Real Genius (1985)

Val Kilmer plays Chris Knight, a genius student who is working on a project that he doesn't realise wants to make a laser usable in a sophisticated and dangerous weapon. Chris is tasked with taking young Mitch Taylor (Gabe Jarret) under his wing. He wants to help academically, but also wants to remind everyone to not take everything so seriously. Chris has seen how stress and obsession can affect people, and he wants to help people maintain a good balance. That doesn't always work for Professor Jerry Hathaway (William Atherton) though. It also doesn't work for the prime douchebag, Kent (Robert Prescott).

Directed by Martha Coolidge, who has a filmography full of interesting movies that I have always been meaning to check out, Real Genius is an enjoyable '80s teen comedy that has the expected mix of fun characters, archetypes, and dialogue without the usual obsession over girls and nudity. You get some early moments with Val Kilmer wearing deely-boppers to highlight just how much he doesn't want to take life seriously, you get some pranks, and you get a final act that allows plot strands to be tied up, set-ups to be paid off, and the slightly serious stuff to be dealt with in a way that intertwines the humour with some serious stakes for those involved. 

Writers Neal Israel, Pat Proft, and Peter Torokvei know what is expected, and they provide some standard moments and gags wrapped in the clothing of these onscreen geniuses. Whether it's the battle of wits between the new kid and the bully, the potential blossoming romance between a couple of main characters, or the strange loner who sees things that nobody else does . . . Real Genius entertains on a trope-filled, teen comedy level, yet adds a layer of smarts that allows it to stand out from the crowd.

Kilmer is a force to be reckoned with, superbly charming and charismatic. Although Jarret is playing the main character, and the way for viewers to meet this cast, it's Kilmer who is the lead. Jarret does well though, he's likeable enough and happy to let others around him shine. Atherton gives another one of his great turns, smiling at his students until things look to be no longer going his way, and Jon Gries is very amusing as the strange loner named Lazlo. Kent may be the character you're supposed to boo and hiss at, but Robert Prescott does well in that role. And then you have Michelle Meyrink, playing Jordan, a young woman with plenty of brains who lacks confidence in herself, and also lacks confidence in her social skills.

It's quirky and clever, but not too quirky and clever for its own good. Having seen this listed by many people over the years as a favourite comedy from this decade, I'm glad I finally checked it off the list. And even more glad that it was as good as many told me it was.

9/10

https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Jinn (2014)

Jinn starts off with the potential to be good. It's an interesting take on something that we've seen used again and again in horror movies over the years (with the best treatment being, arguably, in the first couple of Wishmaster movies). That potential soon disappears once the film really gets going, becoming content to put itself forward as a supernatural action movie instead of the interesting horror that it could have been.

Dominic Rains stars as Shawn, a young man who is about to have his life turned upside down as he runs into a destiny that he previously knew nothing about. This could affect, and endanger, his wife, Jasmie (the lovely Serinda Swan), and he doesn't want that. Which partially explains why he's willing to listen to the cryptic Father Westhoff (William Atherton) and his assistant, Gabriel (Ray Park), as they fill him in on that previously-unknown destiny of his. All just in time too, as there's a jinn about to commence battle.

Written and directed by Ajmal Zaheer Ahmad, there are elements of Jinn that I liked. It tries to reposition the creature away from the standard type of baddie that we've seen in the likes of Wishmaster and bring something a bit more complex to the table. It tries. And then it seems to decide against it, instead opting for the kind of thing that we've seen so many times before - a hero who has to endure visions designed to trick him, a battle against supernatural enemies, a world of good vs. evil constantly at war without the rest of the population really taking too much notice.

Rains isn't bad in the lead role, especially in the last reel, and Park gets to show off his usual array of moves, but both Atherton and Swan are underused, with the latter particularly missed during the second half of the film. The only other person of note in the cast is Faran Tahir, who tries his best with a role that doesn't do him any favours, landing him with both expository moments and also a selection of cliches.

Nothing here is awful. The presentation is pretty decent, actually, and you can barely get from one scene to the next without it tripping over some good intentions. But it DOES keep tripping, and we all know where a road paved with good intentions can lead. I don't know how else to say it, except that it manages to become much less than the sum of its parts. There's not enough originality on display here, and what we get is just too dull to be entertaining. Horror isn't a genre that relies on originality, of course, but if you're rehashing so many familiar ideas and moments then it should at least all be done with a bit of flair and style, which this lacks.

