Showing posts with label Richard Lynch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Richard Lynch. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

Cut and Run (1985)

Ruggero Deodato’s Cut and Run (aka Inferno in Diretta aka Straight to Hell) opens with a vicious attack on a jungle drug lab by loincloth-clad natives led by topless madman, Quecho (Michael Berryman).  Waiting in the wings for the narcotics is Colonel Horn (the late Richard Lynch) and his amphibious plane.  Meanwhile in Miami, reporters Fran (the late Lisa Blount) and Mark (Leonard Mann) stumble upon another drug-related massacre while investigating a smuggling ring.  The duo talk their way into a travel assignment to probe deeper on the premise that their search will also turn up TV exec Bob’s (Richard Bright) missing scion Michael (Willie Aames).  Naturally, this is a great idea, and will turn out just fine and dandy.

Cut and Run is an Action film.  It is a Cannibal film (in texture if not content).  It is a Survival film.  It is a Cult film (in the zealotry sense of the word).  You’ll notice that’s a lot of influences.  You’ll also notice that sounds like an awful lot to try and pack into a ninety minute film.  And you would be right.  For as much as this is any one of the things it wants to be at any given point in its runtime, it doesn’t completely satisfy that facet before it leaps to the next one.  The film begins with a strong action scene.  The natives and Quecho are brutal, terrifying in their animal ferocity, yet the filmmakers cut around some of the “money shots.”  They take the time to show the natives strip and attack two women and then cut away at the moment of their fate.  Yes, we get an aftermath shot, but it feels like a whole lot of build up to not much payoff.  And this is the general approach to almost every scene in the film.  It’s not simply that they exit scenes early.  They exit scenes prematurely, and so the viewer is left dangling.  Interestingly, there are some extremely graphic splatter effects later in the film.  Yet, what they chose to show and what they chose to edit around is baffling, because it doesn’t feel motivated in the slightest.  Coming from a director who is best known for one of the most notorious Splatter films ever (Cannibal Holocaust, in case you were wondering), this backing off on the grue is a letdown.

Further to this, the hopscotch approach by the filmmakers is a detriment to the narrative.  For example, Michael cares for fellow prisoner Ana (Valentina Forte).  He watches her be used for the pleasure of any man Vlado (John Steiner) wishes.  He does nothing to stop this (and it should be noted, Aames’ character does little more than mewl whenever he’s on screen).  He connects with her afterward in a very cursory way.  They get split up.  They meet their individual fates.  The various arcs in the film have beginnings and endings, but they lack any real sense of development before they finish.  Consequently, there is no resonance and very little gratification.  And this doesn’t just apply to Michael and Ana’s story.  The whole reason the audience is willing to take the journey to the jungle in the first place is because we want to see what Horn and his minions are planning.  But even after we get any kind of an explanation, we still have no idea what the hell is going on; the reason given is as nebulous as the course Fran and Mark followed to get there.  It’s like having a comic book with all but the first two and last two pages torn out, and the last two are sliced down the middle besides.  The art may be appealing.  What writing you take in may be entertaining, but that doesn’t change your feeling of being cheated (or maybe just frustrating your desire for completion).  With a little bit more connective tissue, a tiny bit more fleshing out, and a tighter focus on the end goal, this could have been a great film.  Inexplicably, what the film does give you is certainly enjoyable up to a point.  However, by continually pulling the rug out from under our expectations, the film ultimately only ever confounds.  Despite my kvetching, however, I have to say I will almost definitely revisit this film at some point, and I dare say I’ll find something to like when I do.  Nevertheless, anyone coming to this movie for the first time really needs to do so with lowered expectations.

