December Bonus Review #3 Star Trek III: The Search For Spock

I’ve talked about Star Trek on multiple occasions. I’ve reviewed the animated series, first film and second film. It’s also a franchise I’ve referenced more times than I care to go back and check. It’s a franchise I very openly have a lot of affection for, in terms of the classic series, Next Gen & DS9. And now I’m looking at the third film based on the original series, The Search For Spock.

Story:

We open where Wrath of Khan left off. Spock is dead. The Genesis device is in Star Fleet’s hands and the planet it left behind is being studied. The Enterprise is on her way back to Earth when Doctor McCoy starts demonstrating some concerning behaviour like breaking into Spock’s old quarters and talking like him. Meanwhile, a group of Klingons have learned about Genesis and they intend to take the device by force so that the Federation can’t leverage it against them.

There are a few issues with this film. First of all, we discover that ambassador Sarek wants Doctor McCoy brought to Vulcan as he possesses Spock’s “Katra” but this important Federation ambassador can’t arrange passage to bring McCoy to Vulcan for some reason. There’s also a line about how Kirk has had a very distinguished command based off of logic. Which is kind of laughable. Kirk is the Captain who was known for “Cowboy Diplomacy”, bending Star Fleet’s rules on a regular basis and seducing/ being seduced by alien women so often that you have to hope Federation medicine can eliminate VD. Logic my tuchus.

That being said, the film holds up really well overall. The exploration of how to deal with something as powerful as the Genesis device is compelling. The fact that the Klingon concerns are fully legitimate and make a lot of sense really works to the film’s favour. Kirk and his crew may have to take action for reasons that come across as contrived but the way the film works off of their skills and gives them individual chances to shine is a real treat. It also manages to keep a real sense of tension based on them having to rescue the rejuvenated Spock from Genesis within a time limit. I also appreciate that Kruge, like Khan before him, doesn’t fall for Kirk’s very blatant attempt at baiting him

Characters:

The original series cast are all very well written in this. The antagonists are also very compelling. It’s clear that the idea of the Federation gaining power through using the Genesis device as a weapon is horrifying for Kruge and his crew. They see themselves as being forced into action for the future of their species, their world and their way of life. Then we have the Federation. They make a lot of decisions in this film that we, the audience, are very clearly not supposed to agree with. However, those decisions actually make a lot of logical sense in context.

Cinematography, Visuals & Effects:

This is a very good looking film. It doesn’t have the epic space battles of Wrath of Khan, but the effects, ship designs, and overall cinematography all look good. The one thing that really doesn’t work is the bit where Kruge falls to his death. That shot has not aged well.

Acting & Music:

The acting is very good. We have the seasoned talents from the original series, but without resorting to cheesy elements to make it look like a series for kids. Christopher Lloyd is amazing as Kruge. He conveys so much about the character’s complexity solely through his mannerisms and the way he delivers his lines. The music is really good. James Horner did an Excellent job of capturing the Trek aesthetic.

Final Thoughts:

I feel like Search for Spock is a bit under-rated because it follows on the coat-tails of Wrath of Khan and just doesn’t hold up as well as that film. It’s still a great Star Trek film with lots of compelling ideas, intrigue and high quality sci-fi adventure. I’d give this one an enthusiastic 8/10.

December Bonus Review #1 Lightyear

Lightyear is a 2022 Disney Pixar title based off of the popular Toy Story character. It wasn’t received particularly well by either critics or audiences. Is it that bad? Well, I’m going to have a look and judge it for myself.

Story:

We open with a short blurb telling us that this is, in fact, the film that the Buzz Lightyear toy was based off of in the Toy Story universe. You know, just in case the name and the very iconic Buzz Lightyear spacesuit weren’t enough to clue you into that little fact. We move on to see Buzz and his fellow space rangers, Alisha Hawthorne & Featheringhamstan, exploring an unknown planet when they’re forced to flee due to giant, hostile insects and slithering vines. Buzz crashes the ship by mistake and the trio is forced to awaken the rest of the people on board, who are in stasis, and build a whole civilisation on this hostile world to try and repair their ship. Buzz is testing the new hyperspace crystal when he returns to find that four years passed on the colony while he was gone. After that the film covers a bunch of more attempts while time passes until the world around Buzz drastically changes.

