The Watchtower of Justice Looks At: Superman IV: The Quest For Peace (1987)

By Mike Huntley

Even though it was met with poor reactions from most critics and audiences, Superman III still did okay at the box office back in summer 1983. So Warner Bros. decided to start developing Superman IV. During the development of Superman IV though, WB decided to make a spinoff film with Supergirl starring Helen Slater as Superman's cousin Kara Zor-El. Originally Christopher Reeve was going to co-star, but negotiations didn't work out. But, Marc McClure who played Jimmy Olsen in Superman The Movie, Superman II, and Superman III reprised his role in the spinoff movie. Supergirl was released in 1984 to poor box office results and people just didn't care for it. Though now it is considered a fun B-Movie by some. Superman IV had a lot going against it. For starters, WB was having trouble finding a director. Richard Lester was approached with him helming the theatrical cut of Superman II and directing Superman III, but schedules didn't work out. Warner Bros. went to Richard Donner, but he refused after being screwed out of Superman II. Even horror master Wes Craven was offered to direct with his work on another DC Comics character, Swamp Thing. Craven was interested but actor Christopher Reeve didn't like the idea of a horror filmmaker directing something light hearted such as Superman. So WB hired Sidney J. Furie to direct what would be titled Superman IV: The Quest For Peace. The production and post production went messy when the budget was cut and the film's length had to be cut down from 132 minutes to 90 minutes. Superman IV: The Quest For Peace was released to theaters in the summer of 1987 and bombed miserably at the box office. The film was panned by critics and audiences alike. The future plans for a fifth installment were shredded and actor Christopher Reeve never put on the costume or red cape again. This was the nail in the coffin for the Superman movie franchise and rightfully so. 

Superman goes on a quest to stop nuclear weapons. Lex Luthor escapes from prison thanks to his stupid nephew Lenny and continues his plan to kill Superman. This time, Lex gets a strand of Superman's hair from a museum and sends it into the yellow son which creates a super powered clone known as Nuclear Man. Meanwhile, some high powered stock broker named David Warfield wants to buy out The Daily Planet and starts having false stories published about Superman. Warfield's spoiled daughter Lacy takes a liking to Clark, which kinda makes Lois a tad jealous. Nuclear Man starts some damage. Superman fights him. Superman gets sick from the radiation. Superman gets better and stops Luthor, nephew, and Nuclear Hercules and saves the day. Superman gives a speech about peace. The End. 

 After suffering internally and externally from witnessing Superman III, you'd think I'd be used to a little pain. While a smidge better than Superman III, Superman IV: The Quest For Peace is still a terrible mess but a less messy one if that is even remotely possible. At least the villain had a logical goal here. Lex Luthor, the greatest criminal mastermind of our time is back thank God. Too bad he is underplayed in favor of Nuclear Arnold who is not actually Arnold. Now ARNULD could have hammed this up to being a Hell of a lot more fun like he did with Mr. Freeze in Batman & Robin.  Anyway, I did happen to enjoy the opening titles sequence a Hell of a lot more here than in Superman III. I also liked that the movie was trimmed down to only 90 minutes, but it is a very long 90 minutes due to how tragic the film is. The most entertaining part was Superman and Clark Kent having to be at two places at once. Superman is supposed to be meeting with Lois while Clark has a date with Lacy Warfield. I thought it was fun seeing him go back and forth with these two women. I did like that we got more Lois since she basically only had a cameo in the last film. But, her and Superman just didn't have that spark that they had in Superman The Movie and Superman II. And somehow he took her flying with him and caused her to forget that she did. What the Hell? 

Nuclear Man was just ridiculous. He was basically like a dull version of Hercules with a little bit of The Hulk thrown in. Lex too wasn't as fun as he was in the Donner films. And then we have Otis' replacement with Luthor's nephew Lenny. This guy just spoke in a surfer/stoner dude accent and had a terrible hair cut. Lacy was a somewhat interesting character, but her and Clark never really went anywhere so what's the point? It seemed like she was just a plot device to make Lois jealous. 

The special FX were SUPER cheesy in this film. It felt like a Troma film without the Troma awesomeness. At least they used John Williams' classic musical score again. The fight on the moon between Superman and Nuclear Man was pretty humorous.  Clark also keeps hearing his mother's voice and seeing people from Krypton, which was very strange. 

The acting in this film is all over the place. Christopher Reeve is still decent in his last portrayal as Superman/Clark Kent. It's a damn shame what would happen to Reeve in the coming years. Margot Kidder does okay in her last role as Lois Lane. Jackie Cooper and Marc McClure do well in their final roles as Perry White and Jimmy Olsen. Mariel Hemingway did okay as Lacy Warfield. Sam Wanamaker was okay as David Warfield. Mark Pillow was horrible as Nuclear Man. Jon Cryer who is most popular for playing Alan on Two and a Half Men and playing in several John Hughes movies is pretty terrible as Luthor's nephew Lenny. And what the Hell is up with his hair? Jeeze!  And Gene Hackman does what he can with his final depiction of Superman's arch enemy Lex Luthor. 

The direction by Sidney J. Furie was terrible, yet better than Richard Lester's take at Superman III. 

 Overall, Superman IV: The Quest For Peace is a terrible movie, but slightly better than Superman III. My advice is to only watch Superman The Movie and Superman II (the Donner cut). That's all you need to see of the Christopher Reeve Superman movies.  Superman III and Superman IV: The Quest For Peace are alternate galaxies that don't exist unless you want to know how Superman feels when he comes in contact with Kryptonite. 

GRADE

D

Chernobyl Diaries (2012)

DIRECTED BY
Brad Parker

STARRING
Jesse McCartney - Chris
Jonathan Sadowski - Paul
Devin Kelley - Amanda
Olivia Taylor Dudley - Natalie
Nathan Phillips - Michael
Ingrid Bolso Berdal - Zoe
Dimitri Diatchenko - Uri

Genre - Horror/Survival

Running Time - 87 Minutes


PLOT
Chris (Jesse McCartney), his girlfriend Natalie (Olivia Taylor Dudley), and her best friend Amanda (Devin Kelley) visit Chris' older brother Paul (Jonathan Sadowski) in Russia. Wanting to share something memorable and fun with his younger brother, Paul invites them all to join him in visiting the site of 1986's Chernobyl nuclear disaster - much to Chris and Natalie's reluctance. After meeting their tour guide, Uri (Dimitri Diatchenko), and a newlywed couple (Nathan Phillips and Ingrid Bolso Berdal), they all trespass national security in order to tour this radioactive ghost town. Once the tour is over, they realize that they're transportation has been destroyed. But by whom? And if there are others, what will kill them first - the residents of Chernobyl, or the radiation itself?


REVIEW
CHERNOBYL DIARIES is a film I had missed out on in 2012. And it was intentional, as the trailers and TV spots really did nothing to catch my interest. I also heard some pretty negative things from friends who had seen it, so I was obviously in no rush. However, I caught it on HBO a couple of weeks ago and managed to DVR it. And after watching it, I'm glad I didn't play $14 to watch this in theaters. It's not a terrible movie, but there's nothing about it that really stands out or requires a repeated viewing.

