Fred Williamson & Pam Grier - Together!, 16 February 2008
Duke Johnson (Fred Williamson) comes to Bucktown to bury his brother and settle his business. A few locals talk Duke into staying on and re-opening his brother's bar. The locals, however, don't tell Duke how his brother really died or about the racists that run Bucktown. Duke enlists some out-of-town friends to help him deal with his problems. With his black friends in power, things should be looking up for Duke. But he soon realizes that regardless of skin color, power corrupts. Once again, Duke must fight for what he believes in.
I suppose the biggest reason to see Bucktown is the chance to catch Fred Williamson and Pam Grier in the same movie. They're dynamite together and exhibit some real chemistry. I was impressed with Williamson in particular. I've seen too many movies from later in his career where he sleepwalks his way to a paycheck. Not here. He really seems to be into it. As for Grier, she's terrific. The supporting cast is exceptionally strong for this kind of movie. Thalmus Rasulala is an actor who has always impressed me and he does nothing to change my opinion in Bucktown. Carl Weathers and Tony King also give nice performances. But nobody goes into a movie like this for the acting. The action and fight scenes in Bucktown are wonderful. Fists, knives, guns – this movie has it all and does it all very well. The fight choreography and staging is about the best I've seen in a Blaxploitation movie. Very nicely done!
But as much as I enjoyed the actors and the action, I still can't rate Bucktown higher than a 5/10. Why? The movie makes no sense. Maybe I should just suspend logic and go with it, but I can't. In my way of thinking, you just can't kill a bunch of people without some sort of reprisal. A whole load of lawmen are killed and no one seems to take notice? I don't care if they were good-for-nothing racists, someone (State officials, family members, concerned citizens,, etc.) would surely take notice and come to town to do something about it. And if the State or whoever isn't going to do anything about all the killing, don't you think the Army would take notice of someone stealing one of their vehicles? I'm sorry, but there's no logic to any of it.
5/10
Disney Does Horror, 15 February 2008
Something happened 60 years ago at the Hollywood Tower Hotel – something so bizarre and tragic that the doors were locked and the hotel closed. Five people stepped onto an elevator headed to the Tip Top Club on the 12th floor. Suddenly, a flash of green light and the elevator stopped. The five people on board the elevator were gone. They just vanished. Now, down-on-his-luck newspaper reporter Buzzy Crocker (Steve Guttenberg) has been given the chance to tell the story of a lifetime – a chance to tell the world about what really happened to the people on board that doomed elevator. But to do so, he'll have to face the ghosts of the five souls that disappeared 60 years ago.
I think that some of the criticism leveled against Tower of Terror is unfair and just plain ridiculous. For what it is (a Disney horror movie), I quite enjoyed it. Sure, it doesn't have the same kind of scares or gore many horror fans look for, but it wasn't meant to. It was meant to be a movie aimed at families and children and, as such, I think it was reasonably successful. There are a couple of moments when the movie drags, but overall it's a well-paced, entertaining, harmless piece of entertainment. And, as much as it pains me, I must admit to enjoying the feel good ending. It worked for me. My biggest complaint would be the lack of originality. How many times have we seen this story played out? A new twist on an old stand-by would have been nice.
I suppose that another reason I enjoyed Tower of Terror might have something to do with the ride at the Disney Hollywood Studios in Orlando. And what a ride it is! A 12 story free-fall that's never the same ride twice! I love it! At the beginning of the movie, I was amazed at how much the hotel in the movie looked like the ride. It didn't come as too big of a surprise to me to learn that the exteriors were actually filmed in the park. How cool is that?
6/10
One of the best of the series, 15 February 2008
While in route to San Francisco, Chan's friend Paul Essex dies of an apparent suicide. The only clue is a threatening note from someone calling himself the Zodiac. Chan soon discovers that the Zodiac is a successful mystic. Together with a would-be psychic-buster and magician named Rhadini (Cesar Romero), Chan sets out to discover the source of the Zodiac's mysticism and unmask a killer.
I thought I had seen the best of the Charlie Chan series. Man, was I ever wrong. After a first viewing, Charlie Chan at Treasure Island has become one of my very favorite Chan films. It's not just one of Toler's best, it's one of the three or four best entries in the entire series. It's got everything a fan could ask for – an interesting plot, a larger than life villain, solid acting, compelling characters, real suspense, comic relief that's actually funny, and some of the best writing I've seen in a Chan movie. The final reveal is also one of the best in the series. It's not the usual drawing room gathering of the suspects (which I usually prefer), but a drawn out, tension filled scene in a theater full of people. And speaking of tension, Chan's first meeting with the Zodiac is amazing, if not a bit frightening. Charlie Chan at Treasure Island also benefits from a strong supporting cast. Cesar Romero, Douglas Fowley, Pauline Moore, and, personal favorite, Douglass Dumbrille add considerably to the film. Overall, this is one Charlie Chan film that I'm very much look forward to revisiting – and soon.
8/10
A solid effort, 14 February 2008
Mary Whitman seems to be a logical suspect in the murder of Jeanne Bentley. After all, she was found standing over the body. And Jeanne was the "other woman" and the reason Mary was getting a divorce. On the surface, there seems to be little doubt of Mary's guilt. But Charlie Chan sees it all quite differently. He sees a hotel full of suspects who wanted Jeanne out of the way. Can he find the real killer before Mary is convicted of a crime she didn't commit?
