Article: First Watch of Maniac Cop

I always remember the poster of Maniac Cop being slapped up on independent video shops in my town. A dark, mean-looking poster that promised horrible things would happen in the movie. “You have the right to remain silent…FOREVER!” What a tagline. Such succulent marketing. Was there any doubt about the type of movie that you were going to get? 

Indeed, grim events do take in Maniac Cop, an exploitation feature that is part procedural, part authoritative corruption, pulled down a supernatural slasher film funnel. The film is lean and mean and doesn’t like to hang around. Yet despite its short run time, a glut of intriguing themes are pulled from its plot. Situated in 80s New York, a volatile period when the city was still in a mode of economic and societal recovery, Maniac Cop delivers slight but pointed commentary on ideas of police brutality and corruption.  Asking the question: What would happen to a Dirty Harry-style cop if the hierarchy started to turn the screws on their antics. Nothing has time to be explored with any complexity. But while it’s not academic it certainly feels like it wants to prod at the thin blue line.

Detective Frank McCrae (Tom Akins) begins an investigation into a series of brutal murders which at first seemingly have no pattern yet have enough clues to convince the officer that the killings are coming from one of their own. Jack Forrest (Bruce Campbell) fits the bill of the killer at large and is taken in under suspicion. However, when the attacks are still occurring, it falls to Forrest, McCrae, and Forrest’s partner Theresa (Laurene Landon) to find out what’s happening. 

Maniac Cop is the creation of filmmaker William Lustig. Director of low-budget, exploitation features such as Maniac (1980) and Vigilante (1982).  Maniac Cop is perhaps Lustig's most well-known feature, becoming a cult hit in the 80s and succeeded by two sequels after the 1988 original. It’s easy to see Maniac Cop did so well. While it may be an exploitation vehicle at heart, the film is still a well-made piece of trash. For a low-budget movie that may not even reach 90 minutes without its end credits, Maniac Cop packs a lot into its characters, while handling some effective set pieces. Nothing outstays its welcome, which makes it understandable why some people expected more meat on the film’s bones. 

Yet Maniac Cop is a film that is succulent with some of the things that it says. The film’s first murder feels unnerving not least for the victim, Cassie, to mention nonchalantly to her Bar colleagues: “I’d rather face the muggers” when someone cracks wise about her leaving the establishment. She is then chased by some would-be thieves before running into the Maniac Cop.  Glimpsing the uniform, Cassie believes she is safe, only to meet a ruthless and violent end. It’s a moment that reaches into something quite primitive. When people see the authorities, they expect safety. 

The film plays on this well. 15 minutes in and tension in the city is so high enough that citizens are more than willing to unload on police folk. Unfortunately, due to how the city goes about its policing, the film happily suggests that this is the NYPD’s own doing. When a black kid on TV is interviewed at one point, he is frank:

“I’ve seen plenty of my friends murdered by cops. Shot in the back, shot when they didn’t have a gun or a knife, claiming the suspect had a shiny object. You know, Cops like killing…That’s why they’re cops…who’s gonna be next?!”

The lines don’t appear in the quote section of the film’s IMDB page, yet they feel like a haunting precursor to recent history. When Cassie is examined by the coroner after her death, another officer is flippant that a cop would do such a thing. And yet, we know that officers can and will. Watching the news says enough. 

I was a little upset to see reviewers being as sour on the movie as they were. Perhaps due to the expectation of the film to be more for what it is. It’s a film that is quite serious and cynical at times but never really penetrates any of its topics with any academic depth. It’s an exploitation B-movie through and through, but it’s not as outrageous as one may expect from its premise. I can’t say I didn’t expect slightly more from its premise, but as a trimly cut action horror, it’s solid in a way direct-to-stream movies of the modern ages are not. It’s uncomplicated, uncompromising and far better crafted than it gets credit for. I do not expect the logic of a possibly supernatural cop to hold up well. However, I will praise the subversive nature of casting the man who would risk his neck for his brother man as a corrupt and calculating commissioner. I’m also willing to forgive the film's lack of extreme violence for its simple, yet effective set pieces. There’s something I find profoundly ominous about a cop terrorising a couple at a deserted traffic stop. The idea of having to drag a dying cop who’s handcuffed to you has an odd chill to it too.

