Warner Brothers! STOP!! We Beg You!! PLEASE!!

 

DEEP BLUE SEA 3

2020/R/100 min

Director: John Pogue

Writer: Dirk Blackman

Cast: Tania Raymonde, Nathaniel Buzolic, Emerson Brooks

 

Here is an open request to Warner Brothers: For the love of all that is decent, no more “Deep Blue Sea” sequels. Haven’t fans of the original been abused enough?

Once more, without being asked by anyone except for, maybe, investors, Warner Bros. have dished up a second sequel to the fairly entertaining original film. For those who may be worried, let me assure you that the third film IS better than the insultingly stupid “Deep Blue Sea 2”. Unfortunately, that is akin to saying having your finger crushed is better than having it cut off. In the end, you really don’t want either one.

Welcome to the mostly abandoned island village of Little Happy. It looks like a shanty town built on a floating trash pile, but that is probably due to the low-grade CGI. Who really cares as we only see a small handful of buildings being used by the 6 people still on the island? Oh, right, we have to show how global warming is slowly swallowing the island. Don’t forget that underlying theme of “Mankind is bad” as you will be slapped with it throughout the film, along with a few other progressive messages.

The place is home to a marine biologist, Dr. Emma Collins, and her crew. They are studying the effects of said global warming on marine life. They also host a video blog of their work. So hip and stylish. One character states that a post of Emma making nice with what seems to be a pet great white shark will net at least 5000 likes. Let’s hope their funding doesn’t come from clicks on their vlog.

Shortly after we are shown what an empowered person Emma is (I guess being rude to your employees is a sign of strength now), we meet a ship full of weightlifters – no, sorry, divers, who are tracking 3 bull sharks. The USS Beefcake is headed by Richard Lowell, Emma’s one-time flame who left a bad taste in her mouth after some questionable dealings when her father passed away.

Isn’t this all so wonderfully convenient?

These sharks are super predators due to global warming. At least, that is the initial story, and who is Emma to question any of this when her pet peeve may be the cause. If you saw “Deep Blue Sea 2”, you know what the real deal is, but, if you didn’t, there is a lengthy bout of exposition dumped in your lap later in the film to link all three movies together.

Ignore all of it because if you choose to watch this film, you don’t really care about the plot. You want that sweet shark-eating-people action. You get some of that, after you wade through endless dialogue that is unrealistic and delivered by smarmy and unlikable characters. A bit of red clouds in the water, a touch of entrails, and a severed limb or two. It feels almost like the scenes shark fans tune in for were added to keep folks from demanding refunds from the VOD providers.

I cannot really say anything too rough about the actors given the tedious and unappealing nature of most of the characters they had to play, though I will say that Bren Foster seemed to enjoy playing Lucas as total dick of a human being. Everyone else just hit their marks.

To be fair, I want to give proper credit to the real stars of this film. The underwater photography and the diving crew in this film deserve recognition for the extensive work they put into this utterly lackluster dose of predictability. Unlike the second film in this series, “Deep Blue Sea 3” features some truly beautiful shots of marine life as well as having the characters in the water on a regular basis. The people who did all the underwater work are often overlooked, along with the stunt people. Here, they make the film come together. Without them, this film would have been unwatchable.

There are those out there who cry foul when a movie like this is given a bad review. “What do you expect from a shark movie?” they say. I expect to be entertained as well expect to be given characters that somewhat feel like real people who work through a plot that does not telegraph its every “twist” in a heavy-handed fashion. “Deep Blue Sea 3” fails on every count.

Worth Watching For Jenna Ortega And The Weird Social Commentary

 

SCREAM

2022/R/114 min

Directors: Matt Bettinelli-Olpin     
                 Tyler Gillett

Writers: James Vanderbilt     
             Guy Busick

Cast: Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox, David Arquette

 

I miss the old days.

You went out, saw a movie in the theater, got jazzed up about it, read magazine articles, ranted to your like-minded friends about it, bought the posters/comics/action figures, and that was about it. You had your own little world of happy that you shared with people who had similar little worlds, and all was good in fandom.

Then Al Gore went and invented the damned Internet. (Yes, we know this isn’t true, but it’s nice to have a single person to blame, isn’t it?)

Now we have “toxic fandom”. With constant access to a stream of ever-evolving information, fans of anything that can be lumped into communities across sites that treat their objects of adoration with joy and wonder as well scorn and disdain. From major continuity errors in long-running franchises to problematic pronoun issues in conversations, fans scrutinize and shred every aspect of their chosen obsession.

“Scream”, from 1996, managed to create a film series that was not only self-aware of its own thematic trends, tropes, and clichés from the slasher genre, but it incorporated the viewers themselves and their expectations into the story, in an abstract fashion.

“Scream” pushed its way through 4 films, introducing a new killer in the same costume as the sequels bowed and scraped before the original. With each film, the layer of “wink wink, nudge nudge” between the viewers and the movies grew as did the “rules” for surviving not just any horror movie, but a “Scream” movie specifically, as represented by the “rules” set forth by the fictional film series Stab within the “Scream” films.

If all of that seems like too much baggage to schlep from one film to another, it is understandable. Who was related to whom, what motive caused this death, where does that branch of Scream/Stab lore originate, and so on.

