After the debacle of Star Trek: The Motion Picture the people in charge of the franchise wanted to make some changes for the next film and brought back a villain from an episode from the TV show – Khan Noonien Singh. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is still held up as one of the great Star Trek films (and a great film in general) and as it will be forty years old this year it is worth going through its greatness.

What’s Going On?

James T. Kirk is now an admiral and is potentially moving away from active command. Far away across the galaxy, a Federation ship encounters a colony of genetically engineered superhumans that Kirk marooned there years before. In the years since the planet has undergone catastrophic changes and is a barren wasteland. The leader of these superhumans, Khan, nurses an all-consuming hatred for Kirk and wants revenge. Khan takes over the Federation ship and sets out to fight Kirk, luring him into a fight by stealing top-secret Federation technology: the Genesis Device.

The Cast

The full Star Trek cast is in the film: William Shatner as Kirk, Leonard Nimoy as Spock, Kirstie Alley joins the cat as Saavik, a young Vulcan officer and Ricardo Montalban reprises his role as Khan. The Star Trek cast are on usual form, with Shatner and Nimoy anchoring everything with their characters unusual friendship but Montalban shines as Khan. He is a charismatic villain, chewing the scenery in great style and enjoying every minute of it.

Does It Work?

Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan is the great Star Trek film; with the only contender being Star Trek: First Contact. The film plays out a classic story of revenge mixed with starship battles, mind-controlling worms and some incredibly memorable scenes. Khan and Kirk seem to be engaged in a duel, each trying to outwit the other, tricks within tricks and both getting in good shots.

The crew of the Enterprise are older. Kirk looking down the barrel of a desk job and none of them are the daring young crew they once were. Kirk who was the epitome of an action-based captain struggles to define himself when no longer adventuring around the galaxy. Kirk and the crew race to get the Genesis Device back as well as rescue people significant to their captain.

The Battle

The starship battle between the Enterprise and the Reliant (Khan’s ship) is a fantastic space fight unlike any other. The two damaged ships enter a nebula and try to outmanoeuvre each other, it is not a fast-paced dogfight but this slow dance of trying to get an advantageous position. Obviously, the special effects are decades old but still have a charm and distinct look to them.

The Ending

In the closing minutes of the film Khan has triggered the Genesis device with the goal of taking down the Enterprise with him. Kirk et al can’t escape as in the recent battle the warp drive has been damaged. Spock goes to Engineering, steps into the reactor and fixes the warp drive, knowing that such exposure will undoubtedly kill him. Kirk arrives to see Spock before he dies and shares one of the most memorable exchanges in all of Star Trek containing the iconic lines – “the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few” and “I have been, and always shall, be your friend”. It is perhaps one of the “best” deaths in cinema.

“How we deal with death is at least as important as how we deal with life, wouldn’t you say?” – Kirk

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is a great sci-fi film and the quintessential classic Star Trek movie.

Rating:

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post Retro Review: Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Synopsis

Former police officer turned bounty hunter Jack Walsh (Robert De Niro) is offered $100,000 to retrieve mob accountant Jonathan Mardukas (Charles Grodin) when he skips bail. Unfortunately, rival bounty hunter Marvin Dorfler (John Ashton), FBI agent Alonzo Mosely (Yaphet Kotto), and mob boss Jimmy Serrano (Dennis Farina), and his cronies are also after Jonathan. With his deadline being midnight in five days can Walsh get Jonathan from New York to Los Angeles in time to claim his reward? And can they make it there alive?

What Did I Like?

This film’s writing is its biggest strength. George Gallo’s script contains many brilliant comedic and dramatic moments. Like when Jack reveals why he quit the police force or when he and Jonathan steal money from a bar by pretending to be FBI agents. The main thing that makes everything work though is the interesting, distinct characters at the story’s centre. Everyone here feels unique because of their motivations, personal histories, and the way they speak. Which makes the narrative feel more alive than your typical action-comedy.

This is further helped by great performances. Unsurprisingly Robert De Niro is outstanding as Jack. De Niro makes him feel like a character who really knows the rough side of life. Charles Grodin is also compelling as the quiet accountant who slowly becomes more daring. But it’s Midnight Run’s supporting cast that truly shines. Actors like Joe Pantoliano, John Ashton, Yaphet Kotto, Richard Foronjy, and Robert Miranda all get big laugh-out-loud moments. However, the standout is Dennis Farina whose every malicious line as Jimmy Serrano is solid gold.

Lastly, the production has a lot to appreciate. Danny Elfman’s atmospheric and exciting score is incredibly underrated. With the main theme being a quintessential 1980s action backing track. And the directing really enhances the action. Whether that be through the fantastic incorporation of the actors with practical effects. The camera’s placement alongside the performers during stunts. Or things as simple as lingering on the character’s reaction to pain. It all gives the action more weight and increases the suspense by investing the audience in our lead’s safety.

