KingFilmsCo Reviews

Jaws 3-D (1983)

One-Dimensional Shark Schlock

[4/10 · 6 March 2018]

Seeing Jaws 3-D makes me wonder if I was too harsh on Jaws 2. I recently reviewed Jaws 2 and criticized its sloppy and poor storytelling and pacing, but nonetheless thought it had moments of good film-making, especially in its action set-pieces - so you had a decent, albeit not exceptional movie. Well, the third Jaws movie makes Jaws 2 look like Jaws. Jaws 3-D is a movie that, to my astonishment, makes me feel nothing. Well almost nothing. The only emotion that stirred inside me during its entire one hour and forty minutes... was embarrassment for this "amateur hour."

I was mildly interested in seeing the movie because it seemed to be the last Jaws movie with the crew of the previous movies working on it. Longtime Spielberg production designer Joe Alves directed, as he was a second unit director on the previous movies and played a part in getting them to look good. Jaws 3-D was also the last Jaws screenplay penned by Carl Gottlieb. Gottlieb, who contributed to the screenplay of Jaws and largely wrote Jaws 2, had shown some competency in staging suspenseful scenes and allowing moments for characters to breathe and develop. I am not sure if they were under strain from studio executives, but it is clear watching Jaws 3-D why Alves never directed again, and why Gottlieb's writing career more or less fizzled out after this movie.

Characters, such as the two Brody sons, have little character and less to do. There's no meaningful exchanges between the brothers or other Sea World workers, or the park owner (an enjoyably slimy performance by Lou Gosset), or the Australian... hunter? photographer? Even Jaws 2 managed to have moments where people acted (even if that was rare). Here everyone goes through the motions. Dennis Quaid gets his paycheck. Sean Brody, played indistinctly by John Putch, has a... uh, character arc where he's afraid of the water, but gets over it because a hot chick offers to bang him by the beach. I guess that's character development. But he leaves the movie two-thirds of the way through, severing one more connection with the series' cast and history that we have grown attached to. Now, I am always for movies, especially genre/franchise flicks bucking convention and cleverly moving past their forebears, but without good writing or characters, all those efforts are worthless. Jaws 2 didn't have a particularly strong script, so it leaned on the setting of Amity Island, and some familiar faces to make up the deficit. Jaws 3-D thought it could lean on the setting of Sea World and the presence of other sea creatures like dolphins, orca, and the like. The outcome is a total dud, and cynical misjudge of what will keep the audience engaged.

The setting is totally wasted - see Deep Blue Sea to see a film that at least tries to take advantage of its location in an underwater observatory. Making an amusement park the site of widespread bloodshed and chaos has immediate potential (see: Jurassic Park), but Universal did not seem to want to spend the money fleshing the premise out, so what is left is a real cheap production: extending from the sets all the way to the marquis attraction - the shark itself.

The shark has never looked so bad. Jaws 2 showed off a shark that was in some ways superior to the original, and the resultant construction allowed for some inventive and fun action scenes from the director and crew. In Jaws 3-D the shark was stiff, mostly motionless, and seemed to have consisted of a single model that was capable of opening its mouth and wiggling a little bit. The action scenes were mundane and executed in a dull manner and lacked the dynamic camera movements and smart cuts of the previous movie. Instead, we have "fin chases something in the water" scenes, mixed with some laughable "shark-torpedo" moments where the shark slowly inches towards something to attack. The film's other effects are likewise poor. The optical shots and overlays were so so shoddy that you wonder how anyone signed off on them, other than slimy producers looking for a quick buck. They say that while making Jaws Spielberg called the SFX crew the "special defects department." He had no clue how good he had it.

Here's a rule for creature movies. If you can't show the monster all the time, at least have a good writing/actors. If you can't have good writing/characters, than at least keep the thing short and moving so my time isn't wasted. Jaws 3-D wastes your time and feels longer than its 1hr40min length because it lacks a good monster, good performances or writing, and has a terminally slow pace riddled with filler. Jaws 2 had me pining for more shark scenes. When compared to Jaws 3-D, Jaws 2 feels like non-stop shark tail slapping you in your groin. The movie tries to pull of some cheap jump-scares and gross-outs, but the make-up and special effects are c-movie grade and incredibly silly. Worse still, they are spread out so far and few that they are less like exclamation points than they are a dull rapping on the TV screen to make sure you are still awake.

Is there anything positive about Jaws 3-D? Surprisingly, yes! The music, composed by Alan Parker is fun, adventurous, and well-suited to the action. While leaning on the score of John Williams, it nonetheless manages to achieve its own sound and feels fresh and enjoyable. Mr. Parker deserves a commendation for doing the best he could with a bad source. It's a shame he seemed to retreat largely into made-for-TV movies after this, never getting a huge Hollywood movie to sink his teeth into again.

