Tag: Thriller

Blade Runner 2049 (2017) Review

Director: Denis Villeneuve

Genre(s): Drama, Science-Fiction, Thriller

Runtime: 164 minutes

MPAA Rating: R

IMDb Page

Set thirty years after the events of Blade Runner (1982), this sci-fi sequel was met with a very enthusiastic response upon its release. Here, a “blade runner” (a futuristic cop who specializes in tracking down rogue synthesized humans) simply known as “K” (Ryan Gosling) uncovers a conspiracy involving the potentiality of the “replicants” (synthetic humans) he hunts to reproduce, sending him off on a journey to locate Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), the now-missing blade runner from the first film. It can’t reach the majestic heights of the original, but I think that this thriller can sit comfortably beside it.

The first thing you may notice about Blade Runner 2049 is how it is about forty-five minutes longer than the first one. It does have a tendency to be a bit more longwinded than the 1982 flick, but it’s not particularly noticeable. I do think that there is more physical action in the sequel, but not by much. Great cinematography can be found here (I love that shot with the fire’s embers flying into the air), yet the overall picture lacks the aching melancholy of the first installment. I just don’t feel the grit and grime as much here.

Ridley Scott, who directed Blade Runner, does not return, with the work being ably helmed by Denis Villeneuve. Harrison Ford, however, does make a comeback, even if it sometimes seems like he’s just doing a version of his grumpy self. Still, the film does light up with his incredible screen presence. He’s older and more grizzled, but he’s still Harrison Ford. The rest of the cast works well, although Jared Leto, as sinister CEO Niander Wallace, feels underutilized.

It’s hard to imagine Blade Runner 2049 being an unqualified success in a vacuum. It needs the 1982 original to lean on. I suppose that makes 2049 the lesser of the two productions. Still, this sequel has a twisty-turny plot that will keep you guessing to the very end and perhaps even make you question reality (just a little bit). If you loved the 1982 movie, I can’t see much harm in watching its sequel, as long as you keep in mind that it’s not going to be as mesmerizing as the first flick.

My rating is 7 outta 10.

Blade Runner (1982) Review

Director: Ridley Scott

Genre(s): Drama, Science-Fiction, Thriller

Runtime: 117 minutes

MPAA Rating: R

IMDb Page

According to Wikipedia, seven cuts of the science-fiction classic Blade Runner exist. What follows is a review of the version dubbed “The Final Cut,” which is the only edition where director Ridley Scott had complete creative control. Set in a dystopian, urban future, a specialized police officer known as a “blade runner,” Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), must hunt down a group of killer synthesized humans who are almost impossible to differentiate from normal humans. Does this acclaimed movie live up to the hype?

Blade Runner is simply one of the most visually dazzling films ever released. The special effects and set design are astonishing. The rain-swept, neon-lit city that the picture takes place in is like a darker, dirtier, more menacing version of the urban jungle from Metropolis (1927). This visionary flick has some serious nocturnal energy, which works in its favor. The “Tears in Rain” monologue lives up to its lofty reputation. The musical score from Vangelis is melancholic (like the production as a whole) and atmospheric. Blade Runner can feel a little cold at first, but, by the time the end credits roll, you’re glad that you watched it.

Going into this excellent work, one shouldn’t expect an action movie. Yes, there are a couple of gripping action scenes and plenty of sumptuous visual effects, but this is really a neo-noir in a sci-fi setting. Moody lighting, detective work, and run-down locations are the names of the game. Philosophically deep, this thriller delves into the morals and ethics of creating life and the responsibilities creators have towards the created. Personally, I think these issues were handled more interestingly in the horror flick Island of Lost Souls (1932) and the sci-fi drama A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001), though they’re not boring here by any means.

The reception of Blade Runner was mixed upon its initial release. However, as different cuts of the film have emerged, it’s become regarded as a must-watch movie. The insane art direction and thick atmosphere make it one of the sci-fi greats, and the presence of Harrison Ford certainly doesn’t hurt it. My take is that if you don’t expect a full-bore action extravaganza, you’ll probably end up enjoying it considerably. Also, what’s up with those creepy robots in J.F. Sebastian’s (William Sanderson) apartment? Why aren’t those talked about more?

