Category Archives: Film Review

Film Review: Spirit Riders (dir by Brian T. Jaynes)

Posted on by Lisa Marie Bowman

One of the main reasons why I love living where I do is because, any time I get in my car, I have a choice to make. I can drive for 20 minutes in one direction and soon find myself in downtown Dallas. Or, I can drive 20 minutes in the opposite direction and find myself out in the country, driving past horse ranches. I’ve always had a weakness for horses, which are not only majestic in appearance but also very loyal in personality.

Considering that, it probably shouldn’t come as a surprise that I’ve always had a weakness for movie about people who learn about responsibility by taking care of a horse. Apparently, I’m not alone in that because there are like hundreds of movies that feature that exact plot. These films always seem to tell the same basics story, i.e. out-of-control teen is sent to a horse ranch and spends the first half of the movie trying to run away and the second half of the movie learning how to ride. And I have to admit that, despite how predictable they may be, I end up enjoying just about everyone of these films that I see.

For example, consider the 2015 film, Spirit Riders. 17 year-old Kacie (Alexandria DeBerry) is a rebellious teen who gets in trouble with the law and who is sentenced to a work-release program at Spirit Riders, an equine therapy camp for disabled and physically challenged young people. At first, she struggle with all of the rules. She wants to smoke. She wants to fight. She wants to sneak off with her boyfriend, who is a total loser despite bearing a slight resemblance to Eric Balfour. She doesn’t want to make friends. She certainly doesn’t want to take care of a horse.

However, she soon meets Rex (Lance Henriksen), who is the owner of the ranch. Rex is tough but compassionate. He’s been around for a while and he’s heard all of the excuses. Rex tells her to stop feeling sorry for herself and to take care of her horse. Rex is stern but it’s obvious that he cares. Rex, in short, is the type of character that Lance Henriksen was born to play. A lesser actor would have just played Rex as being a serious-minded hardass but Henriksen does a good job of projecting the compassion that lurks underneath Rex’s no-nonsense exterior. Henriksen is one of those actors who sometimes seems as if he’ll appear in any film that’s offered to him. I mean, there aren’t many actors who can brag about appearing in everything from Pumpkinhead to Dog Day Afternoon to Near Dark to Spirit Riders to countless direct-to-video actions films. And yet, no matter what the role or the film, Henriksen always gives a good performance. Along with his undeniable physical presence, he just projects a certain integrity, the type that we usually associate with actors from Hollywood’s Golden Age of westerns and war films. Even when he’s playing a villain, you respect him. In Spirit Riders, he’s playing a good man and he makes that compelling.

I don’t want to oversale Spirit Riders, of course. It’s a fairly predictable film, one that will play best with people who already like horses and who can tolerate some occasionally heavy-handed plotting. But Alexandra DeBerry gives a good performance as Kacie and Lance Henriksen turns Rex into a monument to decency. The ranch itself is lovely to look at and so are the horses. It’s a pleasant film, one that’s won’t change the world but which I still enjoyed watching.

Film Review: Mahler (dir by Ken Russell)

Posted on by Lisa Marie Bowman

The 1974 film, Mahler, opens with a stunning shot on a beautiful little hut sitting at the end of a pier that overlooks an idyllic lake.  Suddenly, the hut bursts into flames.  Two children watch, both with oddly happy expressions on their face.  A nude woman breaks free from a white cocoon while a rock that looks oddly like a face appears to watch her.

Suddenly, the scene changes to a train that’s traveling through Europe in the early 20th century.  Traveling on the train is Gustav Mahler (Robert Powell) and his wife, Alma (Georgina Hale).  Every time the train stops, a crowd of people gathers and tries to get Mahler’s attention.  Mahler, however, is obviously ill.  Obsessing on death, he has Alma draw the shades.

The film switches back and forth, from the conventional train setting to extremely stylized views of what one can only presume is taking place in Mahler’s head.  When Mahler has a heart attack, he envisions himself in a glass coffin, screaming as he watches Alma with her lover, Max (Richard Morant).  Every word that he hears on the train prompts him to think about the past but the past, as Mahler remembers it, is full of anachronistic details and references to events that took place long after Mahler’s death.  Mahler either remembers or imagines a trip to an insane asylum, where he meets a crazed man who claims to be the Emperor.  When Mahler thinks about how he converted to Catholicism to further his career, he imagines himself jumping through rings of fire while Richard Wagner’s widow, Cosima Wagner (Antonia Wilson), dressed like a Nazi dominatrix, taunts him.  The hut at the lake appears again, an apparent paradise where Mahler works on a composition about the death of his child.  Alma, meanwhile, surrenders her own musical ambitions, burning her compositions in a nearby forest.