But what perhaps made Maniac Cop work the most for me is the sense that everyone in the production is looking to do a little with the little they have via resources. This is a movie that has a strong visual style visually. The night scenes are solid, while the action has a good sense of geography. The cast know the kind of movie they’re in and act accordingly with Bruce Campbell showing himself to be a far more vulnerable leading man than he’s ever really had the chance to showcase. Far from the gloopy pratfalls of The Evil Dead series, Campbell shows off the B-movie acting chops fans have always loved him for. He’s flawed, angry, and a little sensitive. It works. 

It's a shame that not all of it pays off. The film’s slenderness ensures some head-scratching. However, watching Maniac Cop in the current era feels fresh. The film feels like it wants to take a few jabs at the establishment while being a Friday-night actioner and a slasher movie. The film hedges its bets a little. But that said, I’ve been told that the second film is the thing to see. And there are enough good things in Maniac Cop to place its sequel higher up on my watchlist. And if a movie is entertaining enough to do that, then it’s worth a watch.    

Maniac Cop is currently streaming on Amazon Prime. 

Dug what you read? Support me on Ko-fi

  

Review: Kong: Skull Island

Year: 2017
Director: Jordan Vogt-Roberts
Screenplay: Dan Gilroy, Max Borenstein, Derek Connolly
Starring: Tom Hiddleston, Samuel L. Jackson, John Goodman, Brie Larson, Jing Tian, Toby Kebbell, John Ortiz, Corey Hawkins, Jason Mitchell, Shea Whigham, Thomas Mann, Terry Notary, John C. Reilly.

Synopsis is here:

“Everything here is something” - Marge Simpson Ep15 – Season 13 - Blame it on Lisa

King Kong has been refurbed three times before Kong: Skull Island. That’s not counting his 60’s Japanese stints. Before this iteration, audiences were given at least a 20+ year period before the great ape roared back into screens once more. The fact that Kong: Skull Island has taken 12 years to reach audiences only reminds us of just how rapid the acceleration of reimagining/rebooting/rehashing cinematic brands has become. Yes, it is still over a decade but the gap is remarkably smaller, particularly when we consider studios churning films of anything that may rouse even a passing notion of nostalgia. While I don’t wish to turn this review into a rant about “original” stories, it is important to note that the high volume of going back to the well should hopefully mean bringing a fresher angle to the material. Kong: Skull Island decides that while harking on past success is the only thing. People like giant apes. You get giant apes.

Kong: Skull Island is a far more kinetic beast than Peter Jackson’s more romanticised project. This is straight up B-Movie thrills. No dilly dallying. We get to see Kong from the get go. There’s no mystery here. Spectacle is key. This is a Kong for cinematic universe goers. We know what to expect, so it just needs to be confirmed. Does Kong go rampant? Check. Is nearly everything these poor humans touch actually a beasty designed to kill them? Check. Are the human characters not worth a dime because giant apes? Double check. Skull Island merrily fills the frame with known character actors and unceremoniously stomps them out the picture, without a care in the world. We’re here to see Kong smash and indeed he does.

There is a distinct feeling of hollowness about the whole thing. We expect a film about a gigantic ape to have a bobbins plot, but there isn’t much to really grasp on. Oddball crew find a strange island. There’s a massive monkey on it. The film hangs the Vietnam war and Nixon over itself as window dressing, but all the Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse Now references seem to be shallow lip service to an audience that wouldn’t be interested in Samuel L Jackson going mental over a huge ape. The films disposable cast is well picked and they’re a little more fun to watch than the dour performances that appear in the recent Godzilla (2014) remake. However, as the film isn’t really interested in their plight, it’s still hard to be really invested in anything that happens. The action is tight and well-constructed and there a general knock around fun that comes from some of the set pieces, but it is all empty calories. While it’s vaguely amusing to see people not even able to sit down on anything without said seat trying to eat them, nothing really lingers in the mind, nor feels worth watching again. Something I do get from previous incarnations.