As with Deodato’s aforementioned gutmuncher classic, there is an element in Cut and Run about the media.  When Fran and Mark come upon the initial bloodbath in Florida, they do what we expect from the media: they film a report detailing the carnage, exploiting it.  Later, they will do this again as they send transmissions from the jungle back to America.  Unlike the despicable characters in Cannibal Holocaust, Fran and Mark do not facilitate the butchery they are in the midst of, yet they impassively dwell on it, leer at it.  By following the “if it bleeds, it leads” ethos to the letter, they surrender part of their humanity.  They never really do what’s “right” outside of their documentation of their experiences.  Of course, the viewer becomes complicit in this dehumanization because this is what we want to see from the comfort of our seats.  Additionally, it should be noted that Horn’s interaction with Mark and Fran is a form of punctuation on this.  He has the reporters film his statement of purpose (it doesn’t matter that it’s head-scratchingly vague) because he knows that this is the only way to be heard in this world.  For years, he hid away, believed dead, but Horn understands that through the media his thoughts can live on and perhaps inspire others to follow.  To be fair, this most likely will never happen since his words and deeds seem contradictory and unconvincing, but that he wants his actions filmed for posterity forces viewers to confront how they interact with the media, to some degree or another.

Similarly, there are themes of idolatry.  Horn was a follower of the infamous Jim Jones, and Horn’s own cult among the natives is an extension of that.  Like Kurtz in Heart of Darkness/Apocalypse Now, Horn is, for all intents and purposes, a god to these people.  He understands the value of showmanship to promote his brand of cultism to his select few, but he also appears to be a true believer.  He wants to keep these people “pure,” and he feels that the outside world, especially the media, has brought nothing but contamination into the jungle.  Despite this, Horn claims no ultimate wisdom.  He states, “There are no answers.  Only actions.  By our actions, we are judged, pure or unholy.”  It’s an intriguing enough philosophy on its surface, but how Horn draws it to its final conclusion belies his words.  He thinks he’s showing members of the electronic jury a true path, but what he is actually doing is giving them more of what they want.  I do think the filmmakers have things like this to say in Cut and Run, but the questions they want to raise are muddled by the schizophrenic film that surrounds them.  Like I said, it’s confounding.

MVT:  Deodato is quite adept at manufacturing atmosphere, and Cut and Run certainly has a palpable texture to it.  It’s just laid over top of seriously shaky foundations.

Make or Break:  The opening assault is impressive.  Its culmination is indicative of what to expect: simultaneous highs and lows.

Score:  6.75/10                

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

The Sword And The Sorcerer (1982)


Texas-born actor Lee Horsley is one of those guys who look better with a mustache than without one. If you seek proof, just watch Albert Pyun's The Sword And The Sorcerer. Sure, he has some stubble, but his lack of a manly upper lip covering makes him look like a baby face. Contrast this with the television show for which he is best known (or at least the one for which he is best known to me), "Matt Houston." Not only was he a two-fisted private dick, but his constant companion was none other than Pamela Hensley. For those who don't know, Ms. Hensley also played the deadly ice queen, Princess Ardala, on the program "Buck Rogers In The 25th Century." Not only was she a ruthless opportunist, but she held her own alongside such hardasses as Henry Silva and proto-Edward-James-Olmos, Michael Ansara. And she did it all while looking phenomenal in a bikini (yes, really). I put it to you, gentle reader, would you rather hang out with Pamela Hensley or Joe Regalbuto? That's what I thought. 

Villainous warlord, Titus Cromwell (we know he's villainous, because he's played by Richard Lynch with a Harpo Marx hairdo), resurrects demonic sorcerer, Xusia (Richard Moll), to aid him in conquering the kingdom of Ehdan, ruled by the benevolent King Richard (Christopher Cary). However, Cromwell betrays Xusia and raids the kingdom solo. As Ehdan falls, Richard's son, Talon (James Jarnigan as a boy, Horsley as an adult), is bestowed with a three-bladed sword, witnesses the death of his family, and vows revenge. Years later, Prince Mikah (Simon MacCorkindale, TV's "Manimal") and Princess Alana (Kathleen Beller) foment rebellion in Ehdan, but the machinations of Cromwell and his right hand man, Machelli (George Maharis), threaten to quell the revolution unless the adult Talon and his band of buccaneers (including the one and only Reb Brown) intervene and smash the tyrant.

