Recent Viewings, Part 2

[FatFreddysCat]

The Chuck Norris Memorial Film Festival continues...

"Invasion U.S.A." (1985)
Chuck is a former CIA agent who's called back to active duty when his old enemy (Richard Lynch) leads an army of terrorists in a series of attacks on U.S. soil.
"Invasion U.S.A." was pretty much Chuck's peak of bearded bad-assery. It's probably the biggest budget Norris film, and the mayhem is non stop and impressive. A gloriously absurd action packed epic that's still a ton of fun today.

[FatFreddysCat]

"Code Of Silence" (1985)
Chuck Norris had a great year in 1985. In addition to saving America in "Invasion USA," he also starred in this cool, gritty, down-to-earth cop thriller as Eddie Cusack, a straight arrow Chicago detective who gets caught in the middle of a war between two rival Mob families, while also dealing with a cover-up within his own department.
This movie was originally pitched as a potential "Dirty Harry" sequel, but when Clint passed on it, it fell into Chuck's lap. Apparently this was one of his favorite films, because it gave him a chance to stretch as an actor instead of playing yet another mindless butt kicker (though he gets to do plenty of that, too!)
Directed by Andrew Davis, who would go on to do "Under Siege" with Steven Seagal and "The Fugitive" with Harrison Ford. Quality stuff, well worth revisiting.

[chainsaw midget]

Naked Zombie Girl

Actually a misleading title.  The girl is not a zombie.  She is, however, naked for most of the flick.  It's just a short, about twenty minutes or so and filmed with a grindhouse style that sometimes seems to fight back and forth between Romero and Evil Dead.

The main character is attacked by zombies, looses her dress, and fights them off with a chainsaw.  Not a lot of story.  Considering she's naked for most of it, there's not a lot of actual nudity either, as most of the time she's shot from the waist up and has her hair covering her chest. 

Lots of film distortion though, like you're watching a film reel that's been kept in the trunk of somebody's car for the last decade or two.

[M.10rda]

THE FIEND WHO WALKED THE WEST (1958):
Another offbeat Philip Yordan screenplay, 'cause THE CHASE was decent. This one's a very noir Western, which automatically makes it more interesting to me than the standard-issue John Wayne-type stuff of the era. Officially it's a genre-switching remake of KISS OF DEATH (remade again in the 90s under the original title and urban setting, w/ Nicolas Cage as the psycho bad guy). I didn't recall that when I started watching and had to Google to confirm it, as THE FIEND takes a lot of liberties with KOD's plot, and probably for the better.

Really it's a post-heist thriller w/ the craziest member of a gang of bandits (the eponymous "Fiend") rounding up the proceeds of the last big job, with no partners or elderly ladies or unborn fetuses safe from his sadistic killing spree. One former affiliate yearns to escape his past and settle down as a rancher, but the long arm of the law presses him into service to help put an end to the Fiend's one-man crimewave. Things get slightly more complicated than that, w/ better dialogue and a bit greater psychological complexity than most westerns of the 50s. Crisp widescreen B+W photography makes TFWWTW look like a grander, more serious film than it actually is. (Some shots recall Welles or Kurosawa flicks.) The acting is mostly across the spectrum from competent to dull to bad. (The female lead kinda' sucks.)

But! If you're gonna' make a movie called THE FIEND WHO WALKED THE WEST, you gotta' have a compelling, watchable title character....... and if TFWWTW is remembered at all today, it's solely on account of that central performance. "The Fiend" is a high-pitched, whiny, unstable, neurotic, psychotic, totally loathsome piece of work... played by none other than legendary Hollywood producer Robert Evans in one of his few early onscreen gigs and only lead role. His performance feels straight out of the Actors' Studio - Evans' antagonist could easily pass for the annoying younger brother of the twitchy nut played by (Evans' associate) Jack Nicholson in THE SHOOTING. Maybe Evans' wasn't ever going to be a Hollywood leading man, but he did a good job making me hate the guts of the guy he plays here.

3/5    Directed by Gordon Douglas of THEM! fame.

[FatFreddysCat]

"Clue" (1985)
In 1950s New England, six strangers are summoned to a creepy old mansion for a dinner party. When their host is mysteriously murdered, the group tries to figure out who the killer is while bodies continue to pile up.
Based on the popular murder-mystery board game, this slap-stick parody of old fashioned "whodunit" films sports an impressive cast that includes Tim Curry, Martin Mull, Eileen Brennan, Madeline Kahn, and Michael McKean. It was released with a unique gimmick -- the movie had three different endings (each with a different character revealed as the murderer), depending on which theater you saw it in.
I don't believe I ever played the board game, but I decided to check this one out after reading Tim Curry's autobiography Vagabond, in which he says "Clue" was his favorite out of all his films. I can see why, because it was lots of fun.