A brief but obvious spoiler hints at a larger universe filled with ancient creatures, but I find myself asking why. The answer is as clear as day, but the films are quite weak. At least Kong: Skull Island acknowledges that it's a B-movie. It seems pointless to tie all these films up this time around, but now that the Marvel cinematic universe dictate the market trend, we now have to realise that everything here is something.

Review: Nurse

Year: 2014 (U.K Release 2015)
Director: Doug Aarniokoski
Screenplay: Doug Aarniokoski, David Loughery
Starring: Paz de la Huerta, Katrina Bowden, Corbin Bleu

Synopsis is here:

“Trash has given us an appetite for art.”

Infamous film critic Pauline Kael was the writer who was smart enough to inform us that “Movies are so rarely great art that if we cannot appreciate great trash we have very little reason to be interested in them.”

A part of me disagrees with this. For me, as ignorant as I am to combat Kael when talking about art (I’m still naive enough to believe that great art often lies in the eye of the beholder), there’s a canny kernel of truth that lies in the words of one her most well-known pieces of writing. We must sift through the trash to find the gems. We most search through crap to find a golden “truth”. Or something like that.

Unfortunately, Nurse is bog standard trash. C-movie garbage that strives to be B-movie gold. There’s not much to be found from it. The film looks it has the ingredients to be a piece of cult entertainment, but the elements aren’t stirred right. Its lead actress Paz de la Huerta has sought to sue the filmmakers for loss of earnings due to the film's poor quality. What should we make of that?

Such an act, screams significance. A film like Nurse that wishes to play on the exploitation curve only really needs to highlight de la Huetra’s own. Nurse never fully embraces its trashiness. Its body count and pert bottoms never wink hard enough at the audience. Paz de la Huerta’s should be embracing her inner Eva Green for her role as psychotic necrophiliac; Abby. Instead, she displaces her energies and sleepwalks drearily through scenes with none of the OTT mania that would make her part enjoyable to watch. There’s seems to be a distinct lack of energy in getting the best out of Katrina Bowden, who may not be a go to A-list actress, but has a lot more presence than what is shown here.

None of Nurse feels like the fault of the cast. The apathetic nature of the film seems to come from the source material. Nurse’s weak screenplay never feels subversive. If it did then at least it could make light of the film’s glaring discrepancies. Director Doug Aarniokoski; a veteran of television, does very little work on the pace of the script either. At 84 minutes, Nurse manages to ensure that it’s one of the more laborious chores of cinema I’ve had to watch this year.

With its blood, boob and bums, there may be one or two fans of Nurse who will have differing thoughts about Nurse. I however, found very little to enjoy from its anemic attempts at titillation. There’s little to no diamonds to be found within this bit of rough. It did however manage to get me to watch the film twice, to see if I missed something. Just in case. I guess that’s something.

Review: Godzilla

Year: 2014
Director: Gareth Edwards
Screenplay: Max Borenstein
Starring: Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Ken Watanabe, Elizabeth Olsen, Juliette Binoche, Sally Hawkins, David Strathairn, Bryan Cranston

Synopsis is here

I found myself grappling with my thoughts on this latest rendition Godzilla since my viewing last Friday. I had more than enough time to piece a review together since then, but I wanted to figure out if my thoughts of the film would develop into something more than just "fine". As a big fan of Edwards last feature; Monsters (2010), I had some high hopes for whatever project would come the young director's way and while a $100millon plus blockbuster was possibly not what I was thinking, but I was more than willing to see what he would do with Japan's iconic, atomic beast.