Hmmm …. so, what we have here is a biopic of a renowned composer of classic music, one that is extremely stylized and features a good deal of religious symbolism.  With that in mind, it should come as no surprise that this is a Ken Russell film.  Especially early on in his career, the British director took an obvious joy in taking conventional genres and shaking them up with his own flamboyant style.  In fact, by Russell standards, Mahler is almost a conventional film.  For all of the shocking images to be found in Mahler, the film is still easier to follow than either Tommy or Lisztomania.  (There’s no scene in Mahler that’s quite as in-your-face as the scene in Lisztomania involving the giant phallus.)  If anything, one looks at Mahler in that glass coffin and Cosima Wagner with that swastika on her backside and thinks, “Well, Ken Russell was a bit subdued this time out.”  (Indeed, even the scenes of Mahler tied to a cross aren’t that shocking if you’ve seen other Russell crucifixion scenes.)

That said, Ken Russell’s relatively subdued approach works well with Mahler.  By keeping one half of the film conventional and one half of the film flamboyant, Russell comments on how we always tends to remember the events of our past as being more extreme than they actually were.  We internalize our fears and our prejudices and we make them into reality in our memories.  Mahler’s memories may be over-the-top but then again, the same can be said for everyone’s memories.  When Mahler imagines his family as being almost cartoonish stereotypes, Russell is showing how Mahler has internalized the anti-Semitism of German society.  When he pictures Cosima goose-stepping as he converts to Catholicism, Russell shows that Mahler was aware that he rejecting his heritage for his career.  (Some might find some of the images to be sacrilegious but Russell himself was a practicing Catholic.  Only the truly faithful could be as sincerely critical of the Church as Russell often was in his movies.)  Meanwhile, that the far more conventional scenes on the train work is largely due to the perfect casting of Robert Powell and Georgina Hale.  They’re believably in love but, even more importantly, they’re both believably brilliant.  You look at both Powell as Mahler and Hale as Alma and you instantly accept that they could both compose beautiful music.  The film portrays Mahler as being an early 20th century rock star and Powell plays the role with a mix of charisma and frailty.  As played by Powell, Mahler is someone who knows that he destined to be remembered as a great composer but who also struggles with the price that he’s paid to achieve his dream.

Ken Russell was a truly unique talent and, while Mahler may be a bit more conventional than some of his later films, it’s still a good example of what made him such an important (if underrated) filmmaker.

Film Review: The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (dir by Joseph Sargent)

Posted on by Lisa Marie Bowman

Welcome to New York in the 1970s!  While the intellectuals flock to the latest Woody Allen movie and the wealthy throw radical chic parties in Manhattan and disturbed young men drive taxis at night and pray for a real flood to clear away all the vermin, most of the city’s citizens are just trying to make it through the day.  For many of them, that means spending an hour or two riding the subway.  In some ways, the subway is the great equalizer.  The minute that you sit down on a filthy train car, it doesn’t matter how old you are or how you vote or the color of your skin.  All that matter is finding a way to avoid making eye contact with anyone else.

Four men, all wearing obvious disguised, board the downtown Pelham 1-2-3 train.  They all look suspicious but, this being New York, no one wants to make eye contact.  Everyone just wants to reach their next stop.  The men — who are known as Mr. Blue (Robert Shaw), Mr. Green (Martin Balsam), Mr. Grey (Hector Elizondo), and Mr. Brown (Earl Hindman) — have other plans.  Revealing that they’re armed, they take the 18 passengers of the first car hostage.  Their leader, Mr. Blue, has a simple demand.  He wants a million dollars to be delivered to the car within an hour.  If the money’s late, he will kill one hostage every minute, until he receives what he wants.

While the cold-stricken mayor (Lee Wallace) tries to figure out how to 1) raise a million dollars and 2) handle the situation without losing any potential votes in his reelection campaign, Lt. Zach Garber (Walter Matthau) communicates with Mr. Blue via radio.  With Mr. Blue underground and Zach above ground, the two of them establish a cautious rapport.  Robert Shaw plays Blue as being efficient, polite, but ruthless while Walter Matthau plays Garber with his usual rumpled but intelligent style.  As embodied by Matthau, Garber is New York City in human form while Shaw is perfectly cast as the outsider who, for at least an hour or two, has managed to bring the city to its knees.

