THE IRISHMAN (2019) *** ½

The Irishman finds director Martin Scorsese rummaging through old themes that flow throughout his previous Mob movies and affixing them to the disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa.  While these themes are overly familiar, especially for Scorsese devotees, it’s a fine late-era addition to his robust body of work.  The biggest thing that Scorsese now brings to the table is that he and his characters have the benefit of old age and hindsight.  Most of his pictures are cautionary tales that glamourize the gangster life as much as they denounce their inherent evils.  This is the rare Scorsese Mob flick in which the characters live long enough to look back on their lives with equal parts regret and heartache.  

In Goodfellas, Henry Hill survived his experiences, only to complain about shitty marinara sauce.  Here, the character of Frank (brilliantly played by Robert DeNiro) lives to old age.  His reward?  Sitting alone in a nursing home haunted by his past misdeeds. 

In his glory days, Frank was a low-level hood who caught the eye of crime boss Russell Bufalino (Joe Pesci).  Russell takes a shine to Frank, who makes the transition from foot soldier to professional hitman effortlessly.  When the Mob backs Jimmy Hoffa (Al Pacino) and his teamsters, Frank is assigned to keep an eye on him.  The two become fast friends, a friendship that is tested when Jimmy begins to refuse to play ball with the Mob.

Everyone in the cast is great.  Pesci is the exact opposite of how you’d imagine him.  He’s as quiet and reserved here as he was frightening and intimidating in Goodfellas and Casino.  DeNiro is particularly great in the scene where he has to make a very awkward phone call to Hoffa’s wife.  For me, Pacino took the cake as his performance is full of that old timey Pacino gusto.  He and DeNiro play off each other beautifully and their scenes together have a poignancy I wasn’t expecting. 

Did the film really need to be 3 ½ hours long?  Probably not.  Could Scorsese have made his point more succinctly with a shorter running time?  Sure.  However, when you’re watching The Irishman, you kind of get the feeling that this may be his final word on the subject, and he’s in no hurry to rush it.  As I said, this is a film about regret and the benefit of old age.  It’s almost like the cinematic equivalent of going for a Sunday drive with your grandfather who insists on taking the scenic route.  You may have heard the story before, and he’s sure as heck taking his time to get where he’s going, but there’s so much love and respect there that you listen contently anyway.  Besides, if you listen hard enough, you might actually learn something.

$1000 ON THE BLACK (1966) ***

$1000 on the Black is the first Sartana movie.  Fans of the series may be taken aback by the fact Sartana is actually the villain in this one, and he’s a pretty nasty customer too.  Despite that, Gianni Garko is so great in the role that it’s easy to see why he was brought back time and again.  Garko’s intense performance helps to make this one of the better films in the Sartana series, even if he is playing the bad guy.

Johnny (Anthony Steffen) gets out of jail for a murder he didn’t commit.  He returns home to even the score with his brother, Sartana, the real culprit.  Johnny learns that while he was away, Sartana and his unruly gang have been going from town to town pillaging their wealth in exchange for his “protection”.  With the help of his mute sidekick Jerry (Roberto Miali), Johnny aims to get revenge on his brother and put a stop to his reign of terror.  

$1000 on the Black is fun for fans of Spaghetti Westerns because of its strict adherence to the formula.  The hero has a cool theme song, tries to help a beautiful woman (in this case, Erika Blanc) imprisoned against her will by the villain, and gets beat up by his gang of goons for his trouble.  Casual viewers may find all of this a tad too familiar, but the director Alberto (Seven Dollars to Kill) Cardone) gives the proceedings a sense of style, so the clichés still have a bit of life to them.  One thing in particular that makes the flick stand out from the rest of the pack is the complicated subplot with Sartana’s hateful mother who kinda enjoys the fact her boys are always at each other’s throats. 

Oh, and despite the title, there isn’t a roulette wheel in sight. 

AKA:  Johnny Texas.  AKA:  Blood at Sundown.  AKA:  Sartana.

HALLOWEEN HANGOVER: STEPFATHER 3 (1992) **

Stepfather 3 begins with an extended back alley plastic surgery scene to explain why the Stepfather is played by a different actor this time out.  I’m not sure if this was totally necessary, but it does start the movie off in an icky manner that helps separate it from its staid predecessors.  In fact, it could’ve been a great self-contained sequence had director Guy (Children of the Corn:  Revelation) Magar not ruined things by using the blurry-cam effect so excessively during the big bone-saw-to-the-throat kill. 

