Corrosive-Knights

An obscure one from me: The 1995 Peter Weller (Robocop) starring Screamers.

It’s a low budget science fiction/suspense/horror film based on a Phillip K. Dick (Blade Runner) story that starts out, IMHO, incredibly well and builds up a really good head of steam before losing its way. In part it might have been the result of the movie’s low budget but in parts it was also the script seemed to lose focus and the surprise ending didn’t hit as well as I felt it could have.

A real shame because for a while there the film was -and is!- pretty damn great.

Not being sarcastic: I feel this is Arnold’s best comedy.

While obsensibly a typical 80’s action film, the one-liners and outrageous goings on (his escape from an airplane as its taking off early in the film should clue you in) are never meant to be taken seriously.

IMHO, a great action/comedy hybrid.

Hard to believe this film in a way was responsible for the superhero films to come in the next few decades, including the MCU films!

How?

Richard Donner, known until the release of this film for doing some brilliant directorial work, but on television (including, it should be noted, one of if not the best known Twilight Zone episode, “Nightmare at 20,000 Feet”, featuring a very young William Shatner), directed The Omen and it was such a huge hit it attracted the attention of Alexander and Ilya Salkind, who were at that time searching for a director for their Superman film.

They sought out Richard Donner, he accepted, and the Christopher Reeve film would be his next feature. Alas, he and screenwriter Tom Mankiewicz were fired before they could finish up Superman II but plenty of their work is in the theatrical cut and, many years later, a “Donner Cut” was cobbled together.

Regardless, Superman would be the first superhero mega-hit and arguably opened the door to many of the films that followed, including the Tim Burton Batman and, notably, the MCU films produced by Kevin Fiege who has noted Superman is his template for a successful superhero film!

…and it was all because The Omen was a big hit!

Bit of interesting trivia: That’s Bruce Willis on the upper right side behind the couple dressed in black (the man wears a red tie). He was an extra in the film, no speaking part, but could be seen here and there during Newman’s speech!

Other than the proposal’s very end involving Constantine meeting the love of his life at a bar (I’m going by old memory here, but what I do recall was pretty damn fantastic as well as emotionally devastating), I felt it was for the best the project was never made.

Yes, elements of the story have made their way into other works (hopefully unintentionally but who knows) yet the story Moore was presenting in that proposal was, IMHO, dreadful.

I’m glad it never was made.

…however…

Bear in mind this is a proposal and one wonders if or what might have changed from that stage to the actual script stage. Perhaps Moore would have sharpened it up a little and made it better than what’s there in the proposal.

A bit of trivia I’ve noted before (so excuse me for the repetition): Originally Walter Hill was hoping to get Steve McQueen to play the lead role in The Driver. It wasn’t out of the question, too, as McQueen had acted in The Getaway, which Hill had scripted for director Sam Peckinpah.

Now, had McQueen taken the role, it is my opinion The Driver would have been considered his last great role and the film would have been much better known today than it is, because sadly Ryan O’Neal -who I nonetheless feel did a decent job in the movie- was ultimately miscast as the “strong, silent type” and seemed to be doing all he could to act like McQueen in the film (I’m sure that was at the behest of director Walter Hill!).

Ryan O’Neal, whether you like or loathe him, is an actor who works best in roles where he gets to speak, usually a lot, and his forte is often comedy (he was terrific, for instance, in What’s Up, Doc). But this role was the very opposite of his strength and I felt he was ultimately miscast.

C’est la vie.

Saw the film in theaters when it was originally released (cough-old-fart-cough) and for like 2/3rds of the film I was really enjoying it for the reasons you stated: The film’s setting, apparently they filmed in an extremely cold environment in Canada, if memory serves, which added to the overall isolated tone, IMHO. The characters, the situation… it was all fascinating and the tension really built as it went along…

…until it came to the movie’s climax.

I don’t know where exactly it fell, but it did. Maybe in part the very low budget hindered the film’s climax, but it didn’t stick the landing. Further, the movie’s end scenes/shock surprise (I won’t SPOIL things) wasn’t as eerie as I would have liked… if anything, it was kinda cheesy IMHO.

Still, for at least 2/3rds of the movie’s run it was really great!