If you've seen the trailers, you can pretty much guess that CHERNOBYL DIARIES is THE HILLS HAVE EYES, but in Russia. I'm not mad at that really. If you're going to rip off another horror film, at least make it a good one. And honestly, I actually like the fact that Chernobyl was used for the setting, as it makes sense for the set up. It's a real life historic tragedy that not many people talk about anymore. But I'm sure it affected a lot of people and the radiation did do a number on them, especially if you think about it in horror terms. What would these people look like after this disaster, and how would the radiation effect their offspring? It's a pretty classic horror set up that I don't mind.

It's unfortunate that the story doesn't do more with that, instead going the safe route and offering nothing but predictable, generic, and been-there-done-that moments that you won't seriously remember after the film is over. You get the classic stranded tourists being hunted down by mutant survivors of a radioactive disaster. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm surprised it took four writers [including Oren Peli of PARANORMAL ACTIVITY fame] to write such predictable fluff. There's nothing here you haven't seen before. If the story had added some sort of twist, or had characters that enhance the entertainment value, this wouldn't be much of an issue. But everything about CHERNOBYL DIARIES screenplay is bland and just "there". It's paint by numbers stuff, and nothing ever gets drawn out of the lines.

I think what got to me most were the characters. As a screenwriter, I love specializing on interesting characters that enhance the story, whether or not it's generic or been seen before. But all these characters didn't do much for me really. They all had distinct personalities, which I appreciated, but they were too stupid to really root for. I mean, once anyone decides it's a great idea to visit Chernobyl to take photos, forgetting that being there could kill you due to the radiation level, I lose all sympathy for them. Especially when they're told "no" and decide to take a shortcut through there anyway. And the characters I did like [I won't spoil them here] are the ones who bite the dust first, leaving me with the ones I least care about. What the hell? It doesn't help that the dialogue is fairly conventional and you can see the outcome a mile away. CHERNOBYL DIARIES just runs too close to the rule book to really be anything remotely interesting. That's not a bad thing, since you'll enjoy the film if you like this sort of thing. But if I'm gonna watch a HILLS HAVE EYES ripoff, I'm gonna watch THE HILLS HAVE EYES - either version. At least I felt connected to the characters and their situation in both the original and the remake. With CHERNOBYL DIARIES, it was "whatever". The story was just too safe and too bland.

For those expecting blood and gore in CHERNOBYL DIARIES, you're gonna be seriously disappointed. While I don't think blood and guts are needed in a horror movie, the presence of some would have greatly enhanced this film's experience. But nope. All we get is a messed up leg and some blood here and there. That's it. Most of the kills or attacks happen OFF-SCREEN. Why??? If you're going to go for it, go full broke. Pretty lame, in my opinion.

The direction by Brad Parker was alright. The film is shot like a found footage movie, but it's not at all. It's mainly due to Parker using a handheld camera for the entire film, as if someone is documenting the events. It didn't really bother me and some of the shots in the film were actually nice. But honestly, it just made the film look cheap. I would have rather this have been a found footage movie, just so there was a purpose for Parker doing handheld shots. Also, there's not much tension or suspense in the film. Only one moment made me jump, which involved a bear that came out of nowhere. That was probably the most fun I had watching CHERNOBYL DIARIES. But other than that, it just went through the motions. Hell, we only see the mutants in the shadows. And when they attack people, it's either in the dark or off-screen. Some shots create a claustrophobic vibe, but they don't happen enough. I did like the dull color look of the film though. The visuals had their moments, but pretty tame in my opinion.

The acting is what it is. All of them are decent and none of them give a bad performance. I thought Dimitri Diatchenko as Uri was the standout, as he gave a fun and energetic performance. Jonathan Sadowski was very good too as misguided Paul. Devin Kelley had her moments as Amanda. The most famous person here is pop artist Jesse McCartney. He was pretty okay as well. Thankfully CHERNOBYL DIARIES had a decent cast to keep me engaged more than I should have been.

THE FINAL HOWL
My expectations were met with CHERNOBYL DIARIES, meaning I wasn't expecting all that much to begin with. The acting is decent, the direction could have been better but it wasn't terrible, and it has a premise that's always fun to watch. But the film played it way too safe with its screenplay and showing the actual terror of the situation. It's not a found footage film, but it looks like a found footage film. I'm not sure what this film really wanted to be, which is unfortunate. Not the worst rip off to THE HILLS HAVE EYES ever, but not a film you'll remember once it's over. Pretty much the epitome of "average" and "meh".



SCORE

2 Howls Outta 4

The Watchtower of Justice Looks At: Superman III (1983)

By Mike Huntley

After the success of Superman II, despite Warner Bros. screwing over Richard Donner in favor of giving the director's chair to Richard Lester, WB was ready to move right into Superman III. Being that the Salkinds and Warner Bros. liked the more light hearted direction that Richard Lester had brought to Superman II, they decided to bring him back to direct Superman III. But that wasn't all, as it turned out comedian Richard Pryor was a big Superman fan and wanted to star in the third installment. With a big name like Pryor, WB figured that Superman III would gain more success from not only those who loved the first two films, but from Pryor's fanbase as well. So in summer 1983, Superman III was released to theaters and met with pretty mixed reactions. Some enjoyed it in a comedic way. And others (the hardcore Superman fans) hated it. But, it still did decent business at the box office to make a fourth film a few years later. This my friends is where a franchise that started off good just went to Wackyville where stupidity and lunacy lurk around almost every corner!

Crooked businessman Ross Webster hires computer programming goofball Gus Gorman to help him mess up the weather and spill oil. Meanwhile, Clark Kent is doing a story about his High School reunion in Smallville. There, he runs into his old friend and crush Lana Lang. The two start hanging out along with Lana's son Ricky. Things get crazy when Lana's alcoholic old football player boyfriend Brad gets jealous of Clark. Superman stops some of Webster's insane schemes. Webster gets Gus to find some Kryptonite to kill Superman. Gus accidentally gets synthetic Kryptonite. Instead of killing Superman, this Kryptonite brings out his evil side. Superman goes batshit crazy. First ignoring peoples' cries for help then straightening a slanted landmark and who can forget getting drunk and beating himself up? Superman is able to defeat the evil side of himself and stops Webster in a cave with a bunch of laser zapping, robots, and all kinda of stupid shit.

All I can think of after witnessing Superman III is: WHAT THE HELL? This movie hardly makes sense! The one positive I can say is I dug the Smallville stuff when Clark reunites with Lana Lang. I was entertained watching those two rekindle for the first time since graduation. Good stuff. BUT, everything else was a colossal mess of a Superman movie. The villain was uninteresting. Richard Pryor who I do find funny was too damn wacky and looney in this film as Gus Gorman. I did not care about this character and he kept taking me out of the movie. As for the villain Ross Webster, eww. The thing I hate besides this movie is that they didn't pick a villain from Superman's rogue's gallery like they did with Superman The Movie and Superman II. Never thought I would actually miss Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor. At least he was from the rogues gallery and was interesting. Give me Brainiac! Give me Metallo! Give me Toyman! Honestly the way they were headed with this film, Bizarro would have been the perfect villain. Superman vs Superman! And they could have had Lex create Bizarro to kill Superman. THAT would have been a good Superman III! Not this awful and uninteresting businessman for the film's villain. Ugh.

