RoboCop 3 (1993)

After my surprisingly positive reaction to RoboCop 2 when I (re?)watched it a few weeks ago, I decided to make a rewatch of RoboCop 3 a top priority. I have definitely seen this before, and I definitely didn't like it. But I went into it with an open mind and a good helping of optimism.

It's Robert John Burke in the main role this time around, and things are still not great in Detroit, which has now been acquired by OCP. OCP isn't the same old OCP any more though, having itself been taken over by a Japanese corporation now holding a controlling share of the stock. As Detroit residents are mistreated and turned out of homes that can then be demolished and turned into more profitable enterprises, growing unrest from civilians becomes such a strong force that it eventually affects the police. But will they continue to work as the strong arm for capitalist bullies, or will they follow RoboCop's lead and develop a moral conscience?

While he cannot match Weller's performance, Burke is very good in the lead role, and he does well with the physicality of the role. Nancy Allen reprises her role for a while, Remy Ryan is good as a talented kid, Nikko, who can also use technology to help those around her fight back against the authorities, Jill Hennessy is the aptly-named Dr. Lazarus, and it's fun to spot familiar faces like CCH Pounder, Bradley Whitford, Stephen Root, and Daniel von Bargen in the supporting cast. Bruce Locke has some very memorable moments as Otomo, most easily described as a kind of robo-ninja, and Rip Torn gets to join in with the fun for a few amusing scenes.

Directed by Fred Dekker, who also co-wrote the screenplay with Frank Miller, RoboCop 3 is a decent, but flawed, bit of sci-fi action fun with the kind of satire and social commentary that fans of the first two movies should expect. Like many perfectly fine sequels, the biggest problem it has is not being up to the high standard of the first film. That is all, although it was received so poorly when first released that it pretty much killed Dekker’s directorial career stone dead. 

There's nothing here to shout about when it comes to the technical side of things. The visuals lack some flair, but aren't awful, and the few moments that feel like highlights still pale in comparison to the highlights from both of the previous movies. It's obvious that the budget wasn't there for an epic vision, but it's hard to be sure that Dekker and Miller had any epic vision in mind, as the story we get is much more interested in re-establishing a connection between RoboCop and some real humanity than providing more glimpses of the dystopian future setting.

Yes, a few  moments feel unintentionally silly, either due to the plotting or the wonky special effects, but I ended up enjoying the messy mix of capitalist brutality fighting against community warmth. There’s no prime directive to say that you should watch this, but I don’t think that it’s anywhere near as bad as its reputation would suggest.

6/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

RoboCop 2 (1990)

I really cannot recall whether or not I actually saw RoboCop 2 when it was released years ago. I had either forgotten it completely, which is entirely possible, or I didn't bother with it after hearing that it was no good, which is equally possible. It's also very possible that people telling me it was no good were just plain wrong. RoboCop 2 is pretty great. Just like many sequels, the biggest problem it has is not being as good as the film that preceded it.

Peter Weller is back in the main role, and Nancy Allen is still his partner, Lewis. Detroit isn't any safer, sadly, and the latest threat to people is a powerful and highly-addictive drug named Nuke, with a man named Cain (Tom Noonan) being at the very top of that lucrative supply chain. Will RoboCop be able to deal with the problem, or will it be time to unveil RoboCop 2?

Written by Frank Miller and Walon Green, and directed by Irvin Kershner, the first thing that many will notice about RoboCop 2 is just how much it wants to keep the dark humour running through the nihilism and violence. That is obvious from the first scene, thankfully, and it sets the scene for a film that nicely balances out the thrills and violence with ongoing commentary about businesses over-extending their reach across society, especially when it comes to crime prevention and policing of cities. Kershner is a very capable director, and not afraid to tackle a sequel to a massive hit, and he tries to keep everything on track here, despite the plot strand that takes some time to explore the humanity of our hero before simply making use of it as an additional strength when he once again faces off against a potentially deadlier robo-foe.

Weller and Allen are a good fit, and (as evidenced in the next instalment in the series) it's hard to really think of anyone else as RoboCop. Allen gets less to do this time around, but she's still a loyal and capable partner, and she is still willing to keep fighting back against overwhelming odds when other robots get that urge to kill. Noonan is as watchable as ever, and a lot of fun in the role of Cain. He doesn't get to be as mean and fun as Kurtwood Smith in the first movie, but he brings that patented Noonan menace to his role. Dan O'Herlihy is entertainingly conniving, Belinda Bauer is enjoyable as another person thinking that they have a great idea to progress the profitability and innovation of the company, and it's worth mentioning how good Gabriel Damon is in the role of a vicious criminal kid named Hob. Others to namecheck are Galyn Görg (a bit of a moll, essentially), Willard Pugh (the Mayor), Stephen Lee (corruptible cop), Mark Rolston and John Glover (both with barely any screentime, but just there enough for you to start thinking about where else you know them from).

