Cleopatra Jones and The Casino of Gold (1975)

It’s a blaxploitation sequel played out against a Hong Kong backdrop.

Often, I wonder if these ‘foreign’ films with American actors set their stories abroad because it’s cheap and it serves as a partial vacation for those involved in the production. There is always a leisurely approach to films of like Cleopatra Jone and the Casino of Gold. The acting, directing and story are not bad, but relaxed. Here the story meanders from scene to scene and wardrobe-change to wardrobe-change as it follows Cleopatra Jones on assignment overseas. This time around Tamara Dobson returns as the titular heroine searching for two missing undercover brothers. Stella Stevens plays a major drug dealer. Ni Tien co-stars as Cleopatra’s side-kick, Mi Ling and  Norman Fell (TV’s Mr. Roper) tries to keep Cleo from demolishing all of Hong Kong. He does a half-way decent job until the last 20 minutes when all hell breaks loose in the Casino of Gold.

It’s actually more like an overly saturated casino soaked in gaudy colors. Tony Montana could have been the interior designer. It also seems to have been built simply to be demolished in one of the more outrageous action sequences I’ve seen in a long time, ripe with kung-fu, gun-play, and lots of motorcycles tearing through the set.For all of its leisurely pace, Cleopatra Jone and the Casino of Gold certainly delivers in both decadent decor, eye-popping attire, and an over-the-top finale, making it one of the most entertaining films I’ve seen in along time. Mind you, it’s hollow entertainment more akin to wild television than great cinema.I guess it should be no surprise then that director Charles Bail went on to direct a lot of action and crime shows for television.

 

Space Chase (1990)

I will never understand the urge that drives people to waste their time and money making films like Space Chase. Do they expect to get rich or even re-coup their money by making a spectacularly crappy Star Wars knock-off, especially when they make it 7 years after the Return of the Jedi?

To put things in context, the Star War franchise was probably at its lowest point around 1990. It had been five years since the Droids and Ewoks cartoons were made. George Lucas was still licking his wounds from Howard the Duck and Tucker: The Man and His Dream. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade was his last big box office success and the much Star Wars prequels were not even being discussed. The Timothy Zahn novels had not been published and for but a few die-hard Star Wars fans, the saga was frozen in carbonite.

The absence of Star Wars left a void for the creators of Space Chase. Sadly, what they saw as an opportunity to continue the tradition of action filled space operas only became an opportunity to create a highly laughable and often groan inducing flick. The fact that they were trying to make a million dollar film on a welfare budget doomed the production. It’s not as if they were making this in 2009 when a tech savvy fan-boy with a home-computer and some digital skills can crank out Industrial Light and Magic quality effects from their parents basement. Today’s fan-boy films are more technically polished than Space Chase and they certainly don’t try to create their own universe or mythology.  Space Chase simply suffers from over-reaching, untalented creators dare I say sadists.

Frankly, it is outside of my human cabilities to comprehend how you could put other people and actors through the process of filming this sort of crap without feeling bad. It is a mystery to me how these direct-to-video derivates, no matter how bad they are, never seem to stop. I suppose each set of fools thinks they can do better, that their film will not be a galactic turd.

If there is an upside to this whole phenomenon it is that when someone who loves a film like Star Wars decides to NOT make a fan flick or a derivative flop we should be thankful. The simple thought of not making a film can be a very enjoyable thing. Sadly, Space Chase exists and that’s a reality I won’t be able to forget anytime soon.

The Gong Show Movie (1980)

When George Clooney made Confessions of a Dangerous Mind , someone should have had the smarts to re-release The Gong Show Movie. For years I thought of tracking this film down. It has always been one of those can-you-believe-they-made-this titles, but having heard few rare film fans rave about it I simply assumed it was one of those bad movies that is so bad it’s not even fun to watch. Stupid me. This movie is extremely fun. It comes across as a combination of Penn & Teller Get Killed (another title desperately in need of a legitimate DVD release), Jackass: The Movie, and a rare film worth checking out called 1988: The Remake.

The Gong Show Movie shares the same meta-qualities of Penn & Teller Get Killed only here you have Chuck Barris going about his week, constantly being barraged by would-be contestants. You don’t have Arthur Penn directing the film, like you do with Penn & Teller Get Killed . However, you do have Robert Downey Sr. as one of the writers. Had I known this years ago I would have put this at the top of my most sought after list. How did this fact escape me?