There’s one massive issue with the film. While it has some good concepts in its premise, the execution is very lackadaisical. It’s like watching a very mediocre episode of Star Trek where the writers didn’t think things through very well or they just tried to incorporate too many side plots and didn’t have enough time to wrap them all up in a satisfactory way. Except this film is twice the length of a standard Trek episode. The issue is that there are so many elements to it hat could be entire films by themselves. The whole exploration of a hostile world could be its own film. Trying to build a colony on a hostile planet could be its own film. Trying to break the hyperspace barrier while losing touch with the world around you because time is moving far faster for it could be its own film. The whole invasion of Zurg could be its own film but it’s all crammed together which means nothing gets as much attention or developed as well as it should. We also have the whole reveal with Emperor Zurg which is actual rubbish. It’s very much a case of they had a bad idea but decided to use it anyway and then they implemented it poorly.

The best part of the film, no contest, is the whole relationship betwixt Buzz and his closest friend, Alisha. The whole montage sequence where we see them catch up after Buzz’s failed flights until she succumbs to old age is genuinely good and it’s pretty sad to see Buzz watching the final message she left for him. And watching him connect with her grown granddaughter after his final flight and gain some insight into what her life was like is a pretty sweet moment.

Characters:

Most of the characters in this film are just bland. The only four who are really worth mentioning are Buzz, Alisha, Izzy and Sox. Buzz is an okay character. His obsession with trying to make up for his piloting mistake makes sense and he has a nice little arc where he comes to terms with what’s happened. Alisha and Izzy have the best scenes in the film and the pair of them are by far the best characters. Sox is Buzz’s robot cat and he makes for a solid animal sidekick character.

Art:

The artwork and animation are both solid. As much as the film isn’t very impressive in most regards, it is a good looking film and I do appreciate that Sox’s design makes him look artificial with mechanical looking movements and all.

Sound:

The acting is fine. I know a lot of people were upset that Buzz was voiced by Chris Evans instead of Tim Allen but if we’re being honest, Evans isn’t an inherently worse voice for the character. The big thing that drags his performance down is that Lightyear doesn’t have as interesting or endearing of characterisation as Toy Story. Which is the exact reason that most of the performances in this are just decent. Not good, not bad. Uzo Aduba and Keke Palmer have the strongest performances because they voice the most compelling characters.

Ho-yay:

There’s a little bit. Alisha marries a woman and seems to live a happy life with her. Though we barely see her wife.

Areas of Improvement:

1. The film really needed a more focused narrative. I think they could have had an existing colony trying to break this speed barrier with Buzz as the test pilot, had the whole story about him coming back with years having passed and eventually had him return to an invasion that he had to help fend off and executed a much stronger, more cohesive story without the rubbish twist about Zurg and with more time to develop the story and characters.
2. The whole twist with Zurg’s identity just shouldn’t exist.
3. They really needed to develop their side characters better. Featheringhamstan basically fucks off after the opening sequence having contributed nothing. Then we have the two who accompany Buzz, Izzy and Sox against Zurg. He’s a coward and she’s a kind of shite version of the old lady from Atlantis.

Final Thoughts:

Honestly, this wasn’t as bad as I expected it to be given the general response. It’s still not a good film. While it has some aspects that do kind of work, it’s very underwhelming and mediocre overall. My final rating is going to be a 5/10.

October Bonus Review: The Addam’s Family

The Addam’s Family has been something of a cultural force. It started in the late 1930s with some comic strips. In 1964, it was adapted into a television series that ran for sixty four episodes. It’s been animated more than once and turned into a variety of films and specials. It’s had video games ad even a musical. With the most recent adaptation being Netflix’s Wednesday. Today I’m going to talk about the first film. From 1991, this is The Addam’s Family.

Story:

We open with Gomez Addams visiting his brother’s old room in a melancholy. Turns out, Fester went missing years ago and they’ve been searching for him since with the help of their attorney, Tully Alford. Unfortunately for the family, it turns out that Tully is less than honest and he owes money to an unsavoury woman who sends her son to extract the debt. Tully notices that her son bears a striking resemblance to the missing Fester and a scheme to steal the fortune from the Addam’s vault is formed.

