I am baffled by the Mission: Impossible franchise. Whenever a new sequel comes out, I find myself trying to comprehend why the series has maintained such continued popularity. It's been about a month since I saw Fallout, and I'm still puzzling over it.
What's particularly strange about the Mission: Impossible franchise is that it comes from the tail end of the 1990's trend of adapting popular 1960's TV shows to film. This trend failed to garnish any lasting franchises outside of Mission: Impossible, although I suppose the Addams Family movies live on in the form of sassy Buzzfeed gifs of Angelica Huston. It just seems so perplexing that a convoluted spy movie based on a 60's TV show would have been a hit in the first place. I'd rather imagine a world where the world is championing the release of the sixth Brady Bunch film.
Part of what is so weird about the Mission franchise is that they're always more or less the same story. Ethan Hunt is inevitably betrayed by the government because they think he's gone rogue. The execution is always far more complicated than that, of course. Far, far more complicated. There's an onslaught of jargon and exposition that only serves to muddle up who Ethan is pursuing and why. It's as if the producers of the series saw the James Bond film The Living Daylights and thought "heck, I can make a spy story even more pointlessly twisty than that".
In this entry, there's a baddie that's dealing plutonium to other baddies, and Ethan has to intercept both the villain and the plot device. The complication here is that there's also a mole in the US government that's decided to frame Ethan as the mole. It doesn't help Ethan's case that he bungled up the plutonium-getting operation in the opening minutes of the film. In the strangest moment of Fallout, Hunt leaves a briefcase of plutonium unattended while he runs off to save his pal. I'm sure it's entirely possible to shoot a gun and hold a briefcase at the same time, but the movie decides to ignore this for plot convenience.
I can only assume the continued draw to the Mission: Impossible series is Tom Cruise's crazed death wish, which has only gotten stronger as he gets older. Every film (except M:I III) has a signature action setpiece and a few "Tom Cruise did that for real" stunts. In Fallout, Cruise reaches peak insanity, jumping from buildings (and breaking his ankle! For real!), piloting helicopters, and all sorts of action movie mayhem. In an age where movies rely more on digital effects and flashy camerawork to aid their action scenes, it's refreshing to see a film series that still prioritizes doing it practically.
That being said, it's beginning to feel like Cruise's stunt spectaculars are less for the sake of entertaining audiences, and more for his own personal need to maintain an image of the cool, hip movie star. Assuming a Mission: Impossible 7 is produced, Cruise, who is currently 56, could wind up in a similar "too old for the role" situation as Roger Moore (who was 58 at the time) in A View to a Kill. To his credit, Moore at least tried to play his final performance as James Bond as more of a dirty old man character, but I doubt Cruise's superstar ego will allow him to play Ethan Hunt as a cool, totally-not-old action hero.
Skepticism about Cruise's motivations aside, the action scenes in Fallout are incredible. The bathroom fistfight is fantastic, reaching The Raid levels of kinetic brutality. Walls, sinks, and mirrors explode on impact like they're made of eggshells. It's ridiculous and intense, and the excitement generated by this scene does a lot to help coast through the next half hour of rote spy stuff. The climactic helicopter duel is magnificent, too. It's a weird composite of the finale of The Living Daylights (seriously, that must have been the inspiration for this whole series) and the RV scene from The Lost World: Jurassic Park. Ethan Hunt dangles from a helicopter, commandeers it, crashes it, and dangles off a cliff face, hanging from the helicopter's cable. If you are even remotely afraid of heights (and I am, quite a lot), it's enough to get your palms sweating. This great bit of action is intercut with a not-so-great side plot of Hunt's sidekicks trying to defuse a nuclear bomb. It's about as silly and over the top as you would expect from a spy movie. They even try to fake out the audience that the bomb has really gone off! Did they really think that would fool anyone? They already got their one goofy "the bad guys won" fake-out in the film's opening.