What Did I Not Like?

The movie doesn’t start out strong. We are introduced to Jack by watching him transport Monroe Bouchet (John Toles-Bey) to prison where the police are incredibly hostile towards him. It feels quite meanspirited. Considering other criminals are depicted more humanely Monroe’s treatment seems out of place. It’s definitely not the best way to introduce the main character. The film’s beginning is also largely quite boring. With the characters initially feeling like tired archetypes reciting exposition (though they later become more vibrant). Which also makes much of the early comedy falter.

Furthermore, while the movie is generally funny not all the jokes land. This is because some of the jokes just consist of characters swearing or shouting rather than using comedic timing or build-up to create humour. 

Additionally, some plot elements feel lazy or unnecessary. This is particularly true regarding the inclusion of Jack’s estranged family. The mentioning of Jack’s family illustrates how far away he is from his previous life. But their physical inclusion only acts as a cheap way to elicit further audience sympathy. And the duo being forced off the plane because of Jonathan’s panic attack seems hugely contrived. Especially considering how Jack routinely knocks people out. It feels like a very forced progression of events. Which can take some out of the experience.

Verdict

Although its opening has several issues, some parts feel unneeded or lazy and not all the comedy hits its mark, Midnight Run is still thoroughly enjoyable. This is thanks to its mostly great writing, which gives every character a distinct personality and has some inspired moments of both comedy and drama, the fantastic performances, particularly by the supporting players, an underrated soundtrack, and well-directed action. It’s definitely a run worth taking.

Rating: (3.5 / 5)

Also Read: The Best Action Films of the Decade (2010 – 2019)

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post Retro Review: Midnight Run appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Set in 1980, the film gives us a voyeuristic look into the life of Richard Collier, a successful playwright portrayed by Christopher Reeve (Superman, Deathtrap). Collier goes on an unscheduled getaway prompted by a bout of writer’s block, ending up at the Grand Hotel on Mackinac Island. Wandering the hotel, Richard stumbles upon a small museum of hotel artifacts and… this is where the movie really begins. We watch as Richard is drawn— almost against his will— to a photograph that changes his life: A portrait of actress Elise McKenna, played by Jane Seymour (Live and Let Die, Dr. Quinn).

From that moment, Richard is captivated by Ms. McKenna and her Mona Lisa smile. Finding the picture was taken sixty years earlier, Collier goes down a rabbit hole of research. He learns all he can about Elise, each clue deepening his obsession, hinting at an implausible truth: Somehow, in the distant past, the two had known each other. This sets Richard on a quest to see if time travel is possible, as he is determined to achieve it.

( Major SPOILERS ahead )

Locking himself in his room, he dons an early twentieth century suit, and cuts his hair to match. He spends the better part of the day listening to a recording of his own voice, trying to convince himself that it is 1912, the last time Elise McKenna was seen at the hotel. After several hours, he realizes the recording– made with technology that hadn’t existed in 1912– was the very thing preventing him from transporting to the past.

Removing all reminders of the present, Richard again attempts to will himself back in time– and it works. He finds himself in 1912, exactly as he had imagined.

This is a rare moment in movie history, more fairytale than science fiction, where time travel is not achieved via wristwatches or cars or phone booths: It’s more like Dorothy, caught in a tornado, carried off into the Land of Oz.

Collier proceeds to find Elise, overcomes her initial rebuttals, and convinces her of his sincerity of heart. In the span of three days, they go on a horse & carriage ride, share a romantic afternoon in a rowboat (anyone else getting ‘Little Mermaid’ vibes, here?), and bond as only movie lovers can. The only obstacle to their newfound happiness is Elise’s manager, William Robinson, portrayed by Christopher Plummer (Sound of Music, Doctor Parnassus). Regarding himself as her protector, he opposes the match in every way. He even has Collier attacked by thugs. Still, Richard and Elise find their way back to each other, Elise turning her back on her life as an actress, and Robinson.

But just as the couple start to make plans, Collier accidentally pulls something from his pocket that reminds him of the future: A 1979 penny. In one of the most heartbreaking moments I’ve ever seen, Richard is pulled away from his love. In a scene extremely reminiscent of “the sunken place” in Jordan Peele’s Get Out, Richard watches Elise fade into the distance, as we’re left with her screams of abject terror.

My Thoughts

Each side of me has her own thoughts. Here are a few:

The Feminist finds Richard’s obsessive desperation insulting: A successful writer, fresh off a breakup, runs from his problems, then promptly fixates on an unobtainable pretty face. Richard essentially time-stalks a dead woman, then applies emotional pressure until she responds the way he’d like. That’s not love. Not a healthy one at least. It’s also ridiculous that she gives up her career and her father figure for a three-day love affair.