Sidney Toler's second outing as Charlie Chan is a solid effort and an improvement over his first. I'm not exactly sure how to put this, but Charlie Chan in Reno is just more interesting. The plot, suspects, and setting all appealed to me. The pacing is nice with very few dull moments. I particularly enjoyed Chan's visit to the ghost town. The supporting cast is strong with Phyllis Brooks and Ricardo Cortez being the standouts. And Iris Wong as the dead woman's maid and Jimmy Chan's love interest is a delight. But one thing I really enjoyed about Charlie Chan in Reno is the way the finale is handled. I've often complained about the "cheat" endings of Chan films (and I should probably stop and just accept it as a given), but the ending here is played much straighter than some of the other entries in the series. If you're sharp enough, you actually have a chance to spot the killer before Chan's big reveal. Unfortunately, I am not that sharp.
7/10
"You haven't heard Shakespeare until you've heard it in the original Klingon.", 13 February 2008
In light of an upcoming peace conference between the Klingons and the Federation, Captain Kirk puts aside his personal feelings and welcomes a Klingon delegation to dine on the Enterprise. But soon after the Klingons return to their ship they are attacked and the Klingon Ambassador is assassinated by someone believed to be from the Enterprise. Kirk and McCoy are put on trial for the murder, found guilty, and sentenced to hard labor. Surely this can't be the end of Kirk and the rest of the Enterprise crew.
I'm not even sure I can be fair to these Star Trek movies anymore. I'm finding it harder and harder to take them seriously. The situations, dialogue, and action are quite ridiculous. Add to that the incredible over-acting on the part of William Shatner and his hair-piece and you're left with something I find more comedic (albeit unintentional) than dramatic. For example, watching Kirk score with Iman or watching Kirk make goofy faces as he fights his double – laugh out loud funny!
In reality, however, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country is the best of the three Star Trek movies I've watched recently (Generations and The Final Frontier being the other two). I actually had fun watching it. I attribute much of that to the direction. Is it a coincidence that without Shatner in the director's chair (as he was in Star Trek V) that much of the movie actually worked for me. Sure, the writing, etc. may have also been better, but I'll argue the direction was as well. The mystery elements of the story were nicely handled even though much of the solution was way too easy to guess. There's nothing quite like a good conspiracy to keep a movie interesting. Finally, it's difficult to watch Star Trek VI and not be impressed with the considerable talent of Christopher Plummer. He makes several of the Star Trek regulars look like chumps in comparison. His General Chang is one of the more interesting characters I've run into in a Star Trek movie.
6/10
Toler's first Chan, 13 February 2008
In Charlie Chan in Honolulu, Chan is called out to a freighter with six passengers making its way to Hawaii. A mysterious man has been murdered and $300,000 is missing. Chan must work his way through the clues, red herrings, odd characters, and other assorted obstacles to find a solution. In typical Chan fashion, he gathers all the suspects together to reveal the killer's identity.
Charlie Chan in Honolulu marks Sidney Toler's first outing as the venerable detective. The movie may not be spectacular, but it's not a bad way to begin Toler's run in the series. The movie also sees Victor Sen Yung take over for Keye Luke in the role of Chan's main son. H. Bruce Humberstone would appear to have been a solid choice to direct Toler's first Chan. He was familiar with the series having already directed three installments, including the much heralded Charlie Chan at the Opera. Likewise, the supporting characters are also a solid group. George Zucco and Phyllis Brooks give exceptionally noteworthy performances. Eddie Collins provides the comic relief. The biggest weakness of Charlie Chan in Honolulu is the plot. It's just not that interesting. And, in infuriating fashion, Chan's solution to the mystery is a cheat. There's no way for the audience to have figured out the solution based on the clues presented. It takes a last minute piece of evidence to unmask the killer.
6/10
"If it bleeds, we can kill it.", 12 February 2008
Watching Predator tonight, I was reminded of what an awesome decade the 1980s were for mindless, over-the-top, fun action. Predator is easily one of my favorites from the decade. Over the past few years, I've re-watched a number of my old 1980s favorites and none of them have withstood the test of time as well as Predator. The movie quite simply has it all – the guns, the explosions, the biceps, the jungle setting, the quips (used sparingly, thank goodness), the blood, and the unstoppable enemy. But most importantly, it's got Arnold. In my mind, Schwarzenegger IS 80s action.
The plot isn't overly complicated or doesn't get in the way. It's there to set up the action. The movie begins with a band of mercenaries going into an undisclosed Latin American country to rescue a couple of hostages. But there are more than the enemy guerrillas in this jungle. A strange being from another world is using this particular jungle as a base for his hunting expedition. His prey – humans.
Predator has held up over the years because of the superb and unrelenting action. It's a testosterone overload. In addition to Schwarzenegger, guys like Jesse Ventura, Carl Weathers, and Bill Duke fit nicely into the jungle setting. Every imaginable hand-held type military weapon is used at some point in the movie. No scene illustrates this quite like the one where Arnold and crew fire indiscriminately into the jungle as limbs, brush, and entire trees are knocked down from the sheer volume of their fire. Awesome stuff! Another big plus is the actual creature. The Predator design is fantastic. From his glowing eyes and blood to his use of camouflage to his array of weapons, he's one bad dude. I also appreciate the fact that a lot of time wasn't devoted to the alien's back-story. He is what he is. The only real weakness I can come up with in the entire movie is the acting. But really, who watches a movie like Predator expecting to see Oscar caliber performances?
8/10