If you gave up on the Scream franchise after the second or third film but have wondered about getting back in groove with your inner Ghostface, then the latest release in the series, simply titled (again) “Scream” (2022), should help if you want to touch base with this franchise again.

The illegitimate daughter of one of the original killers returns to Woodsboro when her younger sister is attacked by a person wearing the Ghostface outfit and mask.

You get a new cast to be used as knife blocks as murder after murder take place while they attempt to sort out the motive and discover the killer. Legacy characters, meaning characters from previous films in the series, return to keep the story grounded and provide some star power. Rules are restated and modified as needed. The Ghostface attacks are fairly brutal and gruesome. Pretty much every major character ends up injured or dead before the final credits scroll by.

“Scream” (2022), however, is not a horror film. Oh, it has the elements: masked killer, flashing knives, mutilated bodies, flowing blood, chase scenes, etc. Yet, if you show up for just those parts, you will find the film to be a bit dull. They are required bits, like a foundation and load-bearing walls in a house. Without those plot points, the rest of the film would be little more than an interesting podcast discussion of little import to anyone except those participating.

Without attempting to ruin the film, let’s just say that the real heart of the film is the endless self-examination of fans, fan reaction, fan anger – a meditation on fandom and how it affects and is affected by the subject of that fandom. Toxic fandom is front and center in the overall discussion the film dances around and through, while the characters provide visual fan service on the screen.

Ultimately, “Scream” (2022) doesn’t exactly make a hard decision on regular and toxic fandom, considering the whole movie uses “toxic fandom” to propel the on-screen actions, adding another twisted layer to what was a dying franchise. In fact, the film validates more points of what most would consider “toxic” as those elements provide the only real suspense in a tale that is, at face value, as unlikely as seeing gas sell for less that a dollar a gallon by the end of 2023.

As stated, “Scream” (2022) is less horror and more social commentary. The film works well as a demented meta-comedy as the endless bits of self-reference pile higher and higher. Not sure how a hardcore fans will view this entry, but casual “Scream” fans who gave up on the series might find something wonderfully philosophical about this film as it analyzes its own fanbase for better or worse.

Just Watch Steve McQueen In "Bullitt" And Bypass The Headache

 

SCORPION

1986/R/98 min

Director: William Riead

Writer: William Riead

Cast: Tonny Tulleners, Don Murray, Robert Logan

Tonny Tulleners was a middleweight international Karate champion in 1965. He apparently fought against Chuck Norris and won. All wonderful credits for a guy when you want him to star in an 80‘s action film as a super-cool agent who uncovers crime and conspiracies while kicking bad guys into the disabled registry.

Welcome to 1986‘s ‟Scorpion“.

Spoiler Warning! For those who feel that kind of thing applies to cheap action films that were likely made a decade BEFORE they were born.

The story, often compared to the Steve McQueen film ‟Bullitt“, involves our hero, Steve Woods (Tulleners), being called into help with a plane hijacking. While wearing the most uncomfortable male short-shorts, he kicks the snot out of the terrorists at the front of the plane (all of them conveniently within kicking range) before shooting the lone terrorist at the back of the plane. We’ll casually ignore the fact Steve has fired a live round towards a cabinful of civilians because it isn’t the last time he ignores basic gun safety in crowds.

One of the non-dead terrorists chooses to spill the beans on the internation crime scene. Woods and fellow agents are tasked with keeping the twitchy criminal at a safe house until he can be transported to a proper, secure location. But the hijacker helps a couple of hitmen to invade the safe house and blast Steve’s long-time friend and work partner. For good measure, the hitmen also shoot the shit out of our snitch, Faued.

If you guessed that Woods loses his best friend, you have obviously seen at least one 80‘s action movie as that is one of the prime motivations for the sea of violence that should follow, with a girlfriend/wife getting assaulted/killed being the other reason for the hero to bring justice and pain to criminals.

With the death of his friend, we get a flashback of Steve and his buddy as youngsters, with Steve believing he can push over a granite monument in a park. If you watch closely, you see the kid DOES manage to make the thing move a bit. Probably should have clipped that out, but they were working with kids, so they may not have had the time to get another shot. Or they didn’t care. Either way works, because you know it is a set up for the final scene of the damned movie.

Plenty of running about takes place as Steve makes motions simulating an investigation into the truth behind how hitmen breached the safe house. I’ll save you some time. There is, for some unfathomable reason, a second, but totally for real (we promise!), Faued (this time played by John Lazar, who only gets a few fleeting moments of screen time), who is quickly brought down by a budget that had run out. But not before we get resolution on that monument getting shoved over for no good reason other than Steve’s ego.

If it sounds as if the film fails to impress, that is because it does. The story is fine and could have been the basis for a nice action film. I mean, it worked out fairly well for Steve McQueen, didn’t it?

What torpedos this movie is how by-the-numbers and flat everything feels. The camera is either too far away or too close to capture the fight scenes, and the lack of coverage for those scenes gives the poor editor jack shit to work with. A slab of ham could have put the meager images together to same effect as a human did.

Acting ranges from decent, given the thin material, to ‟What the hell is he saying?“ The latter refers to Tonny himself. Yes, our lead actor whispers the bulk of his dialogue. I get the old adage of ‟Speak softly and carry a big stick,“ but, in this case, you may find yourself screaming at the movie just to hear a voice. Everyone else speaks at a normal tone, so you may end up turning the sound up and down in an effort to follow the plot until you realize it doesn’t matter and just start grooving to your Spotify list while watching Tulleners skulk about in ugly clothes and a very nice Porsche.