It's not really fair to say whether Fallout is "good" or "bad" because, like most films in long-running series, they begin to develop themes, plot elements, and more that are reused as the series go on. Series like this begin to develop their own internal logic and system of expectations. By the time the sixth Mission: Impossible film rolls around, audiences have an idea of what to expect. Through that lens, Fallout is a good Mission: Impossible film, maybe even the best. These movies are all about whizzbang spectacle, and this has some of the most spectacular things to look at in the series. Whether or not you get anything out of this film will, of course, depend on you. As much as I like the big action scenes, I find the lengthy sections of espionage and exposition a chore to sit through. The series overall doesn't particularly appeal to me, but clearly millions of theatergoers worldwide don't mind sitting through the superflulous stuff to get to the big set pieces.
September 2, 2018
August 5, 2018
The Ghoulies Quadrilogy: A Retrospective
Ah, the Ghoulies series. The sort-of Gremlins clone that evolved into an actual Gremlins clone and went off the rails from there. It's a series that's inextricably associated with toilets, which is a fitting thematic tie because they all belong in one.
My history with the Ghoulies films is a long and strange one. I first discovered the series on the back of a box of Kellogg's Raisin Bran. At some point in the late 2000's, Kellogg's had a deal where you could send in a certain number of box tops and get a DVD from a selected portion of the MGM home video collection. One of the films available for purchase was the Ghoulies/Ghoulies II double feature. I was intrigued because my favorite movie is Gremlins, and a clone of my favorite movie seemed like a good idea at the time. However, no matter how much I love Raisin Bran, I wasn't going to eat a dozen boxes of cereal to get a DVD, so I got it from Netflix's DVD service (this being back in the day when Netflix actually cared about their DVD service).
Up until this point I had never seen a "bad" movie, but I had a general conception of what they were like. Yes, sadly the Ghoulies franchise was my introduction to the weird world of bad cinema. Eight years and many stops and starts later, I have finally reached the end. I have seen all four Ghoulies films, and I have no one to blame but myself.
Ghoulies (1985)
My first impression of the inaugural Ghoulies film is a bit hazy, and rightfully so because this is a pretty forgettable film. On my revisit for this retrospective, I was surprised by how strange and jumbled it is. The film is far more concerned with possession and black magic than it is with the titular creatures. There are also Viking dwarves for unknown reasons. The plot is equally bland. Some schmoe inherits a mansion and then gets possessed by his long-lost evil dad. A lot of filler ensues. Jack Nance of Eraserhead and Twin Peaks fame makes a brief appearance as a craggy wizard, which is one of the few memorable aspects of the film.
Despite all this, I still don't hate Ghoulies. There's a dreamy Italian horror atmosphere permeating the film, what with the moldering mansion setting and all the strange non-ghoulie monsters. The cast is nothing to write home about, but the image of that stoner guy breakdancing in the party scene is one of the few things about Ghoulies to stick with me over the years. Plus, there's the immortal line "They call me Dick, but you can call me Dick". It's boring and lacking in toilet-ghoulie action, but there's enough weird crap going on to make it halfway tolerable.
Ghoulies II (1988)
This was my favorite of the two Ghoulies films at age 14, and I have no clue why. Maybe it was the giant ghoulie from the end. Maybe it was the scene where that clown that gets his arm bitten off by the green ghoulie. Maybe it's the fact that I was and still am easily amused by stop-motion animation. Either way, I'm not sure what I was thinking at the time. I rewatched the film two years later for this blog (the review of which can be read here) and I was particularly harsh on it. On my third viewing of the film, I'm still not a fan, but I will acquiesce that the finale does have its merits.
The problem that I still have with Ghoulies II is that it takes too long to get to the ghoulie action and the buildup is like watching paint dry. A carnival is about to go out of business when suddenly the ghoulies show up (but only in brief appearances) and become the star attraction. Too bad they're also killing the clientele. Let's face it, Generic Scrappy Carnival Dude is not nearly as interesting as Breakdancing Stoner Guy from the first film, and that guy was hardly even a character. This one feels far more like a Gremlins rip-off, complete with the requisite wacky shenanigans. The ghoulies mess around with carnival equipment and make squawky Frank Welker noises. Ha-ha? The special effects are certainly better this time around, I'll give it that. Plus, a ghoulie does eat someone sitting on the toilet. Sadly we don't get to actually see the victim, a second-rate Judge Reinhold corporate stooge antagonist, punch the ticket, but it's a step in the right direction.
