#1995films

[adamwatchesmovies]

Sense and Sensibility (1995)

Unfamiliar with Jane Austen’s work? Too busy to read the books, but not enough to be content with the Wikipedia synopsis? Perhaps you're thinking of testing the waters with a film adaptation first? If so, 1995's Sense and Sensibility is a great choice. Even if you’re unfamiliar with the work it’s based on, you'll be under its charms in no time.

Sisters Elinor (Emma Thompson) and Marianne (Kate Winslet) Dashwood lose their home and the comforts of wealth when their father passes away. Forced to move out of their house along with their mother (Gemma Jones) and younger sister Margaret (Emilie François), the two women must now look for financial security through marriage. Courtship is challenging for level-headed Elinor and heart-driven Marianne as they struggle to find a man who will support their family and marry them for love.

This is what you want out of a romantic drama. It succeeds in making these people's dating lives a big deal. Life was very different in the 1800s, particularly for women. You couldn’t get a job or run a household by yourself without getting weird looks even if you were wealthy, so what chance do these women have? Through no fault of their own and because of deliberate scheming against them they suddenly need a man who will take care of them. That sucks, particularly if you're smart like they are. Even if Elinor and Marianne find a man that's available, likable, and rich, there are probably a dozen equally desperate women after him too. This isn’t some high school drama nonsense; it’s survival. You don’t want to see anyone get hurt, even the romantic rivals. You couldn’t pull off a story about relationships with this much urgency in modern times.

With that foundation, you're drawn into Sense and Sensibility completely. Not only because of the high stakes; because the romance is nice and juicy. You don’t know who these women will end up with. It’s not just about who is the most handsome, or the kindest. It’s not even necessarily about the money. These people aren’t machines, they want to be happy and that’s difficult in this world they live in. This could've easily made it alienating but you're never lost. Even 200 or so years back, human emotions weren't so different from the way they are now, and the material is made to be very digestible.

All this is made even more accessible by strong performances and great direction by Ang Lee. My favorite scene is one set in a ballroom, a place that naturally lends itself to drama. There are so many opportunities in there to suddenly bump into someone you wanted to avoid and there’s no way you’ll be able to escape their gaze forever. Inevitably, the music will force you to switch partners. Suddenly, you’re inches away from them. Now what?

My exposure to Jane Austen before Sense and Sensibility was limited. Through osmosis, I’d gotten the gist of it: the peril that accompanies sudden impoverishment, the challenges women faced at the time, the evergreen drama of wanting to be with someone but not knowing if you’ll get your happy ending. I’m embarrassed to say the only adaptation of the writer’s work before this was Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, not exactly a great example. But I’m an open-minded person. The movies I enjoy don’t need superheroes, giant monsters, big special effects, or bone-breaking punches to the face. It helps, but when you've got characters like these, performers on this level, writing of this quality, it doesn't matter who you are. You'll love it. (On DVD, March 27, 2016)

[adamwatchesmovies]

While You Were Sleeping (1995)

While You Were Sleeping proves that it’s all about the execution. On paper, this movie sounds like a catastrophe about to happen. Thanks to a terrific performance by Sandra Bullock, big laughs, an understanding of the Christmas season, and a smart script that anticipates its own flaws, it’s a winner. A perfect movie to sit down and watch with your loved one(s) as December 25th draws near.

Lucy Moderatz (Sandra Bullock) is a lonely fare token collector in Chicago with a secret crush on Peter Callaghan (Peter Galagher). When he falls onto the tracks on Christmas Day, she saves him from an oncoming train. Brought to the hospital in a comatose state, a nurse misunderstands the situation and introduces Lucy to Peter’s family as his fiancée. Though she wants to correct the mistake there and then, Lucy finds breaking the truth difficult and before she knows it, the lie’s gone too far for her to back out of it.

You’re asking “Why?" Why would Lucy embark on an elaborate charade that would end as soon as Peter wakes up? When they sat down at their keyboards, writers Daniel G. Sullivan and Frederic Lebow knew this is exactly what we’d think of. This is where the Christmas aspect comes in. Lucy is lonely. She has no family and few friends. When the Callaghans meet her, she suddenly gains something she’s desperately wanted for a long time. Not a man to marry; a mother, a father, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and siblings. She has other reasons not to divulge the truth and at various points in the story, several factors encourage her to keep the charade going but none are as powerful as this desire to be loved, to belong. Sandra Bullock is so charming in this role you completely understand. You just want to open up your front door and bring her in for dinner so of course, the family wants to as well.