My rating is 8 outta 10.

Inland Empire (2006) Review

Director: David Lynch

Genre(s): Fantasy, Mystery, Thriller

Runtime: 180 minutes

MPAA Rating: R

IMDb Page

Inland Empire just might be director David Lynch at his Lynchiest. Take note that I didn’t say “at his best.” This surreal, three-hour endurance test starts off well enough before letting its stream-of-conscious storytelling get the better of it. The plot, if there is one, is about married actress Nikki Grace (Laura Dern) getting a leading role in a Hollywood romance film (which may have a cursed production) and possibly developing feelings for her leading man, Devon Berk (Justin Theroux).

It’s not really about the story, though, as this is largely a mood piece. It soon becomes a dreamlike mish-mash of random scenes that test the patience. For a surrealist feature of this length, I think David Lynch dropped the ball by mostly focusing on vignettes of people walking through doorways or talking to each other. Yes, there’s a good scare or two, but the movie is largely forgettable due to its occasionally boring set-pieces. Compare and contrast this with the oneiric masterpiece Un Chien Andalou (1929), which packed more haunting imagery into sixteen minutes than this one did into three hours.

Dream logic is strong with this one, and the mood radiates marital anxiety and insecurity. Don’t develop those romantic feelings for your co-leading actor, or you’ll just end up another “bad girl!” The iconic image of Inland Empire is perhaps that of the eerie sitcom featuring people in rabbit costumes, complete with laugh-track. These scenes are some of the best in the picture, but they appear too few and far between to have much of an impact on one’s viewing experience.

I like the idea behind Inland Empire: three hours of Lynch experimenting with surrealist, elliptical storytelling. The problem is that it’s too talky to be effective. Dreams are fast-paced things, not drawn-out conversations between several people. The imagery should’ve been more striking than just a guy standing next to a house with a lightbulb in his mouth. I can’t recommend this, even to fans of quirky, dreamlike cinema. There are better movies of that style out there.

My rating is 4 outta 10.

The Car (1977) Review

Director: Elliot Silverstein

Genre(s): Horror, Thriller

Runtime: 96 minutes

MPAA Rating: PG

IMDb Page

Smash together the two Steven Spielberg-directed classics Duel (1971) and Jaws (1975) and you end up with something resembling 1977’s The Car. This is one of those cozy, drive-in-movie-style horror pictures that’s become a bit of a cult classic over the years. The story’s about a mysterious car that keeps killing people in a remote Western American town. Pretty soon, residents are coming up with supernatural explanations for the series of murders.

The Car works, in my opinion, because of its mixture of kitschy silliness and earnest charm. It’s about a roaming, killer automobile, but – golly gee-whiz – the cast and crew put enough effort and sincerity into the production to make it fun. It can get pretty cheesy, but you root for the movie’s success nonetheless. It’s one of those horror flicks that you can watch with just about anybody who’s old enough to handle that genre.

This flick contains some satisfactory kills and scares. Some are better than others, but the body count is just the right size. It’s not so low that you feel cheated, but it’s not so high that the production becomes mean-spiritedly apocalyptic. The special effects are about what you’d expect from a work of this film’s stature, but there is a four-for-one killing that will bowl you over. I’m not sure if it’s the coolest thing I’ve ever seen or the dumbest. You get that vibe a lot during The Car.

Okay, this isn’t the film you’re looking for if you just want a cheap horror film to laugh at and mock (check out Plan 9 from Outer Space [1959] or Halloween: Resurrection [2002] if an itch of that nature needs to be scratched). It’s competent enough to not be a laugh riot, but it’s still too preposterous to take completely seriously. Many movies would wilt if they found themselves in such a predicament, yet The Car still manages to entertain an audience. Apparently, a sequel – The Car: Road to Revenge (2019) – was made a few decades after the original.

My rating is 7 outta 10.