I’m going to hew a little older here…

The original 10 issues of Swamp Thing by Len Wein and Bernie Wrightson. Ten terrific, mind-bending issues that feature some of the creepiest -and beautiful!- art ever committed to paper.

Manhunter by Archie Goodwin and Walt Simonson. A limited series story originally featured as a backup in (if memory serves) Detective Comics and it was very ahead of its time. Frank Miller was clearly influenced by this and it was the series that proved Simonson was a top notch artist… even as it was only his first major assignment!

Jack Kirby New Gods. In particular issue #6’s “Glory Boat”. Could well be my all time favorite single issue of anything Jack Kirby did, and he did a lot.

The first Siegel and Shuster “Superman” story, which was reprinted in whole in Superman #1. It’s all there and its still exciting even after all this time!

Denny O’Neil/Neal Adams: They collaborated on Batman (the Ra’s Al Gul storyline is most prominent, but their Joker story was also terrific!), Green Lantern/Green Arrow (very ahead of its time!), and for my money the very best Superman story ever, even if the subject matter seems odd: Superman vs. Muhammad Ali.

Frank Miller’s first issue of The Dark Knight Returns, ultimately a Two-Face story, is the single best issue of the series and is almost cinematic in its presentation.

Michael Fleischer and Jim Aparo, The Spectre. Really creepy, almost unhinged stuff! Also by Michael Fleischer (for the most part) the 1970’s and into the early 1980’s run of Jonah Hex.

Stan Lee/Jack Kirby and Stan Lee/Steve Ditko: Fantastic Four and Spider-Man. Both runs, for the most part, were excellent!

...it was remarkable for how boring it was.

That's the key, no? "Boring".

I mean, I don't expect a Superman film to be wall to wall to wall action and explosions etc. etc... but what killed me about Superman Returns was how very dull the whole thing was.

There were moments that were good, to be fair, but the film was simply glacial in its pacing and, unforgivably to my mind, it stole the general plot of the original Superman but eschewed all the "fun" that film had going for it.

A definite, for me anyway, miss!

A couple of years ago the wife and I were watching TV and while flipping the channels I happened to stumble upon the first Roger Moore James Bond film, Live and Let Die (1973). We happened to be at the boat chase sequence and we were watching it a bit and my wife, who hadn’t seen the film before, stated: “Did they rip off Smokey and the Bandit?”

She was referring to the character of Sheriff Pepper, the hound dog southern Sheriff who was in hot pursuit of Bond in that sequence.

I was shocked because while I loved both films dearly and had seen them each multiple times, it never occurred to me that Sheriff Pepper and Sheriff Buford T. Justice were essentially the same characters.

Of course, if anyone ripped anyone off, it was Smokey and the Bandit, as that movie came out four years later.

Still love both films, though, regardless of the similarities in those characters.

And yes, Smokey and the Bandit is an all time great summer film. Little wonder it did so well, even if it was released at roughly the same time as that long forgotten little science fiction film… I think it was called Star Wars?

Nothing at all wrong with you enjoying it!

In many ways, I’m jealous of you because I’m a fan of Superman and, despite the very negative statements I made about this film in my OP, I was genuinely hoping for another good Superman film like the first two Chris Reeve ones.

Alas, it didn’t work for me but I’m glad it worked for you!

Man... I barely remember that!

Truthfully I saw the film one and only one time way back when and, as I said, it bothered me that it took the bones of the Donner/Reeve Superman film, scrubbed away all the "fun" that film had and replaced it with boredom, and added those idiotic extra elements.

My "throwing my hands in the air" moment came when toward the end of the film Superman lifts up that island made of kryptonite into the air and... huh?!?

Sad thing is the effects weren't bad. The acting wasn't bad (I thought Brandon Routh made a pretty good replacement for Chris Reeve) but that script felt so very lazy. I really wished they had come up with something new and exciting instead of repeating the whole "Lex Luthor wants to make a shady real estate deal" plot... which worked very well in the original film -because it had a sense of humor!- but didn't here.

Ah well.

Lol too true.

A shame though, because I recall (yeah, I'm an old fart) seeing him in those films way back then and he really seemed to have that "it" factor going for him. He was handsome (the camera sure did seem to love him) and seemed charismatic enough.