In summation: this movie definitely feels like the death-knell for this "franchise." There wasn't even enough happening to offer a "so bad it's good" experience! Despite having a few of the original hands working on it, the movie demonstrated that they lacked the skill, the time, or the artistic freedom to bring about something worthwhile. I'll give it to the crew of Jaws 2: they tried to make a good movie, they just didn't really succeed. The makers of Jaws 3-D didn't even try!

Jaws 2 (1978)

Jaws 2 ~ It Tries

[6/10 · 5 March 2018]

Jaws 2 does not get an "A" for effort, but it definitely earns a "B" or "B-" for effort. To be fair to Gottlieb, Szwarc, et al., they attempt to build characters, flesh out ones we already knew (sorta), and try to still tell a story while ramping up the shark mayhem from the first movie. And to their credit, I was surprised by the movie's insistence to get to know a wider range of side characters on top of Roy Scheider's world-weary Brody, anchoring it all.

That being said, just because the movie tries does not mean it particularly succeeds. Jaws, aside from the shark, really focused around the fine performances of three very talented character actors, playing believable, well-written, and likable characters. Brody, Quint, and Hooper were clearly-defined personalities that played well off one another, with their own motivations, backstories, and skills.

While it's unfair to judge the sequel *solely* in relation to its predecessor, it is only to temper your expectations. Suffice to say: the characters introduced in Jaws 2 are not compelling, have believable reactions and motivations, and are not particularly interesting. You have a parade of one-notes: the sleazy real-estate developer, the incredulous doctor ("Sharks don't take things personally, Mr. Brody!"), and a gaggle of annoying teeny-boppers who were put in because the producers knew which audience to cash in on. In a cynical display of movie-making, you have every archetype of teen present - someone for every baby boomer to relate to!

More effective are the returning cast. Cashing in on the nostalgia of the first was somewhat successful, as it is nice to see characters like the Deputy, the Brody's, and Mayor Vaughan again - as well as the town of Amity itself (counting it as a character). The best moments are between returning cast members/veteran actors - the world-weariness on display is either an appealing way of establishing the story, or an authentic reaction to being dragged on to do a sequel to a giant shark movie! I likewise saw myself enjoying the return and to "see how things were going." It is depressing to learn that more interesting ideas - such as Amity being ruined because of the shark attack and resorting to mob financing - were scuttled in favor of a rehash of the first story, complete with "we can't close the beaches its tourism season!" beats. I don't know how the producers/writers can be so dismissive of the billion Jaws rip-offs when they themselves are guilty of the same crime. Hypocrisy of the rich/famous I suppose!

It seems as if half the movie is dedicated following around the lives of Amity's teens, as they try to go through the pangs of growing up: going to dances, asking each other out, sailing, and avoiding a gigantic rubber shark mounted on a motorized platform. I can understand, and on a conceptual level, appreciate the attempt to make the adolescents more than mere shark fodder. However, none of their stories or personalities are interesting, and their scenes slow the pacing down to a crawl - to the point where you start to think of them *as* mere shark fodder, hoping, hoping, hoping that that damn thing shows u p and eats one of them (particularly Donna Wilkes, who spends the back half of the movie screaming non-stop) to pick the movie up.

If you have been wondering this whole review "When is he gunna start talking about the shark?" then I've given you a taste of what you will feel watching Jaws 2. Whereas Jaws saved its payoff for the end, and allowed strong writing to propel the movie, Jaws 2 lacks those strong moments and thus makes you yearn for the shark. Szwarc decided, against the opinions of his crew, to show off more of the shark. On the downside, it means more chances to see how fake the thing looks (you will see its rubber mouth crease and fold inwards in one bad shot). On the upside, it gives the movie a means of punctuating the doldrums with some shark action! In an inverse of its predecessor, the shark is the best thing about Jaws 2. It does more silly stunts, well shot by the talented crewmen. It rams many more boats, it generally acts like a dick, grabbing teens and launching them into the hulls of their own craft, and even gets involved in a incredibly stupefying scene in which a lady, attempting to kill the shark, pours gasoline on herself and lights herself (and the shark) on fire. From that point on it sports some cool, wicked scars.

If Szwarc cannot be praised for his job at adapting a screenplay, he nonetheless made sure that the real breadwinner - the action scenes - were well done, and entertaining. It has the unfortunate side effect of making the movie incredibly stupid, though, especially as teens start behaving as slasher victims would and destroy their own attempts at survival (the boat version of tripping over one's self, ha ha). Oh, and helicopters too. Lots of fun to be had with these moments!

You only wish there were more. Between the over-extended focus on unimportant side-characters, and the lack of interesting things for Scheider to do, the movie quickly starts to rub you the wrong way - with the exception of the shark sequences. As a movie, and a monster movie, it is still an above-average effort from a competent crew, but it is brought down by an overly commercial approach to its setup and payoff. Reading further into the making-of, it was said that Arthur C Clarke and Peter Benchley each had sequel scripts that were turned down. Otto Preminger at one point was even a choice for director. Weep for what could have been bold, weird, or idiosyncratic choices and direction - for what we were left with was Jaws 2: an ok, so-so movie that takes few chances and doesn't give us the goods nearly enough.