Anyway, the Stepfather (now played by Robert Wightman, who is no Terry O’Quinn, I’ll tell you that) moves to a new town to make a fresh start.  He gets a job as a gardener at the local church where he meets a newly single mom (Three’s Company’s Priscilla Barnes) and puts the moves on her.  They get married almost immediately, much to the protest of her wheelchair-bound son (David Tom) who suspects his new stepfather is up to no good.

I was kind of prepared for the worst with this one, but as it turns out, it has its moments.  There’s a funny scene where the Stepfather dresses up like the Easter Bunny while courting Barnes that’s good for a laugh.  I also dug the subplot with Tom.  Since his condition is psychosomatic, you know he’s going to have a big hero moment late in the film where he rises out of his chair to save the day.  I also admired Magar trying a bit of misdirection as to the new identity of the Stepfather, although it’s fairly obvious who it’s going to be.  

While it’s far from a forgettable sequel, at 105 minutes, it’s just way too long for its own good.  It’s also filled with scenes of the Stepfather flipping out for no good reason and no one seems to care but the kid.  Even though the Stepfather kills people and makes lame wisecracks, it feels more like a Lifetime movie than a horror sequel.  That is, until the wood chipper finale (which was pretty much copied for the Friday the 13^th remake), which almost, but not quite makes up for the sluggish pacing.

That does it for this year’s edition of Halloween Hangover.  Tune in next month when our December movie-watching project will be a tribute to John Travolta called, Tra-la-la-la-la la-volta!

CHANCE (1990) ** ½

Lawrence-Hilton Jacobs stars in the fourth and final Jon Chance movie.  This time, he’s helping a friend in trouble.  Dan Haggerty plays his pal Zach, an ex-cop drunk-turned-repo man.  When Zach repos a car with millions in diamonds belonging to a crime kingpin stashed inside, he quickly becomes a wanted man on both sides of the law.  Chance soon finds himself up to his elbows in crooked cops and trigger-happy thugs who want the stones for themselves. 

Chance is a solid little cop thriller for the most part.  Jacobs once again turns in a fine performance as Chance.  If you enjoyed him in the other Chance films (L.A. Heat, Angels of the City, and L.A. Vice), you’re sure to be entertained by this one.  Haggerty is great too, and he and Jacobs have a lot of chemistry together.  It would also make a good double feature with Elves as both movies feature Haggerty playing ex-cops struggling with sobriety.  

The big drawback is that it’s relatively light on action compared to the rest of the PM Entertainment catalogue.  (It often feels more like the pilot of a TV show than a DTV action flick.)  One or two more action sequences, or even the addition of a little sleaze would’ve perked things up considerably.  Ultimately, it comes up a tad short thanks to the uneven pacing and the lack of big action sequences, but whenever the movie is coasting on the charm of its two leads, Chance is worth taking a gamble on.

HALLOWEEN HANGOVER: CANNIBAL GIRLS (1973) **

Eugene Levy and Andrea Martin come to a small town to hook up in a motel room.  There, they learn the local legend about an old house inhabited by beautiful women who like to eat people.  Naturally, they decide to stick around and check the place out.  Predictably, the couple wind up being their guests and end up on the menu. 

Cannibal Girls was originally released with a great gimmick.  A “Horror Horn” would sound to alert the audience something gruesome was about to happen.  Unfortunately, I didn’t see that version, so I can only imagine how awesomely it played. 

Even though I’m sure the Horror Horn would’ve sounded often, Cannibal Girls is ultimately an unsuccessful mix of horror and comedy.  Perhaps the heavily improvised script was to blame.  (It’s even acknowledged in the credits that the cast developed their own material, which is something I’ve never seen before.)  While Levy and Martin are a fine duo, they feel like they’re in a different movie than the rest of the cast.  Their film is somewhat amusing, albeit slight.  The other flick isn’t great either, but at least it has some gore and T & A.  It’s enough to make you wish director Ivan (Ghostbusters) Reitman went all in on the exploitation elements.  It probably could’ve worked as the gore scenes are effective, and Reitman does know how to create an appropriately sleazy Grindhouse atmosphere. 