Most people wouldn’t watch a movie like this for the writer. I get that. The attraction is the contestants and their outlandish…skills? Is that the right word. I wouldn’t dare call what the contestant have as talent. The one common factor is that none of them are afraid to make fools of themselves. In this way the antics of those performing for Chuck Barris are like those auditioning in Rick Schmidt’s 1988: The Remake. This underground American Independent film is about a potential remake of Showboat. For legal reasons, parts of the performances had to be censored, which only adds to film’s eccentricity. Those try-out for the re-make are some of San Francisco’s weirdest. Imagine the regional talent searches of American Idol, when people tune in to see just how awful people can be. It’s that bad.

However, this is all part of that brand of bad that captivates. The movie itself is not awful. Forget that critics bashed it. There are certainly far worse films, one’s that bore. Sure, this is not a master piece of mta-filmaking or even narrative story telling, but it’s serviceable as a vehicle for Chuck Barris to take The Gong Show to extremes he was never allowed to do on television, much like on Jackass: The Movie. Both Jackass and The Gong Show started as television programs. Neither was well-liked or seen as being high-art, let alone redeemable. If anything, they were shows that opened new roads, ones that many never wanted culture to travel down. On the big screen they are both able to push the limits of what they could do on TV. The one limit that gets pushed the most is the limit of good taste. The only exception is that Jackass’ spectacles mostly revolve around a motley crew of masochistic daredevils. The participants on The Gong Show were less about physical punishment and more about performance; really really punishingly bad performances. Many are do bad (on purpose) that they become brilliantly entertaining and well worth tracking down this video just to see. Plus, how can anyone turn down a chance to see more of The Unknown Comic?

When Nature Calls (1985)

We call them guilty pleasures because we are partially ashamed for lowering our guard and taking enjoyment from something we feel is beneath us. It’s a stupid term and I wish not to use it, but it best describes my reaction to When Nature Calls . Produced by Troma Entertainment, the company responsible for pictures such as The Toxic Avenger, Class of Nuke ‘Em High, and Surf Nazis Must Die. I tend to over generalize Troma’s work as being deliberately bad. Peppered throughout there extensive catalog of films are a few gems; Combat Shock, Mother’s Day, Story of a Junkie to name a few. I can now add When Nature Calls to my list of guilty Troma pleasures.

Like earlier sketch anthology works such as The Groove Tube or Kentucky Friend Movie, this film is a series of gags strung along a loose narrative.  When a New York City construction worker decides to pack up his family and move to the country the family encounters a series of frontier challenges. The story is presented like a movie with commercial interruptions; the family has their own theme song. Most of the jokes are crude, sometimes tasteless, but each segment is never dragged out. Flawed segments are too short to even complain about. Still, one has to be in the right mood or mindset to enjoy the irreverent ideas being thrown at the screen. Screenwriter and director Charles Kaufman has some real wonderful comedic ideas. The trailer for “Raging Bullshit”, a parody of the Scorsese boxing masterpiece is quite funny, as is the segment where G. Gordon Liddy hosts a Jerry Lewis telethon, raising money to find a cure for people who imitate Jerry Lewis. With in the actual story,  David Strathairn plays an Indian who befriends the family and this might be the first and only person in a Troma film to go on to be nominated for an Oscar. Best of all is a cameo by “Classy” Fred Blassie as a psychiatrist, of all things.

Like so many of these sketch anthology films, When Nature Calls feels like an unnecessary movie. Due to the short nature of each sketch and the often randomness of the subject matter behind each gag, it seems wholly illogical that one would need a feature film to deliver these types of jokes. Just read this comment from the Internet Movie Database. Obviously, this poor soul is utterly confused by the When Nature Calls, so much so that they don’t even realize that the previews are part of the actual movie. Still, they do a far better job of describing the film’s intermission animation than I ever could.

“First of all, on the video, you have to muddle through 25 minutes of absolutely, positively HORRENDOUS previews of parody movies…If that isn’t enough to bury someone, the movie starts and is even worse. And, if that wasn’t enough, read on…..I gave up the ghost during “intermission” where a hot dog was “masturbating on popcorn”, noses with glasses were “snorting cocaine”, hog dogs were “drinking alcohol”, and a marijuana leaf “rolled itself into a joint, stood up, and bowed”, among other things that were totally rude, crude, and insulting. It couldn’t get worse than this “movie”! – rainbeau56

Okay, I disagree. I also must note, all the punctuation and phrasing is as is, I changed nothing! Read on…When trying to recontextualize a film like When Nature Calls it probably should be noted that films of this ilk were made prior to the dominance of cable television or the internet. There simply was not a venue for such scatter-shot, gutter-humor back then. Today, we are seeing a slight return in these films, but mostly in the form of so-called-parody movies like Scary Movie or Epic Movie. Still, those films feel to specific or too dependent upon an exact point-in-time, with all of their humor revolving around movies and news events from just prior to their release dates. These older sketch anthologies are looser and further reaching in their comedic targets. If they have a modern day comparison it is perhaps Robot Chicken. Maybe if When Nature Calls’ skits were on Adult Swim, SCTV or even Saturday Night Live, people like the one above would get it. That said, these sketch anthology films do feel like museum pieces, but hey, I like history museums, they are amongst my favorite guilty pleasures.

