This Week in Cinema, I Learned…May 12-18 2024
Written by Cameron Geiser
Welcome to This Week in Cinema, a yearlong film criticism project wherein I will be watching a new film that I haven't seen every single day.
Whew. Okay. Well, this week in cinema I learned that not every week is going to be full of winners. None of these movies are outright bad, and I wasn't upset about my time spent with any of them, but none of them were impressive to be honest with you. There are certainly worse movies out there, but a few of these films were a bit disappointing. They consist of three comedies from the 1980s, one new release from 2024, and several Shaw Brothers Kung Fu films that had a bit of a time transitioning between the 1970s and 1980s. The middling era of Shaw Brothers output is a strange period of time that I did not expect. Some of their earlier films are the peak of Kung Fu but it seems a lack of vision, funding, or just mistakes made in earnest resulted in a period of films that didn't quite know what to do.
Though there is an upcoming period in the mid 1980s where my favorite films from this studio appear (one of which is mentioned below that I encourage you to seek out). However that is not this week, and I believe the main takeaway this time around is simply that not every movie is going to work, immerse you in pure escapism, or overpower you with emotion. That's alright, sometimes a completely fine movie like Brewster's Millions can be all you need. Expectations can be a powerful thing. Also, since this article is just a bit behind the current films I am watching in real time, you can blame George Miller for my raised expectations, because Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga is my new favorite 2024 release- it's insane how good that film is. Go see it.
May 12th
The Fall Guy (2024)
3/5
Director David Leitch's latest film, The Fall Guy, is a celebration of the stuntmen, or stunt people, that commit their bodies to the bit for our entertainment. Too bad it's a bit sloppy and somewhat cringe at times, but it definitely didn't deserve to bomb at the box office like it did. Ryan Gosling and Emily Blunt star as a working stuntman and production assistant turned director that had a short fling before Gosling's Colt Seavers broke his back while performing a stunt. When Colt is brought back to the film world on Jody's (Emily Blunt) first production as a director, it wasn't just to fill a spot performing stunts. No, Colt was brought back to track down the missing Hollywood star that Colt used to stunt double for, Tom Ryder (Aaron Taylor-Johnson). The action set-pieces in the film are well crafted and the charisma between Blunt and Gosling are pretty entertaining, but the story is uneven, muddled, and a bit overlong. The love for stunt performers is admirable and the tone of the movie floats the plot along in an easily digestible form, but I left the theater feeling that the script might have been pulled out of the oven a bit too soon. A little more time to cook that screenplay probably would have amended some of the rougher edges in the plotting.
May 13
Strange Brew (1983)
2.5/5
Possibly the weirdest loose take on Hamlet yet, Strange Brew stars Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas as the Mackensie Brothers who discover an evil plot surrounding their favorite brand of beer. Sometimes you just need a competent low brow comedy to pick you up, and while I do enjoy that style on occasion, this one didn't really work for me. The highlight was Max von Sydow as the villainous Brewmeister Smith, which he played fairly straight. Juxtaposing this performance against the bumbling antics of Moranis and Thomas was the right move. It's within the same comedy tone as Wayne's World and Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, but those films are stronger both narratively and charismatically. The “mind control through beer” idea is somewhat fun as a concept, but the execution of the ideas in play never amount to anything all that interesting or truly funny in my opinion. If you keep your expectations low, you might find a good time here.
May 14th
Return to the 36th Chamber (1980)
2.5/5
Okay, so not knowing that Return to the 36th Chamber was essentially a remake of the first movie going in made this one a very confusing watch. Especially because Gordon Liu, who starred as the lead character, San Te, in the first film now stars as an altogether different character and a different actor is starring as San Te. The film is a remake of the first, but as a comedy. There are some …. I would say potentially offensive parts depicting a couple characters, the best way I can describe it is if you have seen It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, the character of Dee Reynolds has created multiple racist stereotypes as 'Characters' and it was pretty much just that at times. This one wasn't really for me but it wasn't the worst Shaw Brothers film I've seen.