Basically, it doesn't completely work as a horror movie, it doesn't completely work as a supernatural action movie, and it doesn't completely work as a blend of the two.

4/10

ffgg

You know how you can show your appreciation for bloggers? If you share and share then every additional reader helps. Connect through Google or Blogger or any way you can, and rest easy in the knowledge that you've made little ol' me a very happy man.

And/or you could also buy my e-book, that has almost every review I've written over the past 5 years. It's very reasonably priced for the sheer amount of content.

The UK version can be bought here - http://www.amazon.co.uk/TJs-Ramshackle-Movie-Guide-Reviews-ebook/dp/B00J9PLT6Q/ref=sr_1_3?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1395945647&sr=1-3&keywords=movie+guide

And American folks can buy it here - http://www.amazon.com/TJs-Ramshackle-Movie-Guide-Reviews-ebook/dp/B00J9PLT6Q/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1395945752&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=TJs+ramshackle+mov

As much as I love the rest of the world, I can't keep up with all of the different links in different territories, but trust me when I say that it should be there on your local Amazon.

Ghostbusters (1984)

The 1980s is a strange time. It's easy to look back and point and laugh at a decade that had so much excess. The big shoulder pads, the clouds of hairspray, lots of clothing in nigh-on luminous colours. But when it comes to movies it was almost a golden age. Before you stop me and tell me off for letting nostalgia overrule my critical faculties let me just make one thing clear. EVERY year has a fair share of great movies and stinkers. Every year. I am well aware that we can look back with fondness at certain times simply because the rubbish has been forgotten and, boy, did the eighties have a lot of rubbish. But it was also, in a way, the perfect mix of cinema made with the latest technology that still relied mainly on practical effects. Of course, there WAS CGI but it was still a bit of a novelty. The best films, the ones that we remember with such fondness, from that decade are, in my view, so fondly remembered because they took us all on an incredible journey and they did it in a way that felt more realistic, despite the outlandishness of the plots. I'm thinking of the likes of The Goonies, Gremlins, Back To The Future, Labyrinth, The Thing, An American Werewolf In London, Die Hard, The Terminator, The Lost Boys and quite a few others. Of course, nostalgia does contribute something (especially in the case of The Lost Boys) but I don't think that any of these movies would be remembered as fondly today if they were full of dated CGI. Just look at An American Werewolf In Paris compared to its predecessor. Actually, don't do that. You don't want to lose your eyesight.

Ghostbusters is one of those movies and that's why I stopped listening a long time ago when the talk of a third movie kept going round and round and round for years (who knows, if you're reading this some time in the future then maybe the damn thing finally got made). A third movie just won't have the heart that this movie has. It won't have the same texture. The second movie isn't all that beloved (though I like it) so why not let sleeping dogs lie. Or sleeping ghosts rest in ecto-containment units, or something.

Directed by Ivan Reitman, and written by Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis (with some uncredited work from Rick Moranis too), Ghostbusters is all about three men (Aykroyd, Ramis and Bill Murray) who become . . . . . . . . ghostbusters. They end up doing great business, so great that they have to hire an extra member of staff (Ernie Hudson) but the increase in paranormal activity also leads them to believe that something big is happening. Maybe that something is linked to whatever is happening in the apartment of Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver). Whatever it is, the guys try to stay ready for action even while weaselly Walter Peck (William Atherton) tries to make big trouble for them.

I don't even know why I wrote that last paragraph. You already KNOW Ghostbusters. Or know OF it. If you don't, stop reading now and go and watch it. Now. Seriously.

It's a great supernatural comedy, it's one of the best outright comedies of the decade, if not THE best, it features brilliant performances from everyone involved (and I'd better mention the superb turns from Annie Potts as Janine Melnitz and Rick Moranis as Louis Tully, two absolutely classic supporting roles) and if you don't think that every line is worth quoting then you'd be hard pushed to deny that every other line is worth quoting.

It's one of my favourite movies of all time and I can't really think of anything worthwhile to convince you to see it if you haven't already done so. There's that great theme song, the pace and editing are both pretty perfect, every single main character is memorable for a different reason and it features the best use of marshmallow I've ever seen outside the world of adult entertainment (don't ask!).