      

As for the Superman vs Clark Kent stuff, I thought it was amusing. But, here's the thing. They basically made this synthetic Kryptonite a combo of Red and Black Kryptonite. Red makes Superman turn bad. Black splits the Human and Kryptonian sides of him into two seprate people. I laughed my ass off at the scene where Superman is at the bar getting good and drunk. It was almost like he knew he was starring in a shitty movie.

Lois Lane is barely in the film. It's explained that she's going on vacation. I guess they figured that Lana Lang would be Lois Lane's replacement for the duration of this movie. I did enjoy towards the end when Lana gets a job at The Daily Planet as Perry White's assistant and where her and Lois meet.

The ending to this film is one of the biggest massacres of a finale I have ever seen. Ross' sister gets electrocuted and becomes some super powered terminator! Superman gets trapped in a bubble! What the Hell is this? A live action version of Superfriends? At least that show worked in its ridiculousness and made sense. This just left me looking at my clock and praying the two hours were almost over.

And what was up with the opening? I LOVE the opening credits sequence of Superman The Movie and Superman II, but this? No. Seeing random Metropolis citizens acting clumsy and goofy music playing is NOT my idea of awesome. Sorry. Seriously, everybody in this city trips over themselves, gets paint dropped on their head, gets trapped in a car full of water THAT'S ON THE STREET, and all the while we get some Halloween 5 goofy cop music cues!

The acting is mostly very bad, but there is some light amongst the darkness. Christopher Reeve does the best he can with what he's given. Honestly he is one of the highlights of the film, even when he's getting drunk and kicking his own ass Jim Carrey style. Annette O'Toole was actually really good as a grown up Lana Lang. Bit of trivia: Annette O'Toole also played Superman's adopted mother Martha Kent on Smallville. Superman regulars Jackie Cooper and Marc McClure were good in their minor roles as Perry White and Jimmy Olsen. Margot Kidder was good in her very brief role as Lois Lane. Richard Pryor was downright annoying as Gus Gorman. I just found him distracting. Robert Vaughn was very meh as the villainous Ross Webster. I don't really care to mention any of the other names in this mess.

The direction by Richard Lester was horrendous! I hate it that Warner Bros. went with this guy over Dick Donner. Donner probably would have made a good Superman III that would have been fun. Unfortunately he was screwed over and Lester got the gig.

Overall, Superman III is a terrible Superman movie and is a mess of a movie period. I would avoid this one unless you are very curious how bad it is. Bring alcohol because like Superman, you are gonna want to kick your own ass for actually watching this movie. Too bad that Superman IV: The Quest For Peace is also terrible, but at least I get laughs out of that one and it brought back Gene Hackman.

GRADE

D

The Watchtower of Justice Looks At: Superman II [The Richard Donner Cut] (1980/2006)

By Mike Huntley


When director Richard Donner set out to make Superman The Movie for Warner Bros., there were already plans for a sequel even before the first film was released to theaters. So, WB had Donner jump right into production on Superman II while Superman The Movie was in post production. Superman (1978) had already set up for the sequel with Jor-El sending General Zod, Ursa, and Non to the Phantom Zone at the beginning of the film who of course would be the big threat in Superman II.

Superman II had a difficult production. After shooting most of the film, Warner Bros. and the Salkinds decided that they didn't like the direction that Dick Donner was taking the sequel. Where the first film was pretty light hearted and silly fun, the sequel was more dramatic and action packed. So they fired Donner and hired Richard Lester to reshoot some scenes and gave him the full directorial credit despite most of the movie being Donner's work. Lester decided to throw out a lot of the more serious and dramatic changes that Donner brought to Superman II in favor of more silliness, thinking that families wouldn't want to see a serious Superman movie.  Superman II was released to theaters in June of 1980 to pretty good results despite the behind the scenes mess. The film did well at the box office and audiences still loved it. Though for decades the hardcore Superman fans had been craving to see what Richard Donner's original version of Superman II would be like. Fans all over wanted a Donner cut of Superman II. Summer 2006 was a big year for the Man of Steel with the release of Superman Returns, which was a disappointment at the box office and had a mixed audience, but still generated a lot of buzz around Superman. With all this buzz, Richard Donner decided that it would be the perfect time to give the hardcore fans what they wanted, his version of Superman II. Looking through the film archives, Donner took to editing all of what he shot on Superman II, archive footage from the first film, and even screen tests and morphed them into what his intentions were. In fall 2006, Superman II (The Richard Donner Cut) was released on DVD and fans to this day consider it the better version of Superman II. In fact, Superman II is considered by many to be the best film in the 1978-2006 Superman movie franchise and you know what? I'm one of them!

When Superman stopped one of Lex Luthor's missiles by tossing it up into outerspace, it caused a riff that broke open the Phantom Zone and released Krypton's ruthless military leader General Zod and two of his soldiers (Ursa and Non).  Meanwhile back on Earth, Lois begins to suspect that Clark is really Superman. She ends up tricking Clark by shooting him with a gun filled with blanks to reveal the truth that he is Superman. So Superman takes Lois to the Fortress of Solitude to show her more about him that includes under the covers. Prior to this, Lex Luthor is broken out of prison by Eve Teschmacher and discovers the Fortress and learns more about his arch nemesis.  While Superman and Lois relax inside the Fortress, Zod and his two followers come to Earth to rule the planet as they tried to do on Krypton. They use their heat vision to leave Metropolis in ruins and even force the President of the United States and the military to kneel before them and to give them the USA.  Superman realizes that he is in love with Lois and wants to have a normal life with her so Jor-El makes him Human. After returning to the States, Clark gets beat up by some trucker douchebag at a diner, learning that being Human ain't as great as he thought it would be. But, things get worse when he discovers that Zod has broken free and has taken control of America with intentions to conquer the whole planet. So Clark finds a way to get his powers back to stop Zod, but is it too late?

I really enjoy Superman II. Like many Superman fans, I consider it the best in the 1978-2006 movie franchise. While I like Superman The Movie, this film was more exciting to watch because it had a more threatening foe for Superman to fight. Luthor wasn't a big challenge, but Zod has the same super powered abilities as does Ursa and Non so Superman had to fight harder to save the planet. I also thought the chemistry between Lois and Superman was stronger here. They obviously are attracted to one another from the start, but their relationship has the chance to be really fleshed out here. I mean Superman GAVE UP his powers to be with her. That's huge! And I liked that actions actually had consequences. He gave in to selfish pursuits and in return it almost destroyed the planet because when he was supposed to be watching over Metroplis and the people of Earth, he was in his Fortress getting "close" with Lois Lane so Zod had the perfect opportunity to start ruling.

While I was bothered by Hackman's version of Lex Luthor being the big bad in Superman The Movie, I actually enjoyed him much more here because he wasn't played as the villain of the film. General Zod was the big bad with Luthor as just a weasel who wanted Zod to give him a piece of the pie if he gave him info on the Boy Scout. Still not convinced that he is Lex Luthor, but I could tolerate him a lot more in Superman II than in Superman The Movie.  Otis and Eve Teschmacher were very small characters here than in the first film, which I appreciated even though I was entertained by them. I still find it hilarious that the Fortress of Solitude has a bathroom.