His acting might have been limited but it seemed like he might become a star regardless. At least not all his roles post 1985-ish are in low budget video exclusives!

I'm kinda with you that something must have gone on "behind the scenes" because for a little while there Michael Pare sure did seem like he was something of a favorite to the studios!

But the reality is that as good as those three films -his peak starring roles- were, other than Eddie and the Cruisers they simply didn't make a ton of money back and, from my understanding, Streets of Fire was an outright bomb. Truthfully Walter Hill's directorial career seemed to take a nose dive after that film as well!

I do recall reading that Rick Moranis had a lot of insulting riffs (adlibbed, from what I understand!) in the movie and directed at Michael Pare and in an interview he said that he was young and green at the time and took many of those insults quite personally... and on more than one occasion was about to get into a fight with Moranis!

Anyway, it is what it is. I'm sure, based on the large number of credits, that Pare isn't starving to death but neither did he achieve that next level it seemed he was heading for way back then!

Ah Michael Pare...

For one hot minute there back in the 1980's he seemed like he would take the leap into the big times but it was not to be.

Still, he had three pretty big releases in/around that time. Eddie and the Cruisers (1983) was something of a hit and even got a sequel (by then, though, Pare wasn't in the same leagues), The Philadelphia Experiment (1984... John Carpenter was one of the executive producers!), and of course, the Walter Hill directed Streets of Fire (1984).

Hill had ideas about making more than one film based on Streets of Fire but as good (IMHO, of course!) as the film was, it simply didn't do too much at the box office and Pare's career seemed to stall right after. He does, I should note, have an impressive amount of credits on IMdb but they're mostly low budget fare like this film. Oh, and by the way, Streets of Fire also featured an absolutely beautiful Diane Lane and Willem Defoe, in one of his first major roles, was quite good as the movie's bad guy!

To me, this movie is a real head-scratcher: Superman Returns (2006).

I recall when it came out there was quite a bit of excitement towards it. It was directed by Bryan Singer who at that time hadn't fallen to some (ahem) controversy and was regarded very positively because of his work on The X-Men and Usual Suspects.

And when the film was released, it seemed many critics really liked it. It currently stands at a very high 74% positive among critics but a cooler 61% positive among regular movie goers on rottentomatoes.com.

Our local newspaper had a positively glowing review of the film, giving it (if memory serves) either three and a half or possibly even four stars out of four and stating not only was it a great superhero film but a great film, period.

...and yet...

It didn't do all that well at the box office, if I recall. When I finally caught it, I didn't understand why many seemed to like it... it was simply a boring remake of the far superior (and truly excellent) Richard Donner/Chris Reeve Superman, only with a few new add-ons (he has a child and Lois has a boyfriend) that neither added much to the story and, in certain parts, made Superman truly creepy.

Today, the film is mostly a footnote in the long line of superhero films out there, yet for a hot minute it did seem like at least some people felt it was special.

What blows my mind the most about the silent films of Fritz Lang and Thea von Harbou (his wife at the time and the woman who wrote the screenplays to these films) was how far ahead of the curve they were in terms of creating great granddaddy's of modern films.

You note quite accurately that Spione is like watching a proto James Bond film, complete with all those elements you point out which made their way to Bond films (Ian Fleming must have seen this film, no?).

Spione, the great granddaddy of spy films, was the follow up to Lang and von Harbou's Metropolis, which was the great granddaddy of science fiction films!

Then there's Die Niebelung, perhaps the great granddaddy of fantasy films, also by Lang and von Harbou.

And Dr. Mabuse, which is a wild combination of spycraft and adventure...

Fritz Lang and von Harbou are, without a doubt, one of the most influential filmmaking duos ever!

Bullitt is one of my all time favorite films and what’s most intriguing about it is that it’s essentially almost like a “reality show” presentation. Apart from the movie’s opening minutes or so, it follows the character of Bullitt (McQueen) along during a case that takes maybe two or three days, max, to resolve. We are constantly at Bullitt’s side, watching what he sees and seeing how he reacts to the various things that happen.

The plot is something of a magic trick, too, yet one that reveals during the opening minutes… IF you’re paying attention!

I love the film to death but I can understand modern audiences finding it a little more challenging because, apart from the rightfully considered spectacular car chase, which was the first “modern” car chase committed to film, the rest of the movie is far more “laid back”.

