He has had to devour planets for centuries and now feels that Franklin could take his place and relieve him of this burden. They collectively flat-out refuse to sacrifice Franklin to spare Earth. This decision, however, is not met with enthusiasm by neither surface-living humans nor those living in Subterranea, ruled by Harvey Elder, better known as Mole Man (Paul Walter Hauser). The Fantastic Four do find a way to spare both Earth and Franklin. Will their efforts succeed? Will everyone survive this battle? Will the Silver Surfer end up as friend or foe?

I have been open on how I have never been a comic book reader. As such, I am sure that a lot of things flew over me while watching First Steps. For example, I simply had no idea who Mole Man was.  I also was not aware of how similar the Fantastic Four were to the Incredibles. This came to me every time I fought the temptation to refer to Reed and Sue's child as "Jack-Jack". I do not know if the resemblance was purely coincidental, but there it is. 

Fantastic Four: First Steps has as a major positive its overall look. The film is brimming with bright colors and a retro-futuristic feel that makes it both of a particular era and familiar. Credit should be given to the production and costume design, which brought this alternate universe into reality.

In other aspects, I found First Steps to be, well, fine. The performances on the whole were acceptable. Pedro Pascal's ubiquity is now a meme. Here, he was not terrible as Reed Richards. As a side note, it is interesting that for all his powers, Mr. Fantastic did not showcase them often. Pascal gave Reed a sense of perpetual worry, be it for his fathering abilities or his world-saving abilities. Vanessa Kirby was better as Sue Storm. I think it is because she was called to do more, particularly over her protectiveness towards Franklin.

It is interesting that the screenplay made motherhood an important aspect. It is more interesting when you see that all four credited screenwriters are men (Josh Friedman, Eric Pearson, Jeff Kaplan and Ian Springer). The desire to protect Franklin, to be fair, was shared by all four of them. I think that the focus on Sue, however, was stronger than that of say Johnny or Ben. They all loved Franklin, but I think his mother would be the one who would be the last to even consider sacrificing her child even if it meant saving the world. 

It is also to the film's credit that we never got, at least to my memory, any "but on the other hand" argument from anyone. Again, this is based on my memory of a movie I saw months ago. However, no one ever said that it would be beneficial to essentially bump off a baby to save the world. Yet, I digress.

What is weak about First Steps is that we really got very little from others. Of particular note is Moss-Bachrach and Quinn as The Thing and the Human Torch respectively. We got bits and pieces of who they were. We saw Ben Grimm go to synagogue to talk to a pretty teacher that he was enchanted by. We got a bit of Johnny Storm's stabs at being cocky. I think though that somehow, they ended up having little to do. Worse, they had very little in terms of personality. Whether it is due to Moss-Bachrach and Quinn's acting skills, the script itself or a combination of the two I cannot say for certain. For myself, I at times forgot that they were there.

I cannot say anything overtly negative about The Fantastic Four: First Steps. You can skip the second post-credit scene. I cannot say anything overtly positive about it either. Michael Giacchino's score was pleasant. Neither a restoration nor abomination, The Fantastic Four: First Steps is, in the end, acceptable.  

DECISION: C+

Godzilla (1998): A Review (Review #2003)

GODZILLA

It can be said that Godzilla is a disaster movie in more ways than one. Perhaps something got lost in the translation. I put it down to something simpler: everyone involved in Godzilla made all the wrong choices.    

What would nuclear bomb tests in French Polynesia matter to researcher Nick Tatopoulos (Matthew Broderick)? He is too busy investigating worms in Chernobyl to pay attention to such things. That is until the U.S. government pulls him out to look into the potential of a strange creature literally leaving its footprints all over the world. He seems perpetually perplexed about this oddball investigation. He is more perplexed by the strange presence of men claiming to be French insurance agents, headed by the mysterious Phillipe Roache (Jean Reno). 

The creature is now racing to The City That Never Sleeps (which if memory serves right, is the actual name that appears on-screen). Colonel Hicks (Kevin Dunn) orders a mass evacuation of the city, over the loud objections of Mayor Ebert (Michael Lerner) and Mayor Ebert's aide, Gene (Lorry Goldman). Mayor Ebert is in the midst of a reelection campaign and fears that this will wreck his chances. Nick offers a plan to capture the creature, but it fails. 

He also, albeit unintentionally, brings more panic when his Nick's ex-girlfriend Audrey Timmons (Maria Pitillo) finds a secret tape revealing that the creature has a name and has been seen before. Eager to advance, she tries to be the one to break the news. However, she is thwarted by her boss, arrogant and egocentric television reporter Charles Caiman (Harry Shearer). Thus, we learn about "Godzilla".

The army and scientists continue to battle against this giant lizard in the perpetual rainstorm. As a side note, it should have been known as The City That Has Endless Rain given how it always seemed to be raining. Not even Seattle gets this much rain. No one will listen to Tatopoulos' warning that Godzilla is pregnant and laying eggs all over the place. While the army, under the bumbling command of Sergeant O'Neal (Doug Savant) attempts to battle Godzilla, the French do listen to Nick. 

Audrey and her cameraman, Victor "Animal" Palotti (Hank Azaria) also go down into the bowels of the big city to find these eggs. Will the army as well as Mayor Ebert and Gene finally see that Nick Tatopoulos is right? Will Godzilla be defeated? Will all the eggs be found, or will one egg escape to hatch for a sequel?

Alas, we will never know, for Godzilla was such a disaster that we never got the trilogy this Godzilla was setting up. This is the first time that I have seen this American adaptation of the long-running Toho series. I think that it is a terrible, terrible film. There are so many reasons for Godzilla being a terrible, terrible film.

I think I will start with the screenplay written by producer Dean Devlin and director Roland Emmerich. Judging from the final product, I do not think that Devlin and Emmerich ever decided if Godzilla was a comedy or a drama. There was this running gag of people constantly mispronouncing or struggling to pronounce "Tatopoulos". Those repeated flubbings, along with Broderick's childlike corrections, consistently fell flat.

The situation, I figure, should be serious. However, it was not taken seriously. Worse, Godzilla could not have fun with the premise either. Savant's scaredy-cat O'Neal seems at odds with the no-nonsense Colonel Hicks. You question Hicks' sanity by appointing O'Neal to be in charge on the ground. Worse, Godzilla ends with O'Neal at what looks like a party with "Animal's" wife Lucy (Arabella Field). Was that another running gag, how Animal was afraid of his wife?

I think this would be a good place to briefly touch on Mayor Ebert and his aide, Gene. This is clearly a swipe at film reviewers (Roger) Ebert and Gene (Siskel). Here is where Godzilla's inability to decide if it is a comedy or drama comes into play. Devlin and Emmerich were getting their frustrations out against Siskel and Ebert by making the characters of Ebert and Gene these incompetent boobs. Fine, I suppose that some fun can be had at the expense of two influential people who have not liked their work. That being said, the casting of Lerner and Goldman is deliberately meant to remind audiences of who they really are supposed to be.

