Retro Review: Earth Girls Are Easy (1988)

Earth Girls Are Easy
1988
Cast: Geena Davis, Jim Carrey, Damon Wayans, Jeff Goldblum, Julie Brown, Michael McKean, Charles Rocket
Genre: Romantic Comedy Sci-fi Musical
Studio: De Larentiis Entertainment 
U.S Lifetime Gross: $3,916,303

Plot: Valerie is dealing with her philandering fiance, Ted when she finds out that a trio of aliens have crashed their spaceship in her swimming pool. Once the furry beings are shaved at her girlfriend's salon, the women discover three handsome men underneath. After absorbing the native culture via television, the spacemen are ready to hit the dating scene in 1980s Los Angeles

'A Strange Mixture Of Little Shop Of Horrors With Something Out Of The Galaxy High Cartoon'

As I sat down to watch this movie, I was prepared for a cheesy experience with cringe-inducing songs and sheer campiness. 

But instead, what I got was a surreal film about a manicurist named Valerie whose fiance, Ted cheats on her with another woman, only for Val to eventually fall in love with a alien. Val is a young woman who is optimistic, kind-hearted and who can't help herself when she sees a guy in trouble. Things are never the same again after, once the aliens make their entrance, -and what a entrance it is as they sky crash directly into Val's pool.  

Earth Girls Are Easy is a light-hearted pop musical comedy with a colourful and flamboyant art direction that is part- sci-fi that echoes something out of Chris Columbus's Galaxy High animated series, mixed with Frank Oz's Little Shop of Horrors. The only difference being the aliens arrive on earth, whereas on Galaxy High, earthling students Doyle and Aimee travel to space to study at high school. 

The opening titles are also something that looks as though it was later borrowed by the creators of sitcom, Third Rock From The Sun. It has dancing and cheery pop musical numbers, which will divide viewers; personally, I thought they weren't very memorable and not very good. The dance stand-off between Damon Wayans and some other guy, was interesting however with moves that are reminiscent of Capoeira. Damon Wayans and Jim Carrey, who both later ended up on Fox's In Living Color play the aliens; Jim Carrey in the red funny furry suit looked like a skinny version of Beast Man from the He-Man cartoon. Both Carrey and Wayans sound and act more like Mork from Ork from Mork and Mindy here, and this was an indication of what was to come, insofar as to their antics on the In Living Color comedy sketch show of the early 1990s. The scenes of them and Jeff Goldblum doing weird stuff in Geena Davis's house were equally amusing. The aliens themselves act naff and most of the humour in this movie is centered around the aliens's behaviour based on their misunderstandings of life on earth. 

The thing I found most interesting about this movie was that plot line involving Val's fiance, who turns out to be a cheater and breaks Val's heart, and that Val managed to see through his arrogance and dumped him and fell in love with someone (or be it thing, as in an alien), who truly loved her and cared about her. 

This movie is so bizarre - yet so unique and goofy that I've never really seen anything like this before in my entire life. I can understand why it has become a cult classic (the movie's theme was also featured on the Iggy Izalea and Britney Spears 2015 music video ''Pretty Girls'') and it definitely encapsulates that '80s feel. The manner that this movie plays out, it is almost as if it is a live -action fantasy cartoon, though it feels very lightweight as well. It's a musical that also contains a romance subplot, some humour courtesy of Carrey and Wayans, and lots of strange and surreal stuff happening in-between all of that. 

The highlight of this movie is when the aliens come out of the tanning booth and they look like human, especially Jeff Goldblum. This is also the movie where he and Geena Davis met and fell in love on set and later became a couple (today, they are no longer together). Overall, the film garnered a mixed reception but over the years it has become a cult classic, thanks mainly to Jim Carrey's latter success with Ace Ventura, The Mask and Dumb and Dumber that helped reignited interest in this film. 

The sci-fi comedy aspect of the movie pretty much acts as a backdrop to all the colourful appearances and visuals, whilst it also makes fun of the Southern Californian insipid lifestyle. 

Final Verdict: 

Geena Davis, Jeff Goldblum and to a lesser extent, Jim Carrey and Damon Wayans's performances are what makes this movie worth watching. Which would have otherwise turned out as less than interesting and memorable, and made it extremely dull and lifeless. The love story between Mac and Val was sweet and endearing, however.

This is a campy, offbeat and frivolous slice of extra-terrestrial fun that whilst it doesn't provide very much depth, it's still kind of cool to marvel at from a visual sense and though it's not that bad, it still feels weird in places. But if you can get over this or cast this aside, in addition to enjoying musicals, then you'll probably enjoy Earth Girls Are Easy quite a lot. 