Chimes at Midnight (1965)

Technical Issues Aside, Chimes is a Moving Portrait of Time Slipping Past Us

[8/10 · 25 July 2017]

I won't belabor the point that you can gather from reading 40+ other reviews, so I will offer a few short words on the theme of the movie, as well as caveat, for watching Orson Welles' Chimes at Midnight.

The film overall deals with that time-honored notion noted by St. Paul "When I was a child, I used to talk like a child, and see things as a child does, and think like a child; but now that I have become an adult, I have finished with all childish ways." Prince Hal is growing up and becoming an adult, and as such must soon leave his childish pranks and habits behind. His friend, Falstaff, is that childhood friend (paradoxically old in age, as if he never grew up himself). Boisterous, drunk, and a glutton, the blowhard gleefully recounts all the good times that he, Prince Hal, and their other misfits used to have, doing the things that children and adolescents do, like being a nuisance, harassing others, and goofing off. It is the type of life Falstaff still leads and he is quite happy with it. Prince Hal is, too, until the weight of responsibility is slowly thrust upon him thanks to his sick father. As the stakes are raised, he slowly loses the time and desire to be a silly young boy and now must be a man.

Falstaff is oblivious to this development all the way until the end, thinking that these are just momentary phases before the parties can begin anew. He is ever hopeful that the Prince and the world will see things his way. He fails to see how the world moves past a fat, blundering fool. His love for the prince, for the girls of the bawdy bar, for his compatriots is, while sometimes humorous and self-serving, he nonetheless wishes no real ill on anyone and merely lives for fun and pleasure. In his old age, he has decided that being an adult (if he ever was one) is not something worth putting time and energy in to. He is unimportant and carefree enough to have that luxury; however, his closest friends cannot shirk away from their duties as men, and thus Falstaff fails to realize how he is left behind.

All of this is turned into a moving portrait. We realize that Falstaff is wrong, and that sometimes the world calls for more than just joking around, goofing off and indulging one's self. But we sympathize with him, because we can see a gentle and loving person underneath the bluster and idiocy - and perhaps we ourselves wish the world were more "childish" and carefree. At the climactic battle scene (were Welles' camera work makes a hundred men or less look like a thousand), men grind and pulverize each other into hamburger meat - but Falstaff never manages to hurt a single soul. Perhaps there is some good in being childish!

For those wishing to watch the movie, the Criterion package is an excellent one. The customary supplemental materials are fascinating, and the picture brings out Welles' cinematography. Criterion and co. did there best with the sound, and the sound is the biggest single issue with which you will struggle with (or at least I did) with Chimes. Even with work done on it, the sound levels are inconsistent, especially with actors' lines. Sometimes whole scenes will go by with what sounds like dubbers mumbling their lines, straining your ears and making you crank the volume up on your TV. Then all of the sudden someone will speak loudly and clearly, blowing you back with the force of it and making you quickly turn the volume back down... only for the process to repeat again. I have not done this yet, but I would probably recommend watching with subtitles on to help alleviate the issue of figuring out what some of the whispers and mumbles are supposed to be. Not an elegant solution, but with Welles' later work, you will have to deal with some technical issue or another.

Don't let the above turn you off from seeing this beautiful, and moving film. It is a worthy adaptation and remix of Shakespeare and one of Welles' greatest movies.

The Last Shark (1981)

Great White Fun! (Retrovision DVD release review)

[7/10 · 6 February 2015]

Enzo Castellari's colorful career has seen several famous (or infamous) re-interpretations or takes on popular American box-office hits alongside his quirky original works. L'Ultimo Squalo, may contain shades of another famous shark movie, but manages to endear (perhaps unintentionally) because of its combination of Italian strangeness and American elements.

James Franciscus and Vic Morrow lead a film-depiction of a quiet American beach town populated solely by Italians. The lengths the film goes to to assure us that this is the USA only makes the dissonance more jarring. The overabundance of American (and Confederate!) flags, random country music bands, and a cowboy shark bounty hunter are all humorous interpretations of the USA.

A plot? Suffice to say: a giant shark eats locals just in time for the summer windsurfing regatta, and election season! It's up to Franciscus and Morrow, old shark-hunting friends, to put a stop to the shark's rampage.

Franciscus' chiseled good looks make him a natural lead, even if it is rather vague his whole connection to the plot, other than that he has a boat so he can look for the shark. Vic Morrow puts in a lovably hammy performance as the Scottish shark hunter. He really chews the scenery, but the camaraderie he shares with Franciscus at least comes off as genuine. The other standout is Joshua Sinclair as the governor candidate. In an unusual twist, he plays a fairly responsible and concerned politician, who goes to great lengths to ensure the safety of the town - at least until the script calls for him to go into a foolhardy tete a tete with the titular shark.

The shark, the last shark I presume, must be mentioned as the other star. Castellari knew that audiences watching a shark movie want above all to see the shark. Enzo blends stock footage with model usage, with mixed results. Sometimes it is quite clear that the shark you are watching on camera is not the same as the one you saw a few shots earlier. This is amusing though.