Do NOT let any cover or poster art for ‟Scorpion“ entice you into watching it. Do NOT think, ‟This sounds bad enough that it might be funny.“ Most importantly, DO NOT EVER pay to watch this. If you know someone who did (other than insane film addicts and/or film reviewers), put them on your short list of debateable friends and NEVER let them decide what your group of friends watch for fun.

Samuel Jackson Is Thankful His Character Did Not Survive For This Poor Sequel

DEEP BLUE SEA 2 (2018)

Director: Darin Scott

 

Once in a while, it is so refreshing to get a sequel that basically re-affirms your faith that Hollywood isn’t a factory peddling shams and breaking dreams in a quest for the almighty dollar. I mean, how can you not enjoy leaping back into another tale dealing with either your favorite characters from the original, or a new tale set in the same setting/universe? It’s like pulling on that old, tatty sweatshirt after a week of wearing starchy, button-down shirts and ironed slacks. You can relax because you know you are in good hands.

As nice as all that can be, not one stinking bit of it has anything to do with the recent, dumped-on-an-unexcited-public sequel known as “Deep Blue Sea 2”.

Before you accuse me of being a fan boy who worships the original FROM NINETEEN YEARS AGO (!), let me assure you that I am no cheerleader for the original film. I didn’t dislike it. Frankly, it was a fairly standard Renny Harlin action film; it had his handiwork all over it, but I didn’t find any of the characters endearing. Add to that the fact Samuel Jackson leaves the film halfway through. It was just okay, and I even took the time to watch it again before watching the sequel just to make sure I wasn’t having a bad day when I watched it the first time.

I wasn’t; I am just not a big fan of shark films, I guess. “Deep Blue Sea 2” did not help elevate my passion for the sub-genre.

We start with two guys illegally farming shark fins, which are actually rather profitable, but I don’t recommend leaving your day job. In spite of receiving a warning to clear the area, greed prevails just before something large bumps into their boat. This happens numerous times, causing the two hardened seamen (phrasing, I know) to fall to the deck. These two sea-savvy old salts then balance themselves on the very back edge of the boat which is the safest place to be when having your feet knocked from underneath you. <insert huge eye roll here>

They are eaten by bad CGI sharks that seem to swim in perfect formation.

Next, we see a shark expert teaching a very small class that sharks are simply misunderstood, except for bull sharks which, apparently, are the most vicious and unpredictable sharks out there. (Guess what sharks chase people in this movie?) Our rather attractive shark expert is approached by a guy with all the charm of a bag of broken glass being slammed into your face; he wants to extend an employment offer from the very wealthy head of an international pharmaceutical corporation. Instant distrust from the scientist. Don’t expect this to change. In fact, it is little more than catering to the social justice warrior movement as she rages against the animal testing, “Big Pharma” greed, and typically male raping of Nature, goodwill, and everything else warm and fuzzy, yet her cleavage gets worked in whenever possible.

It seems that Mr. Durant, the pharmaceutical king, wants to create intelligence-boosting drugs. For the fame? No. For the money? No. To save Mankind from the coming AI revolution that will make Man pointless? Why else? But to harvest the chemicals for this wonder drug, the brains of bull sharks need to be expanded. Yippee! Sentient garbage disposals that can play chess better than I can.

No need to worry. Mr. Durant assures everyone that his facility is failsafe. Really? The original film had an above-the-water compound that covered a few acres with actual steel and concrete materials. Durant’s topside location looks like Goober and Gomer built it out of wreckage, and it resembles a low-rent refueling facility that would be hidden in a swamp. For Christ’s sake, the whole damned thing is made of wood, and they have 55-gallon drums of fuel stored on it. Next to the power unit for the whole facility.

It doesn’t take much to realize that Durant is nuts, and that the super-smart sharks will hunt the humans, especially after one is able to read Durant’s lips when he tells another character that he intends to kill the sharks once he has the proof he needs. So, the bulk of the film sees these characters wander flooded hallways made of interchangeable modular units as the sharks take WAY too long to eat these idiots.

If you’ve seen the original, then this film probably sounds similar. It is. But imagine the struggle to reach safety from the first one being boiled down to little more than a slasher flick with sharks as the killers, and a budget that looks like it was spent mostly on catering considering the sets are subpar (yes, one even moves when characters bump into the wall) and there isn’t anyone with a readily recognizable name or face in the cast.

Other reviewers shredded the film for being a pale remake of the original. Fair enough. Even without knowledge of the first film, “Deep Blue Sea 2” tanks simply because it is a bad movie. Yes, it steals from the original without hesitation, but those are actually the highlights of a film mired in a scheme so ridiculous and with characters so shallow and disposable that it boggles the average mind that this film ever moved beyond the idea stage. You know the film hits bottom, full stop, when an entire multi-million-dollar underwater facility is compromised because a damn inflatable boat bumps into the facility power source. On the surface. On a cheap wooden platform. WITH UNSECURED FUEL STORED RIGHT NEXT TO IT!!!!!

Why did Warner Brothers decide to foist this wreck of a film on the world? Hell if I know, but since they have, can we all just forget any more sequels now? If the reception of this unwanted and unwarranted “sequel” rings some bells in the empty heads at Warner Brothers, let’s hope that they throw their time and limited funds at an original property next opportunity.