The only slight issue with this film is that the twist is really obvious. We’re talking it’s hinted at very early into the scheme and the evidence just piles up from there.

With that being said, the humour in this film is phenomenal. It has this strange but highly effective mixture of macabre but wholesome elements. A lot of the comedy comes from the family’s unusual reactions and the fact that their standards and norms are so far separated from the average person’s. Which leads to a lot of amazing dialogue. The whole arc of Fester bonding with the rest of the family is brilliantly handled. There are also some very strong visual gags.

Characters:

The characters are fantastic. Gomez and Morticia have the kind of loving relationship that most couples can only dream of maintaining. They’re also really good, supportive parents but in some of the most bizarre ways. The dynamics amongst all the family members are great. The weakest characters in the film are the villains. They’re just kind of the standard Hollywood con artists.

Cinematography, Visuals & Effects:

The film makers did a great job of putting together the dark, gothic Addam’s estate. The set pieces, props and costumes are all immaculate. The blocking is set up really well. The shots are set up very strongly. This film just captures the whole gothic aesthetic perfectly. In terms of special effects, the most impressive aspect is how they pull of Thing.

Acting & Music:

They got some amazing talent behind this. We have Christopher Lloyd, Anjelica Huston, Raul Julia, Christina Ricci and Jimmy Workman to name just the major characters and their performances are pretty much perfect. The music is perfectly suited to the aesthetic. Marc Shaiman did a great job.

Final Thoughts:

91’s The Addams Family is a classic. A powerful mix of macabre humour with wholesome family vibes. If you’re looking for a horror themed comedy, there aren’t many that are better than this. My rating is going to be a 9/10.

December Bonus Review #4: History of the World- Part 1

This is the final bonus review of 2022 and I wanted to talk, once again, about comedic genius and arguably the best comedic director of all time, Mel Brooks. I’ve talked about several of his films already Twelve Chairs, Silent Movie, Spaceballs & Dracula Dead and Loving it. This time I’m taking a look 1981’s History of the World: Part 1.

Story:

The film is basically a parody of educational, historical films where they get a narrator to give you facts while actors recreate significant events. We go from the prehistoric era to Old Testament events to the Roman empire to the Spanish Inquisition to The French Revolution and end with a preview of events to come with our narrator feeding us historical facts at various points while the on screen action is completely absurd.

Part of the brilliance of the film is the contrast between the narrator and the action. The narrator, voiced by Orson Welles, sounds as serious and factual as the narrator in one of the actual educational films would sound all while the action on screen is largely ahistorical and farcical. Another thing that really works excellently about the film is that the comedy frequently takes an unexpected form but it’s all very clever. Who else but Mel freaking Brooks would think to turn the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition into a full on musical number? The brief appearance from Oedipus is also hilarious. Brooks finds various aspects of every single era he visits to make jokes about and no segment runs too long. It’s perfectly paced. We see Brook’s signature blend of quick-witted dialogue, farce, strong visual gags, risqué jokes and meta-humour and it’s all at its peak in this film.

Characters:

Each segment has its own set of characters. They aren’t super complex but they do have strong quirks that play well off of one another. Which works excellently for comedic effect. Obviously there are some portrayals of real historical figures like Emperor Nero, Leonardo da Vinci and Louis XVI. And they’re not even attempting to be historically accurate which would bother me if this were even remotely trying to be serious but it’s not so I really don’t care.

Cinematography, Visuals & Effects:

The film has excellent visual gags. They also got some solid costumes for the various eras. There are definitely some special effects that look kind of cheesy and low budget but it honestly makes some of the gags funnier. The Tyrannosaurus scene, for example, would not have been nearly as funny with a hyper realistic looking dinosaur. As usual, Brooks is a master of setting up his shots for the maximum comedic effect.

Acting & Music:

They got some amazing actors for this. In addition to Brooks playing a shit tonne of roles himself we have the legendary Madeline Khan, Dom DeLuise, Harvey Korman, Gregory Hines, Cloris Leachman, Bea Arthur and a bunch of other actors who all absolutely kill t with their impeccable timing and delivery. John Morris did an excellent job with the score too. I also do love the Inquisition musical number. It may not be musically amazing but it’s really hysterical from start to finish.

