Magnum P.I., Season 1 (1980)

Andy Sidaris's 1985 film Malibu Express features a handsome, moustachioed private investigator with a fancy car and a knack for bumping into beautiful women.  I can't imagine where he might have got the inspiration for that character.  It's so very original, and had never -- oh ... wait a second.

So obviously there might have been a tiny bit of inspiration from this show.  Oh well.  At least, unlike later Sidaris films, Malibu Express is not set in Hawai'i.

Thomas Magnum is a private investigator who lives in a guest house on the estate of reclusive author Robin Masters.  Very reclusive: we never see him on screen.  We do hear his voice though, which is provided by Orson Welles.

In any case, Magnum did a favour for Masters in the past, which is why he's allowed to stay on the estate, much to the chagrin of Masters' majordomo, Higgins.  The prim and proper Higgins is not a fan of Magnum's rather free-wheeling approach to life, and is not above setting his doberman dogs on the PI when he's finding Magnum particularly irksome.

Anyway, the show's a "mystery of the week" type deal with Magnum being called on to solve a case that pretty much invariably involves an attractive young woman in some way.  Either she's the client, or the daughter of the client, or he's hired to find her ... well, you get the idea.  Basically the formula of the show is handsome lead + fast car + gorgeous scenery + attractive woman = ratings.  I'm sure Sidaris figured the same thing.

The thing that separates Magnum P.I. from Sidaris's film - other than the need to stick to TV content regulations - is that the people making this show knew what they were doing.  They know how to hit the light and breezy tone they're going for, and they're not above a little stylistic cheekiness: Magnum often delivers voice-over narration of the type you might get in a noir film, even though the show is pretty much as not-noirish as you could imagine.

Magnum P.I. was a very successful show of its time and it is not hard to see why.  It's certainly not deep or challenging TV, but it has a likeable cast and a solid formula, and it delivers engaging light entertainment.  Despite the very different character line-up and setting, it fills a similar role to something like Castle would today.

The Avengers (2012)

When The Avengers was announced, there was still something of a question mark hanging over the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  Yes, Marvel had made several solid films, but (1) only the two Iron Man entries could be considered bona fide hits, financially speaking and (2) they'd not previously tackled a team film, and there was a lot of scepticism about whether audiences would embrace the larger roster of characters.

Yeah, well we can consider that question mark well and truly blown away.  Audiences flocked to The Avengers: as of the time of writing, it is the 4th highest grossing film of all time, though I suspect a certain other Disney property will knock it down a spot (it it hasn't already).

I'm pleased to say that the success of the film is wholly deserved.  Marvel assembled a great cast over the course of the "phase one" films leading up to this one, then it gave them a smart, funny, action-packed script to work with.  Whether it be Black Widow's interrogation scenes, the banter between Iron Man and Captain America, or the city smashing climactic action sequence, there's almost certain to be something about the film that charms you.  For me, it's the way the film shows the central cast being heroes, not just soldiers.  Given the choice between saving lives and just punching bad guys, they invariably and instinctively choose the former.

The plot?  Rogue Asgardian Loki arrives on Earth and steals a very dangerous artefact.  Only an eclectic group of powerful but-not-exactly-easy-to-work-with individuals can stop him.  If they can get on the same page long enough to gel as a team, that is.

Great stuff: if you only see one Marvel film, it should probably be this one (though honestly it does work even better if you've seen the first Thor, Iron Man and Captain America films before sitting down to it).

The Girl Who Played With Fire (2009)

While the three-tier rating system I use on this blog has the advantage of simplicity, it does also mean that the qualified recommendation, as the middle band, tends to cover rather a wide range.  For instance, it stretches from The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo - which I only nudged down from a full recommendation because of the sexual violence and the fact that lots of people are funny about subtitles - to this film, which only just scrapes into the bottom of the band on the basis that I know lots of people are really into this sort of cinematic nonsense.

And make no mistake, this film is nonsense.  The measured and compelling mystery of the first movie is jettisoned in favour of car chases and contrivances.  Which doesn't necessarily make for a bad film, mind you.  The Fast and the Furious franchise is pretty much built on such silliness, and the last four films in the series have all been good fun.  On the other hand, I think that a big part of their success comes from their rapid pace and non-stop spectacle.  For my money, that momentum is what is missing from this movie.  Its pace is simply too methodical, leaving the weaknesses of the plot exposed because I have enough time to stop and think about them.

Said plot involves the murder of a young journalist who is on the verge of exposing a sex trafficking ring.  The murder weapon is left at the scene, and proves to have the fingerprints of Lisbeth Salander on it.  Lisbeth goes into hiding and she and the dead man's colleagues - which include the journalist whom she helped in the previous movie - separately begin investigations into what really happened.  The mystery will soon prove to have deeply personal implications for Lisbeth, while also seeing her survive stuff even John McClane would have trouble walking away from.

It's a tolerable action-thriller I guess, but it's a pale shadow of the first film.

Silent Night, Bloody Night (1972)

Like a lot of low budget horror flicks, this film is "blessed" with multiple titles, so you might find it as Night of the Dark Full Moon or Death House.  Unlike many of them, though, it is also endowed with a remake (Silent Night, Bloody Night: the Homecoming), while a sequel is reputed to be in production.

So does this film have something that others of its ilk do not, to explain why it generated enough interest for a remake and sequel?  Well honestly, I suspect that the main reason for its endurance is its Christmas Eve setting.  About five years after its release it became a regular part of the late night film rotation during November and December, which doubtless means it was seen by a lot of teenagers in the late 70s and early 80s.