Even though the original The Taking of Pelham One Two Three is often described as being a Walter Matthau film or a Robert Shaw film, the film’s main character actually is the city of New York City.  The film portrays the city as being chaotic, angry, and unpredictable but, at the same time, also resilient and strong.  Yes, Garber may spend a lot of time bickering with his co-workers but, in the end, he and Lt. Rico Patrone (Jerry Stiller, another great New York figure) work together to do what has to be done to resolve the situation.  For all the time that’s spent on how Mr. Blue and his compatriots take that train hostage, just as much time is spent focusing on how the police, the politicians, and the Transit Authority react to what’s happened.  Not having any firsthand knowledge of the New York subway system (beyond being told not to use it when I was in NYC a few years ago), I can’t say whether or not the film is realistic but what’s important is that it feels realistic.  Even though the film is full of familiar character actors, it still seems as if you’re just watching a bunch of New Yorkers having a very long day.  Though guns are fired and there is a runway train, The Taking of Pelham One Two Three takes a refreshingly low-key approach to its story.  There’s no huge action set pieces.  The film’s classic final shot hinges not on Garber’s marksmanship but instead on his ability to remember the small details.

The Taking of Pelham One Two Three is one of my favorite heist movies.  It’s well-acted.  It’s got an interesting plot.  It’s got a few moments of unexpected humor.  Robert Shaw is a great (and, at times, almost compelling) villain while Walter Matthau and Jerry Stiller make for a great detective team.  The great Martin Balsam also turns in a wonderful turn and, even though he’s playing a bad guy, it’s hard not to sympathize him.  You need only see his apartment to understand why exactly he felt the city of New York owed him more than it had given him.  Best of all, The Taking of Pelham One Two Tree is a tribute to a great American city.  The Taking of Pelham One Two Three celebrates New York City in all of its rude, messy, and brilliant glory.

Film Review: Worth (dir by Sara Colangelo)

Posted on by Lisa Marie Bowman

How much is one life worth?

That’s the question that is asked in a film that’s appropriately titled Worth.

Based on a true story, Worth centers around Kenneth D. Feinberg.  Played by Michael Keaton, Fienberg was the Washington lawyer who, in the days after 9/11, was appointed the Special Master of the September 11th Victims Compensation Fund.  In that role, Feinberg was in charge of determining how much money should be given to the families who lost someone in the 9/11 attacks.  At first, Feinberg tries to reduce his job to just numbers.  He resists the efforts of his law partner, Camille Biros (Amy Ryan), to convince him to meet with any of the families one-on-one.  Instead, he tries to make it all about how much the victims would have earned if they had lived.  When Camille tries to get him to listen to a recording of the final phone call of a man trapped in the Pentagon, Feinberg refuses to do it.

Not surprisingly, Feinberg gets a reputation for being insensitive and many of the families signal that, rather than accepting the government’s compensation, they would rather sue the airlines and the city of New York, a move that we’re told could crash the U.S. economy or bankrupt the families or both.  It’s only after the workaholic Feinberg makes the mistake of staying in the office after everyone else has left that he actually meets one of the families.  With the help of activist Charles Wolf (Stanley Tucci), Feinberg finally starts to care about the people behind the numbers.

Worth is a bit of an old-fashioned film, a throw-back to the type of well-meaning, competently produced films that used to come out every December so that they could compete for the Academy Awards.  Even the film’s rather stolid, middle-of-the road liberalism feels like an artifact of another age.  (I had to laugh a little when the film assured us that, despite sometimes coming across like a jackass, Feinberg was a good guy because he had been a senior aide to Ted Kennedy, the senator who left a woman to drown in a car while he went back to his hotel and got some sleep.)  At a time when Adam McKay is being treated as a serious thought leader and Aaron Sorkin has somehow been recast as a sensible moderate, Worth’s fairly even-handed and nonjudgmental approach feels like almost an act of rebellion.  That said, Worth’s approach works for the story that it’s telling.  9/11 was such a huge tragedy that it doesn’t need to be talked to death, as it would be in a Sorkin film.  Nor do we need the heavy hand of Adam McKay to tell us that there’s something inherently disturbing about reducing the value of someone’s life to a mere number.  Unlike the films of McKay, Sorkin, or Jay Roach (Hell, why not throw him in there, too?), Worth trusts the audience to be able to figure out certain truths on its own.  After a decade of heavy-handed political agitprop, Worth’s nonshowy approach is actually a bit refreshing.

As a character, Kenneth Feinberg is not always easy to like.  That’s especially true during the first half of the film, when Feinberg seems to be more interested in the challenge of running the compensation fund as opposed to the people that he’s supposed to be helping.  When the film begins, Feinberg is the epitome of the technocrat who can figure out the numbers but who has no idea how to actually deal with human beings.  Fortunately, Feinberg is also played by Michael Keaton, who is one of the few actors to be capable of projecting the natural authority necessary to make Feinberg compelling without also resorting to begging us to like the character.  Keaton does a good job portraying both Feinberg’s quick mind but also his social awkwardness.  When we first meet him, he’s someone who has been an insider for so long that he can’t even imagine that an outside exists.  Keaton plays him as a man who does not mean to be callous but who is so work-obsessed that he doesn’t understand how his job comes across to other people.  Even more importantly, though, Keaton does a good job of portraying Feinberg’s transformation from being a detached bureaucrat to being someone who actually cares about the people who will effected by his decisions.  A lesser actor would have overplayed these scenes and the film would have felt mawkish.  Keaton underplays and it saves the film.