Lerner and Goldman were made to look so much like Ebert and Siskel that no one could have missed what they thought was a clever joke. If you didn't get the joke by the end, their screentime ends with Gene walking out on Ebert, giving him two thumbs down when he tells the Mayor what he thinks of his campaign. I do/did not often agree with Gene Siskel, but here he is right: it was petty. I also agree with Siskel and Ebert that they set up this duo to stand in for Devlin and Emmerich's bête noirs, yet they could not bother to have Godzilla stomp on them. I do not know if audiences really expected Godzilla to stomp on them. I do think that they could have gone all the way with that.

I also think that if they had made Mayor Ebert very thin and attractive, and given perhaps City Councilman or Deputy Mayor Gene a full head of hair, that might have been clever. Instead, they went the easy way but ended up giving everyone nothing.

Another reason why Godzilla failed is in its visual effects. I was reminded of something said, ironically enough by Siskel and Ebert. They held that many visual effects take place in the rain because it makes it easier to obscure the monsters, or something to that effect. Godzilla has a near-permanent rainfall. Granted, I think that there was mention of a hurricane or superstorm beating down on the City That Never Sleeps. However, it does become almost laughable to always have rain. When we do see Godzilla, which I figure is the reason people went to see it, Godzilla is a disappointment. One scene in particular had it look like Godzilla was dry-humping a building. 

It is a bad thing also when the audience is led to think that Godzilla has been killed, but there is still an hour and a half to go in this two hour snoozefest. 

Finally, Godzilla fails because of its performances. Matthew Broderick looks like a child in the film. He also pretty much behaves like one, with a near-permanent look of confusion at whatever happens to be going on. Hank Azaria embarrasses himself with his broad Nuw Yawk accent. That he is actually from New York makes it more embarrassing. His Simpsons costar Harry Shearer was also bad as the obnoxious reporter who was not above sexual harassment of Audrey. I suppose that I should recognize that Shearer was playing obnoxious correctly. As such, he wasn't meant to be likeable. He just never made the case that Charles Caiman would be the premiere news anchor in New York.

Jean Reno was there just for the cash. I figure he was there also to appeal to foreign markets. He was directed to play Godzilla as a comedy. How else to explain his adopting of an Elvis accent to fool U.S. troops that he was a downhome country boy. 

One feels for Maria Patillo, as Godzilla was meant to be her big breakout role. Instead, it became her career death knell, making only two more films and several guest appearances on television since. To be fair, she had a long-running stint on television's Providence, and it is unfair to blame Patillo exclusively for Godzilla ending up a flop. She was given a pretty thankless role as this mix of ninny and shrewd reporter. It was not a good performance, but it was not a good character. I think that Doug Savant gave a worse performance. Savant, coming off a run on Melrose Place, had a similar issue that many in the cast had. He played it as if Godzilla was a comedy. If there were any justice, Savant would have received a Razzie for his performance, not Patillo.

Again, this is not to say that anyone gave a good performance in Godzilla. It is merely to say that some were singled out that perhaps should not have been.

Godzilla is a disaster. It is worse than that. It is boring, visually unappealing and downright moronic. The big lizard deserves so much better. So does the audience. 

DECISION: F

Queer: A Review

QUEER

Once the word "queer" meant "strange" or "eccentric". Later on, it was seen as a slur against gay men. Now, some gay men have embraced the term to mean either as a source of Pride or a way to describe a more expansive definition to gay. I do not know in what way writer William S. Burroughs meant the word to be taken when his novella Queer was finally published. I can imagine that, after seeing the film, all three definitions of "queer" would fit.  

Queer is divided into three chapters: How Do You Like Mexico?, Traveling Companions and The Botanist in the Jungle, with an Epilogue of Two Years Later. In its story, we see American expatriate writer William Lee (Daniel Craig), who spends his days in Mexico City boozing, shooting up heroin and seeking the company of pretty young boys. On one night, he spies pretty American Eugene Allerton (Drew Starkey), who may or may not be queer. Lee and Eugene start what can qualify as a friendship with benefits, though Eugene again insists that he is not gay.

Despite the warnings of his friend and fellow gay expat Joe Guidry (Jason Schwartzman), Lee takes greatly to Eugene and asks him to travel with him to the Amazonian jungle in search of a plant that will give them the power of telepathy, a particular obsession for Lee. After some issues, they arrive to find the mysterious and eccentric Dr. Cotter (Leslie Manville) and her husband. Lee and Eugene partake of the plant, which gives them telepathy and some strange visions of them vomiting their hearts out and weird ballets where they meld into each other. They do part, and Lee dies old and alone, with visions of Eugene Allerton coming to him one last time.

Had Queer opted to not be as faithful to Burroughs' work as I think it is (again, I have not read Queer), I think we might have had a strong dramatic film about lost same-sex love, if a bit eccentric on its visual style. However, once Lee and Allerton go off into the Amazon and have their strange, quiet visions, Queer goes so far off the rails that it never recovers. I saw a couple walk out after Lee and Allerton vomit their literal hearts out. 

They missed the strange naked ballet that Craig and Starkey performed with each other, as oddball a vision that director Luca Guadagnino has given us as I can think of. Guadagnino has taken us through a same-sex May-December romance in Call Me by Your Name, though at least in Queer both of them were of perfectly legal age of consent. I imagine that Guadagnino and screenwriter Justin Kuritzkes wanted to stay true to Burroughs' book. That, however, may be the problem.

The film becomes so oddball, so self-important, that it ends up turning most people off. It shifts from an eccentric but interesting drama of a man, lost in his haze of booze and drugs, attempting to find genuine love versus mere sex with a pretty young thing who may be toying with him. It turns into some weird, almost goofy production that delights in its own overt strangeness. One already gives Queer a lot of leeway by its use of contemporary songs for 1950s Mexico (the film begins with Sinead O'Connor's cover of Nirvana's All Apologies and Come as You Are plays when Lee and Allerton first set eyes on each other). Once we get to The Botanist in the Jungle, the film is done, and nothing can bring it back.

I figure that Queer reflects the drugged-out mind of William S. Burroughs and is at least semi-autobiographical. It does not make it any more approachable. On the contrary, it makes it more distant even I figure to a gay audience that might be turned off by how comical the third act becomes.

It is a shame as the fatal Chapter Three kills off whatever good, if a bit odd, goodwill Queer had built up. Daniel Craig, I think, is attempting to build a post-James Bond career by delving into this troubled man, lost in his feeding his vices carnal and chemical. It could have made for an interesting exploration of desire, even as Craig continues to struggle shaking his Foghorn Leghorn accent off whenever playing Americans. It could have been a good performance, but it went off late in the film. Better was Starkey as Allerton, who was not as infected with the strangeness of Queer's narrative and seemed to play someone who was closer to reality.

Two big surprises were Manville and Schwartzman. Both were unrecognizable in their roles, the latter more so under his makeup. They went all in and made for interesting viewing. I cannot say great viewing, but interesting. 

Wandering between esoteric and downright looney, Queer is indeed that.