When you get to see the shark constructed for the movie, it is a treat. There are plenty of scenes to show it off. The underwater version of the shark comes across as a bathtub toy awkwardly jetting forward with no regard to its surroundings. The above-water head shot version looks and moves suitably fake, content to usually ram something into submission. When the shark attacks, it is usually either by awkwardly ramming a target or exploding it! These moments are very funny to watch as actors or dummies careen through the air, helpless against the shark's prowess. It is easy to laugh at the shark, but truth be told, it is far better constructed than most shark movies, and 100x better than the CGI sharks that populate today's lousy Asylum cash-ins riding off their "so bad it's good" flavor. This stubby fish has got heart.

At less than 90 minutes, the movie does not waste time. Shark-on-human violence punctuates the proceedings, growing in intensity and goofiness as the movie continues. From explosions, to helicopters, to cowboys, this shark knows how to steal the show. It does not overstay its welcome, and Castellari wisely gives us what we want. Enzo's photography in general is very good, with lots of wide and varied shots, slo-mo to spice things up visually, and generally solid composition throughout. The man brings a real joy and energy to genre filmmaking that more should take note of.

RETROVISION DVD: For an amateur release by a small start-up (one person), Retrovision's release earns a lot of good will. Even if it is just a DVD and a case, it feels like a legitimate product with actual effort and polish. Poster work is used for the cover, instead of the boring floating-head syndrome that plagues US DVD/Blu-ray releases. The disc has printed artwork as well, which makes the disc feel special. Compared to the bootleg copies of the movie floating around online, the visual quality is quite good (though not without flaws, grain, and spots here and there), and the audio mixing is done well. The picture quality is doubly commendable because for a long time The Last Shark had a reputation of incomprehensible underwater photography. We now see that this is the fault of VHS bootlegs, not the film itself.

The special features are an admirable attempt to add content. Three trailers, two deleted scenes (which are underwhelming, unfortunately), and a short retrospective on the film by a film historian and the young founder of Retrovision itself. It's pretty cheesy but likable despite itself. A welcome feature is some clips of the alternate American soundtrack. Though not as enjoyable as the bouncy Italo-disco soundtrack, it stands as a worthwhile curiosity for the movie buff. Each menu has crisp audio-recordings of the film's catchy music. On the whole the package displays a lot of effort and makes The Last Shark stand out in a see of cheap plastic cases with blank dvds passing off as "official" releases. Why must only cult films be graced with such dedication?

Retrovision's release is thus the best and perhaps definitive release of this forgotten cult-classic, and earns extra marks for attempting what most film studios neglect which is to give us meaningful content on our DVD.

This is a fun time at the movies. With brisk pacing, fun character performances, and a lovably goofy shark, I easily recommend The Last Shark for people who want to gather a group together and have a good time in front of the TV. It stands as one of the most enjoyable shark action/thriller/horror movies I've seen.

Deep Blue Sea (1999)

Forgettable, if decent, action thriller that almost made waves

[5/10 · 18 January 2015]

A 5/10 review isn't necessarily damning in the case of Deep Blue Sea. It is an average, mildly enjoyable movie with some impressive elements to it. However, with so many shark movies out there, there needs to be something that sets a flick apart from the rest. For as many good points that Deep Blue Sea achieves, its mediocrities end up sinking a lot of good will.

First, the good: Director Renny Harlin knew enough that audiences going into a shark movie wanted several things: 1) good-looking sharks 2) creative shark attacks 3) good-looking actors

In descending importance. Luckily, the first point was hit spot on with some very good-looking animatronic sharks (when they are used). These giant metal monsters looked very nice (especially when one is used to an ocean of Italian rubber-shark ripoffs) and you as a viewer could easily get lost in the world of the movie - in the sense that yes, these must be real sharks.

The second point was helped out by the film's setting, the abandoned sea lab Aquatica. It has a great cold industrial look to it. By flooding and destroying the area thanks to plot contrivances, Harlin had sharks in creative locales: swimming around in corridors, hiding in bedrooms, and attacking in elevator shafts. These are new and fun ways to spice up the fact that as a movie-going threat, sharks often do little else other than pop up to chomp on someone in a jump-scare "Gotcha!" moment. The setting does help though, like a shark forcing the station's cook into an oven and inadvertently turning it on with the cook inside, or an entertaining helicopter kill (clever sharks!).

Finally, the cast put in a somewhat serviceable (for this genre) movie. Samuel Jackson stole the show, acting as we are accustomed to see him act; though the moments where he was not yelling are compelling as well. Saffron Burrows did well as the "attractive woman with a British accent" (always a plus), and Thomas Jane sort of did the "tough action guy who don't play by the rules" thing. The rest of the crew (with a notable exception) was just sort of there, but at least we had attractive and likable leads.