Edward's Godzilla feels less like Roland Emmerich's flat 1998 adaptation of the material, yet it struggles to bring across the gloomy, tragic tone of the 1954 original. The film stumbles somewhere along the middle of both. Doing its best to project the huge amount of money spent on it and fumbling a plot that has a refreshing change of pace in comparison with other blockbusters, in terms of structure and themes, yet no interesting human characters to engage with. Edward's film excels when Godzilla makes its appearances in the film, but most of the films downtime is spent with people that hold no real interest. Edwards clearly likes to display the idea that when such creatures appear on earth, we are of little significance, and I enjoy how his displays this in such moments as the glorious skydiving set piece. If we are to spend so much time with its human characters, however, I would not mind some emotional connection.

The 1954 original film cleverly used the Japan as a collective source of character, utilizing isolating moments of terror and despair and unifying them as an emotionally connective tissue. There is no main character because Japan is the main character. 2014's Godzilla decides to lump its heavy weight upon Aaron Taylor Johnson, whose board shoulders aren't strong enough to carry it. Johnson plays the role barrel chested but cardboard faced. Other actors I expected more from (Olsen, Binoche, and Hawkins) are either bland info-dumping mouth pieces are unfortunately shoved into either dull homely or info-dump characters. This is the second film to place a female character within a uniform of a nurse and believe that's enough to sell the idea of the character (see also The Amazing Spiderman 2). Bryan Cranston tries hard to inject the kind of energy we expect from such a film, as yet another pent-up father figure, while Ken Watanabe is allowed inform us of the nature of the beast, yet the amount of screen time they are given to place any gravitas, is limited. A strong international cast is wasted, while we wait for what we actually came for.

Edward does deliver when it comes to the film's scale. The film generally feels large. We witness helicopters appear as mere specks on landscapes of foliage. Watching landscape shots of soldiers against the sheer size of the mutated monster only amplifies the feelings of insignificance of the human species as the rampage of the creatures takes place. Edwards also nods back to his first feature (as well the Godzilla franchise) with a solid sense of wit. Meanwhile cinematographer Seamus McGarvey's beautifully ashen cinematography and Alexandre Desplat winking score sets the right tone.

Godzilla 2014 tries hard to juggle a few pies in the air and only manages to a few of them up. Edward's film is making a summer blockbuster with very particular B-movie-like undertones. But while the original film smartly captures a country's pain with a sense of melancholy, Godzilla fumbles its human story with unengaging characters. The film really hits its stride when it all kicks off, but I would happily be calling the film great if the film's quieter moments had anything approaching the subtly affecting Mexican vigil scene found in Monsters. Godzilla is best viewed for its splashes of spectacle only.

Review: Dead Man Down

Year: 2013
Director: Niels Arden Oplev
Screenplay: J.H. Wyman
Starring: Colin Farrell, Noomi Rapace, Terrence Howard, Dominic Cooper

Synopsis is here

"You were expecting art" I was told by my podcast cast co-host after this shambolic viewing of Dead Man Down. A statement not even worth a response in my view. If I'm going into a film with a title such as this, with the knowledge that the film is produced by World Wrestling Entertainment Films, I know I'm not getting "art". When comments such as the aforementioned a thrown around, it's often used as an excuse not to engage with any of a films flaws. No, I was not expecting something that would inspire revolution. I was expecting B movie thrills. Unfortunately I was awestruck by the dullness that inhabited Dead Man Down, I found it hard to find any spark of enjoyment.

Dead Man Down is one of those movies in which is rooted down with such silliness, you realise that the film itself comes to a standstill if you were to try and rip out its problems. Characters must continue with their stupidity in order for the film to function. Characters act dumb while the audience are near yelling at the obvious. To think that a crime boss, who rose up the ranks and is now being elaborately threatened, can act so blind around those around him, cries foul. But to suggest this; means the film no longer ceases to be.