General Zod was a great and memorable villain in this film. There's a great reason that Jor-El had imprisoned him, Ursa, and Non in the Phantom Zone and we can see why.  Terence Stamp is pretty intimidating just with his eyes. You can see a soulless destroyer in this character. Ursa may have been a vicious cold hearted bitch, but damn she was sexy. I don't know whether to be intimidated or turned on with her character. Non was basically just the big bearded guy who is all muscle and mute. For some reason he reminded me of Jaws from the old James Bond films.

The special FX while a little dated these days are still pretty good. It was cool to finally see the heat vision even it was done more by the villains as well as the windy breath. It would have been nice to have seen Superman use his heat vision more and we never saw him do the wind breath.

The music score by the great John Williams is still epic. Love that they kept those awesome opening credits with the blue light speed zoom.

I have one big gripe about this movie though. I HATED the part where Superman reverts back time to make it where Zod, Ursa, and Non never broke out and that Lois never found out that Clark was Superman. It just felt like a cheap shot. Like whenever things don't go Superman's way, just change the clock back to where it never happened. While we all have to make decisions and deal with the consequences of those decisions, Superman gets to screw up and just erase it from happening. What the Hell? I know that he has the ability to do it, but just because you can fix your mistakes by turning back the clock doesn't mean you should! He was happy with Lois AND could have still been Superman. He could have fixed all the things that Zod destroyed. It's not like he doesn't have the speed or strength to do it. I don't know, it just felt like a cheat. Now in Superman The Movie, it worked better because Lois actually died. But here it just did not work for me.

The acting was pretty solid. Christopher Reeve was still awesome as both Clark Kent and Superman. He's just so charming. Margot Kidder was good as Lois Lane. Terence Stamp really stood out as the villainous General Zod. So intimidating and creepy. Can't wait to see Michael Shannon in the role soon!  Jackie Cooper and Marc McClure were good as Perry White and Jimmy Olsen. Sarah Douglas was very hot as Ursa. Femme Fatale characters just turn me on. Jack O'Halloron was good as the strong yet silent Non. Ned Beatty was funny in his small role as Otis, Lex Luthor's stupid sidekick. Valerie Perrine was amusing in her small role as Eve Teschmacher. And Gene Hackman was fun to watch as Lex Luthor. Still not a big fan of making Lex a silly villain, but at least he is fun to watch, even in that horrendous Superman IV: The Quest For Peace.

    The direction by Richard Donner was even better than the first film. Donner was the first person to show a more dramatic Superman before a dramatic Superman became popular. It's a shame he was screwed over in favor of another director being hired to lighten up the film. And while I'm not a big fan of Superman Returns, I will say that without that film generating buzz in Superman which hadn't been in the mainstream eye since 1987, this version of Superman II may never have happened. Now I have never seen the theatrical version except for maybe a view bits here and there when my Dad would watch it on TV, but this to me is the only Superman II. I just act like the Lester version doesn't exist. Donner's cut is the only version I've seen and it is the only version I will continue to see.

Overall, Superman II is a very good movie and is a case where a sequel is actually better than the first film. I have and will continue to enjoy this movie. But, I do have a strong feeling that Man of Steel will become my definitive Superman movie and that Superman II will become my 2nd favorite movie starring the blue and red Boy Scout. Too bad that the franchise would fall from here, which is why a reboot was absolutely needed to update Superman for the 21st Century.

GRADE

B+

The Watchtower of Justice Looks At: Superman The Movie (1978)

Just wanted to update you all on some changes going on at the blog. I've been feeling a bit burnt out and frazzled, mainly due to reviewing so many genres and having my focus be all over the place. So I decided that for right now, I'm gonna focus mainly on the horror genre, as I've been neglecting it recently and it was the reason why my blog got so popular to begin with. That doesn't mean that the action and superhero stuff will end.

I want to welcome my first main contributor to Full Moon Reviews - my good buddy Mike Huntley. Being a superhero movie freak that he is, he's going to contribute his thoughts on the superhero genre that we all seem to love. He'll be continuing what I started with the SUPERMAN franchise reviews, giving us his thoughts on the films leading up to June 14th's much anticipated MAN OF STEEL. I will post my own quick thoughts after his reviews as a second opinion if I've seen the film. I may add more contributors to review other genres, but that's not in the cards yet. So enjoy the first edition of "The Watchtower of Justice"...




Since the beginning of time, the world has seen its fair share of heroes. Some are in our religion, some in our myths/legends, and others are just ordinary people doing extraordinary things to make this world a better place to live. A wise man once said, "A hero can be anyone." And you know what? He was right. We all have it within us to aspire to greater heights. But one individual would have people believing that a man can fly. His story began from the imagination of two Jewish kids from Ohio named Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. When Jerry Siegel was young, his father died after a robbery causing young Siegel to wish that his father was bulletproof and had super strength. Both  Siegel and Shuster were victims of bullying and went through poverty. Both young men got a job in New York City at what is now known as DC Comics. Jerry pitched his idea of an alien from another world who was taken in by a farmer and his wife and grew up to be the greatest superhero that the world has ever known. Jerry crafted the story and characters while Joe brought the images to life. So, 75 years ago way back in 1938, issue #1 of Action Comics was born starring SUPERMAN! Superman took off as fast as the character himself. Detective Comics knew they had a major hit on their hands and business was booming. The creation of Superman not only created the superhero genre, but gave birth to many other beloved costumed heroes such as The Batman, Wonder Woman, The Flash, Green Lantern, and the first superhero team known first as the Justice Society of America before being later named the Justice League of America. Superheroes were hot and have been hot since 1938!

Over the decades, superheroes have broken out of the comic pages and have shifted to other mediums of entertainment such as television, video games, and big Hollywood movies. Superman and Batman were the top two costumed heroes to hit other mediums. While Superman had a radio show and a Fleischer animated series, Batman appeared in short movie serials that played every weekend at the local theater. Superman really took to brand new heights during the 1950s with The Adventures of Superman television series starring the late George Reeves. But what really became a pop culture phenomenon was when the Salkinds greenlit a big Hollywood Superman movie. In December 1978, Superman The Movie was unleashed and became the way that the general public would view the Man of Steel for 35 years.



The planet of Krypton is coming to it's final hour. After sending the ruthless General Zod and two of his army soldiers to the Phantom Zone, scientist Jor-El finishes the final touches on a special space craft he has created to save his infant son Kal-El from Krypton's destruction. Baby Kal-El lands in a field in Smallville, Kansas where he is discovered by a local farmer named Jonathan Kent and his wife Martha. Fast forward a few years and Kal-El is now a teenager named Clark Kent who wishes that he could play football like his High School classmates and be with a girl like Lana Lang. After he speed runs home, Pa Kent gives him a brief lecture to find out why he was sent to Earth, before dying of a sudden heart attack. Determined for answers, Clark says good bye to his mother and goes on a journey that leads him to the Arctic where he finds the Fortress of Solitude that Jor-El made for him to guide him in his quest. Fast forward to the present and Clark Kent begins working at The Daily Planet undercover as a clumsy geek reporter to hide his more alien side. When his new friend and co-worker Lois Lane almost falls out of a helicopter, Clark reveals himself wearing a red and blue spandex suit and flying to catch her. Lois does a story on the last son of Krypton calling him Superman. Local Metropolis billionaire madman Lex Luthor takes notice and wants to kill Superman as well as unleash two missiles which will cause Earthquakes that could kill a lot of innocent people. Will Superman be able to stop the greatest criminal mastermind of our time?