[Rev. Powell]

Sherlock Jr. (1924): A film projectionist who wants to be a detective falls asleep and imagines himself entering the movie onscreen, where he's a famous sleuth. Classic slapstick gags, inventive illusions, trick pool shots, and unwise death-defying stunts from Buster Keaton fill this charming and innovative short feature. Finally got this silent classic under my belt. 4.5/5.

[lester1/2jr]

Dark Angel AKA I Come in Peace (1990) - When I finished this, the next movie feature suggested Highlander, The Wraith, and like 6 Chuck Norris movies. That kind of gives you an idea of what this one was like. I had for some reason thought it was from 2000, but it's a bit more impressive for 1990 and easier to forgive some of the problems.

Those problems being most obviously the star Dolph Lundgren, who is charming enough and obviously up to the task in terms of physical conditioning, but often delivers his lines awkwardly and with little thought. Having him just say "I must break you." in Rocky 4 was probably a good idea. Comedian Brian Benben as the sidekick actually works pretty well. He mostly plays it straight, which was very refreshing. There was one good joke though, when they are car chased on to the sidewalk and he's like "Get back on the street!" then looks over and sees the villain on the street "Stay on the sidewalk, stay on the sidewalk" I mean it's not Seinfeld level, but I chuckled.

The pace is a little slow and if it had just been a cop movie I'd probably give it a thumbs down, but there's a whole sci fi element with an alien who's sucking endorphins out of human beings and has these insane disks that are like martian throwing stars. I watched it in one night. It was a long night, but I did do it.

Dolphin Lundgren haha

4.35 /5

It could have used more hot girls, but I can't lie it was pretty entertaining. It had some fairly massive explosions, for example.

[Rev. Powell]

ALPHA (2025): Young teenager Alpha gets a homemade tattoo, and her doctor mother obsesses over the possibility that she may have contacted a disease that will turn her into a statue; meanwhile, her heroin addict uncle comes to stay with the family. Julia Ducournau's followup to the amazing TITANE is well-written, well-acted, well-shot, and well-scored, but something is holding it back from greatness; I think the problem is that, this time around, the surrealistic touches detract from rather than enhance the delicate story she means to tell. 3.5/5.

[M.10rda]

I really liked I COME IN PEACE when I saw it on VHS, probably in '91. I was 14, of course. I always enjoyed Brian Benben from DREAM ON - he's kind of a one-note dude, that note being "short king Jerry Seinfeld", though Jerry Seinfeld never played a reasonably tough cop in an action movie and was never an actual romantic lead (Benben had poop-tons of nekkid sex scenes on DREAM ON.......). And I thought Dolph was pretty legit for the limited range required of him in I COME IN PEACE, and he'd get better in later films. Dolph is okay by me. Plus the ending delivers the goods!

Question for Lester of anyone else who's seen I COME IN PEACE:
Have you also seen SPLIT SECOND (1992 or '93) starring Rutger Hauer?
Exact same movie - like - a beat-by-beat remake of I COME IN PEACE - same renegade cop played with an incongruous accent (Hauer instead of Lundgren), exact same comedy relief partner, same unnecessary hot girlfriend character tagging along illogically, exact same plot structure - it even ends in a sewer/underground! The only difference is that in I COME IN PEACE they're fighting a T-800 and in SPLIT SECOND they're fighting a xenomorph. Otherwise, carbon copy movie - even by the standards of the carbon-copy-happy late-80s/early-90s movie business.

[lester1/2jr]

Not surprised to see Split Second is on tubi. I didn't have cable growing up so my knowledge of this area is a little limited. They have like 70 Dolph movies so...if I ever get the urge.

[indianasmith]

SILENT RAGE (1979) - Chuck Norris is a small-town sheriff who has to deal with an unkillable psychopath whose wounds heal almost instantaneously due to some scientific experiments performed on him.  Lots of blood, boobs, gunfire, and roundhouse kicks.  About as B movie as a B movie can get!  5/5

[M.10rda]

Back in the old days I liked watching a classic Epic Movie on or around Easter. I returned to this tradition in 2024 and watched LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, problematic but a true masterpiece and legit Epic. Last year I watched SPARTACUS, also pretty darn good and plenty long. As I'm taking a family vacation next week and may have no time for movies (sigh), this week I watched

KNIGHTS OF THE TEUTONIC ORDER (1960):
.......And the annual Easter hot streak has... ended.  This is a Polish film that (like SUDDEN FURY) has an avid fanbase. And like SUDDEN FURY, it kept my critical judgment on high alert for its entire duration - 2h45m which felt more like three hours thirty. I'm posting it in the "Good Movies" section 'cause the filmmakers clearly were trying to make a good and serious movie. As often is the case, Mileage May Vary! KNIGHTS OTTO is part Bergman/Tarkovski medieval saga, part Monty Python sketch, all ponderous all the time, yet for a very long and bleak movie it's got a serious case of ADHD, w/ scenes that end mid-action and jump settings abruptly across spans of years and continents. 

