THE LAST TIME I SAW PARIS (1954, Richard Brooks)

 

* * 

An American journalist settles down with a beautiful woman in mid-20^th Century Paris, but not all is gay in Paree.

Starring  Van Johnson, Elizabeth Taylor, Walter Pidgeon, Donna Reed, Roger Moore

Written by  Julius J Epstein, Philip G Epstein, Richard Brooks   

Produced by  Jack Cummings

Duration  116 minutes   

According to Amazon Prime, theirs is the ‘unedited original version’ of THE LAST TIME I SAW PARIS. OK, so what’s the difference? The internet yielded no answers, so I’m left speculating. 

Was there once a clamouring to see the director’s definitive version, like with BLADE RUNNER or NIGHTBREED? If so, why was it held back from us and how has that restriction changed?

Or, is it like how my DVD of THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT (1972) declares that it is ‘uncut for the first time in the UK?’ But what exactly could have been so scandalous in a movie from 1954 that it had to be sliced out? Was there too much of Elizabeth Taylor’s ankle shown? Enough so that Richard Burton burst into the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer lot in a drunken rage and demanded that all the offending footage be burned, and only after his death in 1984 did prints with those two inches of white flesh restored see the light of day?

The mystery rages on, but judging by the terrible visual quality of the Prime version, I’m deducing the subtitle to mean that it’s from some kind of original print. This may get cinema historians’ knickers twisted into a pretzel, but my reaction was that I hadn’t seen such poor quality since the video nasty-era of dodgy copied VHSs. Obviously this movie is nothing like I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE or THE DRILLER KILLER – however, I will admit that, by the end, I was almost hoping for Abel Ferrara to leap out and put me out of my misery by going nuts on the cast with a raging Black & Decker.

Yes, having now sat through the thing, I can’t for the life of me see why any version of THE LAST TIME I SAW PARIS would warrant celebrating.

It’s based on material by F Scott Fitzgerald, which is encouraging, or rather it was before I watched the movie. Beyond the novels like The Great Gatsby (good), Tender is the Night (bad) and The Last Tycoon (unfinished), Fitzgerald also churned out loads of short stories.

Those bite-sized fictions were dismissed by critics as cash-grabs rather than having any artistic merit, but I very much enjoyed his ones set in Hollywood. They revolve around down-and-out alcoholic screenwriter Pat Hobby, once known as ‘a good man for structure’, now reduced to hanging around the studio lot like a discarded piece of a long-forgotten set dressing. Check them out! 

Anyway, it’s one of Fitzgerald’s other short stories that THE LAST TIME I SAW PARIS is based on. The story, as we see in this adaptation, has American journalist Van Johnson feeling driven to stay on in Paris as WWII comes to a close (in Europe, at least) when he gets caught between the lanes of Donna Reed (wowzer) and her sister, Liz Taylor (double wowzer). What a dilemma – it’s kind of like the arduous bind Rene Zelweger faces in BRIDGET JONES’S DIARY: how to choose between dashing, suave, rich Hugh Grant or suave, dashing Colin Firth, who also isn’t short of a few quid.

So, Van swerves his way around his first world problems in post-Second World War France. One really feels for his plight, enduring hardships like Liz snuggling up to him on a bench at dawn beside the Seine and whispering to him, ‘I like the way you kiss me.’

After meandering around for ages in search of some conflict, the movie takes a sudden dive into heavy-handed melodrama. We skim through the years at quite a clip, with a succession of failed novels leading wannabe-writer Van to the bottle, which fuels his resentment for his effervescent wife as he inexplicably steers himself away from one of the most desirable women who ever lived.

Then, before Van can give his head the MOT it sorely needs, his suspension gets truly fucked when the neglected Liz starts fooling around with a baby-faced Roger Moore, playing a dashing tennis pro. And then, she only goes and dies of pneumonia, in an incident that’s pretty much Van the Man's fault, sending him into the head-on collision of a custody battle for their daughter against her aunt – who, you'll recall, our lunkheaded hero part-exchanged back when it looked like this movie might actually have some decent mileage.

THE LAST TIME I SAW PARIS is the answer to the question, ‘What if CASABLANCA had been two hours of Rick and Ilsa's French flashbacks, except they got married and ended up being miserable?’ Not something I think anyone's ever asked for.

It’s exhausting stuff, and I’m left with only enough energy to plead that the next time Hollywood decides to adapt Fitzgerald, instead of another tepid tale like this or taking a stab at Gatsby yet again, we get something a bit more light-hearted. So how about The Complete Adventures of Pat Hobby then, eh? Ah, go on!

Two stars out of five.