When I was growing up in the 1990s, I was more into Batman, Spider-Man, and the X-Men when it came to superhero characters. The Batman movies and animated series was all the buzz. I watched the Spider-Man and X-Men animated series every Saturday morning on Fox Kids. I had seen bits and pieces of the live action TV series of The Flash. But my first introduction to Superman as a kid wasn't the movies, but the TV series Lois & Clark starring Dean Cain and Teri Hatcher. I think it came on every Sunday night and I would catch episodes here and there with my Dad who is a huge Superman fan. Many boys put a towel around their shoulders and would pretend to take off flying. Me? I put on a small Batman mask and pointed my toy grapple gun and pretended that I was The Dark Knight of Gotham City and was going to take down The Joker. While I thought the costume was kinda cool, I never really got into Superman when I was a kid. Maybe it's because I was more fascinated with masked characters such as Batman, The Flash, Spider-Man, and the animated Wolverine. Masks were cool to me. They hid your face and you could become anybody. Superman never wore a mask. Just a blue and red spandex costume with a cool cape. Then when he wasn't being Superman, he shifted his hair differently and wore a business suit and a pair of glasses. Not much of a disguise, but it worked for 75 years and those around him blindly didn't catch on that Clark Kent and Superman were the same man.

Where my fandom for Superman began to grow though was in 1996 when Bruce Timm who produced the very popular Batman The Animated Series came out with Superman The Animated Series after Batman had moved over to The WB. With both Batman and Superman on the same network and made by the same animation team, the epic three part crossover episode "World's Finest" happened, which was later edited together as The Batman Superman Movie. Seeing these two icons together for the first time outside of the comics was a huge deal. They also had a cool double feature of the two shows every week day morning at 10:00 called The Batman Superman Adventures where they would show one episode of both shows back to back. Great times! As Lois & Clark and Superman The Animated Series ended, The WB which was popular with such awesome shows such as Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Angel, and Dawson's Creek greenlit Smallville, which would center around a teenage Clark Kent before he would become Superman. That show hooked and reeled me in. It really explored the more Human side to Clark Kent and really delved into what his life was like growing up in Smallville with such a massive secret. Something that had never been touched upon really outside of the comics. Smallville and Superman The Animated Series really sparked my intrigue with this character.  In summer 2006, Bryan Singer attempted to revive Superman on film with Superman Returns. Back then, I was kinda excited to see it since I had never seen a Superman movie at that point in my life. So my Dad and I went to the theater and saw Superman Returns. I will get to my thoughts on that film later. But I didn't finally get around to seeing the four Christopher Reeve Superman films until only a few years ago to be honest. And while I do think it is a tad overrated, I really liked Superman The Movie.



The screenplay for Superman went through many drafts and revisions. Like four or five people wrote this thing. Now usually this would be a recipe for disaster having too many writers. That's what caused the Green Lantern movie to suffer. But honestly, Superman got lucky that they somehow managed to tighten up the screenplay to make sense and do what it needed to do. Now this film is far from perfect. I do have a few issues with it, but it worked better than it probably should have given how many versions of the script there was.  I was pretty entertained by this movie, though I thought Superman II was a better film. It has a charm to it and I believe it was ahead of its time.

I guess I'll get my issues with Superman The Movie out of the way first before moving onto what worked for me. The biggest gripe I have with this movie honestly is that they don't spend hardly any time with teenage Clark Kent growing up in Smallville and learning to deal with his abilities with Jonathan and Martha. Hell, Pa and Ma Kent are barely in the movie! Jonathan Kent is the man who truly crafts the man that Clark grows up to be. He may have gotten his DNA from Jor-El, but his character came from Jonathan. Yet here all we get is Pa Kent and his wife finding Clark then Jonathan briefly gives Clark a lecture then dies of a heart attack. Jonathan is one of the most important people in Superman's life who really inspired him to aspire to become a symbol of hope for all mankind. This would be like killing off Ben Parker before he can really inspire Peter to become Spider-Man which did happen in Spider-Man (2002). Don't waste valuable characters in a superhero's life! I hardly got to know the Kent family. Thank goodness that Man of Steel will craft that father/son relationship more than this film did. For some reason, I tend to find Clark's teen years in Smallville very fascinating. I guess it's because teenagers often feel alienated and here it is literal. It's like you have all of these awesome powers but are afraid to use them in fear that you will become a lab rat for the government or seen as being a freak to your classmates.

The other major problem is the portrayal of Superman's arch nemesis, Lex Luthor. Luthor is supposed to be a ruthless, cold hearted, and power hungry billionaire who will step on anyone's throat to get what he wants. He is the king of blackmail. For example if your kid had cancer, he would agree to pay for their treatment as long as you sold him your home. If you refused then he would just stand there and watch your child die a horrible death. THAT is who Lex Luthor is. He is the man who tried to make a super weapon by blending his own DNA with Clark's. He is the man who pushed his own father out a 40 story window just to watch him fall to his death. He is the kinda man who would have his own brother murdered. He is the man who would stab you in the back. But while Lex is the worst side of Humanity and power, he is a genius. The reason that Batman and The Joker have such a great hero/villain rivalry is because they are two sides of the same coin. Same with Superman and Lex Luthor. Superman may be orphaned from another planet but he still has parents who would do anything for him. He also has super powers where he could be just as bad as Lex if he chose to be that way. But where Jonathan and Martha taught Clark to do the right thing, Lionel Luthor always taught Lex to be ruthless and to never be weak. So Lex uses his power (money) to hurt people while Superman uses his super powers to help mankind and to inspire them. But, the Lex Luthor in Superman The Movie is a campy criminal mastermind. Honestly if they wanted to have a more silly villain, they should have just had Winslow Schott/Toyman be the villain. That villain is supposed to be kinda campy, but Luthor is supposed to be the kinda villain you truly hate.

A small issue I had was that there were no consequences for Superman interfering with Human history. In Smallville when he changed back time to prevent Lana Lang from getting killed in a car crash, it caused Jonathan Kent to have a heart attack and die in her place. And also the fact that people took so positively to someone being able to fly when actually many would be freaked out by someone like Superman at first.

I know it sounds like I'm bashing the movie, but I really do enjoy Superman The Movie. I thought the special FX at the time were great. Sure, they come off as a little dated now but back in 1978 they were amazing.

The direction by Richard Donner is pretty solid. Like I said, the visuals are cool.

The acting is pretty decent. Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder are the stand outs for me as Superman/Clark Kent and Lois Lane. I also dug their chemistry and that flying scene and helicopter sequence are great. Really enjoyed Reeve's portrayal of Clark Kent. Always cracks me up. For one of the best investigative reporters though, Lois sure does have a problem with spelling. I do tend to enjoy the more sarcastic Lois in which Erica Durance (Smallville), Dana Delaney (Superman The Animated Series), and Teri Hatcher (Lois & Clark) played more, but Kidder was good and cool with me. I dug Marlon Brando as Superman's biological father Jor-El. Although he didn't get a whole lot to do, which I have a strong feeling that Russell Crowe will own that role when Man of Steel comes out. Glenn Ford was decent in his VERY brief role as Jonathan Kent. Phyllis Thaxter was okay as Martha Kent. Jackie Cooper and Marc McClure were good as Perry White and Jimmy Olsen. Ned Beatty was hilarious as Luthor's stupid partner Otis. Valerie Perrine was ditzy as Luthor's lady Miss Teschmacher. As for Gene Hackman, he was amusing as Lex Luthor but never really convinced me that he was Lex Luthor. Now Michael Rosenbaum and Clancy Brown, that's my Lex Luthor. Can't wait to see who will play the character next in the oncoming Superman movies. I'm sure that ruthless and cold hearted billionaire genius will show up.