Despite the money and care that went into the film though, its negative points started to sink its more laudable aspects:

1) CGI sharks with bad CGI people 2) Good characters killed off; bad characters surviving 3) Stupid plot decisions that bring down the movie

In the special features of the DVD, Harlin went on at length about how needed something more than mechanical sharks to do all the scenes he had in mind. He turned to digital sharks here, and boasted that the audience would never be able to tell the difference.

Well, this is hazarding a guess, but if you notice a character suddenly replaced with a stiff, lifeless, textureless, plastic-looking computerized Barbie doll, bank your money on the shark being CG as well. Also, if you notice that the sharks are suddenly 100x more agile they were in other scenes, those probably are also not "really" there.

I can understand the desire to "one-up" other shark movies (because of the sort of limited nature of filming practical-effects sharks I mentioned above). However, the solution Harlin opted for doesn't exactly thrill. Awful looking digital chunks of your favorite nondescript actors filled the screen with strangely-smooth and plastic-looking sharks. It's groan-inducing each time I saw it happen. Contrasting that to the underwater scenes filmed with the animatronic models, and we realize that nothing can substitute for a cleverly-staged model.

Most people already know one of the "big twists" in Deep Blue Sea, but suffice to say, the more likable characters do not all survive. In their place we have LL Cool J,. Some reviews pegged him as the "audience favorite," and I don't know why. He didn't act very well, his script is pretty lousy outside of one throwaway joke about an omelet, and the movie spent far too much time on him. While exciting things were happening elsewhere, we had to listen to the comedy stylings of LL Cool J and his foul-mouthed parrot.

As for the plot, I didn't talk about it much because I don't really care about plots in a movie with sharks. All these movies need is a premise that is not so outside of reality that it works. And "big brain sharks hunt humans" was inoffensive enough to work.

However, certain decisions made by the characters added up. For example, characters watching a window crack for nearly 40 seconds before they decide that being in front of a breaking-glass-window under the sea is a bad idea. One character pointlessly "baiting" the shark in a way that is needlessly life-endangering. Situations seemed to be set up in order to kill off characters (usually when we haven't seen a shark attack in a while). Such situational character stupidity was a lame way of killing people off, especially when the "treat" we got was bad CGI. Even Italian shark knockoffs have the decency to give us gore effects.

After all of this negativity, was Deep Blue Sea a bad film? Not necessarily. The action scenes with the sharks had some creativity and were handled competently by Harlin. There were explosions and gushes of water (and shark deaths) to keep the audience's attention. The movie provided some of the bare-bones minimums a shark movie needs, and by having multiple mechanical sharks, it went a few steps beyond most shark movies.

However, it was definitely a film I have no desire to see again. The final gut reaction I felt was "well, it was OK." The movie certainly did not offend me, and I enjoyed several scenes and situations within.

But was that really the reaction I should have to a movie about super killer sharks?

Cruel Jaws (1995 Video)

Shapeshifting sharks, the mafia, Hollywood Hulk Hogan and more battle it out in this fight to the finish

[6/10 · 11 January 2015]

Reading the other reviews on this page will acquaint you with Cruel Jaws' director, Bruno Mattei. Suffice to say that the man is an infamous director of stolen schlock. Cruel Jaws lives up to his reputation.

This film really has it all. Some of the douchiest-looking surfers known to man. Hollywood Hulk Hogan desperately searching for his daughter's missing smile. A navy-trained super shark, described as "a locomotive, with thousands of butchers' knives" preying on hapless douchebags. The mafia, who are equally proficient in real-estate speculation, aquarium espionage, and shark hunting. A little girl whose mouth might be scarier than the shark's.

The ineptitude is overwhelming. The abrupt editing creates lightning-fast tonal shifts from horror, to slapstick comedy, to vaguely-sad goings-on. The script is cartoonish, with characters pushed into extreme archetypes of "total dick" and "perfect girl." The Star Wars theme is used in the movie - a jaw-dropping moment. The shark changes forms, from a tiger shark, to a great white, to dolphin, to what I think is a nurse shark. This truly is the ultimate shark.

Which is funny because the film steals so much footage from L'Ultimo Squalo, or The Last Shark - which is a technically-superior, slightly less trashy shark film riding off of the Jaws craze. Watching Squalo first, it struck me as hilarious seeing the same exact footage used. Not to mention all the footage stolen from the Jaws films.

In summation, this is a good time. There are slow moments, but that is what fast-forwarding is for. The story is so awfully delivered that it becomes its own perverse pleasure, and watching the insanity build up to the movie's exciting anti-climax is a fun ride while it lasts. Mattei does it again.

Umberto D. (1952)

Moving Glimpse into One Man's Struggle Against Hopelessness

[9/10 · 20 October 2013]

I should preface by saying that this is the first Vittorio de Sica movie I have watched, and at the time of writing this, I have yet to see his earlier works. I had wanted to watch Umberto D. to get myself familiar with the Italian "Neoverismo" or Neorealist movement, and it helped that my library held a copy of Umberto D as opposed to these other tales.