Valid use of the word ‘last’?  By the end of the movie, Van has his daughter back in the passenger seat and is adamant that they will take the exit ramp away from France for good and motor off to a new life back in America.

What would a movie called THE FIRST TIME I SAW PARIS be about?  For me, it was circa 2000 on a school trip; went to Disneyland Paris, too. What a time.

Previously:  THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT

Next time:  LAST KNIGHTS

Check out my books:  Jonathanlastauthor.com

THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT (2009, Dennis Iliadis)

 

* * * 

Just like the 1972 original: when a different middle-class couple realise that the drifters they have let into their home are responsible for the rape and murder of their daughter, friendly hospitality once again turns into bloody revenge.

Starring  Sara Paxton, Martha MacIsaac, Garret Dillahunt, Aaron Paul, Tony Goldwyn, Monica Potter

Written by  Adam Alleca, Carl Ellsworth

Produced by  Wes Craven, Sean S Cunningham, Marianne Maddalena

Duration  110 minutes

How exciting – my first review of a remake of a film I've already reviewed!

I can’t remember whether back in 2009 the word ‘remake’ was still in vogue. In more recent years, recycling/resurrecting existing intellectual property has tended to be called either a ‘reboot’, which takes stories we know and reinterprets them (the PLANET OF THE APES movies come to mind, or the various iterations of BATMAN), or a ‘legacy sequel’ (good ones: SCREAM 2022, TOP GUN: MAVERICK, BLADE RUNNER 2049, BAD BOYS FOR LIFE; bad ones: COMING 2 AMERICA, THE MATRIX RESURRECTIONS, TRON: LEGACY, HALLOWEEN).

LAST HOUSE ’09 is definitely a straight-up remake. It’s not trying to update for the 21st Century the tale of ostensibly respectable parents avenging their murdered children by brutally dispatching the culprits. It’s certainly not a continuation of the same timeline or a long-in-gestation direct sequel.

Horror has to have the most remakes of all the major genres. There’s been a lot of ’em! And it would be wrong to dismiss them as uniformly bad just out of principle even if, for sure, it tends to be pot luck which way things go.

Bringing back the creator(s) to produce can seems like a good sign: the LAST HOUSE and HILLS HAVE EYES remakes are both pretty decent and have Wes Craven on board as a producer, whereas he went nowhere near the unpleasant A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET from 2010. I find it hard to see this as a coincidence. On the other hand, fellow genre-legend John Carpenter is credited on 2005’s disastrous THE FOG, and has admitted more generally that he doesn’t care about how good the new versions of his films are, so long as he gets paid.

So anyway, yeah: ‘pretty decent’. That basically sums up this THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT. It’s hard to imagine anyone preferring it, unless they found the early-’70s fashions and slang from last time too distracting. But LAST HOUSE ’09 does omit certain elements from the original whose absence no one could possibly miss – I’m talking about the bumbling comedy cops who hitch a ride atop a truck loaded with chickens, or the jolly closing tune with lyrics that cheerfully recount the grim events we've just sat through.

This version nails its forbearer's gruelling sense of impending dread to a tee, albeit in a slicker, bigger-budgeted, noughties kind of way. Garret Dillahunt managed to go straight from loveably dopey deputy in NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN to one of the most effective amoral sickos in recent memory, his portrayal of the monstrous Krug certainly equalling David Hess’s.

It's longer than the first go-around, so pads the runtime out with some unnecessarily detailed character introductions for heroes and villains alike. It shows the world what Jesse Pinkman (actor Aaron Paul) would be like if he himself broke bad beyond redemption. The score sounds like John Murphy put his ‘In the House, in a Heartbeat’ from 28 DAYS LATER in as a temp track and then forgot to replace it.

And, all in all, I liked it. In the face of lazy, knee-jerk opinions about the limited value of remakes, I always lean on the fact that THE FLY and THE THING turned out to be two of the best films of the ’80s. LAST HOUSE ’09 is nowhere near that level, but it does what it sets out to do with competency and professionalism and just about earns its right to exist. It may have sprouted deep in the looming shadow of the original, but it still managed to grow in that shade into a perfectly edible … mushroom, I guess that would be. So, there you go.

Three stars out of five.

Valid use of the word ‘last’?  It’s an isolated vacation home by a lake this time, so the proximity to previous or subsequent houses is even harder to determine than in the ’72 vintage. But why would, um, Greek director Dennis Iliadis, known for, er, a film titled HARDCORE (one that doesn’t have George C Scott in it) lie to us?

What would a movie called THE FIRST HOUSE ON THE LEFT be about?  Right, so I have to do this again, too. OK, well, this time, let’s say the people living in that earlier house turn out to be even more unhinged than Krug and company and slaughter the whole gang seconds after welcoming them in, forgoing the act-three suspense and just cutting straight to the grisly retribution.