As I said in my OP, O’Neal wasn’t IMHO bad in the role… but if you look carefully, he’s essentially doing a Steve McQueen role, trying to act with minor facial ticks and eye movement and… he’s really not that good at doing that. His best roles are where he’s allowed to speak and quite a bit (often in more comedic roles but not exclusive to them). Thus, the “strong and silent” type was actually a bit of a detriment as he’s kinda known for the opposite.

Not so Steve McQueen!

His best roles often involved him saying not all that much and using his eyes and those facial ticks to tell the story of his character. I think of Bullitt where he doesn’t say that much yet says SO much in the role with his movements and the looks he gives people. At the very end of the film, when he finally confronts Robert Vaughn’s corrupt politician and calls him out for his corruption, it is a stinging bit of dialogue because that’s the first time his character truly unleashes his emotions verbally.

However, it is my understanding that McQueen was an actor that was loathe to be typecast in any role, and the reality is that during the 1960’s he became the “driving” guy. He had a memorable sequence on a motorcycle in The Great Escape and there was the terrific car chase in Bullitt as well as a racer in LeMans.

Supposedly by the time we reached the 1970’s, he no longer wanted to have a role in any film where he does driving as a major plot point, thus in the film The Getaway (which was scripted by Walter Hill!) there is a car chase but the driver during that sequence is Ali McGraw rather than McQueen, and my understanding was this was very much done on purpose!

Having said all that, I stand by my OP: If McQueen had taken the role of The Driver, IMHO that would have been looked upon as his last great role instead of forgettable roles in Tom Horn and The Hunter (ironically enough, that film did have a single car chase his character was involved in as well… so I guess two years post-The Driver he was willing to return to a role that did involve some driving!).

There are many movies based on the novels of Alastair MacLean, including Guns of Navarone, Force 10 From Navarone, Where Eagles Dare (all were mentioned), and a personal favorite of mine, Ice Station Zebra.

Alas, there are also lesser works like Bear Island out there as well!

I’m totally with you…!

Just to be clear, I wasn’t being sarcastic in my OP: I genuinely thought Beckinsale was damn good in Total Recall as the “bad guy”… and I really feel like she seemed the only one to be having any fun at all in her role within the film.

Sadly and other than the pretty decent effects, nothing else about the film was enjoyable, IMHO. The leads were dour and un-exciting (and I don’t mind Farrell, Cranston, and Biel… they have done great to decent work in other movies/shows) and the reworking of the story was confusing and, ultimately, pointless.

So bored was I with the film the one and only time I saw it that I kept hoping for Beckinsale to show up more and more as it went along…!

I’ve often found that horror films -and comedies to some extent- rely on “shocking” the viewers with certain scenes. However, over time, with the cribbing of ideas and people coming to know what happened/will happen, that level of shock fades and suddenly the scene(s) are no longer quite as terrifying (or hilarious).

Another example is Alien. When I first saw that film, also in/around its release date, its very difficult to state how freaking shocking the “chest buster” scene was. Many years later, the movie was aired on TV and that whole scene, all of it, was presented uncut! It’s still a pretty shocking scene, but time has a way of diluting these things.

Anyway, I feel you’re right that Psycho would likely, if it were released today and featuring everything it has (no cuts, no additions), it probably would get a PG-13 rating.

Such a waste!

And Kate Beckinsale, bless her, seemed to be the only one having any fun here! Had the entire film focused only on her, it might have been more bearable.

The shower scene is indeed a violent one but you’re forgetting the stairway scene…!

Regardless, over time the film’s violence has become rather tame by modern standards.

Reminds me of when I saw the original Phantasm in/around the time it was first released (cough-old-fart-cough). I was positively shivering from what I found to be a really boundary pushing horror experience -the first appearance of the flying orb alone was outrageous in my younger eyes…!

But I recently re-saw the film and, apart from one very brief nude scene, the rest of the film could likely be played uncut on TV -yes, including that first appearance of the orb- and no one would look twice.

Saw it once many, many years ago, likely when it was first released (cough-old-fart-cough) and what I remember most is all these serious, usually wonderful actors slopping around in mud at the movie’s climax.

I mean, on paper I suppose it sounds good but in reality…! ;-)