Blue Velvet (1986) Review

Director: David Lynch

Genre(s): Crime, Drama, Mystery, Thriller

Runtime: 120 minutes

MPAA Rating: R

IMDb Page

One day, resident of American suburbia Jeffrey Beaumont (Kyle MacLachlan) finds a decomposing, severed human ear in a field, setting him off on an investigation to find out whose it is. It’s a set-up to a wildly popular mystery-thriller, but this one failed to get under my skin the way it has for countless other viewers. I appreciate director David Lynch’s style, but Blue Velvet is one of his more forgettable feature films in my experience.

This semi-surreal thriller is set in a weird version of suburbia that seems uncanny. Something’s “off.” There’s an undercurrent of melancholy. Blue Velvet is all about the sinister mysteries that could be lurking under the clean veneer of your hometown, just waiting to be discovered if you only wanted to find them. This film dares to explore the dark corners of its community, and the results are somewhat disappointing. It’s not a bad movie, it’s just not terribly memorable.

The best part of this work is Dennis Hopper’s unpredictable, foul-mouthed, gas-huffing villain, Frank Booth. However, the motion picture could have benefited from some more surrealism, in my opinion. For a David Lynch flick, it almost feels too “normal” at times. Sure, there’s that classic Lynchian sense of unease, but I think I might’ve preferred the movie if it was Eraserhead Moves to the Suburbs. Many, perhaps most, will disagree with this take, but I’ll stand by it for now.

I like the ideas that went into Blue Velvet, but the execution didn’t thrill me. It does have all the right elements of a crackerjack thriller. It’s a respectable neo-noir as it stands now, but I just don’t enjoy it as much as most people seem to. This picture is frequently hailed as a masterpiece, and I can sort of see why, yet I can’t really agree with the consensus. It’s too odd to be a conventional mystery feature, yet not crazy enough to be a full-on David Lynch “freak-show” extravaganza.

My rating is 6 outta 10.

Thunder in the East (1952) Review

Director: Charles Vidor

Genre(s): Adventure, Drama, Romance, Thriller, War

Runtime: 97 minutes

MPAA Rating: Not Rated

IMDb Page

Here’s an adventure-drama that tries to cash in on the violence that took place on the Indian subcontinent following its independence from Great Britain. Shortly after India gains its freedom, American arms dealer Steve Gibbs (Alan Ladd) tries to sell some weapons to the maharajah (Charles Lung) of a remote Indian state, but gets involved in local intrigue involving a warlord, Newah Khan (Philip Bourneuf), who may be plotting an attack on the maharajah’s palace. Boy, did Alan Ladd corner the market on these mercenary-who-secretly-has-a-heart-of-gold roles or what?

Thunder in the East has a great idea for a story, but the slow-burn execution doesn’t do it any favors. Instead of ratcheting up the tension related to the warlord who wants the maharajah dead, the film spends a great deal of time juggling a romantic triangle. Alan Ladd is the star of the show, but Charles Boyer gets the opportunity to play an interesting supporting character: Prime Minister Singh. He’s the real power behind the local leader and is a very strict pacifist, doing his best to keep weapons off of his property. Yes, it’s a White guy playing an Indian, but it’s nice to see a strong Indian character with a real moral backbone.

The action’s fairly limited in Thunder in the East, despite its pulpy, sensationalistic title. A punch is thrown here, a pot-shot is taken at the maharajah’s palace there. It really isn’t until the last few seconds of the runtime that we get some carnage with a respectable body count. I won’t give away the details for spoiler reasons, but let’s just say that this finale is somewhat preposterous, but still satisfying and it ties everything up with a nice bow.

This movie is a little disappointing, but that doesn’t make it bad. Alan Ladd’s very much in his wheelhouse here and the ending’s memorable. It’s a fair-enough take on the last-stand war picture, so if you like flicks like The Alamo (1960), 55 Days at Peking (1963), Zulu (1964), and Khartoum (1966), you should consider looking into Thunder in the East. Of course, it’s not as good as those films, but it’s still a watchable, relatively low-budget alternative.

My rating is 6 outta 10.

