Electric Boogaloo: The Wild, Untold Story of Cannon Films

"It was almost like a bowel movement. You make a movie, flush it and move onto another one."

Electric Boogaloo may be better known as the title to the 1984 Cannon Studios sequel to Breakdance, subtitled Electric Boogaloo. The film was released just six months after the first instalments and was one of the poorest received films of the year, and ever fact, so much so that the term Electric Boogaloo is also now used to refer to any unessecary sequel and denote the idea of one that does not yet exist, for example Shawshank Redemption 2: Electric Boogaloo, or Apocalypse Now 2: Electric Boogaloo. See the idea?

This documentary chronicles the rise and fall of Cannon Studios, from two movie crazed immigrants founding the studio to its eventual fall into bankruptcy. As well as launching the careers of several Hollywood heavyweights such as Chuck Norris and Jean-Claude Van-Damme they turned an apostate outfit into a true powerhouse.

Mark Hartley has made more than one cult documentary (Not Quite Hollywood and Machete Maidens Unleashed) so therefore he should have a good knowledge and perhaps love for the films that Cannon produced. But if you are expecting a love letter to the studio and its work you may be disappointed. However, as I am not a massive fan of their work (it’s fine but undoubtedly dated and cheap, not that there was no effort in it) so as someone who was actually worrying that this documentary would fail to be critical of the several mistakes they had made along the way, shown by the fact that they are now a defunct company.

But at the same time it doesn’t ponder too deeply on these dark and turbulent times. There’s no denying that many people were hurt and hindered when the company was brought down by the fact that it was deemed to be no longer financially reliable, but instead there is a distinct love for the genre and it does show.

Like most of the films produced by Cannon there’s a feverish editing technique to it, ensuring a fast paced documentary that also manages to be informative as well as flat out entertaining. It may be because thirty years on from many of the cannon films’ original release, they have become the most hilarious unintentional comedies in recent memory. Some of the clips shown actually look worse out of context and in this format.

The kinetic nature of the information may be overwhelming, especially if you have no knowledge of cannon films to begin with. To be fair though this does mirror the work of the production company itself, even when they were in financial ruin and the business founders had split up and were competing directly against each other. I don’t mean that in the way that studios compete today, they would specifically release their films on the exact same day and ensure that they were compatible so to steal the exact target audience of the other by making a similar film of the same genre. Petty, maybe, financially disastrous, most definitely as not only would these competing films be released on the same day, they would flop on the same day as well.

The bizarre nature of 1980s filmmaking is also captured brilliantly. There’s no coating the fact that it was solely about money (a Cannon fan may argue otherwise, but facts raised by the documentary point to a different answer) and the word artistic integrity was cast out of the window by a rocket launcher wielded by Chuck Norris while filming Delta Force in 1986. But does it trigger nostalgia, go yes. Even as someone who only saw scraps of most of these films it triggered a wave of past influences and bad one liners.

Immensely enjoyable and unusually aware of its subject matter in perhaps one of the most perfect insights a documentary can manage.

Result: 8/10

San Andreas

"I cannot emphasize this enough, you need to get out, and I mean now."

When you look at most disaster movies, they’re usually typical popcorn flicks. Big on spectacle and loose on character and plot. Even the best ones of recent years such as Twister (that’s recent-ish right) aren’t that great, and the older classics such as Poseidon Adventure and Towering Inferno have to be viewed with a good amount of leniency for the time at which they were made. So has this latest offering from Dwayne Johnson managed to defy expectations?

When a colossal earthquake rocks the west coast a Fire Department Helicopter pilot (Johnson) travels there to make sure his estranged family is safe. However, scientist Paul Giamatti predicts that the worst is far from over.

Director Brad… not that one… Payton has definitely harkened back to the days of B-Movie disaster flicks as inspiration for this one. Though the effects and scale of the destruction is astonishing to behold the character and plot are shaken away to make room for more magnificent, monster sized mayhem. Once upon a time Roland Emmerich was the master of this, but after 2012 many seem to think even he’s gone into self-parody and butchered the genre. All I can say is that if you live in San Francisco is must be tiresome to have tourists visit your city and expect to see it in ruins off the basis of these movies.

There’s a definite sense of fun though, as if the film knows it’s not reinventing the wheel or trying to break new ground, ironically. In many ways this is the film’s saving grace, if it had tried to be more serious than it is it would be doomed to the graveyard of blockbusters that are not good but rake in money, that plot of land is owned by Michael Bay.

Dwayne Johnson is another saving grace for San Andreas. His charisma and physical strength allows him to not only add a majority of the entertainment and full commitment to the situation that makes sure San Andreas avoids falling into the chasm of self-parody. There’s a perfect level of fortitude and strength to carry the role and just enough emotional weight to be mildly concerned when he is in danger, at least it stops you going to the bathroom halfway through. Given that most of the advertising focussed on making sure Johnson’s name was clearly visible, they certainly seemed to know that he was the best part of the movie.

While the Rock has good chemistry with his wife Carlo Gugino, who is also fine due to her experience with genre films, his daughter Alexandra Daddario seems to only be there to scream and run away, while fulfilling a very poorly written character arc that fails to evoke any kind of emotional attachment. Giamatti meanwhile has just a bit more to do, but not by a lot. Most of the time he appears to be around to provide exposition and never really becomes associated with Johnson and his dilemmas, meaning that you’re left wondering why he was really necessary. Giamatti does a fine job with what he’s given, but there’s not much to do.

Be honest though, were you really expecting a large amount of plot and characters. Were you expecting a concentration on emotion and left with a conclusion filled with humanity and a minimal use of CGI, NO! Anyone who goes to watch San Andreas will get exactly what they were expecting. The Rock saves people, destruction, earthquakes, science stuff you don’t really understand and probably never happens in real life, generic characters. Did I miss anything, no, because that’s what you get and in that respect San Andreas could be one of the best disaster films in recent years?