On a more personal note, I have since been relieved to discover that I wasn't the only one to think that the big villain named Gozer (Slavitza Jovan) was a bit sexy while also being really, really evil. On a less embarrassing personal note, I will always have an added fondness for this film because of the cinema that I saw it in - I can't recall if it was The Dominion here in Edinburgh or The Odeon that has long since closed down but whoever put little "ghosts" over all of the side lights deserves good karma forever. You, sir or madam, helped this movie to leave a smile on my soul that has not waned in over a quarter of a century.

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
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Jersey Shore Shark Attack (2012)

When Jersey Shore Shark Attack begins it doesn't take long to show that it was destined to be shown on the Syfy Channel. Bad special effects are shown from the opening moments and a parade of annoying characters soon reassure the viewer that this isn't going to be anything worth watching for more than a few chuckles while braincells are destroyed. But for those who have seen as many of these movies as I have, and I still don't know why I keep doing it to myself beyond sadomasochism, I must say that the special effects here are BAD, even for this kind of movie. I thought I'd seen a number of horrible CG sharks. These may be the very worst.

I am proud to admit that I've never seen Jersey Shore. Ever. As long as I have breath in my body I will do my utmost to make sure things stay that way. However, I know a little bit about it and like to think that this movie starts off with a style befitting of the show. The main characters are given their freeze-framed introductions, dramas are established within minutes and everyone is quite shallow and annoying. Then some poor CG sharks start eating people.

The main plotline, sharks aside, revolves around a temporary hitch in the relationship of Nooki (played by Melissa Molinaro) and TC (Jeremy Luke) and a rivalry between our heroes and some upper-class twits. It's nothing that other people should actually care about but, then again, neither are any of the plotlines that I've heard about from people discussing Jersey Shore. People that I then make my excuses to and leave. For the purpose of a film riffing off the TV show, it suffices.

As amazing as it seems, four people wrote this film with the main screenplay credits going to Michael Ciminera and Richard Gnolfo. To be fair to those involved in the writing process, it's actually quite amusing in many places but just not amusing enough to detract from the horrible special effects and the fact that the whole thing was brought into being in the first place.

Director John Shepphird puts some great actors in minor roles but that's really the only good thing that he does. Well, okay, he gets the camera pointing the right way most of the time but, as is often the case with these kinds of movies, continuity and style go out of the window fairly quickly (or aren't seen at all, in the case of the latter). He hits the beats required for this type of nonsense but he never really does anything to raise it up a notch.

The real shame about the movie not rising up at all is the waste of the cast. The leads are passable but they are playing Jersey Shore people so I didn't really warm to them. The supporting cast, however, includes people such as Tony Sirico (known to so many after his wonderful turn playing Paulie in The Sopranos), William Atherton, a fleeting appearance from Paul Sorvino and an enjoyable camoe from Joey Fatone.

Give this film a watch when you're after a few laughs and some awful CGI and it will deliver but don't be surprised if you find yourself feeling guilty afterwards because you didn't go with a better option.

4/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jersey-Shore-Shark-Attack-DVD/dp/B0084DDKYI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1348423136&sr=8-1

Into The Sun (2005)

Steven Seagal stars in this movie co-written by Steven Seagal and based on a story by Steven Seagal (with Joe Halpin). It also has one Steven Seagal listed as producer and on the soundtrack you can hear the musical stylings, on occasion, of Steven Seagal. Yet, despite that overabundance of Seagal, it's actually not that bad.

The essence of the story is all about a man who can deal with the Yakuza and sort out a spiralling crime problem before everyone ends up losing. That one man is, as you may have guessed, Steven Seagal. Nobody else really matters because, as Seagal fans well know by now, everything will succeed or fail as Seagal wants it.

Directed by someone who calls himself Mink (but who was born Christopher Wingfield Morrison and who should stop trying to evade that fact with such a silly pseudonym), Into The Sun is a bit of a muddled mess but is also surprisingly entertaining throughout, mainly due to some brutal and straightforward violence that recalls the no-nonsense style that Seagal used to promote in his earliest movies.

The acting is quite bad but well above the quality of the last few Seagal movies. The main man himself does okay, Matthew Davis is enjoyable enough as an FBI agent partnered up with our gruff hero and the ever-wonderful William Atherton is as wonderful as ever. Some other people do okay, some other people are terrible - it didn't actually matter to me all that much as I watched the occasional fight sequence and the frequent arterial sprays of blood.

While not actually a great movie, this should provide some relief to Seagal fans who have continued to support the man throughout his career and received nothing but almost consistently slapdash and lazy movies since the turn of the 21st century.

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