DECISION: D-

Dreamchild: A Review

DREAMCHILD

"Who are you?" This question, posed by the Caterpillar in Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland, might be the theme to Dreamchild, a surprisingly obscure film connected to Carroll's wild fantasy. Well-acted, Dreamchild blends fact and fantasy to paint a portrait about creativity and the ties that bind past and present.

In 1932, almost eighty-year-old Alice Hargreaves (Coral Browne) is sailing to America to receive an honorary doctorate from Columbia University for the centennial of the Reverend Charles Dodgson's birth. Mrs. Hargreaves, accompanied by her lady's companion Lucy (Nicola Cowper), accepts that it is due to her connection to the man better known as Lewis Carroll, whose book he wrote with her as the de facto main character. However, why are so many American newspaper people hounding her so?

Among the most persistent is Jack Dolan (Peter Gallagher), recently fired from his newspaper job but who nonetheless hoodwinks both Mrs. Hargreaves and Lucy into speaking to him. Lucy, shy by nature, becomes quickly besotted albeit dubious of the handsome young American eager to cash in on the Alice in Wonderland craze that Mrs. Hargreaves has created. Jack talks Lucy into going to a tea dance at the hotel, leaving Mrs. Hargreaves presumably asleep and resting. However, she is anything but resting.

Her mind soon flows back to her halcyon days when she knew Dodgson (Ian Holm), the shy, stuttering math professor who was fond of the Liddle sisters. Alice, it seems, was her favorite, but was his interest more than just as a father figure? Alice now sees Dodgson and finds herself in a Mad Tea Party, struggling to fit in as both her old self and her younger version (Amelia Shankley). As she gets closer to the ceremony, Alice finds herself both puzzled and delighted by various opportunities for money that Jack, her new agent, is creating for her. Will she, however, come to terms with her celebrity and what all that means? Will Lucy find her own voice?

Dreamchild has an appropriately dreamlike manner thanks to screenwriter Dennis Potter, director Gavin Millar and the Jim Henson creations that bring Lewis Carroll's creations to life. Together, they blend fantasy and reality to Dreamchild. The film blends the past, the present and the fantasy world of Alice in Wonderland, giving us an imagined life of an old woman who finds herself famous for something not of her own making. 

The film feels a bit like a play given that there are many scenes that involve just Hargreaves, Lucy and Jack. Another scene where Jack and his girl Friday, Sally (Caris Corfman) meet for drinks at a bar, also has a feel that we are seeing a stage production. I imagine that Dreamchild, with some tinkering, could be adapted as a play.

As a whole, Dreamchild is well-acted, written and directed. Coral Browne made few films, concentrating mostly in the theater. Here, her Alice Hargreaves is sometimes confused, sometimes puzzled, sometimes even fascinated and amused by how her accidental celebrity is seen. While she clearly has no idea what products she is endorsing are, she finds the production of a radio show where she will record her commercials highly delightful. Potter's script detailing that she recorded commercials for "soup, soap and soda water" has a nice sense of alliteration to it. Her Alice is neither saintly nor tyrant. She is confused, even frightened, when she cannot find Lucy. She is haughty when initially dealing with Jack. She is downright mean when berating the put-upon Lucy and is proper but remorseful when she apologizes for her behavior. 

In the end, Alice Hargreaves in Dreamchild is a woman accepting the strange legacy of her association with Dodgson. She recognizes, now long after his death, that a man she was fond of and respected but whom she was also wary of gave the world a great legacy.

Despite the film involving the creation of Alice in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll is not a major part of Dreamchild. Despite this, Ian Holm does wonderful work as this shy, stuttering figure, struggling with his emotions. Was he literally in love with a child? Was it more a need to find joy in Alice's innocence? Dreamchild leans towards the idea of Dodgson as having very a very curious interest in young Alice. However, it is to the film's credit that any suggestion of a tawdrier element in Dodgson is not overt. I might have seen hints of it, but others may not.

Gallagher was good as Jack, this overtly sleazy but charming man. It was unclear to me whether he was genuinely fond of Lucy or was playing with her to get at what he wanted. Hargreaves' oblivious admission that Jack was taking twenty percent of what people were paying her reveals Jack to be very shifty. The same goes for his behavior towards Lucy. Is it love? Is it self-interest? Is it self-interest that turned into love? 

A standout is Copwer as Lucy. She is shy, hesitant, but slowly coming into her own. Lucy is becoming a woman, something that Mrs. Hargreaves does not account for. In her awkward manner with Mrs. Hargreaves and with Jack, one starts empathizing with Lucy. As such, when she finally explodes (albeit in a calm manner) at Alice Hargreaves, you almost cheer for her. Despite this, Lucy knows that she was wrong in her behavior, making her a fascinating figure to follow.

A highlight to Dreamchild is the puppetry of Jim Henson in bringing Carroll's creations to the screen. They are not sweet and charming. I would argue that they are slightly frightening. However, I think that was the point of their design: to be less cutesy and delve into the darker elements of the original book as well as Hargreaves' somewhat confused and conflicted relationship with Dodgson and the book's characters. 

Dreamchild has an appropriately dreamlike quality thanks to Gavin Millar's direction. When Dodgson and the Liddle family sail down a river on a rowboat, there is an almost lyrical quality in both the imagery and the overall mood. It is tranquil but somewhat unreal, as if everyone was floating. Stanley Myers' score adds to that vaguely unreal world.

Dreamchild is a story of legacy, good and bad. Regrets, confusion but acceptance and reconciliation with one's past moves the viewer. It is not the definitive story of the making of Alice in Wonderland, its inspiration or its author. However, the film works well, has some strong performances and style that enhance it on viewing. 

Alice, forever young.

Alice Liddell Hargreaves
1852-1934

Charles Dodgson (Lewis Carroll)
1832-1898

DECISION: B+

Red One: A Review (Review #1895)

 

RED ONE

Somewhere lurking abouts Red One is the germ of an idea: what if Santa Claus was unable to ride out on Christmas Eve? However, Red One is lost in its own world, unable to fully go the family route or the more action route, ending up nowhere. 

Santa Claus, code name Red One (J.K. Simmons) continues spreading cheer and love the world over. Callum Drift (Dwayne Johnson), his head of security is tired after centuries of seeing how bitter adults are getting. Kris Kringle, for his part, keeps the faith and hopes that Callum will go on one more sleigh ride before formally retiring from ELF (Enforcement, Logistics and Fortifications). However, Santa has been abducted! Who is behind this nefarious plot two days away from Christmas Eve?

Eventually, we find that it is Gryla the Christmas Witch (Kiernan Shipka), who has her own evil plans to enact justice on all those on the Naughty List, everyone from killers to jaywalkers as she puts it. Unwittingly helping her is The Wolf, the mysterious hacker who can find anyone and anything. The Wolf is really Jack O'Malley (Chris Evans), who is a Level 4 Naughty Lister, the worst of the worst. Cynical, slovenly, selfish, greedy and a disengaged father to Dylan (Wesley Kimmell), he is now the only person who can find Santa. 