 

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO OWN A PHYSICAL COPY OF THIS FILM, CLICK THIS LINK FOR THE AMAZON LISTING: https://amzn.to/3LaedaW

More Sharks & More None-Too-Bright Young Folk Who Identify as Chum

47 METERS DOWN: UNCAGED (2019)

Director: Johannes Roberts

 

You want pretty girls? Got ‘em.

Did you say you want scary sharks? Well, we got sharks.

How about pretty girls being stalked by sharks? Oh, Hell, YEAH!!!

You want it to be realistic? You just had to ask for too much, didn’t you?

“47 Meters Down: Uncaged” starts like a random afterschool special when Mia is “accidentally” pushed into their private school’s pool by the resident social queen, Catherine. Don’t bank on this story element as it results in mostly dirty looks exchanged in a couple of different short scenes. Mia’s step-sister Sasha claims Mia isn’t her sister and attempts to hide her shame while sticking close to her friends. Way to set up that supposed emotional “twist” you already know is coming towards the end of the movie.

Back home, we see Mia and Sasha are step-children in a blended family with Sasha’s mom and Mia’s dad. Mia is back with her dad after being separated for years after a divorce. I guess. The only thing that matters is she is back now, and things aren’t going so well.

Worse, Dad has been exploring some underwater Mayan ruins in the nearby jungle. Archeologists are coming in to examine the site, and he must finish mapping all the tunnels. As a result, he won’t be able to take the girls diving as promised. Oh, no. Bummer.

But, wait! He and Mom have arranged for the girls to ride on a boat designed for shark viewing. Yeah, just the thing for fun and family bonding. Unfortunately, once the girls arrive for the 3-hour tour, they discover Catherine and her entourage are scheduled on the same boat.

Luck is in the step-sisters’ stars because Sasha’s friends arrive with an offer to see someplace special and no one will know they are there. Off they go with Mia in tow. Miles into the jungle, they come to a crater full of water with an anchored supply platform in the middle. They spend time swimming and screaming and giggling and screaming and splashing and screaming and so on.

Then Nicole, played by Sistine Stallone (she’s mostly okay with the limited role), decides raiding the stored diving supplies for the archeologists is a great idea. Alexa, who has been working with Mia’s dad in prepping the Mayan dive site, figures they can just swim to the first altar room and then back out.

There is an inclination to think the filmmakers offered up this confection of treacly-sweet family drama and “girls just wanna have fun” antics to make the events that follow the obviously bad choice to dive seem far worse in comparison. It is a likely theory. Once the four girls end up in the deep water inside the Mayan ruins, the film travels from one bad situation to the next worst-case scenario. With precious few exceptions, these girls become their own worst enemies.

Somehow, previously undiscovered or unnoticed, battle-scarred, blind great white sharks find their way into the ruins. When the girls attempt to leave, the tunnel they used to enter collapses. Then, one of the young guys assisting Mia’s father gets eaten after discovering the girls. Oh, how I bet those step sisters are wishing their butts were safe in the clutches of Catherine!

“47 Meters Down: Uncaged” is mostly like the original film; not very bright but, damn it all, it gives you exactly what it promises. Girls, sharks, and lots of “who is gonna get eaten next?” tension are laced through nearly every scene. You are there to see characters put through Hell while being beset by sharks, problematic water currents, and, most often, stupid humans getting in their own way. Johannes Roberts and Ernest Riera use the obstacles and failures like cudgels to beat the main characters like red-headed – well, umm, stepchildren. (I’m a soulless ginger, so I can say that.)

Frankly, quibbling about how the girls could not actually hear each other without earbuds or headphones or that sharks do not eat people constantly or any of the other silly mistakes/flubs/errors that allow this thriller to move forward regardless of intelligence or common sense is pretty much a waste of time. If you decide to watch this movie, it is to see people threatened by sharks; you ain’t expecting MOBY DICK-levels of metaphor or Thoreau-like self-analysis.

Does that make the film good? No. Unless you force yourself to ignore stupid choices by the characters made just to lead the film to the next big action set piece, you may shut it off. The pre-shark sections are so simplistic and cliched that you might want to give up out of frustration. Yet the scenes in the Mayan ruins are the best thing about this movie. Director Johannes Roberts has vastly improved since his early films and knows how to hook all but the most contrary folks out there with well-paced visuals.

Warning: Jump scares are a requirement in these films, and this film has plenty. Too many, to be honest, but a couple of times the misdirection is handled so well that the jump comes whether you want it to or not. That gets a bit of respect. And one attempted jump scare is an apparent homage to “Deep Blue Sea” and Samuel Jackson’s character’s awesome death, so that also earns the film a hint of goodwill.

(NOTE: The filmmakers add a statement at the end of the credits that sharks tend to kill about 10 people a year, worldwide, but humans kill millions of sharks each year. Maybe the next film in the series should be about sharks being stalked by humans.) 

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO OWN A PHYSICAL COPY OF THIS FILM, CLICK THIS LINK FOR THE AMAZON LISTING:  https://amzn.to/3KWoUxR

 

A Good, Modern Shark Movie? Don't Hold Your Breath!

47 METERS DOWN (2017)

Director: Johannes Roberts

 

A friend of mine used to hate it when I would comment on a movie and say, “It was pretty good for what it is.” His biggest issue with that statement was that it did not allow for a well-defined, objective list of criteria. It was too wishy-washy.