As I said before, Worth is an old-fashioned film.  Visually, it sometimes resembles the type of movie that HBO used to win Emmys with in the mid-aughts.  Keaton so dominates the film that, only afterwards, do you realize that the talented supporting cast was often underused.  Worth is not a perfect film but it is a good film and a thought-provoking one.  It’s currently showing on Netflix.

Two From Cirio H. Santiago: Silk and Silk 2

Posted on by Lisa Marie Bowman

When is an Andy Sidaris film not an Andy Sidaris film?

When it’s directed by Cirio H. Santiago, of course!

Santiago, the Roger Corman of the Phillippines, is credited with directing 100 films over the course of his 60-year career and the 1986 film Silk is definitely one of them! And the sequel, 1989’s Silk 2, is definitely another one. That may sound like faint phrase and I guess it is. Let’s just face it — not everyone is going to be a Cirio H. Santiago fan. Some people are going to want movies that make sense and maintain some sort of continuity from scene to scene. To those people, I will say that Silk and Silk 2 are probably not for you. However, if you just enjoy watching people fire guns and blow things up, the Silk films might be for you.

In the first film, Cec Verrell plays Jenny Sleighton, also known as Silk. Silk is the toughest cop in what we’re told is Honolulu but which is obviously Manila in real life. Early on Jenny informs us that she’s known as Silk because, “I’m so fucking smooth.” Silk may be smooth but she’s also deadly. The film establishes early on that Silk will basically shoot anyone. Normally, that might be a problem but, fortunately, Silk only seems to meet criminals. Over the course of the film, Silk investigates a smuggling operation. She starts out busting heroin dealers and then eventually comes across an identity theft ring …. at least, I think that’s what happens. Trying to follow the plot isn’t always easy but then again, why would you want to follow the plot of a film like Silk? The plot’s not the point. The action is the point and Cec Verrell is such a convincing action star that I’m surprised that she didn’t have a bigger career. Seriously, Cec Verell kicks ass!

Unfortuantely, Cec Verell did not return for Silk 2. In Silk 2, Monique Gabrielle steps into the lead role. Technically, Gabrielle is better at convincingly delivering her dialogue that Verell was but Gabrielle is never believable as an action star. As opposed to the first Silk, which emphasized action, Silk 2 emphasizes nudity and it even features a strangely blurred sex scene. (It’s like soft focus times twenty.) The plot of Silk 2, however, is a bit more fun than the plot of the first film, as it deals with the search for some ancient scrolls and it features Silk’s partner continually getting captured and tortured by the bad guys. After a while, you start to wonder if maybe Silk should stop rescuing him every time that he kidnaps because, seriously, the guy needs to learn to make more of an effort not to kidnapped every time he leaves his house. Eventually, Silk teams up with an ancient scroll expert, who looks like a reject from the brat pack. He and Silk fall for each other, of course. As with the first film, it’s not always easy to follow what’s going on but it’s a short movie and it’s quickly paced, making it ideal for when you want to watch a movie but you don’t necessarily want to have to pay too much attention to it.

Technically, neither Silk nor Silk 2 are that good but they’re both entertaining when taken on their own admittedly special terms. For all of his flaws as a filmmaker, it’s hard not to appreciate the fact that Cirio H. Santiago, like Andy Sidaris and Roger Corman, never let a lack of budget or ability stand in his way. Between 1955 and 2014, Cirio H, Santiago directed 100 films and every single one of them is uniquely his. There’s something to be said for that.

Quick Review: Malignant (dir. by James Wan)

Posted on by Leonard Wilson

James Wan’s newest horror film, Malignant is something that really needs to be seen without any prior input on it. If there’s any way you can watch it – whether you see it in theatres or on HBO Max up until October 10th – It’s definitely worth it. Right after watching it, I contacted my cousin and begged her to watch it without moviepooping it. She never watches a movie without already knowing the outcome – who lives, who dies. If she doesn’t, the anxiety that hits her is great. She twitches in her chair, covers her face, screams and gives every reaction you to hope to experience in a movie theatre. She agreed to do so, and I can’t wait to hear her thoughts on this. I’m almost compelled to head out to a theatre, sit in the back and watch the audience.

You’re better off not reading this and just coming back later, after you’ve seen it. I’ll try not to give too much away.