Forced to join the thoroughly stern Callum, he and Jack go from the sunny shores of Aruba to the hidden world of Santa's erstwhile brother, Krampus (Kristopher Hivju) to rescue the Claus and save Christmas. However, there are more twists and turns in finding Jolly Old St. Nick. Will Christmas be saved? Will Gryla enact her own perverse sense of justice on humanity?

The budget for Red One is calculated at about $250 million, and I think I can spot three areas where that money went to. You have the various special effects shots of the North Pole and the Snowmen attacking Callum, Jack and Gryla's middleman Ted (Nick Kroll) in Aruba. You have the elaborate makeup work of Krampus and his dark court. You have the decision to film this in IMAX.

You also, apart from the makeup, really have no reason to rush out to see Red One. At over two hours, it is a punishing length for a story that wanders hither and yon, with no direction. You could have cut the opening section where young Jack reveals the truth about where the gifts come from. The entire Krampus section had little payoff. Same with the Aruba section. It is as if screenwriter Chris Morgan opted to put in a lot but not bother with worldbuilding. 

Take for example Gryla the Christmas Witch. Who is she really? She tells us her plan to punish all those on the naughty list but capturing them in snow globes seems a rather dumb idea. For all the Sturm und Drang about keeping Ted safe from the snowmen because he is the only one who can lead them to his secret employer, he ends up frozen and then promptly forgotten. I think locking Dylan up in a snow globe next to his father seems a tad harsh. 

I think Red One wants to have it both ways: be an action film and be almost a heartwarming Yuletide treat. It is interesting that Jack mentions that Dylan has a great stepfather, but we never see said great stepfather. For someone who is meant to be something of a lone wolf, one is puzzled on why he even bothers recognizing Dylan as his. It is a way to get Jack to reform, I suppose. It just was not a good way. Did Jack really have to literally steal candy from a baby to show us what a horrible person he is?

I was puzzled not so much by why Santa Claus was grabbed but why ELF thought he was in mortal danger. Yes, I can see why he would need tight security in Philadelphia, where Santa goes to the mall to get recharged. Yet, when Callum barks out that there is a "Code Green", I thought, "has there been a previous attempt on Santa's life?". Perhaps if, say, Santa had been receiving threatening messages or Gryla had hacked the North Pole and issued threats, then we might have had something. As it is, however, Red One was not building up to anything.

To be fair, there were a few moments that I thought were mildly clever. At one point in Aruba, someone calls out that Ted can't get iced, though the pun escaped the audience. Hearing Ted call Callum and Jack the "Magic Mike Christmas Brigade" did make me smile, if only for the sheer idiocy of it all. There was just something sadly predictable in Red One, lazy almost. When they got to Aruba, the people next to me started singing, "Aruba, Jamaica, ooh I want to take you", the opening lines to the Beach Boys' Kokomo. When Callum tells Jack that he is one day short of retirement after 542 years of service, the person next to me whispered, "Always".

Johnson and Evans are slumming through Red One, looking almost disinterested in what is going on. Evans could not make Jack into anything: neither charming rogue nor cynical criminal. I get that Johnson's Callum was meant to be the straight man in how serious he was meant to be. It just did not play well against Evans' more lackadaisical manner. Simmons could have made for a great Santa, even showing off his buff arms. However, for most of Red One, his performance consisted of looking zonked out, so it must have been nice to be paid to look asleep. Maybe he was asleep, who is to say? Bonnie Hunt was sadly underused as Partridge, which I presume is Mrs. Claus' first name or like "Red One", her code name. Lucy Liu just popped in and out, potentially setting up a cinematic universe with the MORA: Mythological Oversight and Restoration Authority. 

Red One is not good. It may be too adult for young kids and despite its claims not kid enough for adults. It is not charming. It is not funny. It is not exciting. It is just there. Santa Claus may hate macaroons, but I think he would find Red One more distasteful. 

DECISION: D+

Return to Oz: A Review

RETURN TO OZ

With a title like Return to Oz, one might expect it to be a sequel to the 1939 MGM musical film, which was at the time the most well-known adaptation of the L. Frank Baum book series. While Return to Oz is closer to the original source material, the film would probably end up frightening to terrifying younger viewers while boring older ones. 

Young Dorothy Gale (Fairuza Balk) is still going on about the land of Oz six months after her return. Her insistence on the reality of Oz bothers her depressed Uncle Henry (Matt Clark) and slightly less depressed Auntie Em (Piper Laurie). The natural solution is to take their niece to a hospital for electroshock therapy. The seemingly kind Dr. Worley (Nicol Williamson) and seemingly less kind Nurse Wilson (Jean Marsh) are stopped from sending electricity up through Dorothy due to a thunderstorm. Escaping with another girl, Dorothy flows down a river where she eventually finds herself back in Oz. 

Accompanied by Billina, a talking chicken who also comes from Oz, Dorothy finds a devastated, ruined Emerald City where creatures called Wheelers are flowing and terrorizing whomever comes in. They discover both the Tin Man and Lion have been turned to stone. Dorothy and Billina also encounter Tik-Tok, a metal soldier of Oz who gets literally wound up to provide protection. Now they must search for Princess Mombi, who know where the Scarecrow (who is King of Oz) is. Once they find Mombi (Marsh in a dual role), Dorothy finds that Mombi is anything but benevolent. She imprisons them and longs to add Dorothy's head to her collection of heads that she changes like they were gowns.

There, Dorothy and her friends meet a new creature, Jack Pumpkinhead, who is a large stick with a pumpkin for a head and calls Dorothy "Mom". They create a new creature to escape and cross the Deadly Desert to find the Nome King (Williamson in a dual role). The evil Nome King has imprisoned the Scarecrow and conquered Oz thanks in part to Dorothy's ruby slippers. He offers each of them a chance to find Scarecrow among the various object d'art that the Nome King has, giving each three guesses. If they fail, they are turned into objects themselves? Will Dorothy succeed in finding her friends and defeat the Nome King and his ally Princess Mombi? Will she return to Kansas? Will the rightful rule of Oz return? 

Return to Oz is in a curious position. It technically is closer to L. Frank Baum's writings, particularly The Marvelous Land of Oz and Ozma of Oz, which are the two books that follow the original The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Such characters like Tik-Tok, the Gump (the oddly configured flying creature they manufactured in a hurry), and Jack Pumpkinhead all are true to Baum's oeuvre. As such, Return to Oz is faithful to the source material.

However, it is almost certain that there are more people familiar with the 1939 film than with any of the Oz books, which is why the film opted, at a great cost, to include the ruby slippers versus the book's original silver slippers. As such, Return to Oz wants to tie itself to The Wizard of Oz. The end result is a very confused and confusing affair, where the characters audiences have known and loved are pretty much not there and their replacements run from the curious to the downright frightening. Yes, the Gump is as described in The Marvelous Land of Oz. That does not mean that the end result is not a bit jolting when visualized.