Keeping the farce going are some cleverly written bits of dialogue. More than once, Lucy is in a jam but she’ll say something a certain way. When the person she’s speaking to answers, it’s in a way that gives her the grain of information she was missing to fill in a blank. You expect coincidences and contrivances to come to her rescue. Most of the time, comedy saves the day. Someone’s actions will be seen and completely misinterpreted by someone. They’ll confront Lucy but surprise! it isn’t about this wild assumption with no basis in truth. She can easily rectify the situation and get back on their good side without lying. These misunderstandings make for big laughs, the kind that feel extra hearty because they tell you more about the characters and deepen the relationships. The elders’ stupid little conversations about nothing, the family business, the way what could’ve been a tragedy (I guess it still is a tragedy until Peter wakes up) has brought them together has you grinning ear to ear.

Now you're wondering how While You Were Sleeping could be a romantic comedy. The romance comes from an unexpected angle. It’s between Lucy and Peter’s brother Jack (Bill Pullman), who suspects she isn’t telling the whole truth about the situation and starts tailing her. The two have terrific chemistry, which means you believe their romance and you become further invested in the story. You don’t want the lie to come to an end because it risks breaking up this new couple. At the same time, it has to for them to get together. Jack can’t very well start dating his comatose brothers’ fiancée…

Every year, we get a steady stream of Christmas romantic comedies that stink to high heaven. Skip them. Skip them all and watch this movie instead. I did not expect to be won over by While You Were Sleeping but I foresee many more Christmases spent with it in my future. (December 18, 2020)

[adamwatchesmovies]

Free Willy 2: The Adventure Home (1995)

I only saw Free Willy because my big box of random VHS tapes contained Free Willy 2 The Adventure Home. I figured this sequel would suck but decided to give it a chance by viewing the first chapter and then viewing the follow-up the way it was intended. To my surprise, I liked it more than its predecessor.

Set two years after the events of “Free Willy”, Jesse (Jason James Richter) and his adoptive parents (Michael Madsen as Glen Greenwood and Jayne Atkinson as Annie) are preparing to leave on a vacation to see Willy and his whale family. Just in time to turn Jesse’s world upside down comes his half brother Elvis (Francis Capra), coming to live with the Greenwoods due to the sudden passing of their mother.

The relationships are much more interesting in this film than in the last. Jesse is the Greenwood’s son now, so he’s no longer complaining about them wanting to get close. Instead, he's got other issues to deal with. In Free Willy, Jesse was convinced it was only a matter of time before his mom would return for him. Now she’s dead. She never came to see him but clearly, it wasn’t because she didn’t want a family. Now Jesse must deal with this knowledge and his new brother, who isn't thrilled about gaining a sibling when the cost was a parent. Next we have a bit of a romance going on between Jesse and a girl. Mary Kate Schellhardt plays Nadine, Randolph’s niece (Randolph played once again by August Schellenberg). In most children's films, any romantic plot is unnecessary. Here, it works. The actors have chemistry and some good moments together but the film never lets the sparks take over the picture.

All that's nice and all, but you’re wondering where Willy comes in. Thanks to that familiar tune on the harmonica and some nice shots of orcas in the wild, you don’t get the unease of seeing the orca being “freed” while remembering that it's being held captive. You believe the friendship being explored further. Another surprise is Willy’s floppy dorsal fin. Thanks to this obvious physical trait, you’re able to distinguish him instantly among the other whales introduced. I guess I'm applauding the animal casting?

This is not a rehash; it’s a true sequel with tender moments that are well balanced with humor and a dash of wonderment at the beauty of nature for good measure. I would rate it higher if it wasn’t for two flaws. The first is the performances. They're not very good. Jason James Richter has improved a lot, but no one here is particularly great. Even if you forgive the young actors, the deliveries prevent you from being fully immersed in the emotions, and therefore, the story. More serious is the unnecessary villain. There’s probably only about 15 minutes’ worth of the running time dedicated to this sleazy businessman that doesn’t care about anything but money. Take him out and you’ve got a much better film. You wouldn’t even have to change more than a single line or two from the truly exciting sequences of peril right before the final act.

