The Hitcher (1986)

Sometimes I worry that my own experience with a movie is different from the way others viewed it, but sometimes it feels as if I have recently been able to talk with film fans who all have some kind of collected memory that keeps us all connected. The Hitcher is one of those collected memories. It's a film that many seemed to find on video, having come and gone from cinemas with no real fanfare, and no record-breaking box office. It's also a film that people have gone back to, or they've often recommended to others, which just helped to grow the reputation of it. A long-overdue bit of TLC has now given fans a fantastic Blu-ray/4K UHD set that should only lead to it getting even more love. I'm all for that.

The premise is quite simple. C. Thomas Howell plays Jim Halsey, a young man who is driving a car from Chicago to the new owner in San Diego. Struggling to stay awake behind the wheel, and maybe even a bit thrilled by the idea of doing something that he was always warned against, Jim picks up a hitchhiker, John Ryder (Rutger Hauer). That's when his problems begin, because Ryder claims to be a killer. It soon becomes clear that Ryder isn't lying, and Jim ends up in a game of cat and mouse with someone who claims that his main objective is to encounter someone who can stop him.

Written by Eric Red, a man who has written about half a dozen movies that I would consider well worth your time, and the three features he wrote in the 1980s are all either classics or close enough, The Hitcher is a tight and tense screenplay helped by the committed performances from the leads and the way that director Robert Harmon (hitting the high point of his directorial career with this, only his second feature) makes the most out of what is a relatively low budget. It could have been very different, especially when you consider how much more Red packed into the screenplay that he originally sent out to producers when he was putting all of his energy into getting someone to greenlight it.

Aside from the not-insignificant contributions from both Red and Harmon, I am not sure about where to start with my praise. I want to also mention the wonderful score by Mark Isham, and the new restoration really showcases the gorgeous cinematography from John Seale, whether our lead is travelling through a dark and stormy night or a hot and sweaty day. There's also some excellent work by a stunt team who are required to step up for one or two impressive set-pieces, including a finale that impressively elevates things above what you would expect to see in this kind of fairly small-scale work.

Hauer is the heart of the film though, a devil with his thumb in the air and a glint in his eye. The man has delivered a couple of iconic performances, and this easily sits alongside anything else that he's done onscreen. Yes, I said it . . . anything (and that includes a certain android who ponders the fleeting joys of life as his own death approaches). Howell has a tougher job, having to sell his fear, his confusion, and his trauma in ways that sometimes wrack his entire body with painful emotional overload. One other main character, a young woman named Nash, is played by a young Jennifer Jason Leigh (who had enjoyed working with Hauer on Flesh + Blood the previous year), and she does well to make herself into someone that you care about and believe in. Other familiar faces to look out for are Billy Greenbush, Gene Davis, Henry Darrow, and Jeffrey DeMunn, all playing various law enforcement officers who end up initially believing that our young hero is actually the villain of the piece, making his situation even more desperate and dangerous.

A perfect blend of strange surrealism and straightforward thrills, The Hitcher remains a fantastic fever-dream that, whether you end up loving or hating it, is very hard to forget. In fact, this recent rewatch has reminded me of how much it feels like a touchstone for some of the more successful mainstream thrillers that came along many years later (Se7en being the one that came to mind as I tried to remember how long was left once a major set-piece started to play out). Maybe it won't ever become popular enough to break away from that "cult favourite" label, but that's okay. And I suspect many of those other film fans who share fond memories of this will agree with me.

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.
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

Netflix And Chill: The Rite (2011)

You would think that Anthony Hopkins would be well-suited to the role of a priest who can conduct exorcisms in a firm, and seemingly non-traditional, manner. In a way, didn't he already play just that kind of role, and superbly, when he took on the famous character of Van Helsing? So The Rite, a handsomely-mounted horror/drama about a younger priest full of doubt (Michael Kovak, played by Colin O'Donoghue) learning much from a stoic elder (Father Lucas Trevant, played by Hopkins), would seem to be an easy winner. Sadly, that is not the case.

Based on, possibly very loosely, on a book of the same name by Matt Biaglo, this is a "true story" that ticks almost every exorcism movie cliché off the list, and that's always a tricky proposition. Because if you're going to do that, especially if you're pairing up an older priest with a younger priest who is starting to doubt his faith, then you need to be pretty bloody special. Because there's one movie that casts a hell of a long shadow over all of these movies.

All of the characters are sketched out and put in place quickly enough. Michael feels like someone it is easy to root for, and we see plenty of backstory involving his relationship with his father (Rutger Hauer). He is asked to go to Rome to attend a course in exorcism, which will either help him to find his faith once more or convince him that his journey on this particular path is at an end. Father Trevant is a force of nature, and a bit of an expert in exorcisms (of course), and remains convinced that he always does whatever is necessary to save any tortured souls. And Angeline (Alice Braga) is someone else attending the course, which means she can have conversations with Michael as he continues to feel doubt over any other sensation.