Final Thoughts:

This film exemplifies just why Mel Brooks is one of the greats, if not the absolute best in terms of comedic directors. The jokes are on point. The acting is amazing. The project itself was highly ambitious with just how many time periods it covers and it does an impeccable job with all of them. This is definitely a comedic masterpiece and stands among Brooks’ best films. Which is high praise considering just how many masterpieces he directed. My final rating for History of the World Part 1 is going to be a 10/10.

December Bonus Review #2: Frozen

In 2013 Disney released Frozen and it became a massive success. It’s had shorts, a sequel and a bunch of tie-in merchandise. Is it actually as good as all that would indicate? Let’s have a look.

Story:

In the distant land of Arendelle there live two princesses, Anna and Elsa. Elsa is born with great powers and must learn to control them from a bald man in a wheelchair and defend people who fear and hate her. Wait, wrong franchise. What actually happens is that there’s an accident and Elsa hurts her little sister. This results in her parents consulting with some trolls. They come to the decision to isolate Elsa and try to bring her powers under control. Obviously this goes wrong. The parents die in an offscreen shipwreck and we resume things with Elsa being crowned, still trying to keep her powers under wraps.

I’m actually going to start with the elements I like about the film instead of the elements I don’t. First off, I like the fact that the film actually acknowledges how dumb it is to get engaged to someone you’ve just met. Even if it does feel very disingenuous coming from Disney where at least half their princesses pursue some dude they barely know and, in some cases haven’t even talked to. I also appreciate the message that you can’t change someone but you can inspire them to be their best self. Although that one also feels disingenuous coming from Disney where many a Princess has gotten involved with a complete douchebag only to change him through the power of love. Hi Belle. Hi Rapunzel. It’s also nice to see a Disney film that puts more focus on a familial relationship than on a romantic one. I think the only two times Disney actually had that as their focus before this were Lilo & Stitch and Brave. Except both of those films did it better. I also do like the fact that the act of true love we see in the film is platonic and not romantic.

My main issue with this film is that there are some major elements that are hugely under-developed. The relationship betwixt Anna and Elsa feels like they had an outline of they’re close as children, they start drifting apart because of the accident then they reunite but the writers barely went beyond that. The antagonist’s defeat is also a real let down. With most Disney villains we get to see them beaten in some epic way. Even Disney’s worst animated film had the villain rammed with a literal boat. In this he just kind of has his sword broken and staggers back pathetically afterwards. It’s a very weak finish.

Characters:

I like the idea of Anna and Elsa and their relationship, even if it’s not executed all that well. I also like the idea of the twist villain even though he goes out like a pathetic little bitch. Olaf is a massive annoyance and by far one of the worst mascot character’s in Disney’s animated library. Most of their mascots don’t do that much they’re just sort of there looking cute and might help in some small way. Olaf never shuts the fuck up and ninety percent of what he says is stupid.

Art:

The film looks good. They have strong character designs and the characters have very detailed expressions. There are some strong set pieces with Elsa’s ice castle or with the troll village.

Sound:

The acting is pretty good. especially from Idina Menzel and Kristen Bell. The only bad performance comes from Josh Gad but a big part of that is just that his character is so completely insufferable. What I really want to talk about is the music. Frozen is one of those Disney films that has one really good song, Let it Go, some practical songs that serve specific purposes within the film but aren’t great musically and the completely pointless song, In Summer. Hey, at least it has one song that’s worth listening to on its own.

Ho-yay:

There isn’t any. I know that Idina Menzel said in an interview that she wouldn’t mind if Disney gave Elsa a girlfriend but it doesn’t happen and I doubt the sequel does either. Methinks Disney is still a good ways off from having an openly lesbian princess in one of their main line films.

Areas of Improvement:

1. Just get rid of Olaf completely.
2. Elsa and Anna really need a better developed relationship dynamic for what the film is trying to do.
3. The villain’s defeat should be a lot more dynamic. The easy way would be to have his sword broken and then let Elsa just blast him with ice or encase him in a block of it. Either one would have been more interesting to look at.