I was more miserable watching this than I was while watching the first Ghoulies, but I would gladly rewatch Ghoulies II before I would ever sit through the first one again. It sucks because it tries to cash in on the success of Gremlins and fails, but it's at least more coherent and competent than the first one. It fails on its own merits but is probably overall the better viewing experience of the two.
Ghoulies III: Ghoulies Go to College (1991)
In a reversal of my feelings towards Ghoulies II, I have no idea why I didn't like Ghoulies III the first time I saw it (review here). Maybe it's because my taste in movies has gotten increasingly worse over the years and my love for cornball humor has only increased. Whatever the reason, I now can say with confidence that this is the crown jewel of the Ghoulies series. That's not saying much, mind you. The whole movie is basically a low-rent college sex comedy that even the likes of Hot Dog... The Movie and Screwballs II: Loose Screws would cringe at. The ghoulies themselves are on the periphery, but they do get to hang out with Kevin "I was a respected actor, once" McCarthy for a while.
It's college prank week and amid all the pranks (or "yanks" as the movie strangely calls them) the ghoulies are summoned via a comic book. That's not how it worked the past two times, but who cares. The ghoulies are back, and this time they talk. Oh boy, do they love to talk. I had issues with their incessant and schmucky Three Stooges routine the first time, but for whatever reason, it clicked with me this time. The ghoulies creep on women in the shower, chug obviously empty beer cans, and talk about their penises way more than anyone ever wanted to hear. The ghoulies, much like the movie itself, are gleefully stupid and obnoxious. It's all the worst traits of 1980's high school and college movies rolled into one film. Why watch the Revenge of the Nerds films (which no one should ever do) when you could watch Ghoulies III instead?
If you only have time to watch one Ghoulies film, make it this one. It's the one in which the ghoulies get the most screentime, so you can't go wrong there. Kevin McCarthy really does give it his all even though this movie doesn't deserve him. Anyone who can play a character named Professor Ragnar with a straight face, or act out a scene in which he tries to make the ghoulies say "The ghoulies have no dicks" with complete dignity is truly a master of his craft. There is also an on-screen toilet death, making this the only film of the four to feature the sole promise of the series.
Ghoulies IV (1994)
The redheaded stepchild of the series, the one that kept me from completing the quadrilogy, the perplexing finale that is Ghoulies IV. I was hesitant to watch this for years because it infamously does not include "real" ghoulies in the film, rather little people wearing cheap masks. Even the rubbery, barely articulated puppets of Ghoulies III are better than that. But it was my quest to finally finish this series once and for all, so I buckled down and sat through this mess. It's bad, but it's not as bad as I thought it would be. I prepared for the worst and I got something that was only mildly intolerable.
For whatever reason, Ghoulies IV is actually a direct sequel to the first film, bringing back the lead from that film. He's a cop now. There's some junk about a magic crystal, and there's an evil dominatrix roaming around killing people. The faux-ghoulies show up sometimes and eat fried chicken. There's a guy doing an Art Carney impression that promptly gets killed by the dominatrix. It's all shot with the flat, tacky lighting of a cheap softcore porno. This comes as no surprise because director Jim Wynorski mostly makes softcore porn films. As banal and unnecessary as the film is, that willfully stupid "we know this is bad, and we don't care" porno attitude is at least something. It's not endearing, but it's an attitude that keeps the film from actively fading from memory as you watch it. The faux-ghoulies, while obnoxious, are tolerable if only because they barely do anything. Their scenes are undeniably awful, but they at least go by quickly, like ripping off a band-aid.
Ghoulies IV is such a bizarre and lazy note on which to end the series. In a way, that's fitting, because the whole series is bizarre and lazy. It doesn't make this movie any more watchable, but if you feel compelled to watch this whole series, it's not as painful as you would think.