Overall:

Retro Review: Cocktail (1988)

Cocktail
1988
Cast: Tom Cruise, Elisabeth Shue, Brian Brown, Kelly Lynch, Gina Gershon, Ellen Foley 
Genre: Romantic Comedy Drama
Worldwide Gross: $171.5 million 

Plot: A talented New York bartender takes a job at a bar in Jamaica and falls in love

'An Entertaining - Yet Idealised Tale Of Dreams and Aspirations Hidden Beneath All The Razzmatazz' 

It is his earlier fare where we see Tom Cruise at his happiest, smiley self and of him enjoying himself before he went down the Scientology route. This is Tom Cruise at his most relaxed performance and a side to his performance as Brian that we haven't seen much of in his latter movies that came after Cocktail. Cocktail is an interesting and entertaining movie, which doesn't offer anything spectacular of the sort but can still hold its own. If we were to measure this movie's reputation, it would fall more in line with Flashdance: a movie that is aptly supported by a cool soundtrack but with much more thorough performances. 

It is a classic rags-to-riches, roller-coaster of a ride, a fish-out-of-water tale with a few bumps along the way centering a young student who is taken under his wings by his mentor, who in turn, helps him achieve his ultimate dreams and ambitions in owning his own bar. 

Without having read anything about it and just by judging the poster, I was expecting this movie to be a serious drama. When it comes to the comedy, it is very low-key and downplayed, and though there is little of it, Cocktail is still a good and likeable, guilty pleasure yet so-bad-it's good movie that appeals to general audiences, in particular. After reading all the negative and slating reviews, that include winning an infamous Razzie award for Worst Picture, and having watched this film, I didn't have much of an issue with it.

It feels like a romantic comedy drama despite not being billed as one, and objectively whilst one may look at it, it isn't a masterpiece, it was still entertaining. 

Even though it is considered as a guilty pleasure, there are actually some interesting scenes and dramatic moments as well that makes Cocktail a potentially legible drama. Some will think when watching this film the final act shifts a little too much to the dark side & was a tiny bit unwarranted. Not to mention it was out of the blue and there were no signs that indicated that Doug was experiencing emotional problems in the lead up to his suicide. Which was disappointing. 

Notwithstanding all that, Tom Cruise delivers an impressive, if not the most challenging performance of his career (Jerry Maguire followed by A Few Good Men tops it); I was surprised at how good he was, not just with the making cocktails part but in his acting and portrayal as Brian. He does some stupid stuff along the way, he shows his flaws but ultimately he comes through in the end. 

Cocktail can get pretty deep and heavy in places; It is only when Brian realises how lucky he is to have Jordan in his life and of whom understands his passion and shares his vision for what he wants and what they want, that they realise their love for each other is what matters. Regardless of all the struggles, they have to overcome. The love story aspect was well-conceived. 

It's not as dated as some people have said it is (it doesn't look too dated from a visual standpoint) and given as I had rather different expectations of what I had envisaged Cocktail to be, it literately surprised me in more ways than one and in a good way as well. I was also surprised at the amount of mature depth it had for a movie about bar-tending. But that it offered so much more too, what with a good supporting cast and the relationships aspect of it and the different women Brian encounters and comes into contact with, at work and in his personal life. 

Elisabeth Shue looks great as Jordan and has great chemistry with Tom Cruise: as Jordan, she is smart, sweet, fun. It is yet another impressive and understated performance that I've enjoyed of hers. The late Paul Benedict aka Mr Bentley of The Jeffersons makes a brief appearance as one of Brian's college lecturers.

Cocktail is one of those films where you have to enter this movie with very low expectations and not overthink about it too much and just enjoy it for what it delivers. 

It is a slightly higher end version of the Robin Williams' comedy, Club Paradise with a smidge more quality. 

Final Verdict:

Cocktail is a dramedy, more so than as a drama, with a few enduring and casual moments and although the narrative could have been a lot stronger, it is not lacking in entertainment. It may not have skyrocketed Tom Cruise's status, but it definitely helped solidified it as one of Hollywood's most successful and bankable actors of the 1980s and 1990s. 

The derisory critical reviews and ridiculously low IMDb rating don't justify how much I have found this movie to be a thoroughly enjoyable- yet simple and casual experience. It is not one of the most earth-shattering movies and it isn't a masterpiece, but it is watchable, entertaining and pleasant with a premise that does its job. 

If you're seeking for something unashamedly enjoyable and not too heavy plot-wise, with impressive and well-acted performances by the likes of Cruise and Elisabeth Shue, then Cocktail is one beverage of a movie worth sipping. 