One of the great tropes that the sword and sorcery/fantasy subgenre gave us (or if not gave, certainly cemented and made its own) is the concept of the specialty weapon. Prince Colwyn of Krull had the über ninja star, the Glaive. Hawk of Hawk The Slayer had a mental link of sorts with his sword. Dar of The Beastmaster had the collapsible (or spreadable depending on your perspective) throwing blade. In times when gun powder simply doesn't exist, survival of the fittest is won by the person with the most unique weaponry (because the other guys don't have it). More often than not, the hero has to spend part of his quest attaining this weapon before he can use it in the story's climax (and he really should use it in the story's finale for it to be satisfying). As I mentioned in my review of the abysmal Thor The Conqueror, oftentimes these special arms are born of magic. Their wielders, however, are not typically trusting of magic and prefer to use their hands or hand-forged steel, hence why they are rarely, if ever given a magical amulet or scroll or some such with which to combat evil. Yes, the weapons are magical, but they are represented as weapons. They have blades and spikes and harmful-looking accoutrements. Thus we come to Talon's triple-bladed sword. This thing has more gadgets and surprises on it than a Swiss Army knife or James Bond's Aston Martin. And yet, the thing appears to be the most unwieldy blade ever. The air drag alone would make you the slowest (and probably most dead) swordfighter in history. Nevertheless, it's endearing to us and we forgive (to a degree) its ludicrousness (nothing says antipragmatic like sword missiles), because it has become a necessary element of the genre, and it definitely has a distinct look to it.

The Sword And The Sorcerer also deals with the concept of birth and rebirth. Interestingly, it applies it both literally and figuratively and to both good characters and evil. Xusia is brought back to life, rising seemingly out of a sepulcher filled with blood. Meanwhile, Talon, as a heroic figure is born at the time he witnesses his parents' deaths. Later, some very biblical event occurs to him, which again echoes this theme. On a more grand scale, Cromwell is born as a despot as he conquers (read: kills) the kingdom's in his path. Mikah and Alana endeavor to resurrect Ehdan and restore it to its former glory through their insurgency (which is more than confusing, since Talon is the son of the former ruler according to the prologue and unrelated to either of these two). Cromwell thinks Xusia dead but later suspects that the damnable wizard is behind all of his current woes, and in a fashion, Xusia has, indeed, been reborn yet again. This constant cycle of birth, death, and rebirth parallels the eternal struggle between good and evil or even Rota Fortunae (i.e. The Wheel Of Fortune), symbolizing the recurrent nature of Fate. The Sword And Sorcery subgenre, like Science Fiction and Horror, is well-suited to this sort of motif. They are already, through their generic elements, divorced from reality. This allows for more deeply allegorical explorations and heavy usage of metaphors via these selfsame elements. How interesting it is that the more divorced from our everyday world the piece is, the more easily it allows us to discuss the issues of our everyday world.

It is a generally accepted rule of storytelling in general and screenwriting in particular that a tale cannot be rife with coincidences. One is acceptable, but adding more, you run the risk of making the whole yarn feel arbitrary. After all, why should the hero have to accomplish anything when some coincidence, Deus Ex Machine, what-have-you will most likely just pop up and solve his/her problems? And why, then, should you give a shit? Sadly, there are a lot of coincidences in Pyun's film, and they do detract from its quality. Characters just show up out of nowhere to lend a helping hand. Other characters suddenly have a conspicuous change of heart, when we've never been introduced to them at all. It's not enough to condemn the film overall, but it is enough to take points away from its score.