It's no surprise to look through the filmography of screenwriter Michael Petroni and see that nothing stands out, with the exception of the wonderful, and disappointingly underseen, The Dangerous Lives Of Altar Boys. Petroni has, for most of the past two decades, been specialising in writing films seemingly destined to be forgotten. And this is coming from someone who quite liked The Chronicles Of Narnia: The Voyage Of The Dawn Treader.

Director Mikael Håfström has a slightly better success rate, especially around this time (1408 was a few years before this and Escape Plan was just after), but this feels like a movie where his hands were tied. It is an exorcism movie for a mainstream audience, meaning the horror element is never really satisfying and it is all far too safe and predictable.

Hopkins is the highlight, and selling the movie on his presence alone is no bad thing. Hauer is also very good in his much smaller role, and it's a shame that he isn't used to much greater effect. Braga, through no fault of her own, feels completely superfluous, an addition for the sake of having a female character who isn't just a possible victim of possession. The weakest cast member is O'Donoghue though, who just doesn't feel very convincing at any point. I wouldn't say he was actually bad, but he certainly feels as if he's been miscast, unable to sell viewers on him being a doubtful priest OR a worthwhile leading man. Ciarán Hinds and Toby Jones have very small roles, but I will mention them as the other main positives in a film in need of all the help it can get.

Easily the worst of the mainstream exorcism/possession movies from the last few decades, this is eminently forgettable and unworthy of your time. In the same way that multiplying two negatives leads to a positive, it turns out that numerous wrongs can add up to a rite. 

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

Split Second (1992)

Director Tony Maylam has two main features worth checking out. One is The Burning (the slasher classic), the other one is this. What could have been an interesting buddy cop thriller, with a dark heart, instead ends up being a bit too murky throughout, and clumsily written. Which doesn’t mean there is no fun to be had here. And I will maintain until my dying day that this feels very much like a movie adaptation of the James Herbert novel, Moon. 

Rutger Hauer is Harley Stone, a cop with a gritty attitude, a big gun, and a psychic link to a crazed killer (someone who likes to rip out hearts and then take a bite out of them). He is partnered up with Detective Dick Durkin (Neil Duncan), a more by the book kind of cop, of course. As the killer keeps trying to lure Stone to him, those around him end up in danger. He already lost his partner, and extra guilt comes from the fact that he was having an affair with his partner’s wife, Michelle (Kim Cattrall).

A really strange hybrid of elements, Split Second is perhaps most frustrating because it never fully settles on what it wants to be. A cop flick? A dark thriller? A full-on horror movie? It ends up being none of those things, yet it also amuses and entertains as it works with elements from all of them. 

Maylam directs with competence, but contributes to the lack of focus inherent in the messy script from Gary Scott Thompson. The waterlogged future UK setting could have been a great feature, but it is just as wasted as every other part of the plot.

Thankfully, Hauer helps to elevate everything with the power of Hauer. He spouts numerous lines of absolute nonsense, grizzled and single-minded as he wanders through the city on the investigation that defines his entire character. Duncan is nowhere near as much fun, but his differing style works well opposite Hauer’s driven mania. Cattrall is as welcome an addition as she usually is, and there are good little turns from Alun Armstrong, Pete Postlethwaite, Ian Dury, and Michael J. Pollard. 

I have never loved Split Second, something I always found surprising. But I have also never hated it either. That isn’t surprising, mainly because I cannot think of any film starring Hauer that I have strongly disliked. Give it a watch, it’s adequate b-movie fare. Just remember that it is a lower-tier Rutger Hauer movie.

5/10

https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Sci-Fi September: Blade Runner (1982)

It's maybe not best for me to start my review of Blade Runner by declaring that I don't think it's a perfect movie, and don't rate it as the best sci-fi movie of all time. It's probably worse to declare that it MIGHT not even make my personal Top 10 Sci-Fi Movie list. It might, but it might not. Yet that doesn't stop me from praising the film as an amazing piece of cinema. It immerses viewers in a world that feels so realistic you can almost feel the near-constant rain dripping on your head.

Harrison Ford stars as Rick Deckard, a blade runner who must find and execute four runaway replicants. Replicants are humanoid robots, with some of the latest models being so advanced that they're getting harder and harder to differentiate from real people. The nominal leader of these runaways is Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer), a replicant who has spent a lot of time considering his life and what he has been privileged to see throughout the universe. The movie focuses on Deckard as he does his detective work, yet it also allows plenty of time for all of the main characters to ponder just what makes humans so unique in their efforts to live a long, fruitful life.

Based on a novel by Philip K. Dick (entitled "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?"), this is sci-fi used in a way to look at our own humanity. In a world in which humans can, essentially, be built, it looks at what, if any, differences there are between life and artificial life. The script, written mainly by Hampton Fancher and David Peoples, spends as much time piecing together the motivations and fears of the various central characters as it does on the standard detective aspect of the tale.

The fact that all of these ideas and moments are set in a world so detailed and realistic is due, in no small part, to director Ridley Scott, who seemed intent on delivering a cerebral, beautiful, modern classic to cinema audiences. The visuals are often sublime, the soundtrack (famously created by Vangelis) is a delight for the ears, and the central performances don't ever give any sign of the famous troubles that plagued the production; let's just say that it was a baptism by fire for Scott working on his first major American operation.