Overall:

Retro Review: Basic Instinct (1992)

Basic Instinct
1992
Cast: Michael Douglas, Sharon Stone, George Dzundza, Jeanne Tripplehorn, Wayne Knight
Genre: Neo-Noir Erotic Thriller
Worldwide Gross: $352.9 million

Plot: A violent police detective investigates a brutal murder that might involve a manipulative and seductive novelist

'Sharon Stone's Performance Overrides Basic Instinct's Problematic and Seedy Plot & Story Elements'

With the groundwork already laid out in 1987's Fatal Attraction, ultimately it was Basic Instinct and the success of this movie that opened the floodgates for the erotic thriller sub-genre to flourish outside of Z-list movie status, for a short while, and into the commercial mainstream helm. 

Basic Instinct is an upper-tier lurid, erotic thriller, with nothing much to add and offers little to distinguish itself from the standard direct-to-DVD, Z-list, erotic thriller fodder which was released during the 1990s. There is very little attempt by Paul Verhoeven and Joe Eszterhas's screenplay to make this distinction clear; that and in making the changes that made the story come across as less cheesy. Besides the established names of Michael Douglas and Sharon Stone. If you took away Michael Douglas and Sharon Stone and added in obscure softcore porn performers who dabble in erotic thrillers, this film would be no different to what it is with those two performers in it. & also would people still rave about it as they did with Douglas and Stone in this? Most likely, no. 

Detective Nick Curran (Michael Douglas) and his partner, Gus (George Dzunda of Dangerous Minds) are investigating the murder of a rock star and Sharon Stone's Catherine is the prime suspect, of whom Nick gets romantically involved with. He believes she killed him with an ice pick - yet at the same time, he's in love with her and the two eventually end up in bed with each other and have rough sex. Is Catherine guilty or was she framed? That is the question that the director, Paul Verhoeven and writer Eszterhas fails to, or be it chooses not to address properly and thoroughly. And that, in itself, is not a very good sign for this movie.

With regards to the performances, they are so-so: Michael Douglas, though he is the main star of this film, is nothing more than a standby who is upstaged by Sharon Stone's ''assets'' and somewhat stronger character performance. She is good at playing antagonist roles, but I surely wished that more often she had the chance to play the good gal or lead protagonist in movies (and one where she doesn't get bumped off like in Action Jackson). Douglas plays the cop role with not much conviction and I have seen him do better than this in his other roles (see Falling Down, Romancing The Stone, Fatal Attraction, Disclosure). Although this marked the beginning of the decline in good screen roles for Douglas, from the dashing romeo in Romancing The Stone to male sex victim/predator.  

The other performances were stale; Jeannie Tripplehorn as Nick's ex, Beth-was terrible, but that is no thanks in part to the dialogue, which I will touch upon a bit later. The characters behaviours and mannerisms range from the bizarre to fetish-like to deplorable.  

Interestingly, Harrison Ford, Al Pacino, Mel Gibson, Richard Gere and even Denzel Washington were all considered for the part of Nick before Michael Douglas nabbed the role, with Julia Roberts, Michelle Pfeiffer, Meg Ryan, Kathleen Turner and Demi Moore in the running for Catherine - only for it to go to Sharon Stone. Michelle Pfeiffer, Kim Basinger, Geena Davis and Ellen Barkin (Sea of Love) turned down that role, as it demanded so much nudity and sexual stimulation that they weren't willing to compromise. Out of the guys, the only one I could picture playing Nick would be a toss -up between Richard Gere and Al Pacino, whereas Kathleen Turner or Demi Moore would have been the other viable option for the female role. But alas, by doing so, Kathleen and Demi would be reprising their roles from Body Heat for Turner and Disclosure for Moore. & of course, Demi Moore later starred opposite Michael Douglas in Disclosure. 

One of the biggest issues I have with this film is the contrived narrative that tries to make the audience suss out who the killer is, and teases us, taking us along for the ride. I was waiting for the twists and especially that one big twist that would take me to a different path and one that would ignite my interest - only for the depth of this deception to come to a disappointing finale that ends on a damp squib, rather than a crashing halt. The final act where Dr. Beth Garner: an afterthought and Nick's ex-lover, who is dressed down, is revealed to be the killer, given she has been a sideline character (and an awful one to boot) most of the time, all I can say to that is I find it hard to believe she would be the one responsible. It didn't make much sense as to why the director or writer came to that conclusion, as there were no actual hints that led me to think that Beth had killed those men. No real build-up or clues leading up to that, whatsoever. 

All of the characters are cold, dislikeable and unsympathetic - Douglas as Nick feels so liberated by the domineering Katherine played by Stone and her sexually depraved behaviour that not long after their sexual encounter, he rapes his ex-girlfriend. What the hell. 

The sex scenes, the nudity - including the infamous one with Sharon Stone not wearing underwear whilst she uncrosses her legs -, the violence, all the usual trademarks of your standard Paul Verhoeven movie, are here. As with him, he is a director who has successfully managed to attract audiences for his movies, of whom find some value in his twisted and controversial depictions of sexual and violent activities. 