Final Thoughts:

Now, maybe I’m overly cynical, but I don’t really see the widespread appeal here. The film has some good ideas but none of them are all that well developed or executed. It only has one good song. The snowman is obnoxious. Overall, it’s just a decent film. Not good, certainly not great, but okay. I’m giving it a 6/10.

October Bonus Review: Dracula: Dead and Loving it

We’re back to the legendary comedic director, Mel Brooks. I’ve talked about several of his films before. This time around we’re going to look at his comedic take on the world’s most famous vampire, Dracula with the 1995 comedy Dracula: Dead and Loving It.

Story:

The film pretty faithfully follows the actual plot of Bram Stoker’s Dracula. An English solicitor goes out to visit Dracula’s castle where he assists the vampire in buying a London estate. Dracula makes his way to London and begins preying on attractive young women. The obvious difference, with this being a Brooks’ film, is that there’s a comedic twist on everything.

This has all the staples of Brooks’ comedy. Strong parody elements, visual gags and some excellent wordplay. With that said, the comedy doesn’t have the highs of his best work. There are some gags that drag a bit too long. The enema running gag or the bit where they stake Lucy in particular. That being said, the comedy in this is still really solid. There are a lot of funny scenes, the jokes derived from the story are really good. The gags making fun of Victorian England’s stuffiness are pretty amazing. The shadow gags throughout the film are hilarious. So, even the jokes that aren’t the strongest are still consistently entertaining.

Characters:

Most of the major characters in the story do come directly from the book. Dracula, Jonathan Harker, Dr. Seward, Van Helsing, Mina Murray and Lucy are all present. Though Harker gets a somewhat diminished role. The film opts to give the solicitor job and nervous breakdown to Renfield, using that to give Dracula a stronger grip on him as opposed to him just being chosen basically at random from the Asylum patients. In true Brooks fashion, the characters have their traits highly exaggerated for comedic effect and it does work pretty well. The weakest is definitely Lucy. Her whole schtick in the film is that she’s sensual and sexy which is used for a few funny scenes but isn’t that funny overall. Jonathan is also a bit of a weak character. His purpose is to be the straight man but that’s not really super useful in a comedy where most of the comedy is already very dryly delivered.

Cinematography, Visuals and Effects:

The visual effects can definitely be dated. The sequence with Renfield eating insects in particular doesn’t even bother trying to make the insects look like they aren’t plastic. A lot of the visuals are still really funny and the film does do a good job of parodying the style of the 1992 Francis For Coppola film. Brooks also does an excellent job of setting up his shots in a way that they have the maximum comedic effect.

Acting & Music:

There are a lot of strong performances in this. Leslie Nielson, Mel Brooks, Peter MacNicol, & Amy Yasbeck in particular do an amazing job with their roles. A lot of the jokes in this are delivered very dryly which frequently serves to make them even funnier. Some, mostly Renfield’s, are done with a more boisterous and exaggerated delivery but it actually works with him being a crazy person. Hummie Mann does the music for this and he did an excellent job capturing the gothic horror style.

Areas of Improvement:

1. I could have used fewer enema jokes. Yeah, it’s funny at first to see this incompetent Doctor prescribing enemas for everything but after a while you’ve gotten the point and the jokes just get predictable.
2. Lucy could have been a lot funnier. I feel like the film doesn’t really take advantage of the whole idea of a comedic sexy and sensual character. The whole graveyard scene where she interacts with Jonathan is incredibly funny but that’s pretty much all she gets.
3. Jonathan could have used some comedic quirks.

Final Thoughts:

This isn’t one of Mel Brooks’ best films. I’d put it at around the same level as Twelve Chairs. It’s a solid comedy that’s consistently entertaining and legitimately good but falls short of greatness. My final rating is going to be a 7/10. It’s worth watching at least once, if you’re a fan of either the classic vampire narrative or of Mel Brooks in general.

August Bonus Review: Silent Movie

It’s no secret that I’m a big fan of the comedic director, Mel Brooks. And, this month, we’ll be looking at one of his lesser known works, the 1976 Silent Movie.

Story:

The film has a very simple premise. Mel Brooks plays director Mel Funn who had his career ruined by his alcoholism and he’s attempting to make a comeback by directing the first silent film that’s been made in a long time. Big Picture Studios agrees to make the picture provided that Funn and his assistants, played by Dom DeLuise & Marty Feldman, can get some big stars to sign up for the picture.