When I think of popular couples in horror, the first one that comes to mind is Mike Flanagan and Kate Siegel. James Wan & his wife, Ingrid Bisu may be joining that group. Along with screenwriter Akela Cooper (The 100), the three writers provide Malignant with enough jumps and mouth covers for me to enjoy the ride. Is it perfect? No. It might actually be offensive and/or triggering to a few people, depending on what they’re going through in life, but every movie has the capacity to do that without realizing it.

When mother to be Madison (Annabelle Wallis, Annabelle) suffers an injury, she begins to have visions of a figure causing murders. Much like Neil Jordan’s In Dreams, Madison visions give her a tie to the killer, who may be someone from her past. With the police involved in the form of Agent Kekoa Shaw (George Young, Containment) and his partner, Regina Moss (Michole Briana White, She Hate Me), they work with Annabelle to pursue the killer.

Malignant has it’s share of great shots. There’s one wonderful overhead sequence that takes place which reminded me a little of Minority Report, along with Wan’s usual work with lights and shadow. Smoky alleyways and barely lit hallways just add to Malignant’s creepiness. All of this is anchored by both Wallis’ performance, a mix of quiet tension and wide eyed horror, and by Maddie Hasson (Underdogs), who plays her sister Sidney. Sidney is the source of Malignant‘s more comedic quips, along with Ingrid Bisu, who plays the Forensic Investigator. The movie strikes a good balance there, I felt.

From a writing standpoint, there’s enough misdirection to keep the audience guessing, but it doesn’t do in a way that lies to them. On my 2nd viewing (I’m on my 3rd while writing this), the elements that seemed strange really do make sense. There’s also tidbits of humor placed throughout the movie. It doesn’t make it a comedy by any means, but it’s nice to be to chuckle once in a while. It does make one huge mistake (for me, anyway) that almost completely lost me early on, a conversation between sisters that made me wonder why such information wasn’t already known between them over all the time they knew each other. You’ll probably be able to recognize it when it occurs.

Malignant is a tight 1 hour and 51 minutes, but it’s paced so well that the film feels like it’s almost over before you know it. As much as I enjoyed it, that was one of the other problems I had with the film. Not a terrible thing in any way. It hooks you from the start, gives you some great jumps and reveals through the middle. The 2nd half of the movie kind of pushes the pedal to the floor and guns it. I can think of at least two films that Malignant references, but I’ll maybe write about them some other time.

Overall, Malignant is a great Halloween treat, with James Wan & Co. showing everyone how it’s done. It gets strange, but when all’s said and done, you’ll be thankful for the ride. Just go in blind, turn off all the lights, take it for what it is and enjoy.

Film Review: Acapulco Gold (dir by Burt Brinckerhoff)

Posted on by Lisa Marie Bowman

The poster is better than the film.

I just finished watching Acapulco Gold, a rather goofy 1976 film about …. well, who knows?

The film starts with some well-shot footage of marijuana farmers checking out their crop but then it abruptly abandons all of that to follow an American insurance salesman named Ralph Hollio (Marjoe Gortner). Ralph is at an airport in Acapulco, waiting to board a flight back to America. He’s approached by a nun who asks him to carry a piñata for her. Ralph says sure but — oh no! — that piñata is actually full of heroin! Ralph’s an unwitting drug mule and not a very good one because it doesn’t take long for him to get himself arrested and sentenced to 40 years in a Mexican prison.

Despite this run of bad luck, Ralph remains surprisingly cheerful. One is tempted to almost describe him as being a Candide-like figure but that would probably be giving this film too much credit. In prison, he meets another prisoner, a boat captain named Carl Solberg (Robert Lansing). Carl is sprung from jail by local businessman, Morgan Frye (John Harkins). Frye wants Carl to sail a boat from Mexico to Hawaii. Carl agrees but he insists that Morgan also pull some strings so that Ralph can serve as his first mate. Morgan, of course, agrees.

The film’s “action” shifts to Hawaii, where it turns out that Ralph and Carl are being used as a part of a much bigger plot. Or something. To be honest, it’s a bit difficult to figure out just what exactly is going on. Acapulco Gold has a make-it-up as you go along feel to it. Occasionally, it’s amusing. Often, it’s frustrating. As soon as you start to get in any way interested in one storyline, it gets abandoned. The film doesn’t have a plot as much as it has a bunch of scenes that we’re left to assume are meant to be somehow connected.