I don’t think so.

Obviously, you wouldn’t attempt to hold “Bio-Dome” to the same artistic standards as a film like “Sweet Smell of Success”. You don’t compare “Starcrash” to “The Tin Drum”. These films aren’t even in the same playground, even though they are both movies and are made in a generically similar method. They might be processed in the same lab, yet they couldn’t be further apart.

This brings us to “47 Meters Down”.

We meet Lisa and Kate on vacation in Mexico. Two very pretty and likeable young women who are taking a break from life. During a night of fun and partying, Kate pushes her conservative sister Lisa into agreeing to see some exotic ocean life up close from the safety of a shark cage. Wouldn’t you know it, but the cable holding the shark cage slips, and the girls find themselves stuck 47 meters down with three large great white sharks circling as the air in the girls’ tanks dwindles.

A simple premise with maximum relatability that plays on multiple fears built into humans: suffocation, deep water, darkness, isolation, death, and sharks. Admittedly, a filmmaker could focus on certain elements in an effort to make a statement about the human condition. Or, the filmmaker could intend to take you through a knothole backwards and toss all that arthouse nonsense out the window.

Director and co-writer Johannes Roberts set out to do the latter. While keeping the film visually appealing, he takes his simple elements and milks them for every thrill and scare he can. Even though the sharks are a constant threat, they only show up sporadically, usually resulting in a jump scare. The sisters, played by Mandy Moore and Claire Holt, help keep the tension going as they struggle against their predicament, the elements, panic, and dwindling air supplies.

While I can’t swear I know the filmmaker’s intent, I don’t think there was ever an attempt to create a masterpiece. Apparently, the film was originally intended to be released directly to VOD (Video On Demand), DVD, and Blu-ray. They knew they were making something to fill a specific need. Give the viewers a quick thrill and a few moments of tension, then take your money and go make your next movie. Someone decided the movie was good enough that it should be released to theaters as a summertime popcorn movie.

The downside here is that trolls love to attack things that make it to the big screen. Maybe they don’t like a smaller film disrupting their feast of mega-million-buck roller-coaster blockbusters. Who knows? Yet you will find plenty of dislike for this film on the web. Most of the criticism ends up being leveled at the lack of accuracy concerning the diving equipment and how it functions in relation to the plot.

Okay, I will admit to having a couple of instances of thinking, “That doesn’t seem quite right,” and I’ve never been diving. Sport Diver posted an article noting the more unbelievable parts of movie. And trolls in forums love to do the math to show that the two girls would be out of air in about a third of the time that the movie allows.

Is this a fair assessment of the film? No. Why? Because “47 Meters Down” is not a primer on how to scuba dive. It is not a documentary.

“47 Meters Down” is a reasonable time-waster that looks really good. It is a shark-based thrill ride. It is pretty girls in peril. It is sharks popping out to mouth “Boo!” as you think, “I sure as hell wouldn’t get in the water with sharks around, cage or not!” It is fodder for season 32 of Mystery Science Theater 3000. It is meant to be fun.

As a bit of fun, it succeeds most of the time, but it has its flaws You get a lot exposition in the first 20 minutes or so that is basically a set-up to leverage Mandy Moore’s cautious character into the shark cage. You get a lot of panting, screaming, and “Oh my god” muttering. You will get tired of shots of the dark surroundings that may or not be hiding a shark. You also get a twist that is telegraphed and ultimately borders on insulting the audience, even though you get some really cool-looking shark action for the trouble.

You should drop your brain off at a Wim Wenders film, and let your body go see this little bit of candy floss. Have some popcorn. Above all, just have fun while watching it. “47 Meters Down” is pretty good, for what it is.

 

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO OWN A PHYSICAL COPY OF THIS FILM, CLICK THIS LINK FOR THE AMAZON LISTING:  https://amzn.to/3srpE7J

 

Murder, Assault, & Acne -- God, I Miss High School!!

MASSACRE AT CENTRAL HIGH (1976)

Director: Rene Daalder 

 

How we view certain things has everything to do with WHEN we first made contact. I mean, watching The Lone Ranger series as a kid was exciting, but as an adult, you shake your head and wonder what you saw in it years ago.
 

There is another way things can be seen in two different views along these same lines.
 

My example is ‟The Goonies”. It is an iconic classic tattooed onto the brains and souls of, at the least, thousands of admiring fans. Most of the truly rabid fans saw the movie when it came out, or when it hit VHS and premium cable channels. The one thing the bulk of those fans had in common tended to be they were all around the same age, which happened to be the same ages of the main characters. A perfect marriage! Those same fans will light up at the merest mention of ‟The Goonies”.
 

Awesome, and I am very happy for them. Honest.
 

It came out when I was in college, so it never got watched, then I avoided it for years. Finally, in my late 40s, I sat down and watched it. Let’s just say it is not a movie for a 40-something guy with ADD and anxiety issues. Not too exciting. Too loud and frenetic. Like watching and listening to someone scrape their fingernails on a chalkboard for 90 minutes.
 

But that’s just me. I can see why kids would love it, and I understand those who saw it as kids would probably love it. I am happy that they are happy, and we’ll go our own roads.
 

