Drop Zone (1994)

Let's be clear from the very beginning. Both you and I know that Drop Zone, a mid-90s action movie that throws Wesley Snipes in a plot involving some skydiving criminals, isn't a traditionally great movie. Even if you've not seen it before, you have an idea of the kind of entertainment it is aiming to deliver. The important thing is whether or not it actually delivers.

If you don't want to read my full thoughts, the general answer is yes.

Things start with a major incident on a plane, one that sees Pete Nessip (Snipes) lose his partner/brother, Terry (Malcolm-Jamal Warner). This means the whole thing is personal, of course, which also means that Snipes has his badge taken off him, because he's clearly a cop on the edge. His main lead is the fact that these criminals managed to pull of their crime in such an audacious manner, signifying that they must be skilled skydivers. Pete makes contact with Jessie Crossman (Yancy Butler), a skydiver who may know some of the people involved, and he ends up joining a talented crew on a number of high-altitude exercises.

Directed by John Badham, a man with a very entertaining, but also very inconsistent, filmography, Drop Zone is a typical slice of action nonsense from this time. There's some very good stunt work throughout, but the only problem is the recurring inability to perfectly blend in the main actors during the few moments in which audiences have to see them close-up while they "skydive". Everything filmed at more of a distance is much better though. Writers Peter Barsocchini and John Bishop don't care much for anything that isn't a cliché, which makes the script as eye-rolling as it is amusing. Subtlety and smarts are kept to a minimum, but it's easy to forgive when the cast and action beats help to carry it all along.

Snipes is, and always was, a solid action hero. This isn't his best action movie role, that will always be his turn in Demolition Man, but he always seems capable of handling himself, even when he has to get to grips with skydiving. Gary Busey is the head villain, and he's a fantastic presence, relishing the opportunity to play another character who shows no mercy as he executes his criminal plan, and you also get a fun supporting turn from Michael Jeter. Butler is a bit of a weak link, I've just never found her an appealing presence (from the little I have seen of her work, which would be this movie and Hard Target), but it's another role hitting a number of expected beats. Kyle Secor is a highlight, playing a skydiver named Swoop, and everyone else does decidedly okay.

It doesn't really do enough to stand out from the crowd, but Drop Zone is the kind of film that you want to watch BECAUSE it's so similar to many other films from this time. It's unremarkable, yet that's part of the appeal when you're in the right mood.

6/10

https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Waterworld (1995)

If there was one movie that came to symbolise the excess, and potential waste, of blockbuster movie productions of the 1990s, it was Waterworld. Supplying cinema fans with plenty of gossip before we'd even seen one main scene, it was the film that caused more strife between star Kevin Costner and director Kevin Reynolds, the film that had the biggest budget of all time (until James Cameron gave us Titanic, which then opened the floodgates, no pun intended, for budgets to go up and up and up), and the film that allowed everyone to (unfairly, in my view) knock Costner down a peg or two.

The sad thing is that the film itself, without taking everything else into consideration, is actually pretty good. I'd go so far as to call it a great action adventure. But that's easy to forget when the final product has been long overshadowed by that troubled reputation.

The plot is pretty simple. Costner plays the Mariner, a lone traveller on an Earth that has long been covered in a deluge of water, so much so that any notion of dry land is nothing more than a legend. But one little girl (Enola, played by Tina Majorino) may have the location of dry land, in the form of a skin tattoo, and she ends up on the Mariner's boat, along with her guardian, Helen (Jeanne Tripplehorn). This makes them of interest to a marauding gang, the Smokers, and their leader, Deacon (Dennis Hopper).

I thought long and hard about this, I think long and hard about every statement I make in my reviews (even if it doesn't appear that way), and I stand by the fact that Waterworld MAY be a contender for the best physically-realised movie environment onscreen. A lot of the screentime is taken up by our leads floating on the water, true, but there's an astonishing atoll set that is the focus of the action in the opening third of the film, fantastic design work on the main vehicle that belongs to Costner's character, and a wonderful reappropriation of the Exxon Valdez as a main HQ for the villains. There's not one moment in this movie that takes you out of it, in terms of the look and the production design, no matter how silly some of the plotting may be.

The script, by Peter Rader and David Twohy, may be little more than Mad Max on water, but that's not a bad thing to aim for when you're out to deliver some post-apocalyptic, stunt-filled, action. And everything is directed well by whichever Kevin you want to give the most credit to. This may have been the most expensive movie of all time, for a while, but you have to admit that you can see pretty much every dollar onscreen (well . . . apart from the thousands of dollars that it cost for every night that Costner stayed in his villa, which also had a chef and butler, apparently). Every set-piece is grand and impressive, without tipping over into the overdone and tiresome style we so often see in modern movies that have no limits on the spectacles they can provide, thanks to the computer tools at their disposal.

None of the cast members are doing their best work, but neither are they doing any of their worst. Costner does the strong and silent type well, Tripplehorn does as much as she can while not being given a lot to do, and Hopper is just about as fun a villain as you could wish for in this kind of fare (a scene with him trying out a replacement eye still makes me laugh harder than many big gags in comedy films). Majorino acts well opposite the adults, Michael Jeter is fun in a small role, and Gerard Murphy is another crafty villain in league with Hopper and co. The list of people in much smaller roles also includes a number of familiar faces: Leonardo Cimino, Robert Joy, Jack Black, Kim Coates, and one or two others.