For instance, there’s an elderly couple who keep showing up at inopportune times, providing what I guess is meant to be comedic relief. At one point, it appears that the couple is surely doomed but, several scenes later, they show up at a golf course and they look none the worse for wear. There are lengthy sailing scenes, mixed in with lengthy helicopter scenes. None of them add much to the plot but the Hawaiian scenery is frequently nice to look at. Ralph falls for Morgan’s girlfriend (Randi Oakes) while a Congressman and a corrupt DEA agent use huge, oversized walkie-talkies to communicate with two people who we occasionally see wandering around in the jungle. There’s a golf cart chase, which ends with a labored joke about a two-strike penalty. And, since this is a low-budget 70s film, there’s a day-for-night sequence that is so ineptly lit that we can barely see anyone for several minutes of the movie. (Though his face may not be visible, one can always spot Marjoe Gortner by his hair. 70s Marjoe had a lot of hair.)

At its best, Acapulco Gold is a charmingly incoherent time capsule, a chance to hop in a time machine and go back to 1976. At its worse, it’s a total mess. That said, it’s short enough that it’s never exactly boring and the randomness of it all occasionally lends the film a dream-like atmosphere (albeit one of those dreams that you forget about after you’ve been awake for 87 minutes). As I previously stated the Hawaiian scenery is lovely and some members of the cast — Robert Lansing and Ed Nelson, in particular — do the best that they can with their inconsistently written characters. The whole thing is such a slapdash affair that it becomes oddly fascinating to watch.

As for the film’s star, Marjoe Gortner was a former child evangelist whose claim to fame was being the subject of Marjoe, a documentary in which he admitted that he didn’t believe in anything that he preached and that he was just scamming people out of their money. Perhaps not surprisingly, Gortner was usually best-cast as villains or unpredictable rogues. (His best performance was as a morally ambiguous space pirate in Starcrash.) In Acapulco Gold, Gortner is playing a normal, ordinary guy who finds himself caught up in the drug underworld. Gortner is miscast as a naive innocent and, instead of projecting any sort of shock over anything tht he experiences, Gortner’s laid back performance suggests that there were multiple reasons why this film was called Acapulco Gold.

Acapulco Gold is currently viewable on Prime. It’s not a particularly good film but Hawaii has always looked great.

Documentary Review: Val (dir by Leo Scott and Ting Poo)

Posted on by Lisa Marie Bowman

Throughout the documentary Val, modern-day Val Kilmer continually assures us that he feels better than he looks.

It’s a sad statement to hear, not just because Val Kilmer is himself admitting that he doesn’t look particularly healthy but also because it shows that Kilmer is very aware that many viewers will take one look at him and believe that his time has passed.  Val Kilmer went from being a rising star in the 80s and the 90s to being a Hollywood outcast, largely due to a reputation for being eccentric and difficult to work with.  While his legions of fans remembered and continued to celebrate Val Kilmer as Iceman, Jim Morrison and Doc Holliday in Tombstone, the real-life Kilmer was aging, struggling financially, and often appearing in movies that were ignored by the same public who loved his old films.  Kilmer started to make a comeback by playing Mark Twain in an acclaimed one man show but a battle with throat cancer left him without his voice and the ability to feed himself.  No, Kilmer doesn’t look particularly healthy in Val but, as quickly becomes apparent, his mind is as sharp as ever.

Val is really two documentaries in one.  Half of the film is made up of footage of the young Val Kilmer, much of it shot by Kilmer himself.  We see him hanging out with an impossible young-looking Sean Penn.  We also see some behind-the-scenes footage of Tom Cruise in Top Gun and we’re left to wonder how Tom Cruise can look exactly the same in 2021 as he did in 1986.  Kilmer, it turns out, was obsessive about filming his life, leaving you to wonder how much of it was about recording events and how much of it was about maintaining a wall between him and anyone who might get too close.  (By filming everything, Kilmer made sure that no one stopped acting.)  In the late 80s and early 90s, Kilmer went so far as to film unsolicited audition tapes for the directors with whom he wanted to work.  There’s a touching earnestness to the three auditions he filmed for Stanley Kubrick while his attempts to convince Martin Scorsese to cast him in Goodfellas led to Kilmer apparently making a mini-gangster film of his own.  In the footage of the young Kilmer, there’s a mix of good-natured arrogance along with an eagerness to please.  Kilmer knew he was handsome and he knew he was talented but you get the feeling that what he really wanted were for his filmmaking heroes to acknowledge those things.

The other half of the film features the older Kilmer, humbled by poor health and years of personal struggles.  This the Kilmer who can only speak in a rasp of a whisper.  The film follows him as he goes from convention to convention, singing pictures for fans who inevitably ask him to write down catchphrases from either Top Gun or Tombstone.  Kilmer says that a part of him hates having to work the circuit but, at the same time, he’s obviously and sincerely touched to have so many fans.  In one of the films most powerful moments, the older Kilmer watches the younger Kilmer in Tombstone.  Though the modern-day Kilmer insists that he’s doing better than he looks, it’s obvious that he’s now very much aware of his own mortality and there are parts of the film that come dangerously close to sounding like a premature eulogy.  But when Kilmer watches himself as Doc Holliday, it’s obvious that Kilmer knows that, no matter what the future holds, his performances will live forever.