But what a story it is! Umberto D. Ferrari, after working his whole life in a government position, finds that his meager pension can no longer support himself; it's either rent or food. Umberto has months of back-rent owed to his monstrously conceited landlady, who holes him up in a bug-infested bedroom and constantly taunts and threatens the man with eviction. We watch Umberto struggle as he seeks to maintain some semblance of dignity and humanity, primarily through his relationship with the landlady's dark-eyed, disingenuous maid, and his one true companion and love, his pet dog, Flike. As the movie progresses, we watch as Umberto becomes more miserable, desperate, and dejected, as society no longer has need of an irritable old man, and Umberto increasingly contemplates drastic solutions to end his suffering.

Carlo Battisti, the eponymous character, emotes with a fussiness, irritability, and resignation that I know all too well in the faces of elderly people in my own family and community. Umberto D. is a man who has worked his whole life and now finds himself without family, without friends, and increasingly, without a roof over his head. His slide into destitution is heartbreaking to watch.

Lina Gennari plays the landlady as a never-ending wellspring of inhumane, bourgeois pretension. La Padrona has delusions of turning her tenement house into a place of class and high culture, plans that are frustrated by the presence of a dejected old man and his mutt.

Maria Pia Casillo, discovered as a high-school student by De Sica, plays the landlady's maid, and is the closest thing to a human friend Umberto has. She is hiding a pregnancy from la Padrona, fearful that once discovered, she will lose her job as housemaid. She does not know who got her pregnant, one of the soldiers who daily parade outside the house (the one from Naples? the one from Florence?); this frank admission of sexual misconduct horrifies Umberto, who acts, in his limited capacity, as a grandfather for Maria.

Flike the dog's expressiveness and liveliness justify all the affection and praise Umberto lavishes on the dog. Umberto won't go a conversation without talking about how lovely Flike is, and as the film progresses he is increasingly more concerned about Flike's well-being than his own.

Aside from the landlady and Flike, all the characters in De Sica's Umberto D. are played by non-actors. This gives an earthiness, a weight to their performances. Hard, pockmarked faces inhabit this Rome, whose tall, soaring Renaissance architecture seems to emphasize the smallness of its inhabitants. Ugly faces, old faces, weaselly scoundrels and smiling nuns... all these and more populate the camera as it follows around Umberto and Flike. The camera moves in a lifelike fashion, like an observer, and we watch Maria grind coffee beans in tears as she reflects on her pregnancy, or we watch as Umberto tries to beg but can't bring himself to debase himself in public. These little, mundane human actions are what make the film for me, whether it is Maria dropping everything she's doing to watch the soldiers outside her window, or as an elderly man contemplates taking his dog from the pound or having him put down, and you can see the thousand different painful emotions playing in his hard, worn eyes. They sound unimportant, and they are, but De Sica infuses them with dignity and empathy.

We get the sense that this is a real story playing out. From the opening, ineffectual protest of retired pensioners, to the penultimate, wretched scenes at the train tracks, we feel that De Sica has us in his confidence, and is sharing a deeply personal story with us (the film is dedicated to De Sica's father). The film's final moments end on an open note, but ultimately one of hope and humanity in a world that has progressively and aggressively sought to dehumanize Umberto and throw him away with the rest of the trash.

The film's notes mention the vicious criticism it received at the hands of the bloated, bureaucratic Christian Democratic Party and corrupt, ineffectual Communist Party, both who hated the film for its subversion and pessimism. Considering post-war Italy's turbulent history, this pessimism might be justified. But this pessimism is ultimately tempered with hope. Because at the end, a man can still love and live for someone, even if that someone is a dog.

NOTE: This review is based off of the Criterion DVD. For those more interested in the DVD itself, the picture looks well and the quality is what you would expect from a Criterion release (that is to say, very good!). The monaural mix had no problems (though I listened through headphones on a laptop). The film's liner notes contain a short essay on the film, plus thoughts by Vittorio de Sica on Umberto D. There is no film commentary, but the DVD's extras contain a 51 minute documentary on De Sica's filmography, often narrated and hosted by De Sica himself. Also included are some thoughts and notes by Carlo Battisti, Umberto Eco, and others on the film, and an interview with Maria Pia Casilio about her relationship with De Sica and how she came to work on the film. All of this is excellent and informative and the documentary in particular was a fun watch, if only for De Sica's magnetic personality.

Rage of Ninja (1988)

Quality is Directly-Related to How Many Friends are Present when Viewing

[6/10 · 16 October 2013]

RAGE OF NINJA/RAGE OF A NINJA is a hard film to review. I like it, and think it's a lot of fun. However, it's hard to pass over the long stretches of nothing that typify Godfrey Ho and Joseph Lai's "style" during the IFD days. Is a 6 a low score here? Not necessarily. The film is better than average! However, the more friends you trick into seeing this, the funnier this movie becomes.