Does it have flaws? It sure does. It's overlong, even in the shortest version available, it often misses the mark when it comes to the moments that aren't full of action, the computer effects, when on display, are mid-90s computer effects, and the ending is, well, it's a bit anti-climactic. But none of that is enough to spoil a movie that aims to provide viewers with a thrilling cinematic adventure. If you haven't seen it, or haven't seen it in years, then do check it out.  Maybe you'll agree with my opinion of it. Maybe enough time has passed, and the tide has turned for Waterworld.

8/10

You can buy this fantastic set here.

Prime Time: Mousehunt (1997)

There are some movies that you form a surprisingly strong attachment to. I'm not on about those films regarded as absolute classics. I'm not on about those films that you saw at the cinema and were immediately blown away by. I'm on about the kind of films that don't get talked about too often, yet you used to own, on either VHS or shiny disc, haven't seen in a while, and then immediately fall immediately in love with (again) when you revisit them after a gap of many years.

Mousehunt is one of those movies for me. When I clicked on the "start watching" button, I immediately remembered how many times I had watched the thing when I bought it on VHS. I could recite almost every line, and I never tired of it. I was like a child with a beloved Disney favourite.

But what's it all about? I'll tell you, although the title sums it up adequately.

Two brothers, Ernie Smuntz (Nathan Lane) and Lars Smuntz (Lee Evans) come together to claim their inheritance after the death of their father (Rudolph Smuntz, played by William Hickey). The inheritance comes to a seemingly paltry amount. There are some old cigars, a string factory that doesn't look likely to become a big money-maker, and an old house. Amazingly, the house turns out to have been the work of a very famous architect. It is a "lost" masterpiece. Determined to renovate the house and sell it for a life-changing amount of money, the brothers get to work. And that's when they start to become frustrated by an extra, unwanted, house guest. A mouse. But this mouse is smarter than most.

This comedy works as well as it does because it benefits from a number of people doing work that is up there with their very best stuff. I can't think of anything from writer Adam Rifkin that tops this, so it's his absolute high point, and director Gore Verbinski may have a number of other films that could be considered better, but very few of them are as much fun.

As for the stars, both Lane and Evan are comic actors I have enjoyed in a variety of roles. They work perfectly here, playing to their strengths, with the former getting the best lines and the latter allowed to go over the top with the physical gags. If the film only involved those two actors and the mouse then I would have been happy, but there are more people joining in the fun. Maury Chaykin is the man most interested in bidding for the house, Vicki Lewis is the ex-wife of Evans, and has a couple of great scenes with him, and Christopher Walken almost steals the film away from everybody with his wonderful turn as Caesar, the exterminator called in when other plans to get rid of the mouse have failed.

There are at least half a dozen magnificent set-pieces, a delightfully playful score by Alan Silvestri, a mouse so cute that it tucks itself into a little "bed" when about to go to sleep, and a great energy throughout that builds and builds towards a frenetic and hilarious grand finale. Some may think I have rated this too highly. I would urge those people to revisit the movie and come back to me with any major criticisms. It's a near-perfect comedy that works for almost every member of the family.

9/10

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. All links are HERE.
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

Mrs. Santa Claus (1996)

Good ol' Angela Lansbury, she can do just about anything. She spent many years solving murders, of course, in Murder, She Wrote, she was a wonderful granny in The Company Of Wolves and her filmography is dotted with moments of greatness, such as her turn in the original The Manchurian Candidate. And then she has her all-singing, all-dancing Disney standing. Mrs. Santa Claus may not actually be a Disney movie but it certainly feels like one. A bad one, at that.

Lansbury plays the titular character, a woman who has stood behind and supported her husband (played by Charles Durning) for many years, working just as hard to make Christmas what it is while receiving no credit for it. She yearns to travel and have an adventure. So she does. Yes, Mr. Santa Claus takes the reindeer and goes off on a little trip of her own. Unfortunately, one of the reindeer has a bit of trouble which means that Mrs. Santa Claus may have to extend her time away from hubby. As long as she can survive Manhattan and get back before Christmas then everything will still be okay.

Set in the early 1900s, there's just nothing here to make this a worthwhile viewing for anyone but the most undemanding musical fan. Yes, it's a musical. However, the songs by Jerry Herman leave a lot to be desired, I can't think of one that I actually enjoyed and now can't remember any of them (which is a small blessing). That wouldn't be quite so bad if the writing by Mark Saltzman provided some entertainment but it doesn't. Director Terry Hughes takes those negative qualities and somehow makes them worse, populating the movie with a number of poor actors and actresses.

Lansbury is fine in the lead role but she doesn't have the spark that she once had, it's as if she's going through the motions. Her manner is all just too artificial, perhaps simply too sweet in these more cynical times to be believed. Durning isn't onscreen for long but he's fine, as is Michael Jeter (playing an elf named Arvo). The same can't be said for the likes of Debra Wiseman, David Norona, Terrence Mann, Lynsey Bartilson and Bryan Murray, all playing their characters in an annoying and amateurish manner that would look bad even in a particularly cheap episode of Dr. Who (now now, many people love Dr. Who nowadays but you can still tell whenever there's that one episode that didn't get the same budget as the others).

Despite the fact that I hated the movie, I will say that some of the production values were okay and that it's always good to see Lansbury in a role that doesn't have her solving murders while writing books (god, I used to hate that show). I've heard from other people who have thoroughly enjoyed this but I honestly can't figure out how their minds allowed that to happen. Watch it if you like but don't say that you weren't warned.

3/10

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