At the end of my eight-year journey through this series, I have turned back to reflect on why I was drawn to it in the first place. I think it's just my fascination with the mediocre and bad corners of cinema. That a film as unremarkable as Ghoulies spawned three sequels is baffling. I am fascinated by films that can toe the line and succeed by barely trying at all. These movies cost almost nothing to make, so any money generated is almost sure to turn a profit. These weird low-effort money machine franchises like Puppet Master, Leprechaun, and of course Ghoulies are endlessly interesting. The fact that four of these movies exist at all is more interesting than the movies themselves, but I'm glad that the Ghoulies franchise exists. It's pathetic and lazy series, but I'm still talking about it 24 years after the last film was released, so clearly, they did something right.
My history with the Ghoulies films is a long and strange one. I first discovered the series on the back of a box of Kellogg's Raisin Bran. At some point in the late 2000's, Kellogg's had a deal where you could send in a certain number of box tops and get a DVD from a selected portion of the MGM home video collection. One of the films available for purchase was the Ghoulies/Ghoulies II double feature. I was intrigued because my favorite movie is Gremlins, and a clone of my favorite movie seemed like a good idea at the time. However, no matter how much I love Raisin Bran, I wasn't going to eat a dozen boxes of cereal to get a DVD, so I got it from Netflix's DVD service (this being back in the day when Netflix actually cared about their DVD service).
Up until this point I had never seen a "bad" movie, but I had a general conception of what they were like. Yes, sadly the Ghoulies franchise was my introduction to the weird world of bad cinema. Eight years and many stops and starts later, I have finally reached the end. I have seen all four Ghoulies films, and I have no one to blame but myself.
Ghoulies (1985)
My first impression of the inaugural Ghoulies film is a bit hazy, and rightfully so because this is a pretty forgettable film. On my revisit for this retrospective, I was surprised by how strange and jumbled it is. The film is far more concerned with possession and black magic than it is with the titular creatures. There are also Viking dwarves for unknown reasons. The plot is equally bland. Some schmoe inherits a mansion and then gets possessed by his long-lost evil dad. A lot of filler ensues. Jack Nance of Eraserhead and Twin Peaks fame makes a brief appearance as a craggy wizard, which is one of the few memorable aspects of the film.
Despite all this, I still don't hate Ghoulies. There's a dreamy Italian horror atmosphere permeating the film, what with the moldering mansion setting and all the strange non-ghoulie monsters. The cast is nothing to write home about, but the image of that stoner guy breakdancing in the party scene is one of the few things about Ghoulies to stick with me over the years. Plus, there's the immortal line "They call me Dick, but you can call me Dick". It's boring and lacking in toilet-ghoulie action, but there's enough weird crap going on to make it halfway tolerable.
Ghoulies II (1988)
This was my favorite of the two Ghoulies films at age 14, and I have no clue why. Maybe it was the giant ghoulie from the end. Maybe it was the scene where that clown that gets his arm bitten off by the green ghoulie. Maybe it's the fact that I was and still am easily amused by stop-motion animation. Either way, I'm not sure what I was thinking at the time. I rewatched the film two years later for this blog (the review of which can be read here) and I was particularly harsh on it. On my third viewing of the film, I'm still not a fan, but I will acquiesce that the finale does have its merits.
The problem that I still have with Ghoulies II is that it takes too long to get to the ghoulie action and the buildup is like watching paint dry. A carnival is about to go out of business when suddenly the ghoulies show up (but only in brief appearances) and become the star attraction. Too bad they're also killing the clientele. Let's face it, Generic Scrappy Carnival Dude is not nearly as interesting as Breakdancing Stoner Guy from the first film, and that guy was hardly even a character. This one feels far more like a Gremlins rip-off, complete with the requisite wacky shenanigans. The ghoulies mess around with carnival equipment and make squawky Frank Welker noises. Ha-ha? The special effects are certainly better this time around, I'll give it that. Plus, a ghoulie does eat someone sitting on the toilet. Sadly we don't get to actually see the victim, a second-rate Judge Reinhold corporate stooge antagonist, punch the ticket, but it's a step in the right direction.
I was more miserable watching this than I was while watching the first Ghoulies, but I would gladly rewatch Ghoulies II before I would ever sit through the first one again. It sucks because it tries to cash in on the success of Gremlins and fails, but it's at least more coherent and competent than the first one. It fails on its own merits but is probably overall the better viewing experience of the two.