I may be looking at this the wrong way, but I don't think so. Right from the start we have the drop on the characters ahead of time. We have no suspense or tension. There's no anticipation because we're clear steps ahead of the game. We are waiting for a cast who is fair to good for the material to finish the puzzle you completed yesterday. And we are doing this at a snail’s pace. 

Director Niels Arden Oplev may be riding on his credentials gained from The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, but that film thrives on the energy of its outlandish plot and the forcefulness of its female protagonist; Lisbeth Salander, played by Rapace. Here Oplev's muse is diluted from complex construct to damaged damsel with little to do other than look pretty and helpless. The scars placed on Rapace's face by the makeup artists do little to deter her sex appeal, or convince of any serious disfigurement, no matter what the neighbourhood kids say. 

Oplev had a fun mystery to pull apart with Dragon Tattoo. Here he only has a pensive Colin Farrell furrowing his brow so hard, you could plant potatoes in the lines. The tale of revenge that takes place here is formulaic and boring, and save for the film’s final set piece at its climax, there is little to take note of. 

Films like this need a certain amount of urgency. If not, bored viewers may tug at it its frayed edges and tear it apart. I had more fun trying to guess which wrestlers had bit parts as hired goons. I didn't expect "art" but the best B movies are entrenched in their genre enough to be subversive, outrageous or smart. Dead Man Down does none of these things. But the least it could have been is exciting.

Review: Arena

Year: 2011 (U.K Release 2012)
Director; Jonah Loop
Screenplay: Tony Giglio
Starring: Kellan Lutz, Samuel L Jackson

Synopsis is here:

Arena reminds me once again; that while Samuel L Jackson can make Quentin words sing, give him the cash and he'll be in damn near anything. Yes, the world's highest grossing actor certainly knows how to pick his movies. One look at his filmography; details a man whose done nearly everything and worked with damn near everyone. Yes, he made it big with Tarantino, but look further back to see him on projects with the likes of Milo Foreman, Spike Lee, Martin Scorsese and Phillip Noyce. Leap past 1993 (Steven Spielberg's Jurassic Park) and see the list of notable names continue, Paul Thomas Anderson, Steven Sodenbergh, William Friedkin to name a few. A true elitist snob may sneer at such a populist line up but to a man whose favourite film is House Party, the list is pretty impressive. So impressive, that it's a shame to see Jackson lend his name  t a film that can't be bothered to name him in the opening credits.


It's not like Arena makes a secret of Jackson's involvement. His face is smugly plastered on the cover of the DVD (or lovefilm download), he's the first famous face you see within the film (first two minutes) and he's certainly credited at the end of the film. But no, the "bad motherfucker" gives away his name sake for Kellan Lutz, as this appear to be a vehicle for him. That's pretty good going, considering Jackson stood firm on his wish for a purple lightsabre. 


I've blathered about Jackson for two reasons, the first being that Jackson's performance is the best thing about Arena. The second reason is quite simply for a man of such considerable talent and presence (his performance as a crack addict in Jungle Fever is really something) I find it astonishing that Jackson is willing to grace his presence in something so tepid. 


Arena looks like it wants to update The Running Man premise in the similar way that the risible Gamer wished to. Now with the Internet so open and uncensored to everyone, the film's main conceit is that an illegal gladiator style combat arena would thrive due to the lack of restriction the Internet has. The idea isn't new, and similar threads can be found in the likes of Hostel, The Hunger Games or the aforementioned Gamer.


The problem with Arena is that it trite, corny, unexciting and not at all interesting in the slightest. Does it want to be a satire? If so then it's not sharp enough. Show masses of people garnered around to watch such death games is one thing, but when the images are so dislocated from the rest of the film, they give no true contribution. Wow, college kids watch graphic content on the Internet. This wouldn't be so much of a problem if the film didn't just show us such scenes, for the sake of showing it. It postures and pretends to comment but literally has nothing to say. 