The scene where they are dancing is practically laughable and hilarious. The sex scenes aren't that particularly sexy, well some of them aren't; there is an aggressive tone to them that I was grimacing throughout as I sat through them. It's rough and hard more so than slow, seductive and sensual. Aside from that, when it came to the suspense aspect, I wasn't on the edge of my seat and it didn't leave me stunned. And the dialogue ranged from okay at best to occasionally vapid. 

As I watched this movie, I became more and more frustrated that as much as I followed the plot, it descended into nothing but sheer confusion. Not to mention boredom; other than the sex scenes, everything else seemed rather random and passe. The tension, the mystery, the suspense it was so underwhelming it fell flat for me. The script is manipulative yet confusing, tawdry and messy, but as it is a softcore erotic thriller film, it does what it says on the tin.

The ending was bizarre and I was left even more confused: was she or was she not the killer? I needed to know and I didn't like that it was open-ended and that the writer and director of this movie, Verhoeven was toying with me throughout & without offering proper closure to it. Basic Instinct would have been an amiable thriller - if it hadn't tried so hard trying to be sexually gratuitous. 

Some of the sex scenes had to be cut to qualify for an R- rating, otherwise, Basic Instinct would have been an NC-17.

Alas, I am really not entirely impressed with this offering. & yet the film have its main stars Sharon Stone & Michael Douglas to thank for its success - without those two, the film would have easily tanked at the box office. 

Final Verdict:

I am not saying I dislike Basic Instinct or it is by any means terrible. But sadly, there is just no middle ground and the execution didn't leave much of an impression on me. The main saving graces are Sharon Stone and the score but I just feel with the characters especially, nothing much is done to further distinguish themselves and this movie from the many other erotic thrillers. Usually, erotic thrillers saddle between very good to mediocre. At best, this one is somewhat good but not great. & still, it was uneasy to watch. 

The lack of a really big twist that would have made the film more exciting, compelling and mind-twisting-yet entertaining was the big deciding factor for me, and I am disappointed that it didn't really happen. 

A part of me just thinks that with regards to Verhoeven, he must the type of director who must believe that the main thing that sells a movie is just lots of sex and nothing to it. Basic Instinct is an example of that. 

But being the provocative director that he is with his attempts at trying to shock audiences with violence, adult themes, sex, this is not surprising. Because he treats everything else in a movie- be it this one, Starship Troopers, Hollow Man, Showgirls with further disdain, particularly in regards to his treatment of the protagonist characters. Come to think of it, I didn't like any of the characters. They were all rotten and unredeemable to the core. 

And that is a main issue I have with his movies. 

It's a standard erotic thriller the likes I've seen many times before, only with much sleeker production values and A-list stars in the main roles. & whilst I can't deny or fault that Basic Instinct doesn't lack that mystery ''who-dun-it'' element, the movie's success pretty much falls on Sharon Stone uncrossing her legs and the erotic sex scenes, more so than the problematic and seedy plot and story elements themselves. Some of which leave a lot to be desired.

But hey, I'd still take this over the sequel, which is drivel.


*score updated: 28 Sept 2016*


Overall:

Retro Review: Hollow Man (2000)

Hollow Man
2000
Cast: Kevin Bacon, Elizabeth Shue, Josh Brolin
Genre: Science Fiction/ Horror
Worldwide Gross: $190.2 Million 


Plot: The thought of invisibility has intrigued man for centuries. Highly-gifted scientist Sebastian Caine develops a serum that induces complete invisibility. His remarkable transformation results in unimaginable power that seems to suffocate his sense of morality and leads to a furious and frightening conclusion

'Invisible Man Meets Scream Formula That Isn't That Hollow' 

Actor Kevin Bacon nowadays appears in EE mobile phone adverts on British television, happily promoting the service and giving himself something else to do when he's not getting film offers. Yet back in the 1980s up to the early 2000s, he starred in diverse movies such as Footloose, Flatliners, Picture Perfect, Beauty shop,The River Wild and this relatively B- movie thriller, Hollow Man, in addition to being part of the 1980s brat- pack ensemble alongside Emilio Estevez, Rob Lowe, Kiefer Sutherland. 

Bacon is Sebastian: an arrogant and egotistical scientist/researcher, who tests an invisibility serum on himself, despite objections by his co-workers and for a while, everything is fine and dandy. But when they realise they cannot make Sebastian revert back to his normal form and that the serum only works on animals and not humans, he practically goes paranoid and ballistic and begins targeting and terrorising them and killing his co-workers off. Including his old flame, Linda (Elizabeth Shue).