American Gigolo (1980)

“Why would anyone watch this?” read the note attached my American Gigolo DVD case. It was probably left there by one of my students. At this point I should no longer be shocked by the rather flip, blatantly ignorant statements of my younger students. In defense of this anonymous commenter, I will say the following. Perhaps, they were joking. Sarcasm, especially veiled in anonymity, never reads well. If they were not joking I might dismiss their hasty scribblings as a mis-reading of the DVD’s cover art. Even I will admit that the packaging mis-represents the film and does it little justice. I am sure, to the eyes of a youngster raised on knee-jerk reactionary comments such as “That’s gay” or “How gay”, this DVD looks quite, well, gay.* The title doesn’t help much either. However, just look at that border, all two-tone and day-glo. It even says “I love the 80′s” and what young hipster today doesn’t love the 80′s?

So, why comment rather than investigate? I would hope that by doing some research (aka Googling) or turning over the dvd case they would discover that this film was written and directed by Paul Schrader, the man who wrote the screenplays for Taxi Driver , Raging Bull and The Last Temptation of Christ. Maybe they’d even recongize his name as the director behind Blue Collar,  Hardcore, or Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters. He’s also the author of Transcendental Style in Film a must read for any film student. However, I am not holding my breath on that second or third part. Still, these are film students coming in and out of my office, these are people who should be excited by films they have not heard of and curious to learn more about important, if not under-valued, historical film makers like Paul Schrader.

Of course, I’m saying all of his under the assumption that whoever left that note has not seen this film. Maybe they have seem American Gigolo. Maybe the just don’t like it. If this were the case I’d at least wish they had the conviction to sign their name. But, such is a generation who does no criticizes because they have a great fear of being criticized. They only speak when they know there words can’t be traced.

Well, I am speaking back to this unknown soul. American Gigolo is a wonderful character study of a rather shallow and naive individual who also serves as a wonderful doppelganger for the 80′s themselves. Schrader is a masterful American director trying to work in the same spirit as Bresson, Ozu, and Dreyer, all those artists he wrote about in his book. Does he ever fully achieve their levels of transcendence? Not really, but that might have more to do with his choice in subject matter and setting. It takes a lot of power to transcend the trappings of the 80′s.

When I think of the quintessential 80′s films, the one that speak most to the zeitgeist of the 80′s, to the attitudes that really defined that era, American Gigolo is most certainly one of the first films I reference. It does a far better job of depicting the rather cool, yet vapid mindset of the yuppie culture. Forget those John Hughes films or St. Elmo’s fire, the only speak to the immature dreams and anxieties of people growing up in the 80′s. You need to watch things like American Gigolo or Wall Street to understand the vileness of that decade. For something more scathing and way off the beaten path find Mark Rappaport’s Chain Letters. The 80′s was not all one big teenage, new-wave dance party. It’s also not something that can be understood from watching that other ‘American’ 80′s movie, American Psycho that film is far more of parody than a portrait of life in the Reagan years. That film has too much fun with itself. It is more in the spirit of coolness that you find in Top Gun or Ferris Bueller Whereas, American Gigolo is not a fun movie. Richard Gere’s  takes women out, shows them a good time, but he himself seems incapable of enjoyment. His character is good looking. He can put on a decent act. He can, shall we say, entertain, but deep down his character is not a fun guy. He is good looking, but he is all surface, a pretty empty underneath. Pretty much like the 80′s.

*Not that there is anything wrong with gay films.

The Curse of Frankenstein (1957)

I recently watched Swamp Thing and concluded it was dated and corny. Right afterwards, I watch The Curse of Frankenstein and decided it was dated but charming.

To a degree both stories are about madmen whose selfish desires produce grotesque creatures. Neither film boasts profound make-up or effects, but there is a quaintness to Hammer’s Frankenstein monster that blends neatly with the heavily costumed and overly stagey feel of The Curse of Frankenstein that transforms these faults into pleasant, acceptable, low-budget depictions of the Victorian era. Where as Swamp Thing places its action and its lousy effects in a real swamp. The incongruity between the swamp’s realism and the creature’s costume is too much. The difference between the two films is a lesson in creating a believable world.

It’s also nice to see Victor Frankstein, played by Peter Cushing, portrayed as a real prick.