Previously:  THE LAST DESCENT

Next time:  THE LAST TIME I SAW PARIS  

Check out my books:  Jonathanlastauthor.com

THE LAST DESCENT (2016, Isaac Halasima)

 * * * 

The true-life rescue attempt of a 26-year-old medical student and experienced spelunker trapped in a Utah cave.

Starring  Chadwick Hopson, Alexis Johnson, Landon Henneman, Jyllian Petrie, Jacob Omer

Written by  Isaac Halasima  

Produced by  Bryan Fugal, Mike Staheli, Aaron Stephenson   

Duration  105 minutes

 

 

This is a serious film. It’s based on a serious, real-life incident: the 2009 rescue attempt of John Edward Jones in Nutty Putty Cave, west of Utah Lake, USA (even if ‘John E Jones’ does sound like a made-up movie name.)

But we have a problem here. Seriously, ‘Nutty Putty Cave’? That was a distraction for me going in. What the hell kind of name is that? It sounds like something off of Doctor Who, with all its cringe-inducing ‘timey-wimey’ guff. So what, was ‘Rocky Chocky’ taken? Did they never think of ‘Cavey Wavey’? I ask you, Nutty Putty ... it makes me think of Nic Cage's pronunciation of ‘naughty’ with his girlfriend in THE ROCK (I couldn't find a clip on YouTube; it’s about 15 minutes into the film.)

I was also getting strong 127 HOURS vibes from THE LAST DESCENT, another real-life story. In that one, we know James Franco’s character lives – albeit minus one limb. In APOLLO 13, we know they get back to Earth. In TITANIC, there's no way the ship won't go down.

This means that THE LAST DESCENT faces a distinct narrative challenge: the foregone conclusion. The above films tackled this with strong characterisation; by focusing on the problems happening in the moment; and by use of charismatic stars. James Cameron especially knew what he was doing by making TITANIC Romeo and Juliet on the waves (with your actual former son of Montague!) and putting the stakes of their class-shattering love affair front and centre. Sure, they’re on a ship that sinks – but we knew we were watching a doomed romance, so the fact that it was taking place among one of the most famous tragedies of the 20th Century became practically immaterial.

Alright, so THE LAST DESCENT has all that to navigate. But note as well that the description up there says ‘rescue attempt’. Yes, unlike most ripped-from-the-headlines stories, but similar to the sinking ship film, this did not have a happy ending.

Whew. Quite a lot to contend with for this little flick. The only question left is, does it pull it off?

First, there’s tinkling piano. A baby is born. Tiny hand grips big. Life is precious. ‘His name is John,’ someone (a nurse?) says. OK, so it’s our hero, placed into the alcove of a blanket that sinks as if into a dark hole – ominously foreshadowing his fate.

Then we cut to him in his 20s, with wife and his own child, meeting his brother at the airport. The first thing that strikes one about Chadwick Hopson, who plays our John Jones here, is how much he resembles Topher Grace. And so does Jacob Omer, playing the brother! I mean, I guess that qualifies as good casting. But what was the reasoning? Did the real Topher G turn them down? Was he keeping his schedule free in case Sam Raimi decided to direct a fourth Spiderman film and needed him to come back as Venom?

Next scene, and they're driving away from the airport and bantering, as brothers will. Nutty Putty (!) Cave has reopened and they decide to go spelunkin’ together. At the entrance to the darkness, both wife and bro have some good foreboding lines:

 

Bro: "Do you want to change up the batteries in your headlight to be safe?"

John: "Nah, we're only going for a few hours."

Wife: "Hey, give me a call when you're ready to come home. I want to talk about ... stuff."

John: "What 'stuff'?"

Wife: " ... I'll tell you when you get home."

Turns out she was – gasp! – pregnant and the baby from the opening was actually a flashforward to the newborn John Jr, who daddy John will never meet. Ouch.

So, into the cave the bros go. They’re crawling about, lit only by torches and glo-sticks. They’re having a good time, they chat about the past, they bond. It’s kind of hackneyed, but that’s OK.

Deeper they go. It gets claustrophobic; well, moreso. They lose each other. They find each other. But John’s stuck. And bro’s attempts to dislodge him are unsuccessful. So, bro has to leave him to get help.

I was expecting there to then be a long spell with them searching for John, but after only a couple of minutes of screentime, the rescue team arrives. This is actually quite effective for the movie's sense of dread, as John has the means of salvation right next to him, but they can’t do jack. Our man is stuck pretty tight; the rescuers just can’t get any damn leverage. And since he’s wedged in upside down, the blood is travelling to his head, bringing on delirium and full-body shutdown faster than the longer lead time he would have had if the main dangers were ‘only’ dehydration and starvation.