That said, I imagine that there are a lot of people who will watch this film just to see what Kilmer has to say about his legendary reputation for being difficult.  Kilmer admits to being a perfectionist and he says that he sometimes pushed too hard.  There’s a montage of various entertainment reporters, all reporting on Kilmer being “difficult” on the sets of Batman Forever and the Island of Dr. Moreau.  Kilmer, himself, however doesn’t seem to view himself as being unnecessarily difficult and why should he?  While other may have called him eccentric, one gets the feeling that Kilmer would simply say that he was just being himself.

Kilmer reveals a lot about himself and his career in Val.  At the same time, it’s obvious that there are still certain walls that he will never completely let down.  When he discusses his family and his childhood, it’s with a mix of regret and a need to believe that things really weren’t as bad as he remembers them being.  He talks about how his family fell apart after the death of his brother.  His father walked out on the family and, after Val became a star, cheated his son out of a fortune.  One would expect Val to rail against his father but instead, Kilmer just accepts it as something that happened.  Still, the amateur psychologist will be tempted to say that a lot of Val’s perfectionism came from his desire to please his father.  (When Kilmer discusses Iceman in Top Gun, he says that he imagined that Iceman’s competitive nature came from having a father who was never happy with him.)  Perhaps the documentary’s most revealing moment comes when we listen to audio of Val Kilmer arguing with director John Frankenheimer on the troubled set of The Island of Dr. Moreau.  Kilmer says that he can’t do the scene because he’s too upset over Frankenheimer saying that he was considering walking off the picture.  At that moment, one gets the feeling that the film set represented the childhood that Kilmer wanted and working with directors like Frankenheimer and Joel Schumacher threw him back into the mindset of the teen who watched his father walk away when things got too difficult.

Val is a documentary that sticks with you, a mediation of fame, aging, regret, and mortality.  (Let it sound too sad to watch, rest assured that Val Kilmer does have a sense of humor and it is on display in the film.)  Here’s hoping that Val Kilmer is with us and being difficult for a long time to come.

Lifetime Movie Review: Dead In The Water (dir by Nanea Miyata)

Posted on by Lisa Marie Bowman

When she was a teenager, Tara (Catherine Lidstone) was the only witness to the drowning of her brother, John (Michael Blake Kruse). He fell off a bridge after taunting her about her desire to be a professional photographer and telling her that their parents would be forever disappointed in her. Ouch!

Ten years later, Tara is still struggling with her brother’s death. She spends her time vlogging about photography, working a demeaning waitressing job, and carrying on a toxic relationship with Derek (Sam Krumrine). When Tara discovers that Derek has been cheating on her, she starts to spiral into depression. Fortunately, her best friend — Amy (Angela Gulner) — has a solution!

It turns out that Amy’s family owns a really nice house on the beach! Amy suggests that she and Tara spend a weekend up there, without phones, without WiFi, without any connection to the outside world. (Sure, how could that go wrong?) Tara is reluctant but she finally agrees to Amy’s plans.

At first, it seems like the perfect getaway. The house is big. The scenery is beautiful. And yet, Tara can’t help but feel that something is amiss. She hears strange sounds in the house. Some of her possessions end up disappearing. Even though she’s with her best friend, it soon becomes clear that there are some unspoken tensions between Amy and Tara. Amy is sick of Tara feeling sorry for herself. Tara feels that Amy is spoiled and has never had to struggle. Fortunately, since it’s only the two of them, they should be able to work through any issues pretty easily, right?

Then, Lucas (Peter Porte) shows up. Lucas is handsome and charming and really good at fixing things. He also says that he just happens to be a huge fan of one of Tara’s favorite books, Wild by Cheryl Strayed. When Amy says that she’s never heard of the book, Tara says, in shock, “But I did a whole vlog about it!” Hmmmm…..

Soon, Lucas is staying in the house with Tara and Amy. Tara likes him. Amy likes him. Does Lucas have an agenda of his own?

Of course, he does! And, let’s be honest, you figured that out as soon as I mentioned him. As I’ve said before, the best Lifetime films are always a little bit predictable. You don’t necessarily watch these films to be shocked. You watch them so that you can talk back to the screen as the characters in the movie make the most obvious mistakes possible. That’s part of the fun of a good Lifetime film. From the minute that Lucas shows up, it’s obvious that he’s not just some innocent hiker who happened to stumble across the beach house. It’s obvious to everyone but Tara and Amy.