But hands down the single best part about Superman The Movie is the epic musical score by John Williams. That score just makes you want to fly! And this film has the coolest opening titles sequence I think I've ever seen.



Overall, Superman The Movie (1978) is a good movie. I do think it is a tad overhyped, but it is a worthy contender in the superhero cinematic phenomenon that made us believe a man can fly.

GRADE
B

My Thoughts on SUPERMAN (1978):  http://www.fullmoonreviews.net/2013/05/superman-movie-1978.html

The Purge (2013)

DIRECTED BY
James DeMonaco

STARRING
Ethan Hawke - James Sandin
Lena Headey - Mary Sandin
Max Burkholder - Charlie Sandin
Adelaide Kane - Zoey Sandin
Edwin Hodge - Bloody Stranger
Rhys Wakefield - Polite Stranger
Tony Oller - Henry

Genre - Horror/Thriller

Running Time - 85 Minutes


PLOT
In the year 2022, America is a lot different than it is now. There's barely any unemployment. Crime is minimal. Supposedly this has been maintained by an annual 12-hour event known as The Purge. Adopted by the U.S. Government, The Purge is a half-day period where all crime [especially murder] is considered legal. However, you can only use certain weapons and only murder certain people without being arrested or tried for that crime.

The film focuses on the Sandin family, who live in a white-bread, gated community with highly advanced security systems and supposed impenetrable windows to keep people out. James Sandin (Ethan Hawke) is the one who has made a living selling these advanced security systems to the entire community. It's made him super rich, which hasn't been pleasing to his neighbors, who feel that The Sandins owe their current lives to them. During The Purge, James, his wife Mary (Lena Headey), their bratty teenage daughter Zoey (Adelaide Kane), and young son Charlie (Max Burkholder) stay inside to watch the Purge.

However, things don't exactly go as planned. For one, Zoey's older boyfriend, Henry (Tony Oller), has snuck into the house to have a man-to-man talk with James about accepting the age difference between him and Zoey. Also, Charlie - having a conscience at the worst possible time - decides to let in a homeless bloodied stranger (Edwin Hodge), who has been escaping a group of sinsiter folks who don't want their Purge ruined by anyone. The leader of this group (Rhys Wakefield) want their stranger back, or else they'll invade the Sandin home and kill everyone inside.

REVIEW
THE PURGE is one of those films that I was really excited to watch this year. The premise is a great one, and the marketing has been fantastic as well. Judging by Friday's box office receipts [$18 million already on a $3 million budget], I wasn't the only one anticipating this one. However, I can't help but feel disappointed by THE PURGE. It's not a terrible film at all. In fact, there are some interesting and memorable moments throughout it's short running time. But when I find the concept of the film more interesting than the actual narrative that's meant to execute it, there's a problem.

THE PURGE's main problem is definitely its narrative. That's not to say it's bad, because it isn't. But considering the concept and how much potential it truly has, I can't help but feel deflated by the execution of the story. For me, the best part of THE PURGE was the first act. Not only does it establish the main characters [although they could have used some backstory to make them more likeable], but it attempts to explain the purpose of The Purge. Through TV shows and security video footage, we learn that The Purge is a way for Americans to unleash the aggression they've been harboring for others an entire year in an annual 12-hour period. They claim that human beings are naturally violent creatures, so this allows them to have 12 hours to commit all the crimes they want without facing any sort of consequences. Supposedly, this has allowed the population to be thinned out, letting the economy become stronger and crime to decline. Now sure, you have to have a suspension of disbelief to really follow this. I mean, is it really realistic for people to harbor all this hate and anger for an entire year, just so they can unleash it during The Purge? It's not really believable. Also, The Purge seems to focus on murder, but not on rape or theft. I'm not saying it has to go there, but it's hard to fathom that no one would take advantage of this time to sexually assault someone, or loot things for their own benefit. Still, I like the idea of this Purge, because it creates a ton of debate and social commentary that most films in this genre tend to shy away from for more visual stimuli. I'm not saying THE PURGE is the smartest horror-thriller in the world. But it's nice to have an intelligent concept in the background to give a reason to why this film exists to begin with. I just wish more was done with it, which I'll get to in a moment.

Obviously, THE PURGE is a commentary on the 99% vs. the 1%. The Sandins, their neighbors, and even the villains all seem to be in that upper class, upper-middle class range. They have the money. They have the protection. And tend to not want to deal with people beneath them. The bloodied stranger who Charlie lets into the house is not only homeless, but he was a war veteran and an African-American. The fact is that the Purge seems based on having the 1% kill off the 99% in order to maintain what's considered the "American Dream". The Purge thins out the homeless population. The Purge thins out the criminal world, like drug dealers. It gives the rich more power in order for them to rule America, making everyone else feel like second-class citizens. In a scary way, it's real life. While watching this, I didn't doubt that the Government would allow something like this to happen, just to fix the country's "issues". The society is usually catered to those who have money, which makes THE PURGE creepier if you think about it.

There's also an issue of morality, which I felt the film should have played more with. While The Purge has done great things for the country, it really isn't morally right to kill others because they may not look like you, or afford the things you can. Charlie, the Sandin's son, is the only one who really questions The Purge. Being young, he doesn't understand why people need to kill others for 12 straight hours. He also calls out his parents for supporting the idea, but never participating in it. It's the very reason why Charlie goes against his parents and lets the bloodied stranger inside after he's calling for help. Obviously, Charlie is naive to the consequences of his actions, but it's obvious he has a different opinion on The Purge compared to the rest of his family. Along the way, both James and Mary realize that this Purge isn't all it's cracked up to be, embracing the idea but condemning the execution. I'm glad this moral issue was expressed somewhat in the film, but like much of the social commentary, it feels more like a plot device rather than the focus of the film, which I felt it needed to be. Still, it's better than nothing.

As for the actual script and characters themselves, I'm half-and-half on it. I'm kind of let down that instead of being a film about morality and class differences within the horror stuff, THE PURGE is mainly capitalizing on the "home invasion" sub-genre. In fact, I find it ironic that James DeMonaco directed this, since he also directed the remake to ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13, which is what THE PURGE follows almost to a tee. It also adds in a bit of THE STRANGERS, just without the mysterious motives that made that film so memorable. I don't have issues with home invasion films. In fact, I like most of them on a visceral level. But when you have a broad idea like The Purge, you expect broad execution for it. Why stick with one family, when you could make an anthology out of it and show us different scenarios within these 12 hours? That way we can see multiple points of view and how this effects different citizens. But THE PURGE chose the safe route, which is kind of unfortunate. Not to say that it's told terribly, because I did have fun with the home invasion angle in the last half of the film. But you kind of expect more where it concerns the premise. That's all I'm saying.