The only things standing in the trio’s way are finding some big name stars and the Engulf and Devour studio that’s set on making sure they fail, hence allowing them to absorb Big Pictures.

This film excels at both visual comedy and slapstick. The quest to get various big stars, including Burt Reynolds, Liza Minnelli and Paul Newman, has a lot of really hilarious moments and the return to a silent film style is executed very well. The only real issue with the film is that there’s a reoccurring joke that’s a bit homophobic. It’s basically Brooks, DeLuise and Feldman getting caught in a situation that looks a bit homoerotic and a passing woman referring to them as the f word (and I’m not talking about fuck.)

Characters:

The characters in this film don’t have the complexity or charisma that you see in a lot of Brooks’ films but they also don’t really need it. The film focuses on slapstick and visual comedy with the characters being exactly what they need to be to accentuate that. And I do appreciate the way each guest star gets their own specialised segment while the main trio tries to recruit them.

Cinematography, Visuals & Effects:

The slapstick and visual comedy elements are top tier. Brooks really knows how to set up his shots for the maximum effect and it definitely shows in this film. He goes out of his way to make a lot of the shots reminiscent of old silent comedy films while also being updated for the 70s.

Acting & Music:

The acting in this is somewhat unique in that it relies on body language and movement since there’s only one spoken line in the film, delivered by Marcel Marceau. And the actors really deliver strongly. They all embrace the slapstick fully and know just how to emote and respond for the various situations. Brooks, DeLuise & Feldman are all amazing. Bernadette Peters does wonderfully in her role as well, even though she can’t use her angelic voice. John Morris did an excellent job with producing a soundtrack that really suits the silent film aesthetic.

Final Thoughts:

Almost fifty years later, is Silent Movie worth tracking down and watching? If you’re a fan of slapstick comedy, absolutely. If you’re someone who appreciates the comedic genius of Mel Brooks, certainly. Maybe not every single joke holds up but the vast majority of them do and you would be hard pressed to find a better slapstick film. My final rating is going to be a very respectable 8/10.

June Bonus Review: Paths of Glory

Paths of Glory is a Stanley Kubrick film from the late 50s. It was based off of a Humphrey Cobb novel about the first World War. So, even without watching it I can surmise that t’s very anti-war. Every piece of media about WW I that’s considered classic in any sense is anti-war. Probably because the whole purpose of the first World War was to send thousands of troops out of the trenches to die trying to move the line an extra two centimetres. Let’s have a look and see if the film is any good.

Story:

Our tale takes place in the trenches somewhere betwixt Deutschland and France. The French army wants to capture a heavily fortified position that they call the Anthill and they send their troops out of the trenches anticipating success but massive casualties. Things go badly and the French army officers decide that they need to make an example of some of the soldiers so that the next time they send the troops to die pointlessly, they’ll be less inclined to retreat.

The film does a really solid job of portraying the futility and general air of hopelessness that so many soldiers experienced during that war. The pacing is also really good with consistent sources of tension and a strong sense of momentum from one plot point to the next. The only real problem I have with the film narratively is that it gets overly heavy-handed with its anti-war theme at time. It could really benefit from being more subtle.

Characters:

The characters in this are kind of under-written and archetypical. Mainly because the film is more about the horrors of war and the waste of human life in pursuit of victory than about the characters. Which isn’t necessarily a bad decision and the characters do still have enough character for their plight to be sympathetic. Just not enough to give them verisimilitude.

Cinematography, Visuals & Effects:

The cinematography is absolutely on point. Which is what you’d expect from Kubrick since that’s one of the strengths his films have in general. He was always brilliant about knowing just how to frame his shots and how to position his actors to give the maximum effect. The limited special effects you get during the battle scene are well done as well.

Acting & Music:

The acting is pretty effective. Kirk Douglas, Timothy Carey, Joe Turkel & Ralph Meeker all deliver solid performances. About the worst I can say about it is that none of the supposedly French characters have an accent. Which is preferable to them having racist accents but still isn’t ideal. The music is effective and atmospheric. Particularly the song at the end.