Maybe I like this a lot more now than I ever would have if I'd seen it back when it was first released. I am more familiar with the main cast members, I can appreciate the humour even more, and I have a really comforting warmth of nostalgia when I see actors positioned in front of matte paintings and rear projections in a way that we rarely see nowadays. It's not able to present the kind of perfectly-realised vision that can be done with computer effects now, but that just adds to the charm. If you have a choice then you should always choose to (re)watch the original film, but this is far from the worst way you can spend more time with these characters in this world.

7/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Noirvember: Blow Out (1981)

This was long overdue. I have been meaning to watch Blow Out since I bought it on Blu-ray a few years ago. But I just never found myself in quite the right mood for what I assumed was just going to be a remake of Blow-Up. I was, once again, a bit foolish. Not only is Blow Out far removed from the movie that it is reworking, although there are very strong features that clearly mark them out as siblings, but it is up there with the very best of Brian De Palma’s work.

John Travolta plays Jack, a man who has a career supplying sound effects for movies. One night, while out alone recording some ambient noise, Jack witnesses a car careen off a bridge. He dives in, rescuing a female passenger (Sally, played by Nancy Allen). Everyone is quick to label the whole thing a tragic accident, but Jack knows that he heard something different. The car may have suffered a tyre blow out, but there was a noise before that, and that noise strongly suggests foul play. Things get more troublesome when the identity of the other car occupant is revealed, and Jack and Sally struggle to get the truth out there as things start to get more dangerous. 

I barely know where to start with the praise I want to heap on Blow Out so I will actually just start by namechecking the main cast members. Travolta is superb, as obsessive as numerous other De Palma characters, but with a much more innately likable personality, as well as a healthy amount of self-awareness. Allen gives a performance that might be her most appealing, acting cute and ditzy enough to show why she was picked for her role in the unfolding events, while also keeping you rooting for her as things grow increasingly dangerous in the grand finale. Dennis Franz does his usual good work, playing Manny, a man who also claims to have witnessed, AND recorded, the accident, but who might have some extra inside knowledge that should net him some cash reward, and John Lithgow is one of the great murderers in cinema, equal parts smart and unhinged, choosing a number of extra innocent victims just so that he can cover up the motive for the death of his main target.

I have always said that De Palma does his best work when his bravura style is matched by the quality of the material he is working with. That still applies here, but I would also say that Blow Out somehow strikes the perfect balance, his film-making techniques used throughout are so consistently brilliant that they simply work in delivering every scene in the best way possible. One or two absolutely jaw-dropping highlights aside, nothing here is distracting. It’s form and content in perfect harmony, with the visual panache really just helping to emphasise the importance of the audio throughout, as strange as that may sound.

Blow-Up may have been a dark and cynical film, but it was dressed in the carelessness and fun of the “swinging sixties”. Blow Out has no such disguise. Everyone knew the party had been over for some time by the start of the 1980s, and this is the shroud that is wrapped around the whole film.

Add a great Pino Donaggio score, a good selection of supporting cast members who help to widen the scope of things (reminding viewers of the importance of Jack’s potential evidence of foul play), and what could well be one of the greatest (both dark and bittersweet) endings of this decade, and you have a film that is hard to find fault with.

So I didn’t. This is a masterpiece, and I will happily debate that status with anyone who thinks otherwise.

10/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Shudder Saturday: In Search Of Darkness: Part II (2020)

I was quite clear when I discussed In Search Of Darkness last year, a lengthy documentary about the horror movies of the 1980s. So many people loved it, and the only reason I can think of for that love is the shared affection for the genre, and a large helping of nostalgia. A lot of the contributors offered nothing more than the most basic opinions, there were very few films mentioned that weren't already very well known, and they angered me by crediting John Carpenter with that fine score for The Thing which came from Ennio Morricone.

Why would I dive into this sequel then? Well, I was hoping they might do better. 

The format is pretty much the same. You get a lot of the same selection of talking heads (some better than others, and some make you question why they were chosen for involvement in the first place), you get plenty of clips from the movies being discussed, and you get some attempts to contextualise individual entries within the bigger picture of what was happening to the horror genre throughout the decade.

First of all, although the titles picked here are generally a bit less "mainstream" than the titles in the first instalment, this still almost steadfastly refuses to dive into the really dark recesses of the video selections from the '80s. A whole section could have been dedicated to Gremlins rip-offs, but instead they're simply name-checked by Joe Dante, who gets to state that he doesn't rate Ghoulies, but considers Critters the best of the bunch that came out about that time. Every time the camera shows a number of movie posters (or I guess they are supposed to be video covers), you get to see some more obscure titles before it zooms in to focus on the next film up for discussion, which is most often one that most horror fans will be familiar with. And a horror documentary full of movie clips spending some time discussing a previous horror documentary full of movie clips - Terror In The Aisles - seems both meta and also completely unnecessary.

