Cuplog

Cat-Women of the Moon (1953) achieves a level of ineptitude that places it squarely within the province of MST3K mockery, for which it is eminently suited. I’ll not bother to dissect this movie, (a task that has been well accomplished by the review posted on The Invisible Sc-Fi ’50s Page). I’ll simply add my observation that the use to which 3-D was put in this movie was about as effective as, no, less effective than a 3-D rendering of 12 Angry Men. Let us marvel at a man looking with concern at his wristwatch… in 3-D! We are astounded by a close-up of the watch… in 3-D! (It gets better.) Look! A shadow on a flat, featureless wall… in 3-D!

In the version I saw (a VHS tape released by Rhino), the 3-D scenes were not only oddly selected, but they were oddly rendered, too. Actors invariably had two sets of eyes and two sets of mouths, and nothing so much leapt out at the viewer as appeared blurry and headache-inducing.

My favorite part of the movie (yes, there is a favorite part) is the scene where crewman Doug Smith is getting to know Cat-woman Lambda a little better:

SMITH: Or on Saturday nights you can go out on the town. Dance, drink, just laughing too hard.
LAMBDA: I’d like the driving down to the beach best. Stretching out on the sand… Just a boy and a girl together… and… and maybe what you call a… a Coke.
SMITH: You would? That’s what I like best, too. With the right girl, of course.

Yes, sounds like perfectly plausible first contact dialogue to me. Cat-Women of the Moon has all the right bad acting, bad writing, bad directing, and hilariously bad special effects to make a first rate MST3K experiment. I don’t know if it was ever used, but if it wasn’t, it’s a crime. At any rate, it ought to meet anyone’s needs… if one’s needs consist of a truly horrible movie ripe for mocking.

Overall Rating: Terrible
Mockery Potential: Superb

Transformers (2007) leaves me ambivalent. On the one hand, it is a live-action movie about giant robots, and I am partial to fictional robots, giant or otherwise. This is a movie I would be inclined to watch for absolutely no other reason than the sheer joy of seeing robots depicted on the screen. The fact that they are rendered so incredibly well is a bonus. The fact that there are some good human characters is also a bonus. The fact that there is some genuinely entertaining dialogue beyond a few action movie one-liners is a very pleasant bonus and certainly a surprising one. In short, the movie exceeded my expectations.

The fact that it exceeded some of my expectations does not mean that it exceeded them all. In a number of ways, it settled quite unambitiously at exactly the level of my expectations, which were not especially high. Special effects can be a wonderful thing when used in moderation. Even in a special effects extravaganza, which Transformers certainly is, it can sometimes be beneficial to withhold some of it from the audience. Tease them, appease them even, but never bore them. At the beginning of the movie, as with the trailers, my eyes were wide open to appreciate every glimpse of the robots in motion. Three-fourths of the way into the movie, however, I found myself wondering just how long this movie was supposed to be.

Special effects overdosing is not the only culprit. It is a common problem with many action movies that there comes a point when the action doesn’t seem so much like action as background noise. It becomes some sort of ambient annoyance like the distraction caused by a minor headache. Events may be rapidly rushing to a head and characters may be having their moments of truth, but by that point the pleasure of the movie is in the past, the imminent tying of loose ends is predictable and not especially interesting, and one finds oneself wishing the movie had ended a little earlier, preferably around the 90 minute mark. Not all good movies profit from being longer. Sometimes one of the best and most effective tricks in the book is the old adage, “Always leave them wanting more.” The original Star Wars was like that. Transformers could have been like that, too, and then I might have had a desire to see it more than once.

• Writing: Fair (Good dialogue, but Mediocre otherwise)
• Directing: Good
• Acting: Good
• Cinematography: Fair
• Special Effects: Great

Overall Rating: Good

The most eagerly awaited Spider-Man movie is also the least satisfying of the three. There are too many villains, too many origin stories, too many superfluous CGI shenanigans, and too many cheap and easy plot tricks. Perhaps our expectations are too high. Perhaps we have been spoiled by the quality of its predecessors. No, I don’t think so. The action scenes seemed consciously choreographed for adaptation to the lucrative computer game market — although “seemed” is probably phrasing it charitably — and the rest of the movie is a melodramatic muddle. It isn’t all bad, but too little of it is good.

Whereas my appreciation for Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 grew with subsequent viewings, Spider-Man 3 engenders in me no desire to see it again. It rates 5 on a scale of 1 to 10 and leaves me indifferent.

• Writing: Poor
• Directing: Mediocre
• Acting: Fair
• Cinematography: Fair
• Special Effects: Good

Overall Rating: Mediocre/Fair

Some movies were made to be watched in a hot rod at a drive-in… in the 1950s. Thunder Road (1958) is one such movie. Starring Robert Mitchum (who also produced it and wrote the story), it is the tale of Lucas Doolin, a troubled veteran of the Korean War who is working in the family moonshine business as a runner, or transporter. The family business (which is also largely the regional business) is caught between a rock and a hard place: a gangster who wants a monopoly on the illegal whiskey trade, and the Feds who want to stop him (and the moonshiners). Complications abound. His younger brother (played by his real-life eldest son, James Mitchum) wants to be a runner like him, other moonshiners think his daredevil stunts are drawing too much attention to their activities, he has two girls in two different towns (one played by Sandra Knight, and the other by jazz chanteuse Keely Smith), and his experiences in Korea continue to haunt him.

Among other things, it is a tale about the clash of cultures: the rural descendants of Irish immigrants who want to be left alone to do when their ancestors have always done without interference; a government agency charged with enforcing laws and stopping organized crime; and an enterprising gangster from the big city who will not shy from murder to consolidate his empire.

It is a situation ripe with dramatic opportunities, but those opportunities are grasped a little clumsily by the script, although well enough, I suppose, for a target audience that was more interested in the cars and the chases than the quality of the dialogue or the intricacies of plot. Essentially, it contrives to tell a folk tale, and taken as such, it does well enough, but not without the feeling that it could have been done better.

Mitchum’s acting is better than the script, which is unsurprising. There are many movies in which his presence is the sole redeeming feature. Gene Barry is plausible as Treasury Agent Troy Barrett. Sandra Knight, Keely Smith (whose real profession was as a singer, not an actress), and James Mitchum were all newcomers (it was the film debut of all three, although James Mitchum had an uncredited role as a child in a previous film), and their inexperience is noticeable at times.

To state things bluntly, where the writing is weak, the car chases and violence compensate, for it is obvious that this movie was made out of a love for action. This is not a cheaply made hack job. The directing of the action scenes and the behind-the-scenes work involved in creating the special effects demonstrate a level of ingenuity, dedication, and passion comparable to that of the mechanical prodigy who soups up the runner’s cars. Overall, it’s an impressive movie if you can mentally situate yourself in the environment where it belongs: at a drive-in theatre under the stars.

• Writing: Poor
• Directing: Fair
• Acting: Mediocre
• Cinematography: Good
• Special Effects: Great

Overall Rating: Fair

Ghost Rider (2007) is a basic superhero tale that could have been one of the better film adaptations of the genre, but which decided to settle for lazier goals. Yes, the film is entertaining. I found myself chuckling where it was intentionally humorous, and I enjoyed the visual effects, but I do not find myself at all anxious to see it again.

At the heart of the dissatisfaction is the writing. In particular, the weakest link is the choice of villains. For the most part, great heroes benefit from having great enemies. One doesn’t have to like the villains (although that happens often enough), but one ought to find them interesting and entertaining to watch. Epic struggles between Good and Evil should not be boring. The villains of Ghost Rider are boring. One can easily imagine the process of devising them. “I need a villain. How about the son of the Devil? Great! Now I need some superpowered henchmen. How about demons? The demons need a shtick. How about air, earth, and water? Great! Villains: check. Now I need a plot…”

Yes, there is a plot — a predictable plot involving sundry battles with demons and arguments with his confused girlfriend… Sorry, I almost dozed off writing that sentence.

Ghost Rider could have and should have been much better, but a weak script can be the greatest hurdle to overcome in making a good movie. Actors can only do so much with the material they are given, and the best effects in the world can’t entirely save a forgettable story. I’m not saying the story ought to be another dark comic book psychodrama (there’s more than enough of that), but I do expect more effort in storytelling, because the superhero genre, despite its appearances, deserves to be better represented in our culture. Like it or not, the superhero comic has a place in the history of our civilization and its themes and ideals have been instilled in the dreams and aspirations of generations. Doesn’t it deserve to be adapted to film with a little more regard for its heritage, even if, on the surface, it seems to be nothing more than the business of entertainment?

On a more “pragmatic” level, isn’t it just good business to make a better product that more people will enjoy and recommend to others? Hollywood, could you please make writing a priority again and treat writers with the respect they are due?

• Writing: Mediocre
• Directing: Fair
• Acting: Fair
• Cinematography: Good
• Special Effects: Good

Overall Rating: Fair