The Activist is concerned that there were apparently no Black people in 1980. There didn’t even appear to be any Negro servants in 1912. #Erasure

The Romantic & The Christopher Reeve Fangirl feel like he was the only person that could sell this character on screen. There are moments of such breathtaking sincerity that they make me believe in time travel, magic, and destiny. No one could sell love and heartbreak like Christopher Reeve. Just watch the Lois Lane death scene in Superman: The Movie. But there are also moments of inappropriate camp that jolt me out of the story.

Plummer, as always, is menacing, charming, regal, and believable. Seymour puts in an excellent performance, as well. For me, however, Reeve is the breath and heartbeat of this film.

Yes, this movie is a mixed bag, depending on what values you bring to the viewing, but all in all, I think it is a semi-polished gem: It may not sparkle, but it’s priceless.

Also Read: The Film Fan’s Guide To Time Travel

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post Somewhere In Time: A Tragic Fairytale appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Synopsis

A group of aliens called Nerdlucks come to earth and try to kidnap the Looney Tunes (who live underground) to rescue their boss Swackhammer’s failing theme park, Moron Mountain. Outmatched technologically, the Looney Tunes, challenge the aliens to a basketball game to earn their freedom, expecting an easy victory. But the aliens steal the talent of Earth’s best basketball players, becoming the intimidating Monstars. The Tune’s only hope is to get Michael Jordan (playing himself) to coach and play with them. But with Michael having retired from basketball to play baseball professionally does he still have what it takes to save the Tunes?

What Did I Like?

Space Jam’s best elements are its animation and direction. The animated characters move smoothly and have a great level of energy that feels in keeping with the classic Looney Tunes aesthetic. In addition, their incorporation into live-action settings along with the real actor’s interaction with the animated world feels natural and well done. The eye-lines, framing, use of props, and stage actions gives everyone a feeling of presence and weight in the world, which helps audiences buy into the world being shown.

Another positive is the voice acting which gives every animated character a distinct feel. Billy West is suitably self-assured as Bugs Bunny, Dee Bradley Baker shines as the selfish Daffy Duck, and Kath Soucie is certainly memorable as the sultry Lola Bunny. The voices of the Monstars add a real level of danger to proceedings with their intimidating and maliciously evil tones and Danny DeVito feels truly slimy as Swackhammer.

Then there’s the delightful soundtrack. Full of RnB and hip-hop tracks which are undoubtedly endearing to those who love 90s music. But the subject and emotions communicated by each song fits and adds to the scenes they are used in. And of course, the Quad City DJ’s theme song is infectious; remaining permanently ingrained in many people’s heads to this day.

What Did I Not Like?

Space Jam’s story is incredibly underdeveloped and doesn’t seem to know who it’s aimed at. The excuse to involve the Looney Tunes in the story feels flimsy at best (Swackhammer sees them on TV and decides to make them his star attraction. Why exactly?). Michael’s story also feels lazy. Despite the initial setup of Michael leaving basketball to play baseball the movie spends little to no time with him away from basketball or doubting his ability when the Looney Tunes ask him to play. Thus, it lacks any impact and makes the human’s story feel mostly pointless. With everything else being a cookie-cutter, cliched underdog story. Tonally the film is also inconsistent. With the Looney Tunes’ child-friendly over-the-top slapstick and funny voices contrasting awfully with long stretches showcasing humourless sports drama and Michael’s private/business life.

The human characters also lack interesting dimensions. The actors are written as either bland versions of themselves or stock characters. Which quickly becomes boring. The acting doesn’t help. Wayne Knight aside, all the human actors are clearly putting in no effort. And the athletes featured in the film are terrible at acting. The worst offender is undoubtedly Michael Jordan who just doesn’t have any discernible personality or charisma to latch onto as the main character. Because no characters make an impression and the lack of enthusiasm or talent from the human stars is palpable it also diminishes most of the attempts at comedy. Making large portions of the film a chore to watch.

Finally, because the film’s story, characters and much of its humour fails to engage viewers the blatant product placement for McDonald’s, Nike, Gatorade etc. and the use of the film as a branding exercise for Warner Bros animation properties and a vehicle for NBA players becomes more difficult to stomach. Contrary to films like the Lego Movie, which showed it’s possible to make great movies from merchandising opportunities, this movie feels uninterested in being anything more than a commercial. Which sincerely sours the whole enterprise.

Verdict

Space Jam’s animation and direction which mixes animation with live-action remains incredible. The voice actors are distinct, and the great soundtrack really enhances the viewing experience.

But the poor story, which doesn’t seem to know its audience combined with lazily drawn or stock human characters and mostly bad performances (Michael Jordan being the worst) makes it impossible to invest substantively in the action. While also making many jokes flounder, and the films aggravating use as a vehicle for product placement and branding harder to ignore.