It also doesn't help that the characters we have to follow aren't all that likeable or interesting. James takes advantage of others to become rich. Mary is uncomfortable by James' actions, but doesn't want to give up the life of luxury. Zoey is a brat who only cares about pleasing her older boyfriend, and hating her father for not liking him. And Charlie seems to be a bit of a genius, whose conscience creates nothing but tragedy for him. We don't get much backstory about this family, just bits and pieces here and there. We don't know what their lives were like before the Purge. All we know is that James and Mary sort of lost their humanity while on the road of being financially successful, which turns 180 degrees by the film's end. So at least they had some sort of character arc. Zoey is annoying from beginning to end, really. I get that teenagers are supposed to be difficult, but I was so turned off by her that I wanted her to be a victim of the Purge badly. By the way, the whole Henry angle was purely for shock value. Not sure how much older this guy was or why James hated him so much. And it ended before it could really begin. So I found this plot angle to be pointless. And Charlie lost all sympathy by letting this stranger into the home. Not only that, but he tried to hide him inside the house, knowing that his family would be killed if he wasn't found and given to the villains. I wanted him to be a victim of the purge too. It's been a long time since I've watched a horror-thriller, calling the characters names and wishing them bodily harm. There's one thing to be naive. It's another to be stupid.

To be honest with you, I actually favored the villains more than I did the Sandins. At least they were interesting and so bizarre, that they made me laugh. That probably wasn't the intention [I'm sure they were meant to be creepy and scary instead of hilarious], but I couldn't help it. But at least they stood out. Especially the leader of the group, who quite honestly was the best character in THE PURGE. One part Alex DeLarge, another part Patrick Bateman, this guy was creepy as hell. And I wanted him in the film more. This guy was a pure psychopath, which made for a strong antagonist. I also liked one of the neighbors, Grace. She had such a sweet exterior, but there was something about her that you couldn't quite put your finger on. It's sad that I found the villains more interesting than the people I was supposed to care about.

There is some brutal violence in THE PURGE. Some of it we see on security video. During the last half of the film during the home invasion stuff, we get some good stuff as well. Most of it involves a shotgun and a knife. We also get some pool table violence, as well as a nose smashed into a table. There's some good blood in THE PURGE, but nothing really gory or anything. While I thought the home invasion was safe, at least the scenes involving this angle were quite good.

The direction by James DeMonaco was pretty good as well. There are some tense moments in THE PURGE during the last half of the film. I liked the lighting cues and some of the angles used. I thought the use of Tommy, which was Charlie's robot companion he had created, was cool and allowed a nice use of night vision. A lot of the framing and composition was very good as well. THE PURGE is a nice looking film and it has a very quick pace. I wish the film was actually longer so more things could be established and built up, but I honestly had no real issue with the visual presentation.

The acting was fine. Ethan Hawke and Lena Headey were very good as James and Mary Sandin. Hawke, in particular, has really been doing some good work in the genre recently. He's pretty gung ho during this film, doing whatever it takes to make his character work and the action scenes thrilling and fun to watch. He was kind of a bad ass in THE PURGE, which I liked. Headey was also good as the doting, yet concerned wife. Max Burkholder is a decent child actor as Charlie. I wish his guilt was played with more, but he did okay with the material. Adelaide Kane is cute and played the bratty Zoey well. Edwin Hodge did well as the Bloody Stranger. But Rhys Wakefield stole the show as the leader of the villains. That dude was creepy, especially when he smiled. I really enjoyed his performance.

THE FINAL HOWL
THE PURGE is a decent horror-thriller that I honestly expected more from. The acting was good, the direction was fine, and I really like the concept of the Purge itself. But the film went the safe route with the "home invasion" angle, which took away from what the film should have been about - The Purge. The film is too short at 85 minutes, because there needed to be more backstory, more explanation, and more moments spotlight this 12-hour event. It felt too rushed at times and should have had more exploration on the event, as well as the social commentary THE PURGE was trying to deliver. Maybe they're saving that for the sequel that's currently being developed, which would be the best route to take. Still, I had fun with the film on a visceral level and I'm happy it's doing really well at the box office. But at the end of the day, THE PURGE has a ton of potential that wasn't fulfilled all that much.



SCORE

2.5 Howls Outta 4

The Purge (2013) Giveaway by Universal Pictures!

So I received a great e-mail from Universal Pictures, wanting Full Moon Reviews to be part of a giveaway for June 7th's anticipated THE PURGE, starring Ethan Hawke and Lena Headey. The giveaway includes a mask from the film, plus a T-shirt!


If you win, the prizes will be sent by FedEx and/or UPS. If you want to enter, all you have to do is take the #WouldYouSurviveTheNight Quiz and post your result in the comment box. The winner will be chosen at random and be revealed on June 15th.

Unfortunately, this giveaway is only for residents of the United States. And you must be over 18 to enter. Good luck everyone!






THE SYNOPSIS: If, on one night every year, you could commit any crime without facing consequences, what would you do?

In an America wracked with crime and overcrowded prisons, the government has sanctioned an annual 12-hour period in which any and all criminal activity--including murder--becomes legal. The police can't be called. Hospitals suspend help. It's twelve hours when the citizenry regulates itself without thought of punishment. On this particular night in 2022, plagued by violence and an epidemic of crime, one family wrestles with the decision of who they will become when a stranger comes knocking.

When an intruder breaks into James Sandin’s (Ethan Hawke) gated community during the yearly lockdown, he begins a sequence of events that threatens to tear his family apart. Now, it is up to James, his wife, Mary (Lena Headey), and their kids to make it through the night without turning into the monsters from whom they hide.

The B-Movie Bungalow Presents: Empire of the Ants (1977)

DIRECTED BY
Bert I. Gordon

STARRING
Joan Collins - Marilyn Fryser
Robert Lansing - Dan Stokely
John David Carson - Joe Morrison
Albert Salmi - Sheriff Art Kincade
Jacqueline Scott - Margaret Ellis
Pamela Susan Shoop - Corren Bradford
Robert Pine - Larry Graham

Genre - Horror/Science Fiction/B-Movie/Bad Animals

Running Time - 89 Minutes


PLOT
A bitchy realtor named Marilyn Fryser (Joan Collins) tries to con a group of potential investors to buy some Florida real estate by taking them on a tour, hopefully to make money off of the development rights. Unfortunately for the tour group [but fortunately for us], they don't have any knowledge of radioactive waste being dumped in nearby waters. One of the waste cannisters lands on a beach, where ants roam. This allows the ants to mutate to giant size, suddenly becoming carnivores in the process.

When the two groups acknowledge each other, the humans suddenly become the prey. While some are killed by the ants, some manage to make it to a nearby town for safety. But the town may not be what it seems, and it may have to do with these giant ants.



REVIEW

STORY
-Screenplay: It's been a while since I've written a review for the B-Movie Bungalow. Unfortunately, it's for this 1977 B-Movie starring Joan Collins screaming her head off at giant radioactive ants. I usually have fun with these Bert I. Gordon films. I think THE AMAZING COLOSSAL MAN and EARTH VS. THE SPIDER are fun watches. And while I thought THE FOOD OF THE GODS was pretty average, at least it had moments like that giant chicken and the final act. But EMPIRE OF THE ANTS, while I liked the premise, was pretty much a silly chore to sit through.