Hollow Man essentially plays out as the Invisible Man meets slasher film. It is a sadistic twist on the Invisible Man premise: take Wes Craven's Scream movies, have it set in a scientific lab and replace the masked killer with an invisible killer. That's the basic idea behind it. Plot-wise, it has more in common with Scream and Alien and its 1986 sequel than it does with Verhoeven's previous efforts, Robocop, Starship Troopers and Basic Instinct. There is also an element reminiscent of Flatliners where a human guinea pig takes part in the experiment, but with Kevin Bacon acting as the guinea pig instead of Kiefer Sutherland. 

The film is interesting in the sense that because it is R-rated, the concept of the invisible man or person provides all sorts of possibilities: what would you do if you were invisible? It would have been all too easy to make the lead character in this film the good guy who becomes invisible because that formula is too typical and somewhat conventional. It's one of those types of questions that gets asked a lot, all of the time by people; but in this film, it literately takes this to the extreme - that being invisible you can do whatever you want, when you want, how you want, without being caught. Likewise, doing bad things and getting involved in adult situations like spying on naked people. & even going as far as killing people.

The movie's theme blurs the lines between morality and immorality and through scopophiliac means. One scene that was cut from the theatrical version, but appears in the director's cut, is when whilst he is invisible, & in such distasteful fashion, Sebastian rapes a woman in her apartment. Verhoeven opts for the unconventional take on the Invisible Man story and adds a voyeuristic dark twist by making Kevin Bacon's character do a heel-face turn on his colleagues. 

During which I was watching this movie, it dawned on me that as despicable and abhorrent Sebastian's actions are and as cocky as he was sometimes, I did actually feel sorry for him to see his ex-girlfriend, of whom he still has feelings for and for showing his undying love for her, in the arms of another man. As much as we shouldn't, or I shouldn't feel a tiny bit of compassion towards Sebastian. 

Elizabeth Shue's character, Linda is both a good and bad thing as Shue handles herself extremely well in the action and physical scenes, who doesn't become intimidated by Bacon's Sebastian's increasing threats. But the love affair between Linda and Matt just came across as being cold and unsympathetic and in reality and effectively, this film killed Shue's Hollywood movie career. I know Linda broke up with Sebastian and she is dating Matt, but even the way she treats Sebastian is as-if not as badly as Sebastian treats her and the other women.

Arguably, all of the characters in this movie were calculating and deceitful. None of them was perfect. And is it just me but for Robocop & Total Recall that through Verhoeven, all of the protagonist characters in his films come across as being wholly amoral and abhorrent or just downright dislikeable? Is this always his intention with his movies to cause rage and resentment towards audiences, or just to give us something to discuss and talk about? Either way, it's the job of filmmakers to create protagonist characters that have interesting personalities, but also flawed and equally sympathetic protagonist characters - & by flawed I mean they have their flaws, but who are willing to work hard to also become better and caring individuals in the end that we want to root for them in the movie. & yet, this is not the case with Linda and Matt. I felt as I was sitting through this movie that it had no intention of making me want to care for them, but rather make those characters screw Sebastian over, just be screwing each other - sexually that is- just to make him mad. That, and that it annoyed me as well. 

Whilst Kevin Bacon goes to lengths and beyond to bring the crazed and sadistic Sebastian Caine to life, even when his character is in CGI mode. This is the most insane performance I have seen of his as the antagonist and he really gave a strong presence to Sebastian that tips that character over the edge, as his mania becomes more of an influence on his psyche. Both Elizabeth Shue and Kevin Bacon had relatively successful careers during the 1980s as young, highly promising stars coming up the ranks and in their performances in this movie, it truly showed that having that leverage of experience as actors, worked in their favour.    

Verhoeven is a director who always pushes the envelope when it comes to sex and violence, yet comes up with intuitive ways to express those ideas in his R-rated efforts of the 1980s and 1990s. Typically his efforts, particularly his sci-fi offerings, are exceedingly violent, satirical and often contain and provoke strong sexual and taboo themes. He takes the fantasy concepts of the invisible man (Hollow Man), a man who becomes a robot (Robocop), soldiers shooting up robotic insects (Starship Troopers): tales of which evoke the 'fun', comic book element that in theory and general would pander towards children and families, and makes it more violent, sadistic and outrageous for adults. I get it. Though funnily (and unfortunately) enough, both Robocop and Total Recall got remade as watered- down, family friendly fare & as a result, both became box office bombs. 

It's no surprise to learn that Verhoeven can be a polarising director for audiences: the vast majority of his works are of an acquired taste. Movies included the famous Robocop, Starship Troopers, Basic Instinct, Total Recall and the critical disaster of the '90s & now cult classic, Showgirls. And in all those movies, there is violence, blood and gore, sex and nudity, as well as special effects and with this effort, Verhoeven doesn't hold back from the extremities that this film evokes. 

No other director could have come up with the crazed version of the Invisible Man, nor could have come up with a cop who gets murdered and is brought back to life as a robot in Robocop.