May 15th
Disciples of the 36th Chamber (1985)
2.5/5
This one was entirely forgettable to be honest with you. More of a direct sequel to the first film rather than another reimagining, but while still retaining some of the goofy comedy from ‘Return’, Disciples of the 36th Chamber is a straightforward tale of the master ‘passing the torch’ to a younger and troubled student of Kung Fu. Gordon Liu is back in form as Monk San Te, but the film doesn’t do a lot style-wise to make this edition in the series stand out. It’s about a prideful young man learning humility. Yawn, okay, but like- is it compelling? I found this Kung Fu film to be sub standard and surprisingly tame especially compared to some of the wilder entities in the Shaw Brothers filmography. Like The Boxer’s Omen for example. Since I had already seen that film before 2024 it’s not included here, but I highly recommend it. Voodoo, black magic, with a pacing and speed that never relents- go watch that movie instead of this one. It is imagery overload and incredibly overwhelming as it revels in utter chaos. I would have given it four Stars.
May 16th
Who's Harry Crumb? (1989)
3/5
Some films live or die by the performance of their actors, and Who's Harry Crumb? is definitely one such film. Luckily in this case the film works because of John Candy in the lead role, even though everything else about the movie is subpar at best. Descended from a long line of brilliant sleuths, Harry Crumb is a modern continuation of Sherlock Holmes- I get the joke. The idea that everything gets worse over time, genius watered down to idiocy can be fun, especially when you have a gifted comedic actor who's willing and able to add physicality to the performance like John Candy has done here. Essentially Crumb gets hired to a case because the villains, rightly, assume that since he's an idiot they will get away with their evil plans. Overall they give up the mystery way too early exposing just how painfully stupid our hero is, but I think they could have designed that part of the process in a smoother fashion, but were not here for a good mystery, we're here to see John Candy be a goofy detective and blunder his way into success. Which he does in entertaining fashion. There were more than a few scenes where I had a flash of familiarity and then it hit me. I think this John Candy role helped inspire Seth MacFarlane when he was creating the character of Peter Griffin in Family Guy. I'm not entirely sure, but it certainly feels like there's some connective tissue between the two.
May 17th
Brewster’s Millions (1989)
3.5/5
Richard Pyror stars as Montgomery Brewster, a pitcher in minor league baseball who discovers that his great-uncle has died and left him a hefty inheritance. However, the old crank left a complicated set of rules to actually acquire the $300 million dollars. He must spend $30 million dollars in 30 days without donating to charity or retaining any assets once the time is up. He also must not disclose the will's conditions with anyone, not his best friend and fellow minor leaguer played by John Candy, nor the beautiful accountant assigned to keep track of every dollar, nickel and penny spent during the challenge. Now, as a concept I adored this comedy. The execution of the story is handled well by a steady hand in Walter Hill making it both stand out as a competent comedy with excellent performers, but also blending in with many of the same tonal comedic efforts of the 1980s such as Trading Places, Ghostbusters, Beverly Hills Cop, or even Caddyshack. The pacing and direction of this one is incredibly seamless and smooth, but not all of the jokes and gags have aged quite as well. Overall, this one was a perfectly entertaining sports comedy, a great way to pass a couple hours.
May 18th
Invincible Shaolin (1978)
3/5
One of the most difficult parts about writing critical analysis of movies is that the great movies and the bad movies are both infinitely more fun and easier to write about than the middling ones. Invincible Shaolin is one of those middling efforts. It's not a bad movie, nor is it all that great, which is what makes it so bland to write about. This is your typical revenge style movie with all the trappings of your standard old school Shaw Brothers Kung Fu flicks. Essentially the plot boils down to the villains attempting to divide the two Shaolin schools of Kung Fu, North and South, so they can't be a combined threat to the government. Thus we get two main characters' worth of the typical training montages and evolution to master skill level to take on the villains in the end. There's a little bit of style and flare in the edit at times, but overall this is just your standard Kung Fu revenge flick.
Cameron Geiser is an avid consumer of films and books about filmmakers. He'll watch any film at least once, and can usually be spotted at the annual Traverse City Film Festival in Northern Michigan. He also writes about film over at www.spacecortezwrites.com.