Mike Abbot is probably one of my favorite of the Ho actors. Something about his bug-eyes, unshapely teeth, and Cornish accent (e.g., "YEW BASSTID") leave a firm impression. This is probably his single best performance in any of the Ho movies (note: honorable mention goes to Ninja Knight: Thunder Fox), mainly because he has the chance to be in fight scenes, villainous plotting scenes, scenes where he kills someone by splashing an energy drink in their face, and toward the end, one of the most hilarious pantomime actions in any Godfrey Ho movie. It's right after that phone call. You'll know it when you see it.

The point being: Mike gets to have a lot of fun in this role, and that fun rubs off on us, meaning we have a good time, too.

I haven't mentioned Marko Ritchie, the film's hero and "star" yet, because dramatically, he's on the thespian level of sandpaper. The plot of the movie is quite clear-cut for a Ho Ninja movie: Marko Ritchie has a manual that Mike Abbot wants, and he won't give it to Mike. Abbot believes the "MANYUL" will turn him into the "ULTIMATE NINJA!" (the film's infamous best scene and tour de force of Abbot's acting ability), and he periodically sends out goons to harass Marko to get said manyul. These scenes are really precious to behold, and are so zany and bizarre it feels like you are watching a work of genius, all the way up to the film's bizarrely surreal abrupt ending, which is the cap on this fine film.

But this is a Godfrey Ho film! The ninja footage can't be more than 15 minutes total, and the rest of the run time consists of some unfinished crime drama movie that is -----barely----- related to the plot, aside from some hilarious blink-and-you-miss-them attempts at bridging the stories. This movie centers around an Asian man named Steve. Ol' Stevo was trying to break up a jewelry-thief-circle (run by Mike Abbot), but after nearly beating a man to death for having sex with his wife (another goon working for Abbot - adultery, theft, this guy must control all vice in Hong Kong!), he goes on the run hiding out in the expansive estate of some rich girl. He ties her to the bed and smacks the stuffing out of her, but she is apparently into that, because the next scene she's in love. Women, I tell ya.

This begins the film's weakest parts. Watch as Ho lovingly left in an extended five minute scene of a girl washing her leg in a bath. It's five minutes, but will feel like fifteen. Watch another scene as people play badminton for a while and talk. Sometimes Steve will fight someone, sometimes there will be a random gang of orgy-rapists on a beach having a barbecue, but it will mostly be the most inane queasy banter between Steve and Girl. Sometimes Ho strikes it rich with a fun, interesting subplot (see: Ninja Terminator). Here, it's dull. But that dullness itself becomes fun to watch with the right group of friends. It accentuates the ninja scenes so much that it magnifies their entertainment value.

If you have friends and you want to watch a Godfrey Ho movie, I would probably recommend starting with Ninja Terminator. However, if you've seen a couple of Ho films, RAGE OF NINJA is one I can recommend with some reservations. It's one of my personal favorites of Ho's work for all its badness. Just make sure you're not watching it alone. Misery, after all, loves company.

Mr. X (1995)

Disappointingly Mediocre Opus from the Z-Movie Master

[4/10 · 13 October 2013]

NOTE: there are slight spoilers, but this movie has so little plot that you will not care in the slightest.

If you are watching a Godfrey Ho film after having seen a few, you come into the viewing with certain expectations in mind. Conversely, it is a sweet thing indeed to discover Ho's insane cinema worlds for the first time. Just make sure that first time is not Mr. X.

Godfrey Ho is famous for his beyond-bad Ninja movies of the 80s, often starring washed-up B-movie stars like Richard Harrison, alongside random tourists or ex-pats like Stuart Smith, Grant Temple, and Mike Abbot (God love 'em all). What makes these movies ultimately watchable is that for all their badness, they ultimately exude a contagious, manic glee about them, as you witness these nonsensical, hypertensive crime yarns concerning evil Hong Kong-based Ninjas (or NINJERS, as they are often pronounced), with heaping scoops of clueless acting, pacing, editing, and choreography. It's all good fun.

However, Mr. X is one of those films Ho made after breaking up with the Yin to his Yang, Joseph Lai, of Imperial Films Division. Ho alleges that Lai was refusing to pay him for his work, or something along those lines. All the same, it was a great loss because as sleazy as Joseph Lai was, he provided Ho with the budget and material to make some true movie magic. It is funny to note that as Ho got technically better at film-making (shots here are slightly more adventurous and competent than his 80s output), his movies got worse.

The titular Mr. X is played by Joe Lewis, and he is so inconsequential to the plot he is hardly worth mentioning. The movie opens promisingly with some competent shots of a Reservoir Dogs-style gang staking out a wedding which incidentally happens to take place in another decade and another movie, with completely different film quality. I have to hand it to Ho for making the two completely non-fitting clips work so well together.

After a massacre leaves the entire family dead aside from the groom, his bride (who is written out of the script as 'kidnapped'), and his brother, and the two begin a John Woo-style slaughter-fest against the syndicates that set them up. Another promising scene has the groom gun down all of Godfrey Ho's white-person army in a hilariously extended sequence - they continue to barrel into the room only to be gunned down by the dozens for what seems like three minutes, if not more. This is easily the best scene in the entire film.