Battle Royale (2000) Review

Director: Kinji Fukasaku

Genre(s): Action, Thriller

Runtime: 114 minutes (standard cut), 122 minutes (director’s cut)

MPAA Rating: Not Rated

IMDb Page

The 2000 Japanese action-thriller Battle Royale (originally titled “Batoru Rowaiaru” in Japanese) could be seen as an important precursor to the Hunger Games franchise. Set in a dystopian future, a class of Japanese middle-schoolers are transported to a remote island where they must fight to the death, with only one survivor, as part of a new disciplinary program. This style-over-substance bloodbath has been a lightning rod for controversy since its release. Despite provoking strong reactions from many people, both negative and positive, my take on the flick is more muted.

Playing out like a live-action anime, I think Battle Royale stumbles a bit because of its apparent failure to give more depth to its characters. There isn’t a significant build-up to the deathmatch, so we don’t get much of a chance to understand the forgettable characters. It does make the work fast-paced, but I had a hard time becoming attached to any of the inhabitants of the movie’s universe. The easiest way to tell who was who was by looking at what weapon they were given (since every “contestant” was a handed a different one).

The bright spot in all of this is Takeshi Kitano, playing Kitano, the villainous, vengeful teacher. He’s definitely the most memorable aspect of the film, bringing some surrealism and dark humor to the proceedings. Believe it or not, Takeshi Kitano actually hosted the game show Takeshi’s Castle, which was brought to the United States with hysterically-funny alternate dubbing and called Most Extreme Elimination Challenge. In this last-man-standing TV show, Kitano’s character was renamed “Vic Romano.” Good to know!

Ultimately, I find Battle Royale to be somewhat confusing. Who exactly are these characters? Who is the target demographic for this production? What is this picture even trying to say? I mean, we all know that totalitarian governments are bad already. Takeshi Kitano’s presence makes it watchable, but why should I settle for “watchable?” Creative idea for a plot aside, I can only get so much enjoyment out of a video-gamey movie about junior high school students battling to the death on an island.

My rating is 6 outta 10.

Cape Fear (1991) Review

Director: Martin Scorsese

Genre(s): Crime, Drama, Thriller

Runtime: 128 minutes

MPAA Rating: R

IMDb Page

The original Cape Fear (1962) is a terrific movie, but director Martin Scorsese sent a remake to theaters in 1991. So, which one is better? Before we get into that, let’s go over the plot. A deeply disturbed rapist who was recently released from prison, Max Cady (Robert De Niro), stalks the lawyer who unsuccessfully defended him in court, Sam Bowden (Nick Nolte), and his family. Okay, I won’t leave you in suspense, the 1962 one is superior, but the 1991 version is still worth watching.

The newer release of Cape Fear is, interestingly enough, much pulpier and more unsubtle than the original. The direction is histrionic and in-your-face, making you wonder if Martin Scorsese was trying to be funny. It’s almost comically over-the-top at times. I’m not sure if “operatic” is a word I’d normally use to describe a crime-thriller about a rapist stalking a lawyer and his family. To add to the movie’s heightened energy, the loud-and-proud musical themes from the 1962 original, composed by Bernard Herrmann, are employed here, as adopted by Elmer Bernstein.

The 1991 Cape Fear adds traces of moral ambiguity that weren’t present in the original. Unfortunately, this only detracts somewhat from the tension, as it’s scarier when the villain is interrupting a picture-perfect lifestyle of the heroes, as seen in the 1962 version. Robert De Niro’s bad guy’s characterization is all over the place. At least, three of the actors from the older one – Gregory Peck (as Lee Heller, a slimy lawyer), Robert Mitchum (playing Elgart, a policeman), and Martin Balsam (portraying a judge) – make cameo appearances.

Scorsese’s version of the story ups the ante (including in the violence department), but at what cost? It’s also the longer film, making it seem less taut than the 1962 one. However, it’s still a compelling thriller with some memorable scenes. It would probably be more fondly remembered if it wasn’t riding the coattails of the original, directed by J. Lee Thompson. It’s not essential viewing for film buffs, but they probably won’t regret watching it once or twice.

My rating is 7 outta 10.