Areas of Improvement:

1. The film would benefit from being a bit more subtle with its anti-war theme.
2. The characters could definitely use more complexity.
3. The actors should have had some linguistic training to pull off some proper French accents.

Final Thoughts:

This film is viewed as a classic for a reason. There are a lot of interesting scenes. The art direction is amazing and it’s just an interesting watch even though it is a bit dated in some ways. Overall, I’d still give it a very solid 8/10. If you’re a fan of Kubrick’s work or of war films in general, I’d suggest checking it out.

March Bonus Review: Ghost Rider

There are a lot of bad Marvel films out there. And one that seemed to sink with both audiences and critics was 2007’s Ghost Rider. Which seems odd because Ghost Rider shouldn’t be a hard character to handle well. He was a stunt motorcyclist who made a deal with a demon and gained supernatural powers which he uses to fight evil. Really not complicated. But let’s see how they screwed it up, or maybe they didn’t and the critics were being harsh for no legitimate reason.

Story:

The basic origin largely follows the comic. Johnny Blaze is a stunt rider who finds out his dad is dying of cancer, though in the comics it was his adoptive father and not his blood father but it’s close. In a desperate attempt to save his dad, he sells his soul to Mephisto and becomes the Ghost Rider. Now, the film does leave out the element that semi-protects Blaze and Mephisto just fucks off for no reason, spending years away. He returns later to send Blaze into action against Blackheart who’s trying to gain a contract that would give him amazing power.

There are a lot of problems with the film. First off, they give him a weird weakness he had for a very short time, the inability to transform during the day, only to have him overcome it during the climax for no adequately explored reason. It also really doesn’t make sense for Mephisto to just leave his new weapon alone for literal years. It feels like they didn’t want to deal with the whole Zarathos thing so they just opted to make that whole part of the origin plot nonsensical instead. The dialogue in this is also horrendously bad. It’s heavily stilted and outright cringey a lot of the time. It’s like watching alien entities who don’t know how to be human badly trying to mimic humanity based on soap operas. The romance subplot is just bad in general due partially to the dialogue, partially to the actors having no chemistry and partially to the writing in general being awkward.

There’s another issue with the climax. Mainly, the whole sequence with the “original” Ghost Rider. This whole thing makes no sense and contributes nothing. The original just shows up as a cryptic old man, uses the last of his powers to offer Blaze some emotional support and then fucks off. What’s the point? If it’s fan-service, it doesn’t make sense because anyone who knows about the original Ghost Rider character knows that he was just a cowboy in a costume with no supernatural elements and people who don’t know about Carter Slade will just be confused about why this cryptic old man is here to do absolutely nothing. The least they could have done would have been to let him use the last of his power getting a good hit against Blackheart. At least that would have given him a purpose.

Characters:

Johnny Blaze sucks in this. He comes across as a barely functional man-child. And it’s a little weird to see him have powers like the Penance Stare or the moving chain that Johnny Blaze didn’t have. Those were the powers of Dan Ketch’s version of Ghost Rider. His supporting cast really isn’t any better and the antagonists are just wet cardboard levels of flat.

Cinematography, Visuals & Effects:

The visual elements of this film are pretty bad. While there are some effects, like the Ghost Rider effect or the motorcycle transformation, that look kind of cool most of it is underwhelming at best. The action sequences gravitate towards being very short and one-sided. The riding sequences drag on far too long and quickly lose any impact they could have had. On another note, both Blackheart and Mephisto look like shit in this.

Now, if you look at the comics, Mephisto’s red skin, devilish smirk and pointed ears are iconic. It looks great. And if you look at Blackheart, his massive size, onyx flesh, glowing red eyes, tail and spikes make him look very powerful and threatening. If you look at the film version, in contrast, they just look like dudes. An old dude and an emo dude. They look very boring. Why do these films always feel the need to remove characters’ iconic looks and replace them with the blandest, most mundane shit imaginable?

Acting & Music:

The acting in this is terrible. Nick Cage’s performance is super wooden. Eva Mendes just doesn’t seem to care nor does Peter Fonda. Wes Bentley seems to be going into over the top, ham territory deliberately. With the lack of effort, I’m surprised they didn’t all just use stage names. The soundtrack is, by far, the best part of the film. They licensed some really good music for this one including Crazy Train & Who Do you Love.