Ghoulies III: Ghoulies Go to College (1991)
In a reversal of my feelings towards Ghoulies II, I have no idea why I didn't like Ghoulies III the first time I saw it (review here). Maybe it's because my taste in movies has gotten increasingly worse over the years and my love for cornball humor has only increased. Whatever the reason, I now can say with confidence that this is the crown jewel of the Ghoulies series. That's not saying much, mind you. The whole movie is basically a low-rent college sex comedy that even the likes of Hot Dog... The Movie and Screwballs II: Loose Screws would cringe at. The ghoulies themselves are on the periphery, but they do get to hang out with Kevin "I was a respected actor, once" McCarthy for a while.
It's college prank week and amid all the pranks (or "yanks" as the movie strangely calls them) the ghoulies are summoned via a comic book. That's not how it worked the past two times, but who cares. The ghoulies are back, and this time they talk. Oh boy, do they love to talk. I had issues with their incessant and schmucky Three Stooges routine the first time, but for whatever reason, it clicked with me this time. The ghoulies creep on women in the shower, chug obviously empty beer cans, and talk about their penises way more than anyone ever wanted to hear. The ghoulies, much like the movie itself, are gleefully stupid and obnoxious. It's all the worst traits of 1980's high school and college movies rolled into one film. Why watch the Revenge of the Nerds films (which no one should ever do) when you could watch Ghoulies III instead?
If you only have time to watch one Ghoulies film, make it this one. It's the one in which the ghoulies get the most screentime, so you can't go wrong there. Kevin McCarthy really does give it his all even though this movie doesn't deserve him. Anyone who can play a character named Professor Ragnar with a straight face, or act out a scene in which he tries to make the ghoulies say "The ghoulies have no dicks" with complete dignity is truly a master of his craft. There is also an on-screen toilet death, making this the only film of the four to feature the sole promise of the series.
Ghoulies IV (1994)
The redheaded stepchild of the series, the one that kept me from completing the quadrilogy, the perplexing finale that is Ghoulies IV. I was hesitant to watch this for years because it infamously does not include "real" ghoulies in the film, rather little people wearing cheap masks. Even the rubbery, barely articulated puppets of Ghoulies III are better than that. But it was my quest to finally finish this series once and for all, so I buckled down and sat through this mess. It's bad, but it's not as bad as I thought it would be. I prepared for the worst and I got something that was only mildly intolerable.
For whatever reason, Ghoulies IV is actually a direct sequel to the first film, bringing back the lead from that film. He's a cop now. There's some junk about a magic crystal, and there's an evil dominatrix roaming around killing people. The faux-ghoulies show up sometimes and eat fried chicken. There's a guy doing an Art Carney impression that promptly gets killed by the dominatrix. It's all shot with the flat, tacky lighting of a cheap softcore porno. This comes as no surprise because director Jim Wynorski mostly makes softcore porn films. As banal and unnecessary as the film is, that willfully stupid "we know this is bad, and we don't care" porno attitude is at least something. It's not endearing, but it's an attitude that keeps the film from actively fading from memory as you watch it. The faux-ghoulies, while obnoxious, are tolerable if only because they barely do anything. Their scenes are undeniably awful, but they at least go by quickly, like ripping off a band-aid.
Ghoulies IV is such a bizarre and lazy note on which to end the series. In a way, that's fitting, because the whole series is bizarre and lazy. It doesn't make this movie any more watchable, but if you feel compelled to watch this whole series, it's not as painful as you would think.
At the end of my eight-year journey through this series, I have turned back to reflect on why I was drawn to it in the first place. I think it's just my fascination with the mediocre and bad corners of cinema. That a film as unremarkable as Ghoulies spawned three sequels is baffling. I am fascinated by films that can toe the line and succeed by barely trying at all. These movies cost almost nothing to make, so any money generated is almost sure to turn a profit. These weird low-effort money machine franchises like Puppet Master, Leprechaun, and of course Ghoulies are endlessly interesting. The fact that four of these movies exist at all is more interesting than the movies themselves, but I'm glad that the Ghoulies franchise exists. It's pathetic and lazy series, but I'm still talking about it 24 years after the last film was released, so clearly, they did something right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)