He’s stuck too deep for them to pull with ropes and they don’t have time to get machinery set up to drill. Someone even suggests getting peanut oil down there to try to slide him off, like a wedding ring stuck on a bloated finger.

But it’s clearly hopeless.

OK, so by now we’re approaching THE LAST DESCENT's halfway point. How will the movie fill the rest of its time towards its foregone conclusion?

With flashbacks. Lots of flashbacks, with John’s voiceover explaining every detail of his childhood and meeting his wife. And the recollections get understandably less nostalgic and more morose as John’s chances of survival in the present steadily plummet.

It’s hard to be too flippant about something like THE LAST DESCENT, despite my natural instincts. I didn’t really enjoy the extended retelling of John’s Hallmark-movie romance, and it all gets a bit too magical realism for me towards the end. And the budget-127 HOURS vibe was hard to shake. But the movie takes on a narrative challenge and doesn’t drop the ball, despite the odd fumble, retelling a poignant story with respect. So ultimately it deserves a smattering of measured applause. 

After this tragedy, they sealed up that cave. They should probably just detonate the bloody thing to be on the safe side, so no one has to say its stupid name or get stuck within its stupid depths ever again.

Three stars out of five.

 

Valid use of the word ‘last’?  For John Edward Jones, sadly yes.

What would a movie called THE FIRST DESCENT be about?  It would be pretty nerve-wracking, I’d expect. I took a school trip to Chislehurst Caves where the guide turned off his torch to make it full dark, and that was bad enough for me.

Previously:  LAST DAYS IN THE DESERT

Next time:  THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT

Check out my books:  Jonathanlastauthor.com

 

LAST DAYS IN THE DESERT (2015, Rodrigo García)

 

* * * 

For 40 days and nights, Jesus Christ, son of God, walks the desert, gathering insights into humanity and Himself.

Starring  Ewan McGregor, Tye Sheridan, Ciarán Hinds, Ayelet Zurer

Written by  Rodrigo García   

Produced by  Bonnie Curtis, Julie Lynn, Wicks Walker   

Duration  98 minutes   

   

 

Ewan McGregor as Jesus Christ? Really? Wait ... and Satan? Blimey. Who does he think he is, Jim Carrey in Robert Zemeckis' A CHRISTMAS CAROL? Peter Sellers in DR STRANGELOVE? Did he want to stretch himself beyond merely nailing a spot-on Alec Guinness impression for Obi-Wan Kenobi to emulating Sir Alec's multi-role antics in KIND HEARTS AND CORONETS?

Or did the makers of LAST DAYS IN THE DESERT hire McGregor because he’s done duel roles before: in THE ISLAND, where he plays both a clone and the cloned? Then again, that would entail somebody actually remembering THE ISLAND ...

I really couldn’t picture the Scottish actor as Jesus going in. For me, it tallied with other notoriously leftfield casting choices: Robert Downey Jr as Sherlock Holmes, or Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher, or Kevin Costner as Robin Hood. But hey, those worked out, mostly – maybe not Costner, but still, he manages to not detract from the reliable Sunday-afternoon-TV enjoyment PRINCE OF THIEVES delivers. 

Now, Satan; Ewan for that I understood right away. He's had a calculating malevolence in his eyes ever since playing the supercilious Mark Renton in TRAINSPOTTING. In fact, as far back as cocky journalist Alex from SHALLOW GRAVE.

On the subject of TRAINSPOTTING: in all this time, have we been supposed to be pronouncing Ewen Bremner’s Christian name differently, since it's Ewen with an 'E'? Did the pair have a laugh about it when they re-teemed on the set of BLACK HAWK DOWN, possibly pulling their fellow Brits among the cast into the joke, like Tom Hardy, Orlando Bloom, Hugh Dancy, Ioan Gruffudd, Matthew Marsden and Jason Issac? (Fuck, there were a lot of people in that movie.)

Anyway, on LAST DAYS IN THE DESERT, Ewan with an ‘A’ plays the ultimate ‘Christian name’, with the emphasis firmly on the human third of the Holy Trinity.

The first thing the viewer notices is that this movie looks terrific. Somehow, the great Emmanuel Lubezki is the DP on this obscure project (turns out he’s mates with the writer/director, Rodrigo Garcia). The go-to lensman for the likes of Alfonso Cuarón, Alejandro Iñárritu and Terrence Malick, and winner of the Academy Award for Best Cinematography three years in a row between 2013 and 2015, the Mexican is a dab hand with natural lighting and he certainly has plenty to play with here, what with the whole thing taking place outdoors and all.