Areas of Improvement:

1. The script desperately needs some believable dialogue.
2. The film needs to spend some time developing the characters and giving them some complexity.
3. Use some costumes for fucks sake. If they could make the Alien costume for Badejo in the late 70s, you could make Mephisto and Blackheart look like reasonable approximations of their comic counterparts in 2007.

Final Thoughts:

This film is absolute rubbish. The writing, effects, acting and characterisation are all poorly done. It’s really only worth watching if you can get a small group together that all enjoy making snarky commentary about bad films. My rating is going to be a 2/10.

January Bonus Review: Teen Wolf

These days when you hear the words “Teen Wolf” you probably think of a sub-par at best television series. However, if you go back nearly thirty years from that show, you get the original. A 1985 comedy film from the Atlantic Entertainment Group. And that’s what we’re looking at this month.

Story:

Our narrative focuses on young Scott Howard. He seems like an ordinary student. He hangs out with friends, plays for a perpetually losing Basketball team and has a crush on one of the popular girls. Then he starts noticing that something’s off. His senses seem to get enhanced randomly. His body shifts with his ears getting pointed, nails getting long, teeth growing into fangs and other things. He quickly learns that he’s actually a werewolf and that it’s a trait that passes down in families.

The biggest problem with the writing in this film is that a lot of the events are kind of rushed. Especially towards the end. And some of them, the Basketball game in particular, don’t really work with everything you’ve seen prior. There are also some jokes that haven’t aged well. One in particular where they use the f-word. Yes, the slur one.

In terms of positives, I do appreciate the way the film handles Scott coming to terms with himself both as a werewolf and as a normal person. There’s a strong arc where he goes from rejecting his werewolf side to being overly reliant on it to accepting it as just a part of him and being comfortable with himself as he normally is. Most of the humour is also pretty funny even if some of it hasn’t aged well. I also appreciate the romance with Scott learning to appreciate the girl who’s been close to him and give up on the somewhat toxic popular girl even if it is cliché.

Characters:

Most of the main cast is pretty endearing. Scott, his dad, Boof and some of the supporting characters are entertaining. The main antagonist is just kind of the typical bully character that appeared in every 80s comedy. I also really dislike Scott’s friend, Stiles. He’s one of those party dude characters that’s really over the top to the point of being kind of obnoxious. And there are some supporting characters who are just kind of there without doing much.

I’ve said many times that comedic characters don’t need to be complex but they do need to be funny or provide a strong basis for the comedy and I feel that some of these characters just don’t do that.

Cinematography, Visuals & Effects:

The effects are pretty solid. They use the old, iconic werewolf design with skilled practical effects to make it pop a bit. The shots are really well done. Especially during the scenes where Scott is experiencing werewolf abilities or displaying parts of the transformation without knowing what’s happening. About the only place it really falters is when Scott has an altercation with the bully character and the film goes out of its way to have him do no real damage. Like, not even a small scratch. It feels a bit ridiculous given that Scott is supposed to be losing control in that moment.

Acting & Music:

There are some very strong actors in this. Michael J. Fox is spectacular. Susan Ursitti and James Hampton are really strong. Even the actors like Lorie Griffin, Mark Arnold or Matt Adler who play weaker characters do just fine. The music is awesome. There are a lot of really good songs in the soundtrack. Win in the End, Flesh on Fire, Shootin’ for the Moon. Lot of good music.

Areas of Improvement:

1. They could have used either more time to flesh out the conclusions for various plot points or fewer subplots.
2. More compelling supporting characters. Stiles desperately needed some depth considering how much screen time he gets and then there are Scott’s basketball buddies who are all very interchangeable.
3. Give the antagonist some redeeming features. Yes, the archetypical bully is always like this but he doesn’t have to be. He could have some complexity.

Final Thoughts:

This isn’t one of the best 80s comedy films out there. That being said, it is enjoyable and pretty entertaining throughout. You can’t fault anything about Fox’s performance and the soundtrack is excellent. If you can tolerate the parts that haven’t aged all that well, I do actually recommend it as a fun little film. I give Teen Wolf a 7/10.