The scope of Pyun's film is rather epic. He is, after all, trying to create an entire fantasy world. Be that as it may, this is epic fantasy on a budget, and its effect on the overall enjoyment of the film is noticeable. For example, in the prologue, Cromwell has at least two large battles between his army and his opponents. We don't get to see any of the fighting. We don't get to see any of what Xusia (who we spent a nice chunk of screen time resuscitating, mind you) does in service to Cromwell. No, we get shots of the corpse-strewn battlefields, post-battle (and I would wager shot at the same time). In a cave, Talon and his men are attacked by a horde of rats. Granted, they are repugnant animals, and I would not want them crawling all over me and gnawing bits off, but this is a fantasy movie. They couldn't be attacked by some otherworldly creature? After Talon's men band together to spring their leader, we cut immediately to the same guys locked up in the dungeon. Yes, it's funny, but the elision of the action leading to their capture feels jarring. You feel like you missed scenes at several points (and some of which appear to be key) in the film. What intrigued me about this was that there were some action scenes that were nicely done, so we know that the filmmakers could pull it off. Nonetheless, knowing this and enjoying what there is to the movie in its current form, you can't help but crave to fill in these blanks. But isn't that part of what Fantasy is all about?

MVT: The special and makeup effects used on characters like Xusia are wonderful and half the fun of the picture. There are some surprisingly gory shots that really deliver, and the best part is, they always seem to come just at the moment you need them the most. Crafty devils.

Make Or Break: The Make is the credit sequence, when Xusia is raised. It's violent, queasily sexy, funny, and oh-so arch. When the sorcerer's "E.T." fingers start glowing, you know someone's going to die violently. And do they ever.

Score: 6.75/10
 

**Like this review? Share it with a friend. Hate it? Share it with an enemy.**

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Invasion U.S.A. (1985)


Some people cannot display emotions. It's just that simple. However, whether said person can help it or not determines how society at large deals with this trait. When found in a patient, it's viewed as a characteristic of a mental/developmental disorder. When found in a politician, it's viewed as a nigh-sociopathic lack of empathy (shocking thing, that) garnered from years of practice. And when it's found in an actor, it's viewed as a sign that "actor" is the one thing they should not be labeled. Yet, folks have become famous, flourished even, while essentially imitating the titular character in Lifeboat. Yet, this does not necessarily mean the affectless are also talentless. Charles Bronson was a master of this. His face was like a well-worn catcher's mitt, and his lips rarely moved, but you knew exactly what he was thinking and feeling. And it was usually anger. Is there any wonder, then, that action heroes are generally characterized as wooden actors? They're rarely called on to emote anything other than anger. Okay, maybe rage, occasionally.
  
(Chuck Norris doesn't see dead people. He makes dead people.)

Mikhail Rostov (Richard Lynch) and his communist cohorts have infiltrated the United States of America. Funding a mercenary army with cocaine money, the invasioneers ("invaders" just doesn't encompass it here, I think) infiltrate all areas of the country, sowing unrest in the American people. However, Rostov also holds a grudge against the one man who ever thwarted him (I assume) – Matt Hunter (Chuck Norris). Hunter, however, has retired to the bayous of Florida, where he helps his pal, John Eagle (Dehl Berti), wrassle 'gators. After making things personal for Hunter (I'll give you three guesses how), the Great White Asskicker conducts a one-man war against Rostov and his soldiers, killing his way to the top.

(Chuck Norris has already been to Mars; that's why there are no signs of life there.)

Saying that Joseph Zito's Invasion U.S.A. is a rote action flick, is like saying Chuck Norris has some body hair. While it maintains the very basic premise of Alfred Green's 1952 Invasion U.S.A. (and it should be stated, I've never seen anyone make the case that Zito's is a remake of it, though it had certainly been around long enough to have been seen by the filmmakers), the later film is not really concerned with what an actual invasion of communists would do to the country (the 1952 film is unrealistic in other ways). Certainly, they show vignettes of society breaking down (and I must say, this is one of the most orderly societal breakdowns I have ever seen), but the overarching storyline is actually an ever-escalating duel between two men who hate each other. In this light, the film can be seen as a Western (and I'm sure Mr. Norris would have it no other way), working its way up to the ineluctable showdown with very large "guns." The "what-if" aspects of the Battle-Of-The-Bulge-like siege are mere background noise to Norris's mission.