As I popped Free Willy 2: The Adventure Home into my VCR, I thought “There’s no way this movie is going to be good, this is just a cash cow getting ready to be milked dry”. I’m pleased to say I was wrong. I say Free Willy 2: The Adventure Home is better than the first! If you’re nostalgic for the sad orca, I say check out the sequel too. (On VHS, October 27, 2015)

[adamwatchesmovies]

Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh (1995)

If Candyman 2: Farewell to the Flesh were a standalone film, it would only take a few tweaks to make it worth your while. But this isn’t a standalone film, it’s a follow-up to a movie that offered a lot more than your average slasher and as such, it disappoints.

Four years after the events of the previous movie, Professor Philip Purcell (Michael Culkin) is murdered by The Candyman (Tony Todd). Ethan Tarrant (William O’Leary) is the prime suspect but his sister Annie (Kelly Rowan) knows he didn’t do it. She recognizes the pattern and believes the supernatural entity has something to do with her late father’s death, and her childhood home.

So much of what made Candyman effective was the mystery. Helen Lyle stumbled upon an urban legend that turned out to be real. She didn’t know what to believe. Neither did we. Now, we know how to avoid Candyman. The people inside the movie might not but many of them do and when they die, it’s their own stupid fault. It makes for few scares. Plenty of gore, but that’s not the same. In his directorial debut, Bill Condon (who thankfully has gone on to much, much better things) shows no skills as a scaremaker. Farewell to the Flesh (a reference to Carnival, which is taking place at the same time as this story) has the weakest shoulder-grab-jumpscare I’ve ever seen. It’s broad daylight, Annie and her husband Coleman (Michael Bergeron) are exploring her abandoned family home. He’s looking outside when… a hand reaches to grab his shoulder. We MIGHT have thought this indicated upcoming danger if a) it wasn’t clearly a woman’s hand b) it wasn’t a white woman’s hand, and c) if Candyman’s right hand wasn’t replaced with a hook.

This film doesn’t have much to do, so it digs into the past to further rob the titular villain of any intrigue. We learn that Candyman’s real name was Daniel Robitaille (not Granville T. Candyman as Todd originally conceived it), how he got the Candyman nickname, where he was born, why he has an affinity for mirrors, where his body was buried, etc. These are merely a way to get our heroine to the Macguffin she needs to defeat Candyman, which means nothing. We saw him “defeated” before. We know there's going to be a "part 3", and it just doesn’t feel right to reduce our monster to a mere ghost that can be appeased instead of the manifestation of the fears that accompany racism and social class in Chicago. Speaking of which, I’m guessing the location was swapped so it would be more budget-friendly. At least the film makes good use of the Louisiana landscape.

There’s a twist towards the end I won’t reveal but that borders on the offensive. If you’re curious, I’ll cover it in my review of Candyman 3: The Day of the Dead. On the upside, the score by Philip Glass is still effective, memorable, and uniquely moody. Tony Todd still has great screen presence. Some bits are interesting, like when the police capture camera footage of a Candyman attack. Nothing comes of it (one of several times elements are introduced then dropped) so unfortunately, it’s just there enough to disappoint. Ultimately, Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh isn’t bad enough to be entertaining, and isn't good enough to satisfy fans. (August 31, 2021)

[adamwatchesmovies]

Gordy (1995)

Gordy is a movie you'll love to watch ironically. It’s filled with so many clichés and so poorly written it circles around and becomes completely unpredictable. Alternatively, it might be the worst talking animal movie you've seen.

A young piglet named Gordy is separated from his family when they are taken away “up north, from which pigs never return”. Stolen from the back of a truck by a young singer named Jinnie Sue MacAllister (Kristy Young), Gordy becomes the mascot of the Royce Company when he saves the grandson of its namesake. Eventually making his way up to to the spot of company president (!) Gordy still finds his life empty. Is there a way he might be reunited with his family?

This plot is ludicrous even before you mention Gordy's ability to speak (he's voiced by Justin Garms) or the duo of bumbling Wet Bandit-like villains. They're after Gordy so they can murder him and give the company over to an evil outsider who would never be able to have any part in the company’s decision-making otherwise.