That is to say nothing of Princess Mombi. Again, screenwriters Gill Dennis and Walter Mursh (who directed the film) are correct that Mombi replacing her head with a variety of others is part of Baum's Oz mythos. However, the end result would frighten children, with the group of them screaming when Dorothy steals the Powder of Life being particularly terrifying. 

For those defending Return to Oz as closer to the spirit of Baum's original stories, there can be no justifying the decision to start the film with Dorothy getting electroshock treatments. What child wants to see their heroine tied to a bed and about to get electrocuted? True, she ultimately was not shown to get electricity forced into her body, but that was more due to the electrical storm than anything else. Return to Oz is a wild miscalculation: attempting to be true to the source material while also trying to echo Oz's most famous adaptation. The balance does not hold and ultimately collapses.

There is no sense of joy or wonder, no charm or innocence in Return to Oz. In many ways, it is a horror film. The creatures are scary. The situations are scary. The arrival of Princess Ozma is not strictly terrifying, but a bit forced. Even here though, there is a good element, which is the Nome King. Yes, he too is frightening, though that was the intent.

Rather, it is in his creation and the work of some of his minions where Return to Oz does set high standards. The visual effects, which were Oscar nominated, are excellent and hold up remarkably well nearly forty years after its release. The makeup work on Williamson in his role as the Nome King is also quite effective to where you wonder if he actually is in there.

The performances are not terrible. Williamson and Marsh are good as the malevolent doctor and nurse as well as mad wizard and his loyal usurper. Laurie and Clark did well as Uncle Henry and Auntie Em. Balk, making her film debut, did her best to make Dorothy an innocent who is forced to do what she must. It was not Balk's fault that she had to carry Billinda around to where one wondered if the chicken could move. 

However, the few good qualities in Return to Oz cannot mask how in so many other ways, the film fails. There is no sense of magic in the film, but a sense of oppression bordering on misery. The sets do not bring a sense of wonder to Oz but look like large sets, though to be fair Princess Mombi's palace is quite lavish. However, in terms of enjoyment, Return to Oz is a sad disappointment. "I have always valued my lifelessness," Tik-Tok observes. I figure many feel this same way, but they don't decide to put a kid-friendly film to cure their insomnia.

DECISION: D-

The Wizard of Oz Retrospective: An Introduction

The Wizard of Oz (1925)

The Wizard of Oz (1939)

 The Wiz

The Dreamer of Oz

The Muppets' Wizard of Oz 

VeggieTales: The Wonderful Wizard of Ha's

Oz the Great and Powerful

Lynch/Oz

Wicked Part I

The Wizard of Oz Retrospective: The Conclusions

The Wizard of Oz (1939): A Review

 

THE WIZARD OF OZ (1939)

In the annals of film history, 1939 is held as the single greatest year in cinematic history. That year is filled with grand epics, definitive Westerns, sparkling and witty romantic comedies, and searing looks into American politics. Tucked in among such lofty films is one of the most charming, sweet and enchanting fantasy family films ever made: The Wizard of Oz. Few films are as beloved as The Wizard of Oz, its blending of fantasy, innocence and exceptional songs placing it among the Greatest Films Ever Made. 

Young Dorothy Gale (Judy Garland) feels ignored by all the adults around her. Uncle Henry (Charlie Grapewin) and Auntie Em (Clara Blandick) are loving but also highly preoccupied with farm business. The three farmhands Hunk (Ray Bolger), Hickory (Jack Haley) and Zeke (Bert Lahr) are also caring but in need to attend to other things. No one has time for Dorothy's terror about losing her beloved dog, Toto, at the hands of the wealthy but wicked Almira Gulch (Margaret Hamilton). Dorothy wonders if her problems can be solved if she ever can find her way Over the Rainbow.

In a desperate effort to save Toto, Dorothy decides to run away, encountering charming shyster Professor Marvel (Frank Morgan). Professor Marvel cons her into going back to the farm, but Dorothy is caught and swept into a tornado. When it lands, she finds that she and Toto are not in Kansas anymore. They are in a magical land known as Oz. To Dorothy's shock and horror, she has accidentally killed the Wicked Witch of the East. While the local citizens, the Munchkins, are thrilled, not so is her sister, the Wicked Witch of the West (Hamilton in a dual role). Taking the advice of Glinda, the Good Witch of the North (Billie Burke), Dorothy follows the Yellow Brick Road to seek help from the Wizard of Oz to find her way back home.

While on route, she encounters three figures who join her in seeking the Wizard's help. The Scarecrow (Bolger again) seeks a brain. The Tin Man (Haley) looks for a heart. The Lion (Lahr) wants courage. Once in the Emerald City, the quartet now must perform a task: bring the Wizard the broom of the Wicked Witch of the West. How will they face off against this monster? Will they succeed in their quest? What role does the man behind the curtain at the Wizard's receiving room (Morgan) have in all this? Will Dorothy find her way back home?

The Wizard of Oz's production was chaotic to say the least. While three people received screenplay credit (Noel Langley, Florence Ryerson and Edgar Allan Woolf), there were many hands working on the story. The directing of the film also has many fathers. Victor Fleming received sole credit and directed the bulk of The Wizard of Oz. However, he was the second or third director on the film, depending on how you count. Original director Richard Thorpe had shot two weeks work when he was reassigned, producer Mervin LeRoy displeased that the film lacked a charm he felt the production needed. George Cukor took a few days before starting work on Gone with the Wind to offer recommendations, most of which were used by Fleming when he stepped in. Ironically, Fleming took over for Cukor on Gone with the Wind when the latter was fired from that production. King Vidor then stepped in to direct what was unfinished, including the Over the Rainbow sequence. 

The overall production may have been a jumble, but the end results are surprisingly coherent. I think this is because first and foremost, everyone took the premise seriously. Despite the film being seen as one of the hallmarks of children's entertainment, The Wizard of Oz never talks down to the audience. Instead, the film has a very firm foundation. I think that at one point, we all yearn for adult validation of whatever our troubles are. We almost all have had pets we adore and whom we fear separation from. The notion of a place where our troubles are far away is something that speaks to the whole of humanity. The Wizard of Oz taps into all those emotions, which does not downplay the fantasy elements but rather enhances them.

The Wizard of Oz also succeeds because of the work put into it by those in front and behind the camera. The film keeps a balance between the "real" world of Kansas and the "fantasy" world of Oz with its use of sepia for the former, full-blown Technicolor for the latter. Even now, the transition from sepia to color when Dorothy opens the door to enter Munchkin Land is breathtaking in its seamlessness. While the sets do look like large matte paintings, the overall look is still solid in capturing this fantasy world of crabby apple trees and flying witches. 

The set design is top-notch and effective. Everything from the miniaturized Munchkin Land and the grandness of the Emerald City to the darkness of the Wicked Witch's castle looks authentic while keeping that fantasy element. The costumes and makeup work are also exceptional. The Wizard of Oz has many of the actors playing two roles, and the film does very well in making them distinct identities. There is a whimsy to the Munchkins, an elaborate nature to Glinda, and a sweetness to Dorothy's various wardrobes.