The definitive ‘humanised Jesus’ movie is, of course, Martin Scorsese’s THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST. Whilst that was about the son of God's final days (flash-forwarded to briefly here), this one instead takes a non-scripture-compliant look at some of his 40 days and nights in the desert, as recalled in the book of Matthew. The opening line from our man (of God) here is ‘Father, where are you?’ – putting us firmly in the is-He-really-listening? territory of Scorsese’s more recent theological epic, SILENCE.

And Ewan is fine. He’s sincere. Not much is said; not much needs to be said, not when you’re dealing with issues as weighty, significant and culturally familiar as does LAST DAYS IN THE DESERT. His Jesus is recognisably human, riddled with doubt, curiosity and not without range – in one scene, where he struggles to turn a blanket into windbreaker against the elements, he runs a gamut from determined to frustrated to amused to exasperated.

When Ewan-as-the-devil turns up to push Jesus’s buttons, I was pleased that they didn't go for anything trite like dressing him in black or any even less subtle interpretation (red skin, horns, pointy stick). Instead, McGregor does it all in the performance, like a proper actor, as if this were a stage play – which, taking away the Lubezki visuals, it could well have been. When playing ol’ Lucifer, he switches from Alec Guinness-esque posh English back to his natural Scots brogue – just like he did as the nastier character back in THE ISLAND. (See, someone remembers it.)

Tye Sheridan (who has his own real-life double in Barry Keoghan) is also among the sand dunes, as if he's still in READY PLAYER ONE and has found a bonus religious level. Ciaran Hinds is there too, as his Dad, with beard and walking staff. Jesus grapples with their human conflicts, and in doing so gets more perspective on his own father-son tensions.

Look, it’s a film about a man with Daddy issues trying to resolve them by wandering around a barren landscape, occasionally coming across others and accompanied by an evil doppelganger. It’s not confrontational like THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, and it’s not touched by genius like the works of Scorsese, lensmanship notwithstanding. It doesn’t on the surface have much in terms of drama, incident or narrative. 

But it’s designed to be a spiritual experience first and foremost, and so, the only question really is, does it work on those terms? I can only answer that yes, it does.

Three stars out of five.

Valid use of the word ‘last’?  Jesus has certainly been in the desert for a while when we join him, but there’s no action movie-style countdown, and at the end he doesn’t explicitly return to civilisation, so there may still be more days of sand in his sandals and finding a rock for a pillow to come.

What would a movie called FIRST DAYS IN THE DESERT be about?  That early, optimistic period. Still feeling that last home-cooked meal, enjoying the fresh air, not yet attacked by any snakes or suffering back ache from sleeping on the bare ground.

Previously:  LAST MAN STANDING

Next time:  THE LAST DESCENT   

Check out my books:  Jonathanlastauthor.com

LAST MAN STANDING (1996, Walter Hill)

 

* * 

A drifter gets caught up in gang warfare in an isolated Prohibition-era town.

Starring  Bruce Willis, Christopher Walken, William Sanderson, David Patrick Kelly, Bruce Dern, Michael Imperioli

Written by  Walter Hill

Produced by  Walter Hill, Arthur M Sarkissian

Duration  101 minutes

When I first watched LAST MAN STANDING, on video at some point in the late ’90s, I had no idea it was based on anything. I’d never heard of Akira Kurosawa, and while I knew that Clint Eastwood had starred in some films labelled ‘Spaghetti Westerns’, I hadn’t seen any of them either and didn’t know from what they had drawn their inspiration.

In the end, I ended up travelling the path of the films that lead directly to LAST MAN in reverse order. I started to get more into Westerns and went through Sergio Leone’s Eastwood-starring so-called ‘man with no name’ trilogy, noting that A FISTFUL OF DOLLARS’ plot seemed awfully familiar. Then I tracked down a copy of Kurosawa’s YOJIMBO and thus completed my journey at the start. Well, not quite – I haven’t read Dashiell Hammett's Red Harvest, which is believed, albeit not universally, to have inspired the 1961 Japanese film.

Let’s talk for a moment about Walter Hill. Why isn’t he better known? In my mind, he’s comparable to John Carpenter, in terms of style (economical yet thematically rich), sensibility (men being men and fighting the system) and love of Westerns. I guess Hill never had a hit that birthed a neverending franchise, like HALLOWEEN, or any flops that became cult classics, like THE THING or BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA, or one that has joined meme culture, such as THEY LIVE.