It’s like screenplay writer Leslie Stevens asked story writers Jay Sommers and Dick Chevillat which obligatory kid movie clichés they wanted and they said “ALL OF THEM!” We’ve got the children that can talk to animals, the single mom with the jerk boyfriend who should really be with the nice guy, the cartoon villains who are too dumb to live, the lonely millionaire boy who just needs a friend, the little guy who happens to find himself into a position of power and manages to run the company like a pro anyway. Most investors would have sold their stock the second they heard the new hierarchy was Gordy, then little kid, then his mother. It’s a madhouse at the Royce company!

There’s not really anything that's competently done. The acting is universally sloppy. Even Gordy is obviously just a piglet chewing on peanut butter and then dubbed. The movie looks cheap, the plot is all over the place, the comedy is broad and obvious, there are a bunch of country singer cameos that come out of nowhere... and the music isn’t even that good. You just watch it in disbelief, wondering if someone hasn’t tampered with your drink and popcorn. It uses camera techniques I thought I'd never see used in all earnestness, like shooting through a fish-eye lens to make a character look grotesque.

I know this movie is for kids, that they won't question the animals acting the way they do despite understanding the world around them. I still can't recommend it, even if they will probably have a good time watching. If you want a talking animal movie, you could do better. Even if you narrow your scope and only want a talking pig movie made in 1992, you could do better - just watch Babe.

Any adult stuck watching the film should consider its 90-minute running time a complete loss unless they want something bad to ridicule. It’s almost to the point of not even being a movie, just a string of predictable plot points and obvious characters stapled onto the concept that “Piglets are cute! We can sell a movie about a talking pig and they’ll eat it up!” It even features a rap number about Gordy's awesomeness. "Pig power in the house!" indeed. (On VHS, July 17, 2015)

[adamwatchesmovies]

Johnny Mnemonic (1995)

Johnny Mnemonic is a tangled mess. Its incoherent story tries to cram so many futuristic and cyberpunk staples into its universe it forgets to remain accessible and relatable. You'll struggle to remain invested.

In 2021 (at the time 26 years into the future), super corporations own everything and hire the Yakuza to snuff out anyone who opposes them. Mnemonic couriers carry data in their brains, ensuring that no one can get to it unless they have the correct code. When a transaction goes wrong, Johnny (Keanu Reeves) finds himself strained under the weight of a 320-gigabyte file in his head. It will kill him in 24 hours unless he can deliver the data.

I won't criticize the premise. Without it, there’s no movie. It's actually an interesting concept to have files so complicated or so dependant on human interpretation that no computer could accurately transport them. To steal it, you'd have to do much more than cut off a handcuffed to a briefcase, you'd have to decapitate the courier. Much could be done with the story of a man who chooses to erase his own memories as part of an illegal operation. You're expanding on the premise a bit, but there's interest right away.

Everything else is difficult to follow, muddily explained, and/or illogical. We’re told mega-corporations own the world. That’s bad, but we’re never shown WHY. It feels like this detail is included because it's a cyberpunk staple. Repeatedly, we're told things but never shown things. Why does future Wal-Mart and Disney employ the Yakuza? Why is there a subplot in which Dolph Lundgren plays a 'roided looking to collect the bounty put on Johnny? The unnecessary elements to "flesh out" the world are everywhere, like a love interest Jane (Dina Meyer) who, of course, just falls head over heels for Johnny, and him for her even though they don’t have anything in common and barely ever talk. We’ve got rebels, double-crosses, laser whips, assassinations, battles in cyberspace, ghosts in the machine, and a lot more that'll have you scratching your noggin'.

Adding to the frustration are the awful performances. Keanu Reeves should be perfect for this role; struggling to emote due to his memories being stripped away, desperate to become human again... he's not far from Neo or Klatu. Except he's never convincing. You want to start calling for his resignation but then you realize everyone is bland at best. I think director Robert Longo is to blame. For the acting and the jumbled story.

I know most will criticize Johnny Mnemonic for the premise, which realistically, or at least as it’s portrayed here, doesn’t really make sense, certainly not in 2021 or 1995. It wouldn't have mattered if the story was compelling and the characters relatable. Things just happen so the plot can move forward and we can be exposed to one weird thing after another. I tried hard to care about what was going on in “Johnny Mnemonic”. I just couldn’t. It’s got interesting ideas and the dated graphics of people traveling through the internet are amusing, but that's about it. (On VHS, September 16, 2015)

[adamwatchesmovies]

Nine Months (1995)

Nine Months is so bad it'll have you gunning for a vasectomy. It’s a nightmare disguised as a romantic comedy. I wanted to give it the benefit of the doubt, but I had an ominous feeling as soon as I saw Tom Arnold's name in the opening credits. Even that funny thing my knee does couldn't prepare me for what was ahead.

Samuel (Hugh Grant) is happy as can be. He’s living with his beautiful girlfriend Rebecca (Julianne Moore) and he didn’t even have to put a ring on her finger or anything. Life is awesome until she tells him she’s pregnant.

This film is a smoldering crater. It's irritating and predictable. The characters will fill you with such rage that'll make you reach inside your TV, wrap your fingers around their necks and squeeze until they fall dead. It should be enough to say that it’s a comedy without laughs. Unfortunately, I’m not sure you'll be convinced without evidence, so here we go.

The movie begins on the wrong note by introducing us to the main characters in the film and in doing so, convincing us that children are the worst thing ever. Just take a look at the first few minutes of this movie. Sam is living in a nice apartment, he drives a fast car, he’s got a smokin’ hot redhead of a girlfriend and a great career. He's happy at no one's expense. Suddenly, his romantic afternoon with Rebecca is ruined by the Dwyer family: Marty (Arnold) and his wife Gail (Joan Cusack) Dwyer. They're the worst parents in the world, the kind of people that will make you hate children. Their spawn are rude, loud, obnoxious, have no manners or concept of personal space and have a knack for showing up whenever they're not wanted. It goes too far because the parents are even worse.

A significant portion of the film follows Sam as he grows increasingly nervous. Will the couple still have the same life as before? Will they remain interesting people with dreams and ambitions of their own, or will they change into an annoying couple who can only talk about their children? You know the ones; the parents who believe their children can do no wrong; that everyone wants to hear about Timmy’s latest mediocre achievement and that pity anyone without spare sets of kidneys running around the house. Those people are called the Dwyers and you hate them.

What’s even more infuriating is that all these reveals about the nightmare children can be are cheated away. For no reason whatsoever, the people at the beginning of the movie and at the end are completely different. Not because of character development or experience, but because the plot is badly written and demands they change.

My rage only exists because I made it through the whole ordeal. While watching Nine Months I felt powerless and weak. I witnessed Sam acting like a buffoon, coming up with elaborate, idiotic lies for no reason and wondered how he became a child psychiatrist. I saw Tom Arnold walking around, being obnoxious, yelling at people, beating up whomever he pleased for no real reason and I thought to myself “how did the human race make it this far down?" I couldn’t even crack a smile at Robin William’s character, which I thought was needlessly crude and once again, not funny. Even my man Jeff Goldblum couldn’t raise my spirits.

Only once the credits had finished could I express my hatred for this film. It’s not even that it’s that bad, or offensive, it’s that there was no reason for this movie to be made. (On DVD, January 22, 2015)

[adamwatchesmovies]

Rumble in the Bronx (1995)

Rumble in the Bronx overcomes its weaknesses by delivering what you want from a Jackie Chan action film. The acting may be weak, the plot a little jumbled, but you don't mind. Not as long as the leads are charming, the choreography inventive, and the action is exciting.

Mao Hon Keung (Jackie Chan) is traveling to New York to attend his uncle’s wedding. There, Keung gets embroiled in a battle with a biker gang and professional thugs serving the White Tiger (Kris Lord) after a diamond heist goes wrong.

Examining the film's plot does it no favors. You won’t remember what was going on while Chan wasn’t around kicking butt. There’s a bunch of villains, they need to get beaten up. Some of Keung’s newfound friends are endangered, he needs to save the day by knocking them over with various impromptu weapons. That’s it. It’s important to know this in advance. If you don’t, you’ll be frustrated trying to figure out how all of these different characters fit together. Anita Mui as Elaine is fun to watch, but her character is superfluous by the time the end credits roll. It’s like the plot is a mashup between two films, one where Chan’s love interest is the meek businesswoman who can’t believe her eyes when the boy next door is able to do these amazing physical feats, and the other would have focussed on a woman who’s turned to the dark side of the streets (Françoise Yip as Nancy) that slowly realizes the error of her ways and eventually joins with our hero. The bad guys are flat, the plot is disposable. It’s not a good thing, but you can get over it.

The reasons to pay attention despite the flaws are the stunts and the action. It’s Chan at his best among a sea of bad dialogue and lame performances. Every segment where Keung faces off against a meanie is gold. There’s a wide variety of action segments and the comedy is well woven in. It’s a trademark of his so if you’re a fan that’s nothing new, but the guy’s getting older. We’ll never see him in his prime again. A film like this - while not the best in his portfolio - shows why he became a superstar. Even if you’re not already a fan, the footage of stunts gone wrong during the end credits put everything in perspective. You see the effort needed to choreograph and perform these stunts by seeing footage that you might have overlooked if it had been banished to the “special features” menu on your DVD.

It speaks volumes about Jackie Chan that he’s able to take an unmemorable script and inject enough charm, humor, and excitement in it to make Rumble in the Bronx worth seeing. It took me a bit to get used to, but once settled in, I found Rumble in the Bronx entertaining for a myriad of reasons. (On VHS, June 20, 2016)

[adamwatchesmovies]

Jury Duty (1995)

Like a girlfriend who dumps you so she can spend the night with your worst enemy, Jury Duty just keeps getting worse and worse.

Tommy (Pauly Shore) is a jobless, talentless mommy’s boy who spends his days petting his dog and watching television. When his mother and her boyfriend leave town to get married, he is left without a way to feed himself. He decides to answer the letter for jury duty he previously threw away and does everything in his power to stretch out the trial to remain comfortable.

I’ve seen movies bad movies of many varieties: offensive ones, boring ones, movies so incoherent they hardly have a plot. I'd take on any of them instead of an unfunny comedy. It’s bad enough Pauly Shore and most of the other actors are terrible, but the jokes are so awful they could be called cruel and unusual forms of punishment. A prime example being Tommy asking people in the courtroom to repeat the word “penis” over and over so he can laugh silently (and alone). That's bad. The racist stereotypes are worse. Who thought Pauly Shore imitating a Chinese immigrant - out of nowhere - would appeal to audiences? Worst of all, I'd still take those scenes played back on a loop for two hours if it meant burning the sight of Pauly Shore in a thong pretending to be a male stripper again from my memory.

Jury Duty is about an idiot. Tommy isn’t a misunderstood genius, or talented at something most wouldn't appreciate like the guys from Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure. He’s not a good-natured eccentric like the guys from Wayne’s World. He’s prospect-less parasite waste tax payer’s time and money so he can get free stuff. That's what we're celebrating here. The trial's eventual verdict isn't important (I found it extremely predictable but I won’t spoil it for you). The point is he’s making a conscious effort to take people away from their busy lives and makes a farce out of the judicial system. A man's life hangs in the balance. He doesn't care. All he wants is the $5 a day he makes as a juror, the free food, and the hotel room. Can you imagine what it would be like in real life to be kept in suspense for days only to learn all your anxieties are caused by this fool?

On top of everything, Jury Duty is very predictable. It's loathsome, seeding the kind of hatred inside your heart that makes you hysterical. It's so unfunny it nearly becomes funny again. Nearly. I'll admit I came in with a frown on my face. Pauly Shore is a name you naturally associate with bad pictures. Over and over, he's chosen nothing but lousy projects and subjected us to them. Audiences gain nothing. The actors get paid but must feel dirty afterward knowing what they contributed to.

This movie is an abomination. It’s insultingly unfunny. It earns itself a zero-star review easily but I almost wish I had been kind on it at first. You see, the film is a parody of 12 Angry Men, which I saw immediately after this travesty. I wish I could've rewarded the brilliant 1957 thriller even more by giving it the honor of punching Jury Duty down. Unfortunately, you don't need to know what the good alternative is to recognize this as an irredeemable catastrophe. Skip this movie like the plague. (On VHS, June 5, 2015)

[adamwatchesmovies]

Tom and Huck (1995)

Anything good found in Tom and Huck comes from the source material. Mark Twain's writing just barely counterbalances all this film's attempts to bring the classic story to a new generation.

When Tom Sawyer (Jonathan Taylor Thomas) and Huckleberry Finn (Brad Renfro) witness a murder, they keep quiet out of fear for their lives. After the local drunk, Muff Potter (Mike McShane), is wrongfully arrested for the crime, it's up to them to clear his innocence.

It's a testament to Mark Twain's writing, that even though this movie is not great, it's still compelling to watch. Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer's adventures capture a universal aspect of youth. That carefree time when you were free to roam and explore a world full of mystery while the bright sun shined overhead. Though set in 1834, there’s something universal about it. You remember someone on your block who was just like the heroes of our story. If you didn’t, you wish you did. It has iconic scenes you could never forget, like when Tom is forced to paint his aunt’s fence and searches for a way to make it easier on himself. This makes Tom and Huck inherently watchable, even quite interesting. Even if you're familiar with the story, you're eager to see what's next.

This brings us to the end of the praises this film deserves. Beyond this, it's a cheap, badly acted quickie which aims to take advantage of young Jonathan Taylor-Thomas' stardom. Tom and Huck doesn't feel like it was made by someone who truly believed in the story, who was compelled to bring it once again to the public's attention. The book's dated language has made it controversial and this has been compounded by the assumption that it's made for children, which it isn't. But you wouldn't know this from watching the film. It’s a property the studio knew you'd be familiar with and nothing else.

The absolute worst thing about this film is the horrendous acting. I understand child stars are harder to find, and even more difficult when the material they're given isn't contemporary but there HAD to be someone better suited than the performers who were selected. The leads fare a bit better than the rest but that's not saying much. Even actors that only have a few lines will make you wince. don’t do a good job and one of the more prominent side characters, Tom’s cousin Courtland Mead is so awful I had to double-check to see if he wasn't some producer’s kid who got the part as a birthday present. Even the adults are lousy. There are two characters who appear drunk and they gave me flashbacks to my days of high school theatre acting. Either these grown men have never been drunk, seen anyone else drunk, heard of what alcohol does to people, or they were deliberately trying to sabotage this film.

If the performances didn't give it away, you can tell this was a quickly made production to cash in on a couple of hot (but evidently not very talented) young names from the look of the thing. It looks like it was made for TV. It can’t be expensive to put together a small village that requires no plumbing, electricity or indoor washrooms can it? Maybe the budget was all spent hiring a half-dozen vocal coaches to teach the crew what a southern drawl sounds like when they kept getting hurt on-set or something. Pick any episodes of a sitcom where someone gets hit on the head and “travels” inside a book. It'll be more convincing than this.

The criticisms it earns are numerous but I must also confess that the poor acting, sets, and overall production never completely turned me away from the film. Against all odds, the story punches through the obstacle. It will never replace any other adaptation (I hope this is as bad as it gets) but if you just happen to own this on VHS, or it’s playing on TV and your kids want to watch it, you can sit through it and leave mildly amused. (Full-screen version on VHS, May 3, 2015)

[adamwatchesmovies]

Darkman III: Die Darkman Die (1996)

Darkman III: Die Darkman Die is a film with a narrow scope. Only those who've seen the first Darkman would even consider viewing it, and because it’s only available as a three-pack with the second sequel, only viewers who liked the second one, or are die-hard fans will see it. The good news is under those parameters, it's quite good.

Arnold Vosloo returns as Peyton Westlake, a disfigured scientist looking for a way to perfect his liquid-skin formula and repair his face and hands. Stealing money from criminals to fund his research, he grabs the attention of a corrupt businessman named Peter Rooker (Jeff Fahey).

I was surprised by how much I enjoyed Die Darkman Die. It contains everything you wanted in a sequel, unlike the mediocre Return of Durant. There’s a nice variety in the action, including some fun sequences where Darkman is in way over his head and has to think on his feet. Depending on the scene, he must either contest with an intellectual foe, or enemies that match him physically. Also admirable is how well other key elements of the Darkman mythos are handled. There is a lot done with the whole “scientist looking for the cure” thing, and many inventive portions of the plot have Darkman impersonating people in ways that are unique to this franchise. More than ever, Darkman feels unique. He only "happens" to fight crime to fund his research. What criminal would run to the police announcing that a bandaged crimefighter took their ill-gotten funds? It’s the perfect solution!

As for the new villain, he’s deliciously evil. When your series concerns a hero who frequently goes on mad tantrums, you want an opponent who's a right mix of campy and serious. Jeff Fahey does a terrific job playing the role as both bounce-off-the-walls loony, and cold and calculating depending on the tone of the scene. Bringing the movie down to earth is a little bit of romance introduced for our hero too. The whole Beauty and the Beast element of the story is a nice touch.

For all the praise I’m giving, and for every enjoyable moment, I'll remind you that this is still a direct-to-video movie that looks and feels more like several episodes of a TV show stitched together than a blockbuster with superb performances and a dynamite script. Some of the performances are shaky, the production is a bit rough (particularly some big explosive stunts towards the end) and with the way this movie wraps itself up, you can tell they could only do so much with the character. It’s too bad. If it was given just a little bit more money, and the actors were a little bit better, This third chapter would've have been a great film. Right now, it’s more of a bonus for fans of the characters created by Sam Raimi.

There are few things I didn’t like about Darkman III. The twists, new characters, action, and plot may even raise it to the level of the original. If you’re even the tiniest bit interested, go for it. (On DVD, February 15, 2015)

[adamwatchesmovies]

Darkman II: The Return of Durant (1995)

Darkman II: The Return of Durant is a picture that demands special care when reviewing. This is a direct-to-video sequel to the cult classic Darkman. Its target audience is narrow. I say the first film (featuring Liam Neeson, directed by Sam Raimi) is only ok but I can appreciate more of Peyton Westlake/Darkman (this time played by Arnold Vosloo). under those terms, how does it do?

Darkman’s archenemy, Durant (Larry Drake), survived that fatal-looking explosive helicopter crash and has now awakened from a coma. While Darkman continues to search for a way to restore his face using synthetic skin, Durant begins rebuilding his criminal empire.

Darkman II doesn’t really feel like a sequel, more like a weird remake. You go in expecting the rematch of the century, Durant vs. Darkman! Together again for the first time! But the two characters hardly acknowledge each other. It’s not even that Durant thinks about Darkman and decides that he’s going to set aside his plans of revenge so that he can take back the streets for himself; it’s like he doesn’t even remember Darkman. Only during the climax of the film, where a series of coincidental events bring the two men together do we get the rematch that brought us here in the first place. It's disappointing.

I don’t mind Arnold Vosloo, I’ve liked him ever since the Mummy films, but if I were to take a guess at the three things that got people to fall in love with that first story, I’d guess 1) Sam Raimi, 2) Darkman’s look and 3) Liam Neeson! I appreciate, maybe ironically, the footage which retcons some of the original film's events to show Vosloo in the iconic disfiguration scenes that now force Darkman to wear bandages all the time. I was curious about seeing another actor take a swing at this role - Neeson seemed like an odd fit. This change? not an improvement. Overall Vosloo is ok, but like his predecessor, he's not good in the intense moments where Darkman's sanity begins to unravel.

It's not all bad. Durant commissions some superweapons from Dr. Alfred Hathaway (Lawrence Dane), who looks and feels like an evil version of Doc Brown from Back to the Future. That's fun. Some of the female characters are also highlights, as they turn out to be more than would-be damsels in distress or replacement love interests. I don’t have much else to say. The plot is alright. The makeup is pretty good. The violent deaths at the hands of Darkman or the gangsters satisfy. As far as direct-to-video sequels go, it isn’t bad, but I’ve seen better.

Hardcore fans of Darkman will still consider this follow-up more of a curiosity than a great feature to accompany their beloved off-beat superhero flick. The return of Larry Drake is neat but it is ironic. The one actor who returns is the one whose character was clearly bumped off. They don’t really even explain how the guy managed to make it out of that exploding helicopter so I almost want to give extra points to the movie for writing itself into a corner and just giving up and going with the return of Durant anyways. I’m going to give this picture 2,5/5. I don’t really feel like it deserves that much, but no one would ever see Darkman II without seeing the original and having a great time with it. For you, it's worth watching for free at home with the commercial breaks or for a couple of bucks. (On DVD, February 12, 2015)