The Wizard of Oz also is so exceptionally well-acted. Judy Garland was not the first choice for Dorothy, perhaps not surprising as she was already a sixteen-year-old teenager at the time. However, her wide-eyed face and quivering voice worked to make Dorothy's fears and hopes so believable. She made Dorothy this sweet, innocent girl who despite her fears has to rise above them if she is to find her way home. Garland's performance in bringing that innocence to her character sells the character to the audience.

This is also captured by those playing dual roles. The screenplay gives Bolger, Haley and Lahr time to showcase their mirror opposites in both Kansas and Oz: Zeke telling Dorothy that she must have courage, Hunk advising her to use her brains, Hickory blustering about his prospects. When they become the Scarecrow, the Tin Man and the Cowardly Lion, each plays their roles correctly, blending a childlike manner with an almost manic glee whenever they sing and/or dance.

Frank Morgan is so underappreciated in general and perhaps in more so in The Wizard of Oz. Every character he played (Professor Marvel, the Wizard, the Emerald City doorman, the cabbie and the guard) he plays as if it were totally different. The best example of Morgan's skills is when we see him as Marvel and the Wizard. As Marvel, he is shrewd and shady but good-hearted, using his skills to get Dorothy to return home without openly saying so. As the Wizard, he is bumbling, a bit of a charlatan, but not a bad figure. As the Wizard says, he is a very good man, but a very bad wizard.

Margaret Hamilton's performance as the Wicked Witch of the West is pure perfection. Already rather curt and cruel as Almira Gulch in Kansas, her Wicked Witch is unrepentantly evil. In threatening Dorothy and her little dog too, in sending an army of flying monkeys to capture our heroine, even in mocking Dorothy's tearful pleas to Auntie Em, Hamilton makes the Wicked Witch into a frightening figure for children. 

In their smaller roles, both Grapewin and Blandick excel as Uncle Henry and Auntie Em, the caring relations who bring humor and heart to the Kansas sequence respectively.

The Wizard of Oz has one of the greatest songbooks in film history. Harold Arlen's music (adapted by Herbert Stothart) and Edgar Harberg's lyrics blend so well that almost every single song is perfect and so much part of the American vernacular that even those who have never seen the film would recognize something of the music or songs. There is the spinning seven-note theme for Almira Gulch/The Wicked Witch of the West, a twisty blend of menace and mirth. The score is charming and light when needed, such as when Dorothy and her companions escape dangerous poppy fields. It also is not afraid to be dark and surprisingly frightening, such as when the flying monkeys swoop into the Haunted Forest to attack our quartet. There is also the ominous "Oh-YEE-Oh, EEOO-AH!" chant of the Witch's guard, menacing but still child-friendly.

Then you have the songs, the simply brilliant songs. At the top of the list is Over the Rainbow, one of if not the most haunting, beautiful musical numbers ever filmed. It is the perfect song, with the perfect delivery by the perfect singer. The lyrics speak of great longing for a place of refuge, of hopes that resonate within each one of us. Garland's vocals are divine, blending softness with power. The yearning, the longing in Over the Rainbow come through in Judy Garland's rendition. It is the first song in The Wizard of Oz and came close to being cut from the film. It is one of the greatest decisions in cinema that Over the Rainbow was saved from the cutting room floor. If you listen to the lyrics of Over the Rainbow, you hear just how perfect they are. The message of longing for something beyond one's current situation and the hope for better come through. That longing, that desire, all come through the lyrics and Garland's delivery.

If, however, you listen to almost all the songs, you find that The Wizard of Oz has perhaps the most literate lyrics in a major film musical. Listen, for example, to the It Really Was No Miracle section of what technically part of the massive Ding-Dong! The Witch is Dead musical number. In that section, you had the rhymes "switch, pitch, unhitch, Witch, itch, hitch" all flow almost rap-like, with "rich" a near-rhyme closing part of it out. Throw in "slitch" and "ditch" in a similar sing-song manner and you have a smooth and funny musical section. One does not question what "slitch" means or if it even a word. It just works so well.

The entire Munchkin Land section shifts from the sweet introduction of The Lullaby League and faux toughness of The Lollipop Guild to the comical somberness of the Coroner who declared the Wicked Witch of the East not just merely dead but most sincerely dead. The various versions of If I Only Had a Brain/Heart and You're/We're Off to See the Wizard are so witty, unafraid to use nonsensical lyrics that still fit. 

The only song that I am not particularly enamored of is Lahr's solo number, If I Were King of the Forest. It is not a bad song and a showcase for Lahr's wild manner. It works within the story, but it still feels slightly out-of-place.

The Wizard of Oz is a landmark in film history. It is also a beautiful film, charming, sweet, innocent and moving. Well-acted all around, with perhaps the single greatest collection of songs written specifically for film, The Wizard of Oz truly is wonderful because of the wonderful things it does. 

DECISION: A+

The Wizard of Oz Retrospective: An Introduction

The Wizard of Oz (1925)

The Wiz

Return to Oz

The Dreamer of Oz

The Muppets' Wizard of Oz

VeggieTales: The Wonderful Wizard of Ha's

Oz the Great and Powerful

Lynch/Oz

Wicked Part I

The Wizard of Oz Retrospective: The Conclusions

The Wizard of Oz (1925): A Review (Review #1890)

THE WIZARD OF OZ (1925)

Long before Judy Garland danced down the Yellow Brick Road, the L. Frank Baum novel The Wonderful Wizard of Oz had been seen by audiences in play and stage musical adaptations. It is unsurprising the early days of film tackled this popular tale. I think many would be surprised to learn that the 1939 musical is not the first film version of Baum's book. The silent film The Wizard of Oz may surprise fans of the MGM musical or those who have read Baum's book in how it is almost a whole new story. While not without its merits it is also a bit oddball in its presentation.

Using a framing device of a toymaker reading The Wizard of Oz to his granddaughter, we learn that there is discontent in the land of Oz. The rightful Queen has disappeared, and the Ozians are unhappy with the rule of their dictator, Prime Minister Kruel (Joseph Swickard). He stays in power through the work of his aide, Lady Vishuss (Virginia Pearson) and Ambassador Wikked (Otto Lederer). Also helping Kruel is the Wizard of Oz (Charles Murray), who is a flim-flam man and knows it. Only noble Prince Kynd (Bryant Washburn) stands up to them.

If anything, The Wizard of Oz is not subtle.  

Meanwhile, in distant Kansas, young Dorothy (Dorothy Dwan) is awaiting her eighteenth birthday. Her Aunt Em (Mary Carr) is sweetness herself, but her Uncle Henry (Frank Alexander) is a literal fat bastard, blustery and bullying everyone around. Dorothy does not escape his wrath, but getting the worst are his farmhands. There is one farmhand (Oliver Hardy, billed as Oliver N. Hardy) who seems to have a better shot of winning Dorothy over. The sad sack farmhand (writer/director Larry Semon) is also sweet on the pretty Dorothy, but he has less of a chance. The third farmhand, Snowball (Curtis McHenry), has no chance and isn't interested. 

Dorothy knows that she is a foundling but is unaware of a letter that is to be opened on her eighteenth birthday. Prime Minister Kruel, however, is and is desperate to stop her from reading it. Sending his Zorro-like minions to prevent this, but for once Uncle Henry is on Dorothy's side, refusing to hand the letter over to them. A fight ensues and eventually Dorothy, Uncle Henry and the farmhands are swept by a tornado to Oz. Prime Minister Kruel must stop the future Queen Dorothy of Oz by any means necessary, but will he win out? Will Dorothy ascend the throne of Oz? Who will she choose: the homely but loveable farmhand disguised as the Scarecrow or the more traditionally attractive Prince Kynd?

In some ways, The Wizard of Oz is surprisingly meta. The use of the grandfather (played by Semon in one of his three roles) reading the story to his granddaughter, who also makes comments about the story, predates a similar scenario in The Princess Bride. We also get a very strange number involving "The Phantom of the Basket", a figure the Wizard whipped up apparently out of thin air. With that, 1920's audiences were treated to a dance by one Fredrick Ko Vert, a drag queen with a name that makes anything from RuPaul's Drag Race look positively Rockwellian. 

There was nothing covert about Ko Vert or his dance. It was superfluous to the plot, yet one watches in somewhat stunned disbelief that a drag dance is part of whimsical children's entertainment. 

The film did take up a lot of time on both the Ozian political machinations as well as the romantic entanglement of Kansas waifs. It takes an awful long time for the Kansas group to make it to Oz, which is what I think contemporary audiences would look at.

One element in The Wizard of Oz that would look familiar would be the use of the farmhands as the three figures Dorothy meets on the way to the Emerald City. Granted, the story makes clear that they are in disguise. However, this is a development that may have come down in a more familiar form despite it not originally in the Baum story. 

The film does have some strong positives to it. There are some surprisingly good visual effects for the time, such as the tornado. We get a blend of animation and humor with a sequence involving bees and lighting that bounces off Snowball's head. There are clever sight gags, such as when Semon discovers that the eggs he stuffed into his pants and which Uncle Henry smashed with his foot end up hatching baby chicks. 

The title cards also feature amusing bits. When Uncle Henry is elevated to a position of power in Oz, the title card reads that he is now The Prince of Whales, an obvious crack at his girth. Prime Minister Kruel nicknames the Wizard "Wizzy". 

The Wizard of Oz also has some surprisingly frightening stunts, such as when two farmhands perform a dive into a haystack. Semon filmed this in slow-motion, adding to the overall look. 

We even have the positive of having one of the farmhands being black. Snowball's race is never brought up or treated as anything out of the ordinary. For the time, I figure this is extremely progressive. McHenry is introduced in the film eating watermelons, which is cringe nowadays and makes for uncomfortable viewing. Again, this bit, which is mercifully very brief, is a slight hiccup on things. It should also be seen through 1920's eyes, which would have found it acceptable. 

As a side note, we have gone in a century from a Wizard of Oz adaptation featuring a black man eating a watermelon to a Wizard of Oz adaptation featuring a black woman as the Wicked Witch of the West. If that does not show progress, what does?

The Wizard of Oz features a pre-Laurel & Hardy appearance by Oliver Hardy. He is pretty adept as the frenemy to Dorothy and her crew, shifting between helping and hindering them. Writer/director Larry Semon was certainly the star, going the Peter Sellers route by playing three characters: the grandfather in the framing story, the lovelorn farmhand and the Scarecrow (or a version of him). He did make himself the center of The Wizard of Oz, so a lot of the action involves him either trying to woo Dorothy, evade Uncle Henry, his farm activities or his adventures in Oz. 

Dorothy Dwan is pretty as Dorothy from Kansas, but she does have some of that stereotypical silent film acting that would come across as exaggerated today. Dorothy as a character seems almost secondary to The Wizard of Oz itself. 

The film loses a little steam when we get everyone to Oz. It also takes up much too much time in Kansas with Semon's farmhand. However, on the whole The Wizard of Oz is an interesting film separate from the overall Oz mythos. There are some surprisingly effective visual effects and stunts that lift the film to if not a faithful adaptation at least a unique one.

DECISION: B-

The Wizard of Oz Retrospective: An Introduction

The Wizard of Oz (1939) 

The Wiz

Return to Oz

The Dreamer of Oz

The Muppets' Wizard of Oz

VeggieTales: The Wonderful Wizard of Ha's

Oz the Great and Powerful

Lynch/Oz

Wicked Part I

The Wizard of Oz Retrospective: The Conclusions

King Kong Lives: A Review

 

KING KONG LIVES

The 1976 King Kong remake has been, in my opinion, unfairly bashed as terrible. It is not a good film, but I find it oddly entertaining and much better than the second remake. I had heard of King Kong Lives but was too young at the time to see it. Moreover, what little I knew was due to Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert's extremely negative review. Now, through the magic of streaming, I have seen King Kong Lives. Living up to its reputation, King Kong Lives is a mix of the 1976 and 2005 versions. It is terrible (2005) but oddly entertaining (1976). 

A decade after King Kong fell to his apparent death from the World Trade Center, we find that he is not dead. He is in a coma, kept alive artificially at the Atlanta Institute, a rival to MIT and Harvard. Dr. Amy Franklin (Linda Hamilton) has an artificial heart ready for Kong, but due to his decade-long coma, he needs a blood transfusion to have the artificial heart work. It is not, however, like there are giant apes running around somewhere, right?

Of course, wrong. Explorer Hank Mitchell (Brian Kerwin) just happened to stumble onto a giant monkey in Borneo. He offers "Lady Kong" to the institute for a price. Price met, Mitch flies Lady Kong to what I presume is Atlanta so Mr. Kong can have transfusion and his new heart.

It gets sillier from here. 

Unsurprisingly, Dr. Franklin strongly objects to having a female Kong so close to a male Kong, fearing they will go ape for each other. Unsurprisingly, Dr. Franklin and white hunter Mitchell also go ape for each other. King Kong is so aroused by Lady Kong's scent that he storms his way to her. The search for this ape allows Franklin and Mitchell to storm their way to each other. Lady Kong is recaptured, King Kong hides out in the Georgia swamps, is captured by rednecks whom he devours, then they are reunited in time for Lady Kong to give birth to Son of Kong. Will the family Kong (King, Lady and Donkey) manage to escape?

King Kong Lives and the 1976 King Kong have one thing in common: both are blessed with a musical score that is so far above the film itself. John Scott's score is wonderful, flowing and enjoyable. He created luxurious romantic music when we see scenes of romance. It is not his fault, though, that the romantic music played when King and Lady Kong finally set eyes on each other.

There is something absolutely and oddly hilarious about lush music when you see two adults in ape costumes making googly-eyes at each other. That director John Guillermin never saw just how odd to laughable the mix of music and images come across makes one wonder whether he and everyone involved in King Kong Lives was bonkers. These love scenes between the Kongs are just weird. The love scene between Franklin and Mitchell are not far behind. The dialogue by Ronald Shusett and Steven Pressfield does not help. Just as Mitchell is to start making love to Amy, he says, "Are you sure about this?". Her response? "We're primates too", she whispers.

Why these two fell so suddenly in love King Kong Lives does not bother explaining. How King Kong lives all these years King Kong Lives does not bother explaining. Why King Kong lives at all King Kong Lives does not bother explaining. What is the plan once the heart transplant goes? What are they going to do with Kong after he recovers from surgery? There's no setup, so there are no stakes. It is all very strange to idiotic. 

About the only moment of wit is when the Army comes to the Georgian backwaters to find dozens of rednecks with their shotguns looking for a giant ape that has managed to hide in various swamps. "What the hell is this: Deliverance?" one of them says. 

Over and over again, the strange blending of music and imagery makes King Kong Lives look bad and unintentionally funny. At least, I think it was not meant to be funny. Late in the film, there's a scene where Kong is rampaging through a small town. There is an old man with a shotgun apparently just shooting around in random. Everything here is hilarious. A later scene at a family reunion hoedown is equally bizarre. We see the Kongs walking towards them, the hootenanny oblivious to these giant creatures coming their way. "You never know who's going to show up in our of these family reunions, do you?" one of them says to the other as we see the Kongs coming closer and closer.

I get what King Kong Lives was going for. I also get that they were too obvious and forced about it to make it funny. Funny is when Lady Kong grabs Mitchell. I almost expected her to say how she would hug him and squeeze him and call him "George". The scene where King Kong chomps down on an alligator while a frog looks on is inexplicable to me. Throwing in gruesome endings for some of the rednecks is appalling.  

King Kong Lives was made after The Terminator. As such, why Linda Hamilton opted to use what cache she earned from The Terminator to star in this rubbish I can only guess at. She looks blank throughout, making the idea that she is a brilliant physician frankly ludicrous. Kerwin is no better, attempting "brash and daring" and ending up looking desperate, confused and embarrassed. John Ashton as barking Lt. Col. Nevitt was a stereotype, almost always yelling out his lines and chomping the scenery with crazed abandon.

The 1976 King Kong won a special Academy Award for its Visual Effects, which I find strange given how poor the VFX were in King Kong. They are Lord of the Rings quality compared to the simply awful VFX in King Kong Lives. Even 1940's B-pictures had better rear screen projections than King Kong Lives. The two people playing Kong and Lady Kong (Peter Elliot and George Yiasomo respectively) running around in what are meant to be mountains look so idiotically fake that even children would say it was a set. When Nevitt meets his end, everything about it is bad: the acting, the look, the end results. 

There is no reason for King Kong Lives. Minus the music everything in King Kong Lives is dreadful. Despite that, I did not hate King Kong Lives. It is just short of being so bad that it's good. It is more "so bad that it's watchable if you want to laugh at how bad it all is". King Kong Lives, but one wishes he had stayed most sincerely dead. 

DECISION: D-    

Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire. A Review

 

GODZILLA X KONG: THE NEW EMPIRE

I think it is fair to say that your enjoyment of Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire will depend on how invested and knowledgeable you are about what I understand is called "the Monster Verse". Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire is dumb and overblown. I think people who do not care to give much thought to things will enjoy it. 

King Kong remains in Hollow Earth, the world beneath our own. He suffers from a toothache that requires him to rise to the surface, where he is attended by Trapper (Dan Stevens). Also on the surface is Godzilla, who is battling against monsters for humanity's sake. 

Things grow to a crisis when Godzilla senses danger, whereupon he begins sucking up nuclear power. King Kong too faces danger when he comes upon a hereto unknown group of large apes and actual humans living on Hollow Earth. On the surface, scientist Ilene Andrews (Rebecca Hall) and her adopted daughter, the native girl Jia (Kaylee Hottle) sense a disturbance. Jia, like all of her now-lost Iwa people, is especially attune to something off. 

Eventually, after fighting each other WWE style at the Pyramids of Giza, our giant frenemies must join forces against Skar King, another giant ape bent on taking out both lizard and gorilla. It is a clash of titans involving not just them, but the giant moth-like creature Mothra.

Perhaps I would have thought better of Godzilla x Kong if I either cared or understood what exactly was going on. Early on, I did ask if there was a plot in all this. It is a bit hard to take even the outlandishness seriously when you have a man in a Hawaiian shirt gleefully serve as a giant gorilla's dentist. I did ask when Trapper showed up, "who the hell is he?". 

I do not know if it is because I cannot invest the interest to follow along with the Monster Verse or because Godzilla x Kong follows in the shadow of the excellent Godzilla Minus One. However, I found there is a lot to criticize in Terry Rossio, Simon Barrett and Jeremy Slater's screenplay (based on a story by Rossio, Barrett and Adam Wingard). I mean, apart from a lack of a screenplay.

For example, I noticed that Kong always seemed to be injured in some way. I do not know why he had to be. The nadir of this, however, is when his arm is injured just when he needs it the most. What are the odds that a secret project on Hollow Earth would be to create a special mechanical arm for him to use? Actually, I might walk back that last statement. The nadir of this might actually be when Kong and Godzilla begin fighting each other in Egypt. Yes, they are both giant monsters. However, how did Godzilla get from Gibraltar to Egypt so quickly, even for him? How did he sense Kong's presence? Did Kong's roar reach all across the Mediterranean? 

When you see King Kong and Godzilla, King of the Monsters, behave as though they were the main event at WrestleMania, you wonder if you can stretch believability even in this circumstance. Godzilla x Kong doubles down on the massive destruction the people behind the film think audiences want, logic (however thin) be damned. As big as the film's visual effects were, as massive as the film's visual effects were, and as overblown as the film's visual effects were, they can't match the more effective visual effects of Godzilla Minus One. The latter won the Best Visual Effects Academy Award, the first Godzilla film to be nominated, let alone win. I doubt Godzilla x Kong will even be nominated for next year. 

Godzilla x Kong shortchanges the human actors. Except for Brian Tyree Henry as Bernie, the podcaster who was our sometimes eager, sometimes reluctant hero, I don't think anyone was even bothering to try and make any of this plausible. Stevens was having a ball amping up his character, this devil-may-care whacked-out dentist to monsters. He was the counter to Hall's more sedate scientist. 

Honestly, I cannot remember what they were like, lost in the explosions and smaller apes roaming about. Still, I do not think people go to something like Godzilla x Kong for the humans. They go in to see giant monsters go at each other. Here, however, they could not even do that. Godzilla, despite being top billed, is barely in the movie. This is more a Kong-centric film, so I do feel a bit cheated.

Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire is more for those who maybe follow these two giants of cinema more than I or even the average person does. It is loud, overblown and pretty much with no real plot that does not require you to have more than a passing knowledge of past Monster Verse films.  

Still, it is better than Argylle. 

DECISION: D+