But that doesn’t really matter. Though it may be predictable, Dead In The Water is still a lot of fun. In fact, it’s probably one of the more enjoyable films that I’ve seen on Lifetime recently. This film delivers exactly what you want from a movie like this — attractive people in attractive locations dealing with sudden melodrama and a lot of sexual tension. Director Nanea Miyata does a good job of generating suspense, especially early on in the film when Tara is struggling to figure out whether or not there’s really someone in the house or if her own paranoia is getting the better of her. In the two main roles, Angela Gulner and Catherine Lidstone both give good performances. You believe them as best friends, right down to their occasional disagreements. Seriously, the occasional disagreements are a key part of having a best friend. You love them even when you know you’re driving them crazy.

Dead In The Water was a lot of fun. Keep an eye out for it.

Lifetime Movie Review: Doomsday Mom: The Lori Vallow Story (dir by Bradley Walsh)

Posted on by Lisa Marie Bowman

Doomsday Mom is a Lifetime true crime film, based on the disappearance of 16 year-old Tylee Ryan and 7 year-old J.J. Vallow and the subsequent arrest of their mother, Lori Vallow, and her new husband, Chad Daybell. Both Lori and Chad were heavily involved in the Doomsday movement, the belief that the end times were quickly approaching and that only the righteous would be saved. (Hence the title, Doomsday Mom.) Apparently, before the children disappeared, Lori and Chad had said that they had become demonically-possessed zombies. While the police were investigating the disappearances of Tylee and J.J., they also uncovered evidence that suggested that Lori and Chad may have been involved in several more deaths and attempted murders, including those of Lori’s ex-husband and her brother and Chad’s first wife.

It’s a disturbing story but it’s also one that hasn’t been resolved yet. Both Lori and Chad are currently in prison, awaiting trial. While the state of Idaho has ruled the Lori is not mentally competent enough to stand trial for murdering her children, the state of Arizona has still indicted her for attempting to kill one of her ex-husbands. Meanwhile, Chad will be facing the death penalty when his trial finally begins. Because neither has been convicted of any crime, they are still considered to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. If they are found guilty, there’s still the question of how many of the mysterious deaths that occurred within their orbit were the result of foul playe and how many were just coincidences. (Lori’s brother, for instance, died at a rather convenient time for Lori but everyone still seems to agree that he had been in poor health long before Lori even met Chad.) There’s also the question of whether or not Lori is actually legally insane or if she’s just faking it to get out of being sent to death row.

That proves to be a bit of a problem for Doomsday Mom, which is a film that suggests a lot of things but can’t actually come out and take a definite stand on anything, beyond the fact that Lori and Chad were a creepy couple who believed in some strange things. Though the film clearly believes that both Lori and Chad are guilty, it still has to try to maintain some sort of ambiguity. Hence, we learn that people have died but we never learn much about the circumstances of their death. We learn that Tylee was rebelling against her mother’s strict rules but we don’t learn much details about those rules, beyond Lori insisting that Tylee stay home to babysit so that Lori could go to church whenever she felt like it. We don’t see much of Chad’s first wife, nor do we learn much about his family.

Perhaps most importantly, we don’t really learn much about Lori and Chad’s doomsday beliefs, beyond the fact that they were convinced the world was ending and that the people around them were being possessed by demons. The film suggests that both of them were motivated by their own ego. Lori and Chad enjoyed being mini-celebs in the Doomsday movement. But, by not exploring how they came to have such beliefs in the first place, it’s hard not to feel that the film is refusing to give us some very important clues to understanding how all of these murders could have occurred in the first place. Presumably because the question of Lori’s mental competence is still in the air, the film cannot take a clear stand on whether Lori really believes all of the things that she says or if she’s just using all of the doomsday talk as a cover for her own selfishness. As often when happens when a film about a true crime case is rushed into production, Doomsday Mom often leaves the viewer with a number of unanswered questions.

On a positive note, both Lauren Lee Smith and Marc Blucas are chilling in the roles of Lori and Chad. Smith, in particular, is frightening as she switches from being a normal, overprotective mother to a wild-eyed religious fanatic, seemingly at random. Playing the role of the concerned grandparents of the missing children, Patrick Duffy and Linda Purl do a great job of capturing their desperation as they start to realize that, despite all of their hopes and efforts, they will probably never see their grandchildren again. The scene were they learn the fate of Tylee and J.J. is poignantly portrayed by both Duffy and Purl.

I always have a slightly problem with films like Doomsday Mom. I’m not a fan of rushing films into production to take advantage of a tragedy still being in the news. But Doomsday Mom is a well-acted and well-directed film, even if it can’t provide us with the answers that we may be looking for.