What happens? Okay, the titular Teutons get in a big feud w/ a Polish lord named "Jurand of Spychow" who looks like Nick Fury Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. (from the comics, not the movies) if played by Rutger (SPLIT SECOND) Hauer. The Teutons attack his castle and his young daughter runs into the woods but then comes back to find her mother has been murdered, so obviously Rutger Fury is p**sed. But instead of watching him get vengeance, we jump a decade or so into the future, where the daughter ("Danusia") is now the most boring looking maiden imaginable, yet nevertheless a young Polish knight named "Zbyscko of Bogdaniec" (who looks like Miles O'Keefe) falls madly in love with her at first sight. At the same time he's somehow cheesed off the Teutons so they get the Polish king (I think?!) to sentence him to death, which propels his uncle "Macko of Bogdaniec" (the kind of garrulous character who in English films would've been played by Brian Blessed in the 70s/80s or Brendan Gleeson in the 21st century) to set off on a dangerous quest to save Zbyscko's life. All his efforts are futile though because Zbyscko is saved from the noose at literally the last possible moment by Danusia in what is the first of some (unintentional) LOL moments of absurdity yet is apparently founded in Polish history and/or culture. In spite of this, the mortally wounded yet persistent Macko begins a new campaign to marry Zbyscko off to a cool crossbow-wielding huntress who seems infinitely more fun to roll with than Danusia, yet Zbyscko maintains his staunch commitment to his bland blonde bae. Alas, Danusia is kidnapped by a small militant faction of Teutons and then.......  .......And that covers maybe the first 45-60 minutes and then KNIGHTS OTTO keeps on truckin'.......

Halfway through this long movie I had gotten to the point where I could identify on sight or recognize the names of about a dozen of the scores of characters and factions. All of them have consonant-heavy Polish names and all of the Teuton bad guys have interchangeable sketchy (fake?) facial hair. Characters disappear for a long time and you think they're dead and then they show up again sans fanfare. A guy who I think is the King of Poland shows up every 20-30 minutes for a while and sits on a throne and makes pronouncements, then when you finally arrive at the climactic war scene it seems like he's supposed to be the main character, which was surprising. Another central character meets someone on the field of battle in that sequence and talks to/about him like he's been their arch-nemesis for the entire movie and they have the film's final face-off but for the life of me I couldn't recall ever seeing the arch-nemesis previously. I had no real problem keeping 100 characters straight on GAME OF THRONES but I had dozens of hours to get up to speed - this movie is like cramming eight seasons of GoT into 170 minutes. There are at least two big arena duels (like the Mountain vs the Sand-Snake) that seem like they will resolve some major conflict (ala Paul vs Feyd in DUNE) but they don't, the plot keeps chugging. KNIGHTS OTTO made me feel as confused as I felt as a kid the first couple of times I watched Lynch's adaptation of Herbert's novel(s) but even moreso.

I could chalk all of the above up to user error rather than hasty adaptation (of a classic Polish epic novel). The filmmakers have invested great effort in realizing some parts of their story: there's a lot of eyepopping color at times (seemingly more impressionistic than realistic), some elaborate tracking shots of huge swaths of extras doing their thangs, and a few vivid evocations of the chaos of combat. In one exceptionally badass moment, an unarmed Jurand of Spychow hulks out and whups @$$ on a whole roomful of Tutons w/ just his bare hands and any furniture that isn't bolted down.

But most of the time, KNIGHTS OTTO comes off as a hyper-enthusiastic home movie made by some kids in the woods behind their house. Mind you I take similar issue w/ Bresson's LANCELOT DU LAC and Malick's NEW WORLD and THIN RED LINE: Bresson obviously made LDL the way he did per his own peculiar perspective on authenticity X artifice; Malick clearly just hates to plan and loves abruptly throwing actors into unchoreographed mayhem, which sort of works in NEW WORLD but just looks like a trainwreck in TRL. In the case of KNIGHTS OTTO, I'd guess the production was badly underfunded in relation to its ambitious scope, like Badham's EXCALIBUR.  Most of the action in KNIGHTS looks completely impromptu and, as a result, not authentic or badass but just half-hearted and fake. Blows from swords are clearly never actually connecting and anytime someone gets run through it looks like the staging of elementary school theatre (i.e. wooden sword briefly hugged in an armpit). The enormous finale was probably intended to look like the Battle of the B@$t@rds but is mostly dudes staggering about flailing their arms wildly. There's also a (totally gratuitous) bear attack scene that's a little less ridiculous than the one from WINNETOU 2 but then later another "bear" is spotted in a pit during a duel (?why?) and that bear is 100% just a dude in furry ears wearing mittens. 

Overall, an ostensibly Good Movie w/ lots of moments of MST3K-caliber ineptitude, though probably not worth enduring just for the lolz.    3/5?

There is one legit brilliant line from the bad guys (also quoted by a Letterboxd user), which one delivers after they stab one of their own to cover up their other crimes:
"Why, oh Christ, must we commit so many crimes to defend your name and extend your reign?"
Great question, resonant question perpetually and in 2026, yet the film at large doesn't really serve to illustrate and support that great question.