A couple of years ago, I attended an all-night John Carpenter marathon at London's famous Prince Charles Cinema, where they screened, in order: THEY LIVE, ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK, THE THING, PRINCE OF DARKNESS and IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS. On the first train home Sunday morning, I mused in my sleep-deprived state about which other directors deserved the same treatment; Hill came to mind straight away. I would definitely hit the Red Bulls to watch a five-movie programme of, say, THE DRIVER, THE WARRIORS, SOUTHERN COMFORT, 48 HRS. and EXTREME PREJUDICE.

But wait, no LAST MAN STANDING in that line-up?

Well, here’s the thing: diminishing returns. YOJIMBO is great. FISTFUL OF DOLLARS is also good, but definitely the weakest of its trilogy and Leone’s least accomplished movie overall (not that I’ve seen THE COLOSSUS OF RHODES.) And LAST MAN …

It’s a curiously empty film. It should have a lot of atmosphere, with its 1920's cars and clothes and the dust creeping through a sinisterly rundown town. It should be exciting, with a perfectly cast Willis playing two sides against each other and running a gauntlet of double-crosses and attempts on his life. It should be thrilling, with its John-Woo-goes-West sensibility, arming Willis with two Colt 1911s that magically fire 20+ bullets per clip and have the stopping power to launch people 30 feet in the air through plate glass windows. But instead, it’s oddly lifeless and even dull.

Is the problem style over substance? Sure, but that imbalance doesn’t have to be an impediment. I wouldn't call Michael Davis’s SHOOT ’EM UP (2007) a classic, but something like that does at least know what it’s got to offer and doesn’t try to overreach its grasp. Ditto DESPERADO (1995), which came out a year before LAST MAN and strongly resembles it aesthetically. So, maybe the issue here is that the movie takes itself too seriously – that it doesn’t lean into being an exercise in cool sets, frenetic action and hardboiled dialogue, but misguidedly attempts to express a weight that isn’t actually there.

There's definitely too much plot – much of it delivered courtesy of Willis’s mumbled voice over – and not enough story. It's easy to lose track of the betrayals and switched allegiances and sink into apathy, especially since the characters are only archetypes (stoic loner; tough-but-vulnerable dame; powerless sheriff; bickering gangsters) and the protagonist himself is a blank slate. All that's left is to bide your time between shootouts and wait for second-billed Christopher Walken to finally turn up. It's worth the wait, naturally, especially for those who enjoyed his cameo in TRUE ROMANCE and were itching for more of the same, except with his hair dyed ginger this time since he's an Irish gangster, instead of a jet-black Sicilian.

In fact, the supporting cast is the biggest plus and goes a long way towards holding the viewer’s interest. William Sanderson delivers exposition in his distinctively quirky way while compiling himself an audition tape for Deadwood. David Patrick Kelly simmers with little-guy menace. There’s a pre-Sopranos Michael Imperioli and a pre-Mrs Apatow Leslie Mann, and Bruce Dern has fun as the town’s lawmaker who keeps himself well away from all the trouble.

In the final analysis, I was reminded somewhat of 1999’s similar and superior PAYBACK, which was itself based on existing material (Donald E Westlake’s novel The Hunter and 1967 neo-noir POINT BLANK). The difference with the Mel Gibson film is that writer/director Brian Helgeland throws in a lot of dark humour, something the po-faced LAST MAN STANDING could have done with like a shot of whiskey for a thirsty and beaten-down drifter.

Two stars out of five.

Valid use of the word ‘last’?  Practically everyone except Willis is dead by the end, so it gets a pass. 

What would a movie called FIRST MAN STANDING be about?  I guess a retelling of the book of Genesis? Zac Efron is ... Adam!

Previously:  THE LAST WITCH HUNTER 

Next time:  LAST DAYS IN THE DESERT  

Check out my books:  Jonathanlastauthor.com

THE LAST WITCH HUNTER (2015, Breck Eisner)

 

* * 

He’s bald, he speaks in a gruff voice and he hunts witches – lots and lots of witches.

Starring  Vin Diesel, Elijah Wood, Rose Leslie, Julie Engelbrecht, Michael Caine  

Written by  Cory Goodman, Matt Sazama, Burk Sharpless

Produced by  Mark Canton, Vin Diesel, Bernie Goldmann

Duration  106 minutes

All actors want franchises. Why wouldn’t they? Guaranteed work for multiple years, maybe decades. And you don’t have to only star in your franchise pictures; they may have some contractual hold over you, but you needn't see them as anything more than regular work to support other, more satisfying roles.

They can become a burden, if you’re associated too closely with the character you play. It’s what happened to Sean Connery with Bond, when he vowed to "never" return and then did, twice (hence the non-Eon film being named NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN). He wanted to branch out beyond 007 and did a lot of impressive work during the ’60s and ’70s, especially for Sidney Lumet, but arguably never broke free of the tux and the Martinis.