Ultimately, Space Jam doesn’t hold up without the rose-tinted glasses.

Rating: (1.5 / 5)

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post Retro Review: Space Jam appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

86 years ago King Kong, the most famous movie monster of all time, made his debut. Since then his first movie has become permanently ingrained in popular culture. Even people who’ve never seen it know the film’s story and several famous quotes. But as we have seen, the influential don’t always stand the test of time.

So join us for our retro review of King Kong as we see just how well it holds up all these years later.

Synopsis

Film director Carl Denham (Robert Armstrong) is looking to make the ultimate movie to silence his critics and please audiences worldwide. To do this he takes his film crew and leading lady, Ann Darrow (Fay Wray) to the uncharted Skull Island to find the mythical monster Kong.

Upon reaching their destination the island natives kidnap Ann and offer her to Kong, who carries her off into the jungle. Facing many prehistoric threats the crew eventually retrieve Ann, capture Kong and decide to take him back to civilization.

Once back in New York, Denham puts Kong on display as the eighth wonder of the world. But Kong breaks free, steals Ann and begins wreaking havoc upon the city. Before finally climbing the Empire State Building in one of the most iconic movie endings of all time.

What did I like?

The best part of King Kong is its sheer spectacle. Produced for $672,000 (only $13 million today), King Kong delivers a spectacle that still puts modern movies to shame. The production design and sets are fantastic, giving the film a grand scale. Skull Island’s design is incredibly detailed, feels very lived-in and full of rich history. And effectively contrasts the soulless concrete jungle of New York.

Then there are the iconic effects. The mixture of stop motion, miniatures, full-scale animatronics, and other processes invented for the film, created something film audiences had never seen before. A living breathing world, full of incredible creatures that appeared to actually interact with the cast. Some parts may look a bit ropey today, but the sheer effort it took to realize these sequences and the enthusiasm present make it impossible to not appreciate.

This movie also proved that special effects could be used to realize a story, not just stunning visuals. Kong is one of cinemas best characters. Without a word spoken, we know exactly what Kong is feeling because of his extensive expressive facial animations. Transforming a simple model into a three-dimensional character. And his arc from a mindless animal who sees Ann as a trophy to seeing her as something more is touching and tragic.

Denham also proves to be a compelling character. Though he sees everyone around him as a tool to achieve his ambitions his passion to make art that entertains everyone and his dry sense of humour makes him an enjoyable presence. Despite his actions.  

And Max Steiner’s sweeping orchestral score is incredible. Contributing to the grand scale of the production and adding an operatic edge which gives the dramatic moments great weight. But while Kong’s iconic status is unquestionable, a few blemishes have emerged over time.

What did I not like?

Now, of course, there are the blemishes inherent with films from this era that may impact some modern viewers’ enjoyment of the film. Namely the stereotypical depictions of women as solely damsels to be rescued or objects of affection for the men. And slightly racist depictions of other cultures.

But then there’s also the incredibly cheesy overwritten dialogue and performances, which make the film hard to take seriously. The macho posturing, overegged similes, and hammy New York accents make the film feel like a parody of itself. Resulting in the characters looking more like caricatures than human beings. This isn’t helped by most of the human characters being boring without much depth. Nowhere is this more evident than in the romance between Ann and John Driscoll (Bruce Cabot). It never feels natural. The actors have no chemistry, their dialogue is cringe-inducing and their romance only really serves to further the plot. Instead of being something that helps the characters grow and become compelling. Making the movie a slog until Kong shows up.

Finally, because King Kong’s themes, iconography, and other elements have been so thoroughly reused and deconstructed by other films over the years revisiting the original now can feel underwhelming. While the movie remains important historically, it has largely dwarfed by what it inspired. Ultimately rendering the movie itself as somewhat clichéd as a result. Though this is largely the fault of popular culture, not the film itself.

Verdict

King Kong is a movie that has inspired generations of film lovers and for good reason. With a rousing score, two engaging characters and incredible effects, that required so much time, effort and the invention of new techniques to accomplish, it is a wonderful example of what cinematic fantasy is capable of.

But some elements of the plot do feel forced for the sake of drama. The acting, dialogue, and depictions of certain genders and races are quite dated and may affect some modern audiences enjoyment of the film. And the film itself can be considered somewhat cliché at this point.

Ultimately as a piece of film history Kong is required viewing. It is a piece of entertaining genre filmmaking which though entrenched in the flaws of it’s time helped to pave the way for the blockbusters of today. And that is worth seeing. Warts and all.

Rating: (3 / 5)

King Kong is available on the BBC IPlayer service until 30th November 2019.

Also Read: For Your Consideration: Sci-Fi, Comedy & Oscar Snubs

The post Retro Review: King Kong (1933) appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.