Cape Fear (1962) Review

Director: J. Lee Thompson

Genre(s): Crime, Drama, Thriller

Runtime: 106 minutes

MPAA Rating: Not Rated

IMDb Page

The 1962 classic Cape Fear (which was remade in 1991 with the same title) is one of those thrillers that wasn’t directed by Alfred Hitchcock, but easily feels like it could’ve been (another one is Mirage [1965], which also stars Gregory Peck). An ex-con named Max Cady (Robert Mitchum), who just got out of prison, stalks the lawyer, Sam Bowden (Gregory Peck), who put him behind bars and his family. It could be the docks or the “bowling center,” Max Cady is sure to be right behind them.

This modern-feeling crime-drama was directed by J. Lee Thompson, who had previously helmed the World War II action-adventure masterpiece The Guns of Navarone (1961) and would later direct – erm – Death Wish 4: The Crackdown (1987). His leadership of the project is rock-solid. Cape Fear is a tense, tightly-wound movie, with moody black-and-white cinematography and a booming, delightfully unsubtle musical score from Bernard Herrmann (who frequently collaborated with Alfred Hitchcock).

One of the best aspects of this picture is its performances. It’s a battle of wills (that’s threatening to turn physical) between Gregory Peck’s upright integrity and Robert Mitchum’s sexual menace. The latter is truly an animalistic force of nature here. Watching him crash the Bowden family’s idyllic lifestyle is disturbing. Good supporting roles are provided by Martin Balsam as Mark Dutton, the police chief, and Telly Savalas as Charles Sievers, a private detective.

The 1962 version of Cape Fear is a tremendous thriller in the vein of Psycho (1960)-era Alfred Hitchcock. Intense from the get-go, the movie succeeds on Mitchum’s character’s unpredictability and Gregory Peck’s character’s willingness to go to extremes to defend himself and his family. It carefully escalates tension and excitement without feeling pulpy (not that pulp is a bad thing by any means). You have to find a copy of this one to watch.

My rating is 8 outta 10.

Halloween Kills (2021) Review

Director: David Gordon Green

Genre(s): Horror, Thriller

Runtime: 105 minutes (theatrical cut), 109 minutes (extended cut)

MPAA Rating: R

IMDb Page

Fear not, gore-hounds, for Halloween Kills is a horror movie that lives up to its title. This sequel to Halloween (2018) goes all-out in the violence department, making the 2018 film look restrained in the process. Following the events in that flick, it turns out that mass-killer Michael Myers (James Jude Courtney) is still alive (surprise!) and about to continue his murderous rampage, as a vigilante mob forms to stop him. If you don’t know the routine by now, then I don’t know what to tell you.

This splatterfest doesn’t do much to advance the story of the respected Halloween franchise. The plot basically comes to a standstill to allow good, ol’ Michael Myers to slaughter a shit-ton of people. He’s essentially a horror movie John Rambo at this point, tearing through waves of people with what looks like relative ease. If you just want to watch people die in gruesome ways, you’ll get your money’s worth. The relentless blood and guts almost makes Halloween Kills feel like the long-lost sibling to the Rob Zombie Halloween atrocities.

This slasher picture introduces us to a great deal of characters, which can only mean one thing: a lot of expendable folks are going to end up pushing up daisies. That’s just the way these productions work, I guess. Halloween Kills attempts to make a statement on the nature of vigilante justice, as the inhabitants of the terror-stricken town give in to their baser instincts and try to ensure that “Evil dies tonight!” It’s a questionable move to add depth to the proceedings, but I can forgive it.

Unfortunately, the character of Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) spends most of her screentime cooped up in the hospital (what is this, Halloween II [1981]?). Still, this film passes the was-I-not-bored? test. It may not have advanced the story much (if at all), but it nonetheless manages to be reasonably frightening. Halloween Kills is not one of the better entries into the series. It can’t approach the classiness of Halloween (1978), the suspense of Halloween II (1981), the unintentional hilarity of Halloween: Resurrection (2002), or the nostalgic-but-not-too-nostalgic appeal of Halloween (2018), but I’d probably watch it again.

My rating is 7 outta 10.