The same holds true for today’s title, ‟Massacre at Central High.” Before you write me off completely, let me clarify by saying that with THIS movie, I can clearly see the appeal to the kids of the 70s – because I WAS a kid in the 70s! Had the shit beat out of me by bullies and jocks. Resented the social structure of the school. Hoped certain people would pay for being jackasses.
 

So, yeah, I can see where a teen persecution/revenge fantasy would be emotional fapping material for lots of bullied kids. Hell, I thought ‟Horror High/Twisted Brain” a truly great movie when I saw it in high school. **SPOILER** It is pretty awesome, even after all this time.
 

‟Massacre” tells the story of David, the new kid at school. A friend from a previous school is well-placed, and attempts to get David on board with the local gang that imposes the rules of the school. David rebels, the gang injures David for life, David seeks revenge.
 

Up to this point, the film plays like a PG-13 version of an ABC Afterschool Special. No adults. Just kids who over-react to the slightest bit of trouble and a script with as little traction as a bald tire on wet, oily pavement. Zero character depth, just simplistic moral and emotional manipulation to keep things rolling along.
 

Then the film takes a weird turn as the power structure of the student body shifts, only to reveal that EVERYONE will likely become an asshole if given the opportunity and a hint of power.
 

The acting is fine. The camera work/direction is efficient almost to the point of occasionally feeling a touch like cinema verite. The director was foreign and perhaps being a bit unfamiliar with American cultural/social elements needed to make everything feel more organic, his film has an elevated, disconnected feel.
 

Some opinions of the film suggest it was meant to be a critique or a warning of fascism. Odd though is that the film ultimately takes to task every character who doesn’t embrace pacifism, which allows fascism to take control. A circular argument from the looks of things.
 

Deeper meanings aside, ‟Massacre” does earn it status as exploitation with plenty of nudity, violence, sex, explosions, and young folks doing dreadful things. The whole theme is basically about defying authoritarian systems.
 

‟Massacre at Central High” has everything to delight the young rebel in me, but the old fart in me can’t help noticing things that just don’t connect.
 

The characters don’t seem to inhabit their world so much as they are there only to do what the script calls for. The tone shifts from moral story to avenging angel story to psycho killer story to political commentary before tossing in some cartoon-style humor.
 

While it is all over the place, everything moves at a fast enough pace that you don’t have time to notice any issues before it slaps you into focusing in a different direction. Kinda like it is playing cinematic 3-Card Monte to obscure the fact it doesn’t quite flow.
 

Definitely a one-of-a-kind movie, but I am too many years removed from its prime audience to consider it one of my darlings. Since it does get referenced a bit when you read about exploitation cinema, worth checking out if not owning a good physical copy.
 

Hell, watch it for Derrel Maury alone; the guy should have been a bigger star.

 

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO OWN A PHYSICAL COPY OF THIS FILM, CLICK THIS LINK FOR THE AMAZON LISTING: https://amzn.to/3OIcZG8

A Troma-Fried Alien Movie Crashlands -- Pity The Viewers!

Alien Space Avenger (1989)

Director: Richard W. Haines

The instant I saw Richard W. Haines in the credits of “Alien Space Avenger”, I started digging through my memory. I knew that name. For some reason, I did not attach any feeling of greatness to the familiar name. Once the movie was well underway, I had an inkling that he worked with low budgets much the same way Warhol worked with concepts. Given the overall tone of the film, I kept waiting for Lloyd Kaufman to walk past the camera.

My thoughts were at least in the right area. Haines has directed a couple of films released by Troma, “Class of Nuke ‘Em High” and “Splatter University”. In fact, “Alien Space Avenger” even has Robert Prichard from “The Toxic Avenger” and “Class of Nuke ‘Em High” as the head alien terrorist. The screams the aliens make in their creature form is the same as the mutant slug from “Nuke ‘Em High”. Even the cover art for the old VHS looks suspiciously like something from “Nuke ‘Em High”.

Now that we have established the pedigree, let’s look a bit closer at “Alien Space Avenger”.

We meet two young couples on a double date back in the 30s. While heading to a movie, they witness a spacecraft crash into the woods near their location. Boys will be boys as the two guys want to go check out the crash while the girls just want to go to the movies.

It turns out that the crashed ship contains four escaped alien terrorists who were being tracked by an alien agent who was ordered to either neutralize the problem or return them to the space prison. The terrorists take over our love birds and then proceed to look for plutonium to refuel their ship.

The four aliens stumble into a theater showing one of the Flash Gordon serials where they feel threatened by the “advanced” technology they see on the movie screen. At this point, they decided they should arm themselves. They do so in a VFW (Veterans of Foreign Wars) Hall that just happens to have loaded weapons casually hanging on the walls. Of course, the whole situation devolves into a bloodbath in which we learn the aliens can regenerate severed or damaged limbs as Rex, the leader, has his arm blown off by a shotgun.

After nearly being found by the alien tracker hunting them, they decide to lay low in their spacecraft until the time is right. The year this was made (1989) seems to have been the right time as their ship is uncovered from layers and layers of dirt. (Does that much dust fall in 40 years?) Just in case you had forgotten the aliens are the bad guys, they mow down the entire construction crew. (Someone must really hate construction crews because the aliens wipe out TWO entire crews during the film.)