Vin Diesel currently has one of the biggest franchises going: THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS, which started in 2001 as a POINT BREAK remake with Vin as Patrick Swayze, decidedly quaint origins when you consider what the series went on to become. But a year earlier, he’d actually already birthed another: effective little sci-fi horror PITCH BLACK. And then, in 2002, Vin starred in xXx, a franchise he appeared to abandon after handing the reigns over to Ice Cube for the first sequel, only to return later. Just like he did with the FAST saga, except that time he sat out both numbers two and three.

We can, therefore, conclude from all this that Vin Diesel has a complicated relationship with franchise filmmaking. First, he wants them, he really wants them: three is a lot for any actor. But at the same time, he also resents them – hence the hasty abandonments. And yet, their draw is so strong that he will always return to them down the line.

Alright, I know what you’re thinking. How could Vin know that TFATF and PITCH BLACK would become franchises? He couldn’t, I’ll grant you that. But come on: xXx is 100% Mr Diesel wanting to be Bond (an ‘extreme’ Bond, no less), and by the time it came out, Vin was an above-the-title star, capable of turning anything he wanted into a franchise. (OK, maybe not THE PACIFIER.)

Now, three franchises might be a lot, but four? What does that tell you? Because when THE LAST WITCH HUNTER came into our lives in 2015, Vin was definitely going for a hat-trick-plus-one.

But here’s a question. What happens when you make a franchise starter that doesn’t catch on? If a movie whose only purpose is to give birth to more movies fails in its entire reason for being?

THE LAST WITCH HUNTER is what happens. You end up with something that is exposition-heavy and introduces far too many characters; a film that dives deep into its convoluted lore and lumbers on towards an inconclusive conclusion. But that's OK! It’s all set up now for a breezy sequel, with all of the world-building out the way. Except... oops, sorry, we’ve just seen the box office receipts. Green light turns to red.

With a surer hand behind the camera, it might have been so different; no one can guarantee success, but you can give yourself a better chance. Whether they admit it or not, all modern action stars want to be Arnie or Sly – Vin included. But he’s failed to learn one crucial lesson from the legends of the genre: those two had the moxie and the self-assurance to choose significant directors with strong personalities.

For Schwarzenegger, it was the likes of John Milius, James Cameron, Mark L Lester, John McTiernan, Walter Hill, Paul Verhoeven and Peter Hyams. Stallone’s roster included Norman Jewison, John Huston, John Flynn, Renny Harlin, Richard Donner, James Mangold... and, er, himself. Even Bruce Willis did the same thing: McTiernan (again), Harlin (again), Brian De Palma, Tony Scott, Quentin Tarantino, Hill (again), Luc Besson, Donner (again).

But our Vin only seems to work with journeymen – Rob Cohen, F Gary Gray, David Twohy, Justin Lin, James Wan, Louis Leterriot – men who he can presumably order around. And how many genuinely excellent movies has he made with that lot?

(Dwayne Johnson, Vin’s contemporary, is even worse, seemingly unable to sign on for a movie unless it’s directed by one of his mates: Jaume Collet-Serra, Rawdon Marshall Thurber or Brad Peyton.)

It could be surmised that old Vin is desperate to be the biggest personality on set. But this means he’s a long way from getting a TERMINATOR or a TOTAL RECALL or a CLIFFHANGER – or even an ASSASSINS or a LOCK UP or a RED HEAT. (Excepting that some of the FAST movies are a lot of fun.)

When you resort to someone like Breck Eisner, you get THE LAST WITCH HUNTER. Did Vin really think he could start franchise #4 with the man responsible for Matthew McConaughey flop SAHARA and the weak remake of Romero's THE CRAZIES?

Put it this way, by the end of this movie, I was almost hoping for Aidan Quinn to turn up and thus set himself up for a trilogy of witch-based movies.

After all, everyone loves a franchise, right?

Two stars out of five.

Valid use of the word ‘last’?  If it’s Vinny D, then you know that he’s going to be the first, the last, the everything.

What would a movie called THE FIRST WITCH HUNTER be about?  Probably whoever Daniel Day-Lewis played in that 1996 adaptation of Arthur Miller’s The Crucible.

Previously:  THE LAST EXPERIMENT

Next time:  LAST MAN STANDING

Check out my books:  Jonathanlastauthor.com

THE LAST EXPERIMENT (2012, Eric Wostenberg)

 

* * 

Two pals volunteer for pharmaceutical testing to make a quick buck, unprepared for the sinister consequences that await.