(Chuck Norris is the reason why Waldo is hiding.)

In many ways, the film is structured like a horror film. There are multiple scenes where we see faceless (even gloved, sometimes) stalkers skulking about in the shadows while unknowing potential victims go about their business. There's also the old trope of walking around a dark house, not knowing what's around the next corner. However, whereas the horror film's cathartic release is typically triggered by the killing of a character or characters who we probably like (though not always) but more importantly probably don't deserve it, the cathartic release in action films like this one is often triggered by the sudden killing of characters who we feel truly deserve it. These are bad men, and no amount of punishment is too much for them.

(Chuck Norris is what Willis was talking about.)

Enter Richard Lynch. No one signifies evil on sight (with the possible exception of Thanos; I'll let you look that one up) quite like this guy. In this film, as in so many others, he plays not just the villain but a sadist. It is not enough that he murders a boatload of people. He first lets them think everything is okay, and then proceeds to kill them all. And he does it all with a smile on his face. Rostov is obsessed with the idea of killing Hunter to the point that he has nightmares about it and would even jeopardize his mission to accomplish this goal. By contrast, Hunter (and what a telling name that is) wants nothing to do with anyone at the start (truly a reluctant hero) and has always believed that the higher-ups (read: bureaucracy) should have let him ice Rostov when he had the chance. The two characters are so antithetical to each other, they could just as easily be seen as God and the Devil in the eternal struggle. In fact, Hunter seems to appear at just the right moment to save people (a sort of serial killer of killers) for the entirety of the second and third acts, like a guardian angel with a beard.

(The chief export of Chuck Norris is pain.)

Two hallmarks of 1980s action films were communists and overkill. Not every actioner had both, but almost all had either one or the other. It's interesting to me that the two great periods of "Red Scare" cinema occurred about thirty years apart. In the 1950s, the theme was often embedded in the horror and science fiction genres (The Thing From Another World, Invasion Of The Body Snatchers, It Conquered The World, etcetera) and rarely spoken of overtly (that was saved for "Red Scare" movies like the earlier Invasion U.S.A., another subgenre all its own). Then there was a lull in the prevalence of this theme in genre cinema, more likely than not precipitated by the rise of the public's interest in social concerns, the proliferation of psychedelic drugs, and the notion that "we are the monsters/Martians." Then, with no foreign war to distract the American public in the early 80s, the focus of villainy in pop culture turned again to the communists. 

(Chuck Norris counted to infinity – twice.)

Whether they were Latin American, Asian, or Russian, the Reds always seemed to have a plan to destroy us "Capitalist Pigs." And we, in turn, had enough hardasses and ordnance to blow them all back to the Stone Age. Invasion U.S.A. is no exception. Rostov doesn't just assassinate someone. He does it with a bazooka. It's not enough to shoot a bazooka at Hunter's cabin. You have to fire several, multiple times. Hunter doesn't just show up at the mall to take out the bad guys. He drives his pickup truck through the doors and walls, probably hurting more people than he's helping. But that's why we watch films like this one, and as an example of 1980s action movie excess, this one excels.

(When the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night, he checks his closet for Chuck Norris.)

MVT: Ironically, I'm giving director Joseph Zito the MVT here. He shoots and edits action exceptionally well. He uses the entirety of the screen, isn't afraid to move the camera, and throws a huge amount of production value onscreen. His pacing makes the film feel brisk, even at almost two hours of runtime.

Make Or Break: The scene where Lynch meets up with druglord, Mickey (Billy Drago), exemplifies everything that makes this movie and those like it so enjoyable. I won't spoil it for you, but it's sleazy, and over the top, and oh-so-satisfying.

Score: 7.5/10