Ford is great in yet another iconic role, and he must look back on his career as one amazing stroke of good luck after another, considering how many movies that he starred in didn't seem destined for greatness. He's suitably world-weary, cynical, and also able to empathise with anyone who just wants left alone to live their life in peace. Hauer may have a lot less screentime, but he makes a lasting impression, mainly thanks to his last scene opposite Ford. Sean Young also makes a lasting impression, playing Rachael, a young woman who doesn't realise exactly what her background is. Brion James, Joanna Cassidy, and Daryl Hannah all do well as the other replicants on the loose, M. Emmet Walsh has an enjoyable small role, and Edward James Olmos breathes down Harrison Ford's neck at the most inconvenient moments. There's also a superb, moving performance from William Sanderson (the second-best in the movie, behind Hauer), playing a "toymaker" who seems to empathise more than most with the creations that he's had a very small role in helping to build.

Books have been written about Blade Runner. Well, if they haven't then they should be (but I'm pretty sure they have). It's layered, it's full of many wonderful little touches, the tech on display feels very grounded in reality, it ruminates on science and the possibility of human souls by finely mixing the two, and much more. My main problem with it, the only reason that I don't rate it as the perfect sci-fi movie so many others see, is that there are scenes that bring the whole thing grinding to a halt. Scenes that feel unnecessary in the grand scheme of things, especially when they get in the way of the momentum that is being built by the strong central strand. Of course, the fact that there are (at least) five different versions of the movie to choose from nowadays probably serves as a reminder of just how many options Scott made available to himself as he tried to capture what he'd envisioned in his mind.

Despite not quite rating it as highly as other fans, I still recommend that everyone gives this a viewing at least once. It's iconic, it's cool, and it's almost fully deserving of the reputation it has.

9/10

http://www.amazon.com/Blade-Runner-Anniversary-Collectors-Blu-ray/dp/B008M4MB8K/ref=sr_1_2?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1411245021&sr=1-2&keywords=blade+runner

You know what you can do if you liked this review, or any of the other reviews here at For It Is Man's Number? 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.

Dario Argento's Dracula AKA Dracula 3D (2012)

It's almost becoming too easy nowadays to criticise the recent movies directed by Dario Argento, but when the man who was such a master of his craft starts to churn out rubbish as bad as this . . . . . . . . well, I think all of that criticism is well and truly justified.

Because, make no mistake about it, Dario Argento's Dracula (AKA Dracula 3D) is a terrible movie in almost every department. It's so inept at times that you start to wonder whether or not Mr. Argento is having a laugh at our expense.

Everyone knows the story by now, and if you don't then it's up to you to quickly get up to speed, so I won't include too many details here. There are differences, such as the film taking place almost exclusively in Transylvania, but the main characters remain the same. Thomas Kretschmann plays the big man, Rutger Hauer comes along as Van Helsing just in time for the finale, Marta Gastini is a pleasant enough Mina Harker, Asia Argento is Lucy, and Maria Cristina Heller is a sexy vamp for most of the runtime. Let's not mention Unax Ugalde as Jonathan Harker because, well, it's just too painful for me to remember his performance.

The script, written by four people including Argento himself, is a muddled mess, with the recognisable central story strand, and one or two famous moments, surrounded by scenes that range from the ridiculous to the gratuitous, with the latter at least providing SOME entertainment value.

The direction makes it seem as if Argento considered not having his name in the credits at one point. There are a few nice flourishes here and there, admittedly, but from the opening sequence - in which the camera flies through a poorly rendered CGI village - to the anticlimactic finale, this is clumsy stuff, not helped in the slightest by some of the shoddiest editing I've seen in a long, long time.

I've already mentioned some of the performances, but let me just say that Hauer is great and Kretschmann looks like he could have done better with the role if it had been better written and placed in a competent movie. Asia Argento is, as usual, godawful, Gastini is okay, and Heller shows that she's very proud of her breasts. And good for her. And did I mention that I don't want to mention Unax Ugalde as Jonathan Harker?

If you want to be cruel to yourself then watch this immediately. The special effects alone will have you reaching for the nearest spoon with which to scoop out your eyeballs. A few moments featuring different insects made me think, once more, that this whole thing might just be Argento playing a joke on us. Viewed in the right frame of mind, some people may find this funnier than Dracula: Dead And Loving It.

It's not as if the source material doesn't provide some great stuff to develop, for goodness sake. In fact, the strength of that source material is the reason that the film isn't quite a COMPLETE disaster. One or two moments still manage to remain effective, despite the best efforts of Argento and co. to totally screw up everything.

3/10

http://www.amazon.com/Argentos-Dracula-Blu-ray-Hutger-Hauer/dp/B00FUABHVQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1391035115&sr=8-1&keywords=dario+argento%27s+dracula

See what I endure? Which is why I also pimp out my book, because every copy of my book sold gets a few pounds in my pocket, and gets you a good read (if I say so myself).

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.