With Hollow Man, however, satire doesn't feature anywhere in this movie, as Verhoeven really goes hardcore and plays it straight as a full-on serial killer, one part- sci-fi fantasy, one part slasher -style flick, which is supported by an often misogynistic and what one may add objectification & treatment of the female characters; more specifically with the groping and the woman Sebastian spies on and rapes, as well as his ex-girlfriend, Linda. Some have noted the film doesn't explain why Sebastian's behaviour rapidly descends into madness, when you only have to watch the scene when he finds out that Linda and Matt have slept with each other, being one example.  

In another scene, which at first I found distressing, and grisly, was when Sebastian in invisible form grabs a dog and starts to bash it around; although thankfully, it wasn't a real dog. Personally, that scene should have been taken out of the movie, or at least remained in the uncut version.

This is a movie that has attracted a storm of negative comments. It was also accused of falling short as it degenerates into a typical horror film. The CGI effects still look good today for a film that is over 15 years old and it is one of the rarest instances where they are used to aid and further the story, rather than for it to be as something nice for us to look at. But that is not to say, Hollow Man doesn't have its issues.

The film does drag during the last 30 minutes and though Josh Brolin did okay, I felt he was weaker of the two protagonist actors compared to Elizabeth Shue and that someone else could have easily played that role but him. Also, I think it would have made the film less conventional and too predictable; had Sebastian been able to make himself appear and disappear and switch between the two and still go on a murderous rampage. The dialogue, however, is occasionally not very good also and the plot twists aren't surprising. And the remaining characters are extremely weak, forgettable and lacking in personality. Not to mention they are completely and utterly clueless and are so unlikeable. 

But that suspense and tension are maintained throughout the duration of this movie & further magnified 10 times over by Sebastian's efforts in picking out his co-workers & slaying them, one by one. 

Final Verdict:

This is not a film for everyone and unless you aren't too offended or upset by the strong violence, - though it may not be well regarded by a lot of people - Hollow Man does have some provocative elements that is backed up by some interesting special effects and action sequences and the love triangle plot serves as a plot device to almost everything else that happens in the movie. 

The film works effectively as a psychological slasher film; it's slick, fast-paced with some nice surprises and twists and though it has some interesting scenes and is entertaining in places, they should have got a different actor to play Matt, as for me personally, Josh Brolin didn't convince me enough as Linda's love interest/boyfriend. 

But alas, Hollow Man is a good varied attempt of a horror/slasher movie with an Invisible Man theme and distinguishes itself from its peers under Verhoeven's dark and cynical and over-the-top approach, but it is, unfortunately, let down by some of the dialogue, weak supporting characters, unsympathetic & horribly written protagonists in Matt and Linda and lack of character development. Still, plot-wise this is slightly more intriguing than Showgirls (yet has none of its blunt satire & unlike that movie, Hollow Man is not a misunderstood gem) and out of the main cast, Kevin Bacon steals the show. 

As a horror-slasher thriller movie with thrills and spills, whilst not fantastic, it is definitely underrated, somewhat - although I totally emphasise with those who found Hollow Man to be too mean-spirited and hateful to be fully enjoyed. Under Verhoeven's vision that is.

It's not great, but it ain't bad either.    


Overall:


(*last updated: December 4, 2017)

Retro Review: Adventures in Babysitting (1987)

Adventures In Babysitting 
1987
Cast: Elisabeth Shue, Penelope Ann Miller, Vincent D'Onofrio, George Newbern, Maia Brewton, Keith Coogan, Anthony Rapp, Bradley Whitford
Genre: Comedy
U.S Lifetime Gross: over $34 million

Plot: A babysitter must battle her way through the big city after being stranded there with the kids she's looking after

'A Rare, & In Many Cases Undervalued Comedy, That Was a Brief & Future Glimpse Of What Was To Come From Home Alone & Mrs Doubtfire's Chris Columbus'

Adventures in Babysitting is in the mode of traditional adventure movies, where the four young characters find themselves on a roller-coaster of adventures and meeting some strange and dangerous characters along the way. It is also one of those movies that were talked about back in the mid-1980s that I never saw. In America where the movie blew up anyway. For no particular reason, I never came across this movie as a child. It was one of those things that went unnoticed. It wasn't until 2012 or something that I'd first read about it on the internet, although I almost passed up on it, as I assumed it wouldn't be something that I'd enjoy personally myself. That it would be a typical teen comedy with not much to offer. However, it definitely made a positive and good impression on me. 

The film also marks the directorial debut of Chris Columbus, who later achieved blockbuster success with Mrs Doubtfire and Home Alone, the first two Harry Potter entries and to a lesser extent, Stepmom. Chris Columbus's movies are definitely reminiscent of those of John Hughes's efforts, and of whom he's worked with: off-the-wall humour, some unexpected surprises that come out of nowhere at times. And this one is no exception. 