I think the biggest culprit is the screenplay. There's really no plot here, at least until the end when it doesn't really matter. The focus of this film should be on the giant ants that are terrorizing our main characters. But they don't have much of a presence until like close to halfway into the film. Instead, we have to watch our human characters walk around, eat food, tour boring locations, and interact with each other in pretty unlikeable and dull ways. It doesn't help that most of these characters are seriously unlikeable or not interesting enough to give a damn about.

Marilyn Fryser, who is supposedly the main character, is a total bitch from start to end. You'd think there would be a character arc in there somehow where she could redeem herself. But nope, there's nothing about her that makes you go, "Yeah, she should live." She's still not as bad as that dude who enjoys forcing himself on women, letting his wife get eaten so he could survive, and lead the others down the wrong path due to the fact that he believes he knows everything. This guy's demise was too easy, in my opinion. It also doesn't help that the girl he tried to rape was pretty much in close proximity with him the entire time - because you know, sexual harassment isn't all that serious or traumatizing. The more "heroic" characters were also pretty bland and did nothing for me. And the characters didn't seem to register that people in their group were missing until it was convenient to do so. I have a lot of faith in humanity when it comes to these people. I honestly wanted to see more of the fake looking ants than I did the fake human personalities. The fact that these characters survived past the first act still frustrates me to no end.

There were also issues that needed to be explained, but weren't for whatever reason. For example, there was some sort of implication that Marilyn's Dreamland Shores deal was a con so these idiot investors could make her rich out of nothing. But that was never really focused on. In fact, the characters who figured it out quickly were murdered first. Yeah, that's how you build a mystery! And the whole final act deal with the ants mind controlling an entire town...after a couple of hours once they grew in size. How in the hell is that even possible? And why would these ants kill people if they want them to love them, appreciate them, and give them all the sugar they could ask for? I think a focus on these aspect would have made for a more interesting and entertaining film. But it really comes out of nowhere and it ends just as soon as it starts.

The story is also oddly paced and there's just not enough interesting things going for it. For an 89 minute film, it felt longer and that's not good. I also find it hilarious as to how this film is "loosely based" on H.G. Wells short story from 1905, when the only thing the two have in common are ants. I wasn't expecting a great script, but at least it could have been fun. Instead, I was left bored and kept looking at the time to see when it would be over so I could review it.

- Direction: Bert I. Gordon's direction isn't masterful, but it does have its moments. It's a pretty standard point-and-shoot affair, with not much visual style that makes the duller scenes more bearable to sit through. There are moments of suspense, I guess, during the chase scenes as you hear the ants communicate with each other. But you're never at the edge of your seat during any point of the film.

I think the most memorable visuals are the giant ants themselves. We get fake huge puppet ants during the attack scenes. Those didn't look too bad. But the matte shots of actual ants re-sized so they could bigger compared to the actors are pretty laughable and really cheap looking. It's always entertaining to watch random ants walk on air rather than towards their intended destination. At least I chuckled at these moments. But honestly, I've probably seen lower budget films with better special effects than EMPIRE OF THE ANTS. For 1977 standards, they're really bad.

I think my biggest issue with the direction, and it's the same as the acting, is that Gordon really directed this film with a serious eye. Why? It's a film about mind-controlling giant ants! Have fun with the damn premise! This isn't Shakespeare, so don't treat it as such.

- Acting: I think of the three components to the story, the acting was definitely the best part of EMPIRE OF THE ANTS. I'm not saying it's great or anything, but all the actors are capable at least. Joan Collins, of Dynasty fame, has claimed that EMPIRE OF THE ANTS was probably the worst acting experience she's had in her life. And judging by her performance, it seems like it. Then again, she's really put through the ringer in this film by director Gordon, so maybe she felt the role deserved better. I don't know. She's not terrible or anything, but you can tell her heart isn't in it. Robert Lansing is probably the best actor as Dan the captain, but you can also tell he's doing this film for a paycheck and nothing more. The other actors are okay [it's nice to see Pamela Susan Shoop in a pre-HALLOWEEN II (1981) role], but they'd probably be better off during a nighttime soap opera rather than a film like this. And I gotta say, the dubbing of the screams were very funny and were a highlight.

I do wish the actors were having more fun with how stupid and silly EMPIRE OF THE ANTS really is. They recite lines and perform scenes with such seriousness, that it took away the camp value for me. I honestly blame this on Bert I. Gordon, since his direction was presented the same way. I read a lot of people enjoy this film because it's campy, but I honestly didn't see it. The dramatic acting didn't do the film favors, in my opinion.

Rating - 4/10


VIOLENCE
EMPIRE OF THE ANTS isn't a violent movie, but there is more blood than one would expect. But these scenes are fairly tame and extremely repetitive. In fact, the most violent scene in the film was the attempted rape scene that felt very out of place. If you're looking for gore, or a lot of ant mauling sequences, you're looking at the wrong film.

Rating - 2/10


SEX
Besides the attempted rape scene and the knee to the groin that followed after, there's not much sexuality in the film at all. We do see Pamela Susan Shoop in a wet blouse though, telling me that it was cold while shooting [if you know what I mean...]. But no one loses any clothes or anything, so fairly tame in this department as well.

Rating - 2/10


CHEESE
EMPIRE OF THE ANTS could have been campier and cheesier, but there are moments that do qualify. The matte shots of giant ants are unintentionally funny to watch. The giant puppet scenes are chuckle worthy. Seeing the actors deliver silly lines with such conviction make one shake their head. And the idea that these ants wanted to turn humanity into their slaves is fairly silly and worth making a campy B-movie about. Too bad the film took itself way too seriously. This could have been cheesier and more fun to experience.

Rating - 4/10


THINGS I'VE LEARNED WHILE TAKING MY EX-GIRLFRIEND OUT TO A PICNIC...

- The narrator claims that the ant could be the next dominant life form on our planet if we're not careful. I'll let the few squished underneath my shoe know about that.

- Some company dumped a bunch of barrels containing radioactive waste material into the ocean. Maybe this is the reason why that shark had psychic powers in JAWS: THE REVENGE. In that case, I hope these assholes rot in hell for making us all suffer.

- Marilyn Fryser won't get mad at one of her co-workers because he's so damn good in the sack. I guess big dicks do achieve more in life.

- Some dude tried to force himself on Pamela Susan Shoop until she kneed him in the junk. Unless you wear a William Shatner mask near a hospital hot tub, she isn't interested.

- The group was too scared to vote about what to do after being attacked by the ants. You'd think they were politicians or something...

- The cops were a bit rough with the group during their escape from a local town. I guess this town's bacon is extra smoky...

- The Queen Ant brainwashed an entire town to obey, love, and feed her sugar whenever she wants it. In other words, she just forced this town to marry her. What a golddigging, diabetic whore!


THE FINAL HOWL
I really wanted to enjoy EMPIRE OF THE ANTS more. Others seem to like it more than I do because it's campy and unintentionally funny. And while I do feel moments are pretty hilarious for all the wrong reasons, I still found the film mostly dull and lacking. The actors are there for a paycheck. The direction by Bert I. Gordon takes itself way too seriously for its own good. The narrative is boring, and the characters are uninteresting and unlikeable. At least the bad special effects are laughable and the premise is decent for a B-movie. EMPIRE OF THE ANTS isn't the worst film I've seen, but not enough sugar will make me want to seek this out again anytime soon.



SCORE

1.5 Howls Outta 4