Despite my rather prosaic suspicions about the cause of its success, I must give the film some credit.  While the script is errant nonsense - and creepy for all the wrong reasons - the central performances are all solid, and there's some fine giallo-style direction, right down to murders from the killer's and/or victim's point of view.  The writer/director was definitely better at the latter than the former.

So what's the less-than-stellar story about?  Well, a man dies and leaves his estate to his young grandson.  As part of the bequest, he stipulates in his Will that his house must be preserved unchanged.

Twenty years later, the grandson wants to sell the home.  But when he and his lawyer arrive in town to arrange a sale to a group of notable locals (the mayor, the sheriff, and so on), someone starts murdering everyone involved in the transaction.  Who?  Why?  Well honestly the answers to those questions are not worth your time, even if the journey to get to them is significantly better than the destination.

Gamera vs Viras (1968)

You know, Godzilla's turn to the side of good wasn't the most rousing moment in cinema history - it involved him and Mothra bellowing at one another while the miniature women from Monster Island translated - but at least it happened on screen.  In the space of three films, Gamera's gone from "dangerous energy-eating monster" to "friend to all children" without a single syllable of explanation.

This movie opens with aliens from the planet Viras planning to conquer Earth and make it their new home.  But Gamera flies up into space and smashes their goofy looking space ship to pieces.  They do however manage to get off a message to their homeworld before they are destroyed.

Meanwhile on Earth, a pair of deeply annoying boy scouts play silly pranks with a miniature submarine.  Somehow this results in them being allowed to take the sub out for themselves. They encounter Gamera and have a race with him, but their "hi-jinks" are interrupted by the arrival of the second spaceship from Viras.  It looks identical to the first, of course.  Wouldn't want to build two models.

The bad guys temporarily imprison Gamera and scan his brainwaves to assess his powers and weaknesses.  This involves playing ten straight minutes of recycled footage from the previous three films in the series.  It also alerts them to how protective he is of children, so they turn that against him by kidnapping the two boys.

Most of the rest of the film is actually taken up by the brats running around the alien spaceship, though we do also get a few scenes - again all recycled from earlier films - of a now brainwashed Gamera rampaging through Japan at the command of the aliens.

After a bunch more plot points so stupid that I refuse to recount them, Gamera is freed of enemy control.  He smashes the second alien spaceship like he did the first.  Then the leader of the Viras grows into a giant octopus monster and Gamera smashes him too.  Mercifully, the movie then ends.

As Young As You Feel (1951)

A man with extremely impressive whiskers loses his job when he reaches the mandatory retirement age for all employees of the Consolidated Motors group.  Which surprises him, because he doesn't work for them, but for Acme Printing.

When he investigates, however, he discovers that Acme is a subsidiary of a subsidiary of a subsidiary of a subsidiary of a subsidiary of a subsidiary of CM.  He resolves to write a letter to the president of Consolidated Motors, asking them to change the policy and allow older employees who are still willing and able to work to continue to do so.

Which is when he discovers that no-one in Acme's personnel department can even tell him who the president of CM even is.

And so, a simple scheme is born: to impersonate the president of CM and persuade the executives of Acme to change their policy, so he can have his own job back.  There's no way that could possibly get out of hand, right?

This is a mostly good-natured comedy that does not take itself too seriously.  It's also another film in this boxed set where Monroe has a fairly minor role - she plays the secretary of Acme's CEO - but she does well with the relatively limited time she's given.

Barring some of the old-fashioned social attitudes that you can expect from a film of this era, As Young As You Feel is a pleasant little romp.  The lightest of light entertainment, and a total cinematic souffle, but sometimes that's exactly what you want out of a film.

Carver (2015)

Nearly two years ago, I reviewed Pathogen for this blog.  This was a zombie film that was written and directed in 2004 by the then-13 year old Emily Hagins.

Apparently there is something about the name Emily, because this film was written and directed by thirteen year old Emily DiPrimio.  It's not a zombie flick this time, though: instead it's a slasher film that deliberately echoes the style of 80s 'classics' of the genre like the original Friday the 13th films.

Now DiPrimio has some advantages over Hagins, starting with the fact that she was making her movie ten years later, when better equipment had become available.  Also, her father is in the industry, so she had been on film sets since she was 4 years old.  Finally, crowdfunding had become a thing: she was able to raise money on kickstarter (which is how I got my copy of the film), which gave her considerably more resources than Hagins had.

So is the end result a better movie?  Well, technically speaking, definitely.  The lighting is better, the sound is way better and the acting - from the adult cast at least - is of a much higher standard.  Though this is hardly surprising given that Hagins did much of her casting by door knocking in the neighbourhood.

However, to my mind a slasher film lives and dies (so to speak) on its killer and their kills.  And I think here the movie stumbles.  "The Carver" isn't a particularly memorable or interesting figure visually, and the kill scenes - though they employ an enthusiastic amount of fake blood - mostly feel a bit static.  They lack the impact and visceral edge I would have liked to see.  It was probably also a mistake to draw out the 'the killer revealed' scene quite so long: it's a big old block of exposition and flashback.

Carver is clearly the work of a novice film-maker.  I think I could only recommend it to you if you're both (a) a fan of slasher films and (b) curious to see a 13-year old's attempt at the genre.  But I definitely don't regret the money I spent to back the project, and I'll be curious to see more from Ms DiPrimio in the future as she matures as a writer and director.  Her web series Violet already shows some development of her skills.