We then meet Matt. He has a very sexy girlfriend (though the actress can’t act that well) who wants Matt to pay more attention to her than the comic book he writes and draws for. Unfortunately for Ginny, Matt is determined to overcome his writer’s block despite his desire for her. While trying to convince Ginny to come back, Matt is hit by creativity when he sees the four aliens in 30’s garb wander into the dance club. Out of nowhere, he creates a story in which four aliens take over humans in the 30s and then hibernate for 40 years before trying to refuel their ship. Only his hero, the Golden-Age “Space Avenger”, can stop the aliens.

You can see where this thing goes from here. “Alien Space Avenger” is not about inventiveness or turning over fresh material; it is nothing more than it attempts to be, and that is just a silly bit of “splat-stick” cinema.

“Splat” is a good word for some of the inventively gross effects of the aliens regenerating themselves. The special effects are all practical and usually better than a lot of the effects that show up in actual Troma-made films. Lots of bullet wounds make up the rest of the effects, so enjoy the larger effects when they show up.

The fact that Troma keeps coming up in this review is because Troma is both the good news and the bad news for “Alien Space Avenger”. It has the frenetic energy of a Troma film with most of the characters belting out their lines as if to a deaf audience as well as the hyper-violent yet cartoon-like action. You get a lot of the gross effects and humor from the other company’s films.

Sadly, while the film is entertaining, its constant reminders of Troma make you wish Haines could have made something that stood on its own without the crutches. The idea is fun. With a touch more originality in its presentation, “Alien Space Avenger” might have become a minor classic. As it is, it is worth checking out only if you can easily find a copy. Otherwise, you would have to be a Richard W. Haines fanatic to consider it required viewing.

Get Swamped With This Manky Monster Movie

BOG (1979)

Director: Don Keeslar

 

Bad movies from the 1970s seem to have a unique, almost magical, air about them. Not the movies that are pure and simply awful – the kind that insult your intelligence and expect you to just put up with its nonsense, like “The Swarm” or “C.H.O.M.P.S.” or “Rabbit Test”. We’re talking about the movies that did all the wrong things, but, like that disarmingly charming waif clueless to its own absolute ineptitude, still seem shocked at the final result. Usually followed by everyone involved scrubbing the film from their CVs.

Grab four has-been actors of such low caliber that even an ardent film fan from the era would be hard pressed to identify and blend with one-shot wonders possessing varying levels of incompetence. Toss in crew credits that all but shout, “We’re here for any reasonable tax break!” Use the local high school chemistry lab for a pathology lab (including huge posters about space flight, the moon, crustaceans, and the moon along with a classroom pencil sharpener bolted to the wall in the dead center of numerous shots). Drop all of this into a script that would have been laughed right out of the studio back in 1954, when this kind of thing was king at the box office.

What do you get?

“Bog” from 1979.

How bad is it? you may ask.

Opening scene has a guy dynamite fishing. Toss a partial stick of dynamite into the body of water and the concussion of the blast will kill large numbers of fish. Instead of using the clearly present fishing net in the front of the boat to scoop up his kill, this tool does it by hand, making it far easier for the unseen creature he has awakened to pull him under, which, unfortunately, brings us to the film’s theme song, “Walk With Me”. Hope you like it. You’ll hear it at least three times with vocals and the instrumental version plays behind damn near EVERYTHING, including action sequences.

As Pat Hopkins warbles and the opening credits make us wonder why it takes so many people to make such a dreadful film, we watch a station wagon roll through Harshaw, WI as the vehicle’s occupants prepare for a weekend of fun. If beer guzzling and endlessly smoking unlit cigarettes can be called “fun”. At one point, a husband refers to his disgruntled spouse as a “slave person” before poking her breasts with a fishing pole.

Much to the wives’ relief, the awakened monster deftly avoids the two out-of-shape guys and offs the ladies. What a shame as one of them is the cutest woman in the movie when she isn’t sticking her camera in her tube top.

Now we meet some of the stars used as box-office draw. Marshall Thompson and Aldo Ray, folks!!! Okay, Aldo Ray, you might know of, but Thompson? “It! The Terror from Beyond Space”!! No? Oh well, don’t sweat it. He spends the bulk of the film creepily loitering in the background when he isn’t attempting to rub his crotch against Gloria DeHaven, who gets two – count ‘em, TWO! – roles in this majestic beast of a movie, as the local medical examiner and the local weird lady who has Biblical knowledge of the creature at large. Yes, you heard me; I said “BIBLICAL!!!”

Let’s not forget poor Leo Gordon. You may not know his name, but if you are a fan of old Westerns and crime films and TV, you’ll recognize him – when he shows up, as an unintroduced character, with little more than 15 minutes left in the film. Instead of introducing him as an afterthought, maybe they should have hired him to write the script considering his record as a screenwriter and novelist.

Do you find scenes of older actors staring intently into microscopes as they toss around scientific jargon to be your “happy place”? Does it make you hotter than “Two Girls, One Cup” ever could? Then your adult film collection would not be complete without “Bog”! Scene after scene after scene. There are so many that it has to be the director’s kink. All of them enhanced by the look of utter obliviousness on the actors’ faces.