The biggest stumbling block is the twist that occurs about 2/3 of the way through.  I won’t spoil it for you, but it heavily involves déjà vu, not to mention a fair amount of gaslighting.  Had the movie ended at about the seventy-minute mark, it would’ve been just fine.  However, the final fifteen minutes or so drags things down considerably. 

Levy and Martin later went on to star on SCTV where Dr. Tongue’s 3-D House of Stewardesses spoofed the genre to much better success.

HALLOWEEN HANGOVER: ANNA AND THE APOCALYPSE (2018) **

Anna and the Apocalypse is a high school comedy musical zombie Christmas movie.  It’s probably the best one in existence.  Just because something is the only one of its type doesn’t mean it works.

Anna (Ella Hunt) is a teenage girl who gets into a tiff with her dad because she doesn’t want to go to college.  While she’s trying to figure out what she wants to do with her life, zombies attack.  She then has to band together with her schoolmates to stay one step ahead of the zombie horde, singing and dancing all the while.

The movie wants to be a half-assed combination of La La Land and Shaun of the Dead.  I’ll be the first to admit that musicals (especially modern-day ones) aren’t really my thing.  There are one or two catchy tunes here, but not nearly enough to make the musical sequences work.  Still, it’s better than your average episode of Glee, I suppose. 

A big problem is that the cast spend the first half-hour of the movie singing and dancing before the zombies even show up.  Once they do, things improve slightly.  The zombie scenes are better than the typical gut-muncher (characters battle the undead with seesaws, toilet lids, and bowling balls), which only makes you wish the filmmakers favored the horror genre over all the musical shit. 

Hunt has a winning screen presence.  She’d probably fare well in a straight zombie movie (or heck, even a musical).  She really keeps your attention, even when the movie itself starts to dawdle.  The rest of the cast, not so much.  

I wanted to like Anna and the Apocalypse more than I ultimately did.  It plays all its cards too soon and runs out of gas way before it crosses the finish line.  Sure, there are a few clever moments here, but being clever alone isn’t quite enough to get the job done. 

THE MAN WHO KILLED HITLER AND THEN THE BIGFOOT (2018) * ½

The Man Who Killed Hitler and Then the Bigfoot plays like a serious version of an Asylum movie.  If you’re going attempt such an undertaking, you have to find the right tone.  Unfortunately, that’s something writer/director Robert D. Krzykowski never does.  

Here’s a fine example of how the tone doesn’t work:  The film expects us to believe Sam Elliott and Larry Miller are brothers.  Can I believe the same man could assassinate both Adolf Hitler and then the Bigfoot?  Sure, why not?  What I can’t believe is that Sam Elliott and Larry Miller sprung from the same loins.  

Another clue as to how off the production is:  It was produced by the trio of John Sayles, Lucky McKee, and Douglas Trumbull.  That alone is enough to make you stop and say... what?

Elliott plays a former super soldier who is remorseful for killing Hitler back in WWII, even if “he had it coming”.  He tries to go on with his life but discovers there is not outrunning his past.  Eventually, the government, who are well-aware of his past deeds, comes knocking at his door, asking him to kill the Bigfoot.  And not just “Bigfoot”.  “The” Bigfoot. 

The guy they got to play the younger Elliott in the WWII flashbacks is a dead ringer for him.  Too bad the flashbacks are easily the weakest parts.  It also keeps going back and forth in time, which gets annoying too.  It also ruins the momentum of the film.  To make matters worse, just when you think it’s over, it plods on needlessly for another twenty minutes.

At one point, Elliott says, “It’s not the comic book you want it to be”, almost as if he’s talking to the audience and making excuses as to why the movie sucks.  I mean, it didn’t have to be a comic book to work.  Then again, that approach would’ve been better than what the filmmakers came up with.  Krzykowski treats the material as a meditation on the legacy of violence and regret of misdeeds of long ago.  He thinks it's Unforgiven or something.  Except.  You know.  With the Bigfoot.

I admire an honest attempt to blend a serious message inside of B (or in this case, D) movie trappings, but it just never clicks.  Of the cast, only Ron (Loudermilk) Livingston hits the right note of serious and the absurd as the government agent who hires Elliott.  I just wish I could watch the film he thinks he’s in.