I won't try to list some of the many notable omissions, as that would just be too depressing, but things are saved this time around by some sections that allow stars to discuss their careers. You get Nancy Allen On Nancy Allen, Tom Savini On Tom Savini, Robert Englund On Robert Englund, and Linnea Quigley On Linnea Quigley. These, alongside a section that looks at the horror movie videogames of the era, offer up just enough insight and enjoyment to make this a better film than the first instalment. It's also bittersweet to see some on-camera contributions from the late, great, Stuart Gordon.

If you enjoyed In Search Of Darkness then you're bound to enjoy this. It's more of the same. If, like me, you were in the minority then this at least improves things slightly. I have no doubt that a third entry would be possible, and it would be the same yet again. And I'll be bemoaning the fact that we horror fans seem to be so easily pleased sometimes by stuff put out there with minimal amounts of care and real insight. 

4/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Children Of The Corn 666: Isaac's Return (1999)

Yes. The sixth instalment in a horror franchise that should never have limped past three movies sees the return of, arguably, the most memorable character from the very first movie. Years have gone by, of course, and the child has grown into a man, but Isaac (John Franklin reprising his role) is still as devoted to He Who Walks Behind The Rows as he ever was. He just happens to be in a coma when the movie begins.

Natalie Ramsey plays Hannah Martin, a young woman who travels back to the town (Gatlin) where she was born. Natalie wants to find her real mother and wants to find out just what happened to the town. Little does she know that a lot of the residents of Gatlin are still waiting for a major prophecy to be fulfilled. A prophecy that involves Hannah. Some people have found their faith wavering, but not Isaac. As soon as he wakes up and gets back on his feet, he assures everyone that things are going exactly to plan.

Directed by Kari Skogland, this is nothing more than an excuse to centre another movie on the character of Isaac. It makes sense that Franklin also helped to write the script, sharing the writing duties with Tim Sulka, because he IS the reason to watch the movie. Although Hannah Martin is the dull heroine, Isaac is the most interesting character. It's a shame that Franklin the writer gives Franklin the actor very little to work with because there's still enough to keep you watching, but it's a bit of a slog.

It's also a shame that no thought was given to any of the other Gatlin residents. Okay, Stacy Keach and Nancy Allen get to appear onscreen, but they're rather wasted in their roles. Alix Koromzay and Paul Popowich both do quite well, despite the fact that their characters are left fairly one-dimensional, and everyone else suffers in the same way, with varying acting prowess to deal with the situation.

As soon as this franchise moved beyond the first film it became harder and harder to tell them apart. This instalment does absolutely nothing to change that.

3/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Children-Of-The-Corn-666/dp/B0002ISGCO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1380193580&sr=8-1&keywords=children+of+the+corn+6

Poltergeist III (1988)

That spooky, nasty reverend Kane is back (this time played by Nathan Davis after the death of actor Julian Beck) and he still wants Carol Anne, despite the fact that she now lives in a sleek, ultra-modern highrise building with her uncle and aunt (Tom Skerritt and Nancy Allen). Thankfully, this big building has lots of mirrors and reflective surfaces that can become portals for Kane’s particular brand of evil.

You can try to be all deep and meaningful about it and put it this way – Poltergeist was about the insidious nature of television and how too much exposure to it can literally eat up the life of your child, Poltergeist II: The Other Side was about the family unit and how important and difficult it was to stay united against outside pressures and obstacles, Poltergeist III is about the perils of complete modernisation that leads to alienation and far too many opportunities for wrongdoing. Or you could just say that Poltergeist was a great ghost flick, Poltergeist II: The Other Side was a decent ghost flick with a definite baddie to focus on and Poltergeist III was the movie that went back to the well one time too many.

The acting is okay from all involved but everything is undermined by a poor script (that should have simply been titled “Carol Anne” due to the number of times that her name is called out) and mediocre execution. Director Gary Sherman (who also shares the blame for co-writing the thing) seems happy to go along with everything that is wrong with many modern horror movies. You know what I mean: people keep running off alone, nobody seems to notice while lots of other folk disappear, one jump scare is repeated so often that it ends up being ineffective, etc.

It’s a shame that this was the last movie for young Heather O’Rourke (her death after this movie completed a trio of deaths that people referred/refer to as “The Poltergeist Curse”) because it’s just not a very good film. On a lighter note, it’s the first film gig for a young Lara Flynn Boyle so fans may want to check it out for that reason. 

There are still a few decent moments here and there but, overall, this is a poor end. 
 
5/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share