Starring  Travis Van Winkle, John Bregar, Tricia Helfer, Mircea Monroe, Eric Roberts

Written by  David Nahmodan

Produced by  David S Ward, Brandon Nutt, Chris Chesser, Karen Glasser

Duration  100 minutes

One of the best books about becoming a filmmaker the spit-and-polish way is Robert Rodriguez’s Rebel Without a Crew. Written primarily about the production of the Texan director’s 1991 feature debut EL MARIACHI, it’s a timeless account of perseverance, creativity and self-belief.

Part of the book concerns the ever-resourceful Rodriguez’s efforts to fund his ambitions. One of the things he tries is volunteering to be a medical test subject: locked away in a facility with other ‘inmates’ trying out new drugs in exchange for cash upon release.

He clearly got through unscathed and with the funds he needed, and so partly owes his Hollywood career to those months spent taking random tablets and describing the effects to people in white coats with clipboards, all while trying not to think too much about ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST.

I wonder, though. Have there been any long-term side effects? Will it be like the Flower Power generation’s acid flashbacks, or ’90s ravers wondering if all those pills bought from dodgy characters in squat raves are responsible for rising levels of depression – or whatever’s waiting down the line for today's yoof after sucking down all those capsules of their ‘hippy crack’?

Only time – and maybe Rodriguez himself, in a follow-up book? – will tell, but the experience certainly stayed with the director long enough for him to turn it into a semi-autobiographical movie, 2019’s RED 11. Before that – but surely, surely inspired by the same thing – came THE LAST EXPERIMENT, in 2012.

The film focuses on not one but two volunteers, a pair of college buddies played by Travis Van Winkle and John Bregar. Travis VW is the stud, who can barely walk onto campus without an ADR’d coed remarking, "Hey, handsome". His only concern going in is that nothing will end up going in him, anally, as part of the program, something he asks about three times (the lady doth protest too much?). Meanwhile, John B plays the sensible one, who actually knows who the pharmaceutical company behind it all is and questions the purpose of the testing.

But, hey – they agree that if they can make a cool $3,000 each during their winter break, then it’s worth taking the risk.

On their first day, a long-term and long-haired inmate bursts into the pair's shared room to give them a tour of the facility, with added exposition for our benefit. His arms are a cheese grater of pock marks, his performance is turned up to ‘irritatingly manic’, his accent is supposed to be British, or possibly Australian, it’s never clarified. And soon he’s introducing our boys to a rogue’s gallery of other guinea pigs, whose diversity of gender, age and race betray a casting director who either did a really good job, or no job at all.

The score and the camerawork suggest a tone that's going for ominous, but the interaction between the two pals seems lifted from a direct-to-streaming AMERICAN PIE spin-off. Their unwitty banter sometimes gets so guileless that it takes a leap into the bizarre. On their first night, they indulge in this bedtime exchange:

"Dude, that blonde chick in the canteen was totally checking me out."

"Dude, is sex all you think about?"

"Yeah dude, isn't it for you?"

"... Well, yeah. Yeah, it is."

[Both go to bed without another word.]

Before it can completely morph into DUDE, WHERE’S MY NEXT INJECTION?, we move into the next day and the subtitle "Dose One". The movie proceeds from there, with medicine being administered and montages of the inmates being forced to describe their bowel movements; things don't liven up until an elderly patient freaks out and runs down the hall screaming. We then get hallucinations of bugs on food, nightmares of skin peeling off, wounds that seem to self-heal, more bugs turning up. "Something is not right here. Something is fucked up," Travis observes sagely.

THE LAST EXPERIMENT was clearly filmed on a micro budget. This is not in itself an issue, but more than the extra dollars, it could have done with an injection (ha!) of ideas and a firmer focus. Shit starts to get weird, yes, but it never coalesces into sustained tension or a real sense of mystery. When the truth does come out, it's pretty underwhelming.

The movie mostly just kind of ticks along, which is probably quite an accurate depiction of how the days trudge by during one of these scenarios. But to make it worth watching a bunch of other people going through it, we the audience need something more to hold our interest than a few thrown-in thriller elements and Eric Roberts popping by for the final 10 minutes.

Like, say, how does a nice cheque delivered to our house when the end credits roll round? Whether we decide to put it towards making a movie or not would, of course, be our own business.

Two stars out of five.

Valid use of the word ‘last’?  The film ends with the lab getting burnt down by a SWAT team, yet has an ambiguous ‘but is it really over?’ coda. So ... maybe?

What would a movie called THE FIRST EXPERIMENT be about?  According to UNESCO, "In all textbooks of the western world, the Italian physicist Galileo Galilee (1564–1642) is presented as the father of [the modern] scientific method." Could be he experimented with combining gelato flavours or something?

Previously:  LAST ACTION HERO

Next time:  THE LAST WITCH HUNTER

Check out my books:  Jonathanlastauthor.com