In actuality, Adventures in Babysitting is a more expanded version of Home Alone, minus the booby traps and that most of the action and shenanigans occur outside of the home. 

In Elisabeth Shue's first major onscreen role as high school senior Chris Parker, her date with boyfriend, Mike is cancelled at the last minute by himself and she winds up babysitting two kids, who are from a wealthy family. Though they are content in staying in the house, Chris gets a phone call from her friend, Brenda (played by Penelope Ann Miller), who has run away from home & is trapped somewhere in Chicago with virtually no funds and needs Chris's help in rescuing her. There is one problem though: Chris can't go AWOL and leave the kids at home all by herself. Why, because the kids will tell their parents what she did and she'd be in bigger trouble. So to avoid all this, Chris gathers up Brad, his younger sister, Sara who is obsessed with the Marvel superhero, Thor and Brad's friend, Daryl and they all set out on an adventure they will ultimately remember for the rest of their lives. 

After her stint in Back to the Future 2 and 3 as Michael J. Fox's Marty McFly's girlfriend and the original The Karate Kid, the release of this movie occurred during a period when Elisabeth Shue was touted as the next best major Hollywood female player to soar to new heights, as achieved by the likes of Nicole Kidman, Jennifer Aniston to name. She was one of those actresses who could hold her own in a movie: whether that'll be in this effort, screwball caper Soapdish, 1988's Cocktail with Tom Cruise, Leaving Las Vegas or sci-fi thriller, Hollow Man. With long, blonde hair, she very much reminds me of a young Jessica Lange. Her natural -yet credible and pleasing performance is the glue that firmly binds this film together, amidst all the crazy chaos that takes place. That and she has a great rapport with the younger, as well as other actors. She may have gone on to attain more dramatic roles later on in her career, but Elisabeth Shue demonstrates in Adventures in Babysitting that she has a knack for comedy, and it is a tad shame that other than 1991's Soapdish, Shue hasn't had more of the quality light-hearted projects that would've allowed her to play a much less serious character or comedic role that, without a shadow of a doubt, she would have easily excelled at. 

The film has plenty of intrigue, surprises, twists and suspense too. It's got that mystery element/feel to it and has nostalgia value galore and is definitely a byproduct of the 1980s. Whilst the plot twists become odder, the plot and events within the narrative are intricately linked together and as the film progresses, it becomes increasingly more and more compelling and watchable. 

I was little taken aback that a film with this particular plot and setting would have some swearing and nudity. Whilst on the train, one of the gang members refers to Chris as a B**** and in the same scene Chris goes ''Don't F*** with the babysitter!''. That was also arguably the highlight of this film to see this regular babysitter not taking crap from the gangs & telling it like it is, damn straight. I was also interested in learning that Elizabeth Shue was just 23 back in 1987 but she was playing a 17-yr-old. Looking at her in this movie, I wouldn't have thought she was 23. The movie also features a Blond-haired Vincent D'Onofrio (Strange Days, Mystic Pizza) as a mechanic. 

It was interesting to see the kids going on the run and to avoid being caught and meeting all these different types of characters along the way. That premise, which was an ongoing theme throughout and the way these events unfolded, made it extremely watchable. It doesn't pander to or resort to dumbed down farce humour. The humour is not over-the-top or too silly, as well as that the film maintains its fun factor all along the way. 

Final Verdict: 

There is a uniqueness, quirkiness and unfamiliarity that Chris Columbus achieves here in contrast to Home Alone and more so with the latter, Mrs Doubtfire. This somewhat obscure film, which has gone on to attain a cult following over the years, is a bold attempt and as his first feature effort, it's a mighty impressive one as he ups the ante in the adventure stakes and it definitely lives up to its title. But it's the interesting plot twists that what makes this amusing adventure movie so good and entertaining, as well as managed to maintain my interest. 

The performances are fantastic and it's great to see a younger Elisabeth Shue and the equally understated, Penelope Ann Miller flexing their acting chops, as well as their star potential coming to fruition that is supported by a good cast and an engaging, light-hearted and entertaining script. 

The original Adventures in Babysitting is a fun, teen-style romp of a movie to watch but for younger children, due to some of the R-rated language and is definitely a film I'd recommend to those who enjoy action-adventure comedies. 


Overall:

Retro Review: I Love Trouble (1994)

I Love Trouble
1994
Cast: Julia Roberts, Nick Nolte, Saul Rubinek, Robert Loggia, Eugene Levy, Dan Butler 
Genre: Romantic Comedy
Worldwide Box Office Gross: over $30 million 

Plot: Two competing Chicago newspaper reporters join forces to unravel the mystery behind a train derailment 

'Having A Miscast Actor As A Love Interest Spells Trouble For This Movie'

I Love Trouble is your typical- yet below average rom- com with an investigative twist, but it is a rom-com that would've worked much better with a better male lead. In addition to having an improved script. It tries to be a part-conspiracy-based movie interwoven within a rom-com context, but hardly offers anything interesting or exciting to remotely satisfy it. 