Unfortunately, things turn sour precisely as Mr. X enters the scene. A hard-boiled mercenary with a penchant for shooting at people in completely different films, he is contracted by his friend, some dumpy schmo in New York, to work for a mafia group in Hong Kong to settle the dispute between the Triad, the brothers, and the newly-arrived Yakuza. Mr. X's liaison will be a kindly monk named Chaplin Chang, whom we are told is played as himself. I mention this because his character can barely speak English, barely act, and mumbles "Ok" every time something is said to him. It's funny at first, but you dread every scene between Mr. X and Chaplin Chang because they are so ad-libbed and boring.

In fact, every single scene not from the Asian stock-footage Ho used to pad out his movie does not seem to have a script at all. It's hilarious to watch these non-actors try to fill the time with dialog with only the vaguest direction.

E.G.: "Look at this guy. He makes me sick to my stomach. There's something about him, this Asian toad-looking guy. I want you to, uh, get rid of him. He makes me sick and I can feel it." -Schmo talking about some guy on TV

Chang: "I uh got you uhhhh present" Mr. X: "Oh, the Art of War. Yeah I have this book." Chang: "Oh uhhhh OK." ^Note, the movie essentially ends on this winner of a scene

Riveting.

The only other part worth mentioning, and the only reason this movie would be of interest to Godfrey Ho fans, is that the master himself has a small bit part in the film, as... "Godfather Ho." His scene is a real treat, from his goofy sweater, his belabored attempts at English (we can glimpse what it was like to be directed by such a man), and the ultimately pointless, amateur nature of the scene. It's wonderful, and easily the second-best scene in the movie.

There's little else to say. The Asian sub-plot is sort of fun to watch, and you can tell Ho was so cheap at this point that he couldn't even dub the movie, so it is subtitled (Ho's dubs were half the fun). Mr. X is randomly inserted into the plot, basically to shoot a few people off-screen, and then we're back to the action.

The film-quality between the sub-plot and the "Mr. X" scenes is so jarring, so cheap, and so bad, you'd swear Joe Lewis was taped fighting random thugs at the end using a home-video camera. One of the thugs, whom I assume is credited as "Bobo", is particularly funny for his bald shaved head, sans two strips running along the side, and his farmer overalls. It's a brief spark of lunacy in an otherwise dull tread through the twilight of Ho's career.

Full Metal Ninja (1989)

A Good Asian Subplot actually Carries this Film

[7/10 · 13 October 2013]

Godfrey Ho is no stranger to trash film-making. Full Metal Ninja is firmly within his tradition of cutting together various pieces of abandoned and unfinished films and splicing them together with cheap footage of white actors in ninja outfits fighting, often loosely, if not tangentially to the plot.

Full Metal Ninja is probably the most bald-faced when it comes to not even trying to connect the two plots together. Randomly the main star, Pierre Kirby, will appear in front of some foliage and say something like "Can you teach me your moves?" to which the subplot main character, Eagle will say "You're not ready yet," and walk away. If it sounds confusing, that's because it is - and stupid, too! But that's half the fun in these movies.

Full Metal Ninja (I love typing out that title) has Pierre Kirby fight some guys who have vague plans to control somewhere, but that's not really important. As far as Ho ninja scenes go, they're pretty standard in my opinion, and while the dub and dialog is hilarious, I'd stake Ninja Terminator, Rage of Ninja, or Ninja: Silent Assassin as having far more compelling and interesting white-ninja plots.

However, the Asian subplot is actually a fun, compelling, and -dare I say?- interesting film, in a grind-house sort of way. A yarn of revenge following a tight-lipped, stoic swordsman, Eagle, as he avenges the death of his family and abduction of his wife? Lover? at the hands of a greedy magistrate. One woman he saves from thugs starts to fall for him, but a series of unfortunate circumstances has her seeking to kill him as well. Oh the melodrama! The plot is nothing special, but there are times when the film almost approaches an emotional core or sentiment, and actually (gasp) tries to say something! Of course, the messages are "vengeance does not solve everything" and "even villains are people too" (which is done fairly well, for one of these films, at the climax), but it's nice to see something beyond the usual gangster crime drama that Ho usually resorted to. In fact, and this might be just me, I was annoyed and frustrated that certain elements of the subplot are not resolved towards the end of the film. Was it because the film was unfinished, lying in a basement when Ho and Lai found it? Or did Ho not think them important (a likely possibility)? Still, it's a shame!

All in all, Full Metal Ninja is a fun movie to watch. The musical motif of Bach's Toccata in D minor, used every time (and I mean EVERY TIME) Eagle kills someone, is hilarious in its own right because of its overuse. The ninja fights are goofy fun, the music is classic stolen-copyright music, and it's hard to go wrong with Full Metal Ninja.

I'll type it just *one* more time.

FULL METAL NINJA!