That's fine, so then does the film wish to be a proper vehicle for it's twilight star Lutz? Possibly, but it doesn't show him in a great light. It may be some of the mealy mouthed dialogue that he has to spout, but it could also be due to the fact that Lutz himself doesn't stand out despite being in every scene of the film. Out of the four other films I've seen, in which he featured, he has made little to no impact. I do not remember him in those films and despite his model looks, he does nothing to change my feelings for him as a performer. Jackson tries to carry him but there's only so much energy one can give and scenes continuously fall flat. 

Does the film transpire to just a good old fashioned B-movie actioner? Well it exploits enough women to almost achieve this? Arena is a film in which women are either scheming (often naked) servants to the film's predictable plot/shirtless man, wordless prostitutes or teenage girls who are either hushed (because violence is more interesting) or mocked due to their dislike of graphic violence. The violence itself? Well would you rather watch a repetitive montage set to generic rock? Or would you rather watch The Raid? An action film should excite with it's set pieces despite other flaws, which this does not.

It could be easy to lash out at Arena because it's a video release (no theatrical) but Arena gets no love as it's a toothless bore. Those more versed in such action features will roll their eyes at it's cheesy, on rails plotline and be switched off by it's bog standard action. Every so often, you can find Samuel L "slumming it" in productions like this. But considering the movie star he is, it doesn't particularly matter. He can pick what he want and rake in billions with Marvel, this won't even make it as a footnote of his cinematic achievements.
 

Review: Drive Angry

Year: 2011
Director: Patrick Lussier
Screenplay: Patrick Lussier, Todd Farmer
Starring: Nicolas Cage, Amber Heard, William Fichtner

Synopsis is here

Drive Angry is a trashy little exploitation flick that for the most part does exactly what it says on the tin. Sex? Check. Blood and Gore? Check. Nic Cage walking away from an explosion in slow motion? Double check. It's silly, ridiculous and for the most part it's kinda fun in a schlocky sort of way. Don't go looking for "serious" write up of a film like this because it doesn't take itself seriously. Unfortunately despite it's b-movie intentions I'm quite surprised it doesn't go for broke.

The film is about a man named John Milton (geddit?) escaping hell to seek bloody revenge on those who have killed his daughter. So why is it that we have Nic Cage in the lead role not chewing the scenery like a child chomping on taffy? In fact why are we seeing not only Cage but the script itself so restrained? This is a film that need not copy Planet Terror but defiantly needs to get hold of the same energy. Unfortunately this lack of verve (right word to use for a grindhouse pic?) display the films main weakness. This is a film that suffers from too much downtime and not enough lunacy. We can forgive Drive Angry for a patchy narrative if it promises not to be dull. But tell that to the films middle act, which goes nowhere. It's fairly obvious that in the hands of Roger Corman; 15 minutes would have been yanked out of it's 104 minute run time.

We must also add that despite a story which features god guns, breaking out of hell, lunatic priests and the like, why are are the set pieces so uninspiring? Is it because there's TOO much money for something like this? We used to see films like this at your local video store; costing less but having way more nuttiness throughout. Hell, compare this even Hostel and you could be surprised at how little this film does to turn heads. But at least Lussier understands that 3D is best used as a gimmick.

The reason to see this if any it seems is the two performances from Amber Heard and William Fichtner, as they seem to understand that Drive Angry is supposed to be a laugh and get the tone right. Least not Heard who has a character that not only wants to be a strong ass kicking female but also wishes to titillate like an Zoo magazine model. Let's not lie here as most men in the screen will be watching to see how far those hot pants ride up Miss Heard's pert posterior. Heard however manages to be more interesting to watch than Cage just by being up for the role. Fichtner in the meanwhile steals most scenes he's in by not only getting all the best lines, but also having fun with the films most intriguing character.

Driver Angry may gain more fans on DVD and fair play to it. However those who enjoy their grindhouse without a certain amount of gloss may look elsewhere. Just think about that for a minute...grindhouse with gloss...see where the problems lie?