Peter Brackett is an over-confident, womanising veteran reporter for the Chicago Chronicle with a new book that he has released. He is told to cover a train crash and is scooped by a young journalist, Sabrina Peterson who works for a rival newspaper, Chicago Globe. They have to put their professional rivalry on hold when a conspiracy puts them in danger and in putting their trust into one another, leads to the pair falling in love. & that is just one part of the movie's problem: the casting choices for the leads. Or be it the male lead. 

The problems with this film don't just run into the movie itself, but that Nick Nolte and Julia Roberts were reported to have not got on well with each other on set, resulting in a much publicised and notorious feud that was well documented by the media. Julia even went on record to say he is the worst actor she has worked with. But alas, I felt the idea of pairing Julia Roberts up with Nick Nolte as a ladies man was bizarre, and a complete miscast altogether. Nolte might be the more experienced pro compared to Julia Roberts in the acting stakes, but here, he was just not the right choice for this particular vehicle; he looked uncomfortable and out of place and he is/was too old to play her love interest.

Watching these two on screen I wasn't convinced by either of their characters attempts at falling for each other. If their characters were just friends without any romantic endeavour of any kind, I'd be okay with that. But that fact that they got together, made me squirm. Literately. The chemistry between those two was odd. I just didn't buy into it. It was one of the strangest - and may I add worst movie screen pairings, and it was uncomfortable to see them struggle through the material. Neither Julia or Nick were cut-out for their roles and it didn't help also that the script was mediocre. Julia Roberts had chemistry with Richard Gere in Pretty Woman - even though I cannot stand that film, had chemistry with Robin Williams in Hook....but Nick Nolte? It was all too apparent this (oddball) romantic coupling relationship based on a 26 year age difference- let's be clear that he was 50- something and she was 20- something (*gag*) at the time of filming - was pretty much dead in the water as the film progressed and thus, it literally sank it. I barely smiled when I sat through it. Chemistry was either borderline non-existent, or it just seemed so fake and not so genuine, whatsoever. The Nolte/Roberts partnership was as mismatched as eating a bowl of cheerios with strawberry flavoured milk. No, make that with out of date strawberry flavoured milk. 

The two characters argue, bicker, clash and engage in smart-talk banter, which amounts to very little. There is some action in this movie, which is an excuse to give the actors something to do, other than to utter their lines but it's a bare minimum. 

Other than that, however, this film is beyond mediocre and failed attempt as a throwback to screwball comedy, so blandly tedious and is one of the worst movies Julia Roberts has been involved in. How she ever went from the excellence of The Pelican Brief of the previous year to this excuse of rom-com tripe, is really strange. 

The script is not particularly amusing for a romantic comedy, nor as a classic in its attempts to emulate the tone and feel of 1940s screwball comedies. And when it tries to focus on the narrative, it's so laboured and boring. The acting felt flat too. The dialogue lacks spark and when I read it was over 2 hours long, it was the final straw. I felt like the movie was one long chore, one scene after the other and by the time it runs out of steam, I eventually gave up. And speaking of the comedy in a rom-com, there was a distinct lack of that also. 

If the film took away the romantic subplot and have it function as a mystery investigative type of movie, it would have been better for Julia Roberts and Nick Nolte. Then again given their animosity towards each other on set, perhaps not. 

Summary


Pros +

- Film looks nice


Cons - 

- The miscasting of Nick Nolte as the love interest

- Mismatch of Julia Roberts and Nick Nolte

- Wholly unfunny, romantic subplot didn't work because of the odd casting 

- Chemistry, what chemistry?

- Terrible & nothing script 


Final Verdict:

For a romantic comedy, I Love Trouble is a total bore and bland to boot; it is utterly unimaginative, lifeless and lacking any sort of charm and wit. & thankfully, I can see why Julia Roberts wants to forget about it. But the miscasting of Nick Nolte as her love interest really threw a spanner in the works: with a better, perhaps younger and credible choice of actor in place of Nick Nolte as the male lead, it would have made the film more bearable & entertaining. Lauded as a complete misfire and turkey in many respects, it is an example of how poor casting choices can ultimately affect one's opinion of a movie, in addition to that every other single thing about it is a total fail. 

Without a shadow of a doubt, this offering fails to amuse, satisfy, interest, excite and entertain me at every single level the movie was trying to aim towards. 

I Love Trouble is generally mediocre in movie terms, but as a romantic comedy-to-be, due to the ineffective (and more so) male, and female leads, it is beyond ghastly awful and is, unfortunately, another addition to my bad Julia Roberts movies list.  


Overall: