Killpoint (1984): The Sound of Violence

The review is in conjunction with the 1984-A-Thon, which is being hosted by Forgotten Films. After you check out this review, I encourage you to keep up with the other contributions throughout the Blogathon over at Forgotten Films.

When a vicious weapons dealer named Nighthawk (Stack Pierce) robs a military weapons cache and begins selling off the high-powered arsenal to various gangs, the police are forced to send in their best man to take care of business: Lt. James Long (Leo Fong). Armed with an unwieldy bowl cut and adorable bangs, Lt. Long must do whatever it takes to get these dangerous weapons off the streets, while also putting a stop to Nighthawk and his boss, a crazed mob leader named Joe Marks (Cameron Mitchell). Oh, and if that wasn’t enough,  Lt. Long also must find the people responsible for raping and murdering his wife only a year before.  

Written and directed by Frank Harris, Killpoint (or Kill Point if you’re a conformist) is far from what one would describe as a “good film.” Killpoint is, however, a film that certainly delivers the goods, and it does so in spades, I might add. Right from the word go, Harris kicks the door open and unloads a barrage of action-packed madness that greatly exceeds the average B-Action picture of the time period, or any period for that matter.

Shortly after Nighthawk (by the way, NIGHTHAWK!) robs the armory, there’s a brilliant scene in which he is instructing a group of armed thugs to go into a restaurant and kill a specific person. However, he also informs the men that they mustn't leave any witnesses, which would seem innocuous in terms of an action film except for the fact that during this set up Harris cuts to various shots from inside the restaurant, where there are numerous innocent people eating. As a result, Harris subjects his audience to an amazing scene where no one person or one thing is safe from the thugs high-powered attack, and this includes, but is not limited to women, children, vases, liquor bottles, wall art, and plants. Nighthawk and his men shoot everything and anything, no questions asked.

“Take THAT, tequila bottle!”

As wildly satisfying as this moment may be, it’s only 5 minutes later when a nearly identical scene occurs, but this time taking place in a grocery store! And please keep in mind that this all happens within the first 15 minutes of the film. We're talking about an incredible amount of people and even more inanimate objects being shot the hell up, and every last minute is an absolute joy to witness.

While there are plenty of bloody and violent action scenes to be had throughout the entire 80 minute runtime, Killpoint has far more to offer than the giggle worthy action it delivers. Throughout Killpoint, one will find Mexican gangbangers, Richard Roundtree, a karate tournament – which may feature the best martial arts in the film, if that should tell you anything – a cheap hillbilly strip club (complete with pool tables and wood paneling), body builders, and Cameron Mitchell.

Oh, and that Cameron Mitchell...

Camera Mitchell is, as one would expect, as bananas as ever. Playing the kind of ridiculous, over-the-top character that only Cameron Mitchell can play, Joe Marks is a mix of flamboyant psychosis rarely witnessed on screen. Often adorned with a scarf tied around his neck and rocking a pair of oversized sunglasses, Marks loves nothing more than flying off the handle without any warning whatsoever. At one point, and during his introduction no less, Marks is watching a news report about the armory heist, when he suddenly pulls out a massive gun and shoots the TV. After that, he simply laughs and starts talking to the little dog sitting on his lap. Oh, did I mention he carries around a little dog? Well, he does, and not only does he have a little dog, he also loves wearing daisies in his hair while getting drunk in a Jacuzzi with said dog. Like I said, bananas.

Cameron Mitchell is far from the only person deserving of a few laughs, as Lt. James Long (Leo Fong) also brings a lot of awful to the table. One of my favorite moments comes during a scene in which Long – who is clearly harboring a lot of issues due to the fact that his wife was raped and murdered – partakes in an epic training montage where he is visibly driven by silent rage. Within this montage, the viewer is privy to a barrage of imagery featuring Lt. Long doing all sorts of weight training, target practice and sparring (which leads to a small cameo by Bill “Superfoot” Wallace) mixed with close-up shots of Lt. Long staring intently into the camera. And when I say close-up shots of Lt. Long staring intently into the camera, I mean the camera is literally right on his face, where all that is seen is his nose and his eyes (which are frighteningly close together) and those adorable bangs.

Despite being narratively inept and poorly made, Killpoint makes it a point to entertain despite its obvious blemishes. In fact, those blemishes only add to the overall value that the film contains as a piece of cinematic history, and while Killpoint will never be remembered as a classic per say, it will be remembered for being one hell of a fun watch. That is, by the five people who’ve actually seen it.

College (1927): About A Girl

The review is in conjunction with The Big League Blogathon: A Celebration of Baseball in Film, which is being hosted by Forgotten Films. After you check out this review, I encourage you to keep up with the other contributions throughout the blogathon over at Forgotten Films.

It’s no secret that Buster Keaton was an avid baseball fan, so much so that Keaton was known to take a ‘baseball break’ at a moments notice if there was a stall in a film’s production. Considering his love of baseball as well as his physical abilities as an entertainer, it’s surprising that Keaton never made a film strictly about the sport he loved so dearly – though baseball has shown up in a small handful of his movies.

In 1928’s The Cameraman, there’s a scene where Keaton pantomimes a handful of signature baseball movements in Yankees Stadium. Much later in his career, 1935 to be exact, Keaton made a 19 minute short film titled One Run Elmer, where he plays a gas station owner who tries to win over a girl by beating his rival in a game of baseball. The only other Buster Keaton film that features baseball in some capacity came a year before The Cameraman, 1927’s College.

Directed by James W. Horne and Buster Keaton, College is about a young man named Ronald (Keaton), who during his high school graduation is recognized as being the “most brilliant scholar” in his graduating class. While accepting his award, Ronald gives a speech titled “The Curse of the Athlete,” which chastises athletics for being drastically inferior to a good education. The speech is as humorous as it is purposefully ignorant, with Ronald asking uninformed questions such as “What have Ty Ruth and Babe Dempsey done for science?!,” all the while his suit is noticeably shrinking after earlier being caught in a rainstorm and then spending time next to a heater.

Ronald’s speech is clearly the catalyst for the film’s plot, in that he seems to be using it as a platform to belittle athletes while making himself look better in front of the girl he likes, Mary (Anne Cornwall). However, Ronald’s plan backfires, as his speech comes off as arrogant and misinformed, something of which causes Mary to declare that she would rather spend her time with an athlete over a “weak-knee’d, teachers’ pet.” Ouch.

Devastated by her reaction, Ronald only sees one way of winning back Mary’s heart, and that’s by following her to college and trying out for some of the school’s sports teams. Specifically, the track and field team and, of course, the baseball team. Unsurprisingly, however, Ronald is not all too successful in his endeavors, leading to a number of scenes that unfortunately do not quite live up to Keaton’s better work. Regardless, it’s still enjoyable watching Ronald position himself to play third base while wearing full catcher’s gear or seeing him throw a javelin with all of his might, only for it to travel no more than 5 feet.

Some of the stronger comedic moments come from Ronald working as a soda jerk, wherein he attempts to display some fancy bartending flair with disastrously messy results. One of the most impressive stunts in College comes later on when Ronald, who is now working as a waiter, does a backwards somersault while holding a cup of coffee upright the entire way. Unfortunately, as impressive as this moment is, it comes at the expense of some unfavorable blackface, which Ronald uses to hide his identity from Mary who is dining at the same restaurant.

While I don’t find College to be up to par with Keaton’s best movies, it’s still a fairly delightful watch. Furthermore, it’s always enjoyable watching Buster Keaton work. Keaton’s cat-like curiosity and deadpan demeanor is a huge part of what makes him such a incredible screen presence, and it’s all on full-display here in College. Additionally, I get a real kick out of Keaton playing a nerdy character without any athletic ability when, in all actuality, he’s about as athletic a man as it gets.

College is certainly questionable as an entry into baseball film history; however, Buster Keaton’s love for the sport makes covering such a film for such a blogathon seem completely reasonable. You can check out the film, which runs just a hair over an hour, via the YouTube video below, and again, I encourage you to check out the other entries in The Big Leagues Blogathon.

Guest Post: Why (Action) Matters

The ever incredible T.L. Bugg of The Lightning Bug’s Lair celebrated his FIVE YEAR (!) blog anniversary in August, and to help him celebrate such an incredible feat, he asked a bunch of awesome peeps (and myself) to take a defensive stance on specific genres of cinema. In what the Bugg has dubbed Why (Genre) Matters, myself and a bunch of passionate writers tackled topics and genres spanning everything from Trash Cinema and Westerns to Hitchcock and Horror Fandom. As for my topic, I got the opportunity to express why Action matters.

Now, while this seems like an easy A for someone who absolutely adores the action genre in ways that few can comprehend, this was sort of a difficult task for me at first. However, I found an angle that I think defends the genre in a way that expresses its depth as well as its importance in cinema. Though it very well could be a bunch of nonsense, but I’ll let you decide that for yourself.

Click here to read my post on Why (Action) Matters!

Also, be sure you take the time to check out all of the Why (Genre) Matters’ posts. There are some seriously wonderful people/writers involved, so I highly encourage you to dig into one of the coolest events the blogosphere has ever seen!

Click here to read all the posts on Why (Genre) Matters!

Before I sign off, I do want to take a moment to thank T.L. Bugg for asking me to take part in such a major event. Over the years I’ve been lucky enough to hang out with Bugg on a number of occasions, and he’s become someone who I consider a true friend. With that said, I want to wish him a happy five year anniversary, and I look forward to what the next five years bring us!

In Defense of Hostel: Part II (2007)

I think it's fair to say that Eli Roth is easily one of the most divisive names among horror fans. Whether it be his films, his “Teddy fucking ballpark” acting, or even the man himself, Roth has found a way to leave an impression on horror fans that ranges from unmitigated adoration to complete repulsion. While his filmography is still in an infantile state with the amount of directorial output he has produced, Roth has made quite the impact on the genre since his 2002 debut, Cabin Fever.

Regardless of the fact that both Cabin Fever and his sophomore effort, 2005's Hostel, have split a small rift in how they are received by horror fans, Cabin Fever has a decent cult following while Hostel is the template of -- and will likely be looked back upon as a major piece of -- the genre that would come to be branded "Torture Porn." To label either Hostel or Cabin Fever as being unfairly underappreciated would be a tad unfitting, as each film has garnered a decent amount of fandom in some fashion. Nevertheless, Eli Roth has directed one other notable horror movie, and it's actually one that I truly enjoy; however, it's also a film that seems to chap the average horror fan's ass in the harshest of way, and that would be his follow up to Hostel: 2007's Hostel: Part II.

Now, I should be clear that when I say that "I truly enjoy" Hostel: Part II, I may be underplaying it a bit because, quite frankly, I very much LOVE Hostel: Part II. In fact, I find it to be one of the rare sequels that surpasses its predecessor in almost every way. Now, there's no denying the fact that Hostel: Part II is, at its core, the same story as what was found in the original. It's certainly a valid observation, but not so much a valid complaint when it's something we've seen more than once before, most notably with The Evil Dead and The Evil Dead 2: Dead By Dawn, for example.

Swapping out the boys for a group of young women, Hostel: Part II does somewhat follow the same premise as Hostel, but what the sequel does differently is expand upon what was done in the first movie. Most notably, it gives the audience an inside look into how Elite Hunting functions as an entity, even giving a second story arc to two men who are to poised to partake in the murders of two of the film's main protagonists. Giving a background or a backstory to characters, or what have you, in a horror sequel or a reboot often proves to be tedious and unnecessary. In the case of Hostel: Part II, it works as a fairly brilliant way to break up the monotony of that familiar plot line the girls follow, while also, and more importantly, serving an actual purpose to the story. Giving a face (and the time to go with it) to the protagonists doesn't take away from the value of the female characters, as they are clearly the focus of Hostel: Part II. Sharing the spotlight with "the killers" doesn't pull away from the focal point of this sequel; it simply works as a parallel to it. It's very much like watching a game of cat and mouse but from both points of view.

One of the things that works best in Hostel: Part II is the always lingering and uncertain threat that seems to follow the female protagonists, no matter where they are or who they're with. It's never clear exactly who can be trusted, and the fact that they're in a foreign land only compounds the danger of it all. And for me, Roth really comes through with bringing these moments to life in ways that are quite tense, keeping Hostel: Part II's horror qualities from being solely focused on the torturous aspects, which is something that was an issue (for some) with the first film.

One of the strongest moments in particular is when the film's main focus, Beth, awakens from a short nap at a geothermal spa only to find that everyone has disappeared, her belongings included. The frigid, steam-filled setting is absolutely striking and grandiose in a way where the surroundings begin to dwarf Beth, making her sudden seclusion all the more imposing. However, that seclusion is eradicated when Beth is approached by a group of men who clearly mean her harm. Suddenly, and without warning, the massive and comforting environment begins to squeeze in on her, leaving Beth with no choice but to try to escape the cage that is fastly forming around her. It's a fantastic moment, and one that shows Roth's maturity as a director.         

Something else that stands out greatly for me with Hostel: Part II are the female characters, specifically Beth, who is played fantastically by Lauren German. I think most people chalk the women of Hostel: Part II up to being no more than boobied versions of the guys from the first film. This is something I cannot completely disagree with, specifically when it comes to Bijou Phillips' character Whitney, but Beth steps out from the pack for being what I consider a fantastic example of a truly strong female character.

In many ways, Beth could be considered a final girl, except for the typical Slasher final girl is somewhat shy and non confrontational, that is, until it's their time to shine comes in the final act. Beth, on the other hand, is shown to be a headstrong and self assured woman a number of times throughout the film, and where her character ends up in the finale is mirrored by her actions throughout the movie. I think this becomes apparent during an early altercation where a scummy European guy calls Beth a "cunt." Instead of cowering away from the confrontation, she launches right back at him, flat out telling the guy to "fuck off." Beth doesn’t show even the slightest sign of being intimidated, and this plays out greatly in the final moments of the film where she takes complete control of the situation she is in, therefore allowing herself a chance to escape. And when Beth is once again referred to as a cunt, well, the results are about as bloody satisfying as it gets.  

I won't sit here and claim that Hostel: Part II is without its flaws, but all around it's a very well crafted film, and one that I consider to be quite an enjoyable watch. With the specific sub-genre that it falls into, I can accept the fact that this isn't the type of film that everyone will enjoy, but personal taste, as well as negative feelings about the director as a person, shouldn't dictate whether or not a movie is good (well, most of the time). It's not a perfect film, but it works perfectly for me, which, in the end, is all that matters. 

This look at Hostel: Part II is my contribution to Full Moon Reviews "Sequel September." Make sure you stop by Full Moon reviews for all the other sequel goodies that Fred the Wolf and others have cooked up for the month!