While the film gets stuck in a loop of monster attacks followed by lab scenes followed by shots of Aldo Ray taking shots (honestly, he has a drink in his hand way too often to be on duty as a cop), incidental characters are killed off screen while our over-the-hill stars shuffle and jive their way through dialogue that includes such classics as “Could we have a Dracula running loose out there?” or “Is it possible that we have a walking, breathing, living 100% cancerous organism out there?” or the prize-winning “Maybe I’m dense, but what kind of thing would have a hypodeemic nurdle for a mouth? Oh, I mean, a hypodermic needle. Ha ha, I’m alright!” (which was a lame joke or Aldo Ray shooting a scene after a snootful of booze – betting on the latter case).

As if all these failures are not enough, the end of the film feels like the production ran out of time, money, AND interest which led to someone in charge screaming, “Screw it! Just run the damned monster over with a car, and let’s go home!” So, they did.

“Bog” isn’t a surreal bad movie experience like “Manos: The Hands of Fate”. It isn’t even a jolly giggle-fest like “Plan 9 from Outer Space.” It is more of a head-scratcher that may have you asking “Who would put curtains over wood paneling, and why do they insist the wall is a window?” You’ll be a better person for having asked.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO OWN A PHYSICAL COPY OF THIS FILM, CLICK THIS LINK FOR THE AMAZON LISTING:  https://amzn.to/44TmojM

If Archie Is A Perv, What Does That Make Jughead?

A HARD DAY FOR ARCHIE (1974)

Director: Jim McBride

 

For a good number of kids, especially those born between the 1950s and the 1970s, Archie Comics were probably one of the first comic books they ever owned. They had a reputation for being squeaky clean, so they were safe for young minds. Archie and his friends found themselves in silly, everyday predicaments, but everything worked out in the end. Nothing dirty going on there.

 

Most every kid had these characters imprinted in their minds. As the kids got older, and closer to the ages of Archie and the gang, a good number of questions about the reality of life in Riverdale began to crop up. Did Archie and Betty ever go all the way? Reggie always talks a big game, but why does he seem to strike out more than Archie, the perpetual loser? What does Veronica look like without her swimsuit? Does Jughead eat burgers as he masturbates? Even though they are fictional characters, they had been there through your childhood, and you came to know them as well or better than your friends in real life. As puberty puts sex at the forefront of your thoughts, even comic book characters take on a sexual life.

 

While most of us were fine with debating whether Betty or Veronica was sexier while we got drunk and/or stoned, Jim McBride let his imagination turn the wholesome world of Archie into an R-rated teen sex comedy that isn’t as awful as it might sound. Come to think of it, McBride didn’t direct another film for nearly 10 years, so it might be worse than it looks. But since he did direct “Breathless” and “The Big Easy”, we’ll cut him a bit of slack for making “A Hard Day for Archie” (AKA “Hot Times”).

 

We start with an overly horny Archie talking to Bette on the phone. It seems Bette is following the teachings of a guru, and the guru has demanded abstinence from his followers until he opens a new path to enlightenment. As Archie whines about the lack of sex, he is ridiculed by his older sister who is forced to share his room when she comes home from college.

 

The whining (probably a better title) continues as Bette drives herself and Archie to see the guru’s speech. Unfortunately, they end up in the parking lot for the wrong stadium, but, hey, the guru is on the radio. He removes the rule of abstinence. Archie and Bette go at it right there in the car. As the guru continues to speak, he states his followers, while allowed to have sex, are not allowed the release of orgasm. By the time Bette realizes what is being said, she has already had an orgasm, but she stops Archie just before he pops.

 

Now you know the rest of the film. It is roughly 80 minutes of Archie looking for and whining about his need to bust his nut inside a girl. Pay attention to that. It isn’t some 80’s sex comedy where the main character realizes they were really looking for love, not sex. The 70s were called “The Me Decade”. Forget worrying about emotional involvement because, for Archie, the world literally revolves around his need to orgasm inside a girl.

 

Since it is New Year’s Eve as well, poor Archie is in crisis. It seems all of his friends have dates. Since they have theirs, they mostly add to Archie’s troubles as they travel about town trying to find an excuse to keep the movie going. The picaresque plot leads Archie through various sexy and/or sex-related encounters that never end in his satisfaction.

 

To give you an idea of how devoid of reason and restraint the film is, Archie realizes, at one point, that his sister is taking a shower. What does our “hero” with a raging boner do? He climbs out on the roof and attempts to watch his sister shower. In the middle of a sunny day. With no curtains on the bathroom window. AND he acts shocked that she sees him peeping!! Worse than that, just what did he think was going to happen? “Oh, yes, little brother, I feel bad for you, so I will have sex with my biological brother so he can feel a bit of sexual release.” NO!!! Just no. Plus, this is just the wrong kind of flick for that. Save that for a Roberta Findlay-directed hardcore film.

 

“A Hard Day for Archie” is really more annoying than funny, but it is reasonably watchable if you grew up in the 60s and 70s and know better than to expect more than bare-minimum filmmaking.

 

The acting is poor to adequate, with Gail Lorber looking pretty good as Ronnie, the film’s variation on Veronica. The bulk of the cast did little beyond this, except Steve Curry (Mughead) also starred in McBride’s “Glen and Randa”. (Shelley Plimpton, who co-starred in “Glen and Randa”. has a bit part in this film.) Oh, and Eric Edwards, who plays Big Al, made a crapload of pornos.

 

Give “A Hard Day for Archie” a chance if you have a chance to see it as it had a release on VHS but nothing legal on DVD or BD, so it is rather obscure and hard to find. Once you watch it, you’ll understand why.