  While the effects offer some moments of awe some are also obviously staged and as a result San Andreas suffers from a few bad attempts to concentrate on development after destruction and is decelerated slightly.

Result: 4/10

Best and Worst of May 2015

So, we're well and truly into summer now. In a brief gap between the heaviest hitters of Avengers and Jurassic World there are more of what you would refer to as the lighter and perhaps riskier films of the summer. There are certainly some odd films and ones that I can definitely see on my final list of the year. though at the same time it has been a bit of a mixed bag and at the same time I can also see a few films that we probably be on the list for worst of the year. But putting that aside, here are the three best.
3: Tomorrowland
Despite some issues with its final act and the sudden incapability to retain a subtle message rather than ones that hit you over the head Brad Bird's vision of the future is one of the most unique and pleasingly optimistic to come out of cinema in recent memory. More importantly, don't forget just how good it feels to have another original idea and one that stands completely on its own merit. Excellently acted and with stunning visuals, the charm and hope of Tomorrowland is stunning.
2: Danny Collins
I wouldn't say it was a comeback for Al Pacino because he's always been good and he has been better, but this is a reminder of why he's great. Certainly the most entertaining film of the month thanks to a superb script and wonderful supporting cast, as well as a sondtrack that evokes some of the deepest emotions of any music fan (because if you're a fan of music you're a fan of John Lennon). It never looses its dramatic undertones but juggles it with the comedy excellently.
1: Mad Max: Fury Road
What could I say about this film that I haven't already said, or written even? George Miller's triumphant return to the madness is assisted by Tom Hardy and Charlize Theron ready to take his concept and run, or rather, drive with it at breakneck speed towards a desert full of excitement, spectacle, drama (yes really) that sets the benchmark for all modern action films and may in the future be looked upon as a milestone for the entire genre. Am I exaggerating, I don't care. Do yourself a favor and go and see it, or don't, I'm not the boss of you.
And now the worst...
Big Game
If there is an appeal to be found in Big Game, I certainly didn't spot it. Too serious to appeal to the child-friendly dynamic and too childish to generate a positive response from the hardcore action fans. If it does anything right I suspect it's not on purpose, now I can't go on, I'm off to re-watch Fury Road to try and forget that horrible experience.  

Danny Collins

"Dear Danny Collins, stay true to yourself, stay true to your music. My phone number is below, we can discuss this."

Sometimes you think an actor has given everything that they can, their career best performances are behind them and they out to take the Connery or Nicholson route (not that either of those two were necessarily incapable of bringing another great performances). But hang on a moment, before you can even say Lifetime Achievement award here comes an event like Danny Collins for an actor like Mr Al Pacino.

A cheesy and aged rock musician (Pacino) suddenly receives a letter from none other than John Lennon that was written 43 years ago and has an epiphany. He calls off his tour, quits his lavish lifestyle in an effort to rediscover his musical heart and bind with a son he’s never met.

As I was saying, now Pacino comes back singing. Yes you heard correctly, or rather, read correctly. We all know he can shout, in fact it’s what he’s associated with as an acting technique now (‘Attaca’ and ‘Say hello to my little friend’). But for this performance he’s reminded us all just how talented he was and still is by toning the charisma and power to come out with some genuinely empathetic moments of purity. If anything Pacino almost replicates Danny Collins’ journey as, though he is incredibly famous and respected but it may be safe to question his true talent today. But by doing this film he certainly reminds us of his entertainment and dramatic flair.

The cast Al has to help him out is also exceptional, and they all deliver what’s expected and then some. Annette Bening, Jenifer Garner and Christopher Plummer are all hitting their marks, from Plummer as the long-time manager and best friend who traverses the turbulence of his client with dry wit and one liners, to the manager of Danny’s unassertive hotel retreat who exudes kindness and humour. Their chemistry and interaction harkens back to the best comedies of yesterday.

There’s a wonderful determination behind the film as well, as if it wants to succeed, it wants to be good, it wants you to love it, just like its titular character. There’s an urge to regain anything that might have been lost in previous outings and it’s helped by the fact that it is genuinely funny and heartfelt. Perhaps it resorts to sentimentality once or twice but you know what, to hell with picking on things for being sentimental (at east in this case) because the film is inherently sentimental and relishes in it as well as the fact that it really does evoke some deep emotions for anyone who has a strong and genuine connection with music and artistic integrity.

The sharp and slick script by Dan Fogleman (also director) has allowed this talented cast to sink their teeth into it and make sure that they can have fun with it as well. There’s freedom to move that supplies a playful and light hearted nature, but not so much that it feels chaotic. But perhaps the biggest asset is teaming Pacino with his estranged son played by Bobby Cannavale as the true drama lies here. His resentful nature and Pacino’s need to be forgiven play host to a range of tones from calamity, entertainment and sensitivity.

It may be predictable for the most part, but definitely not the ending. I can’t say anymore but hold onto your emotions as they will be shaken up one more time, right up until a final shot that may require a shoulder to lean on.

And then there’s the soundtrack, wow. A wonderful compilation of John Lennon is used to pull on your heartstrings even when there’s not as much for the film itself to do on its own.

Humorous, heartfelt, a reminder of why we love Al Pacino and why we love John Lennon.

Result: 8/10

Tomorrowland

"You wanted to see Tomorrowland? Here it comes."

It’s hard to remember the last time I walked into a film as high profile as Tomorrowland but knowing so little about the plot, premise or characters. This is the first blockbuster for a while that is not a reboot, part of a franchise, or based on something else. Though it borrows elements of the Disneyland attraction it is only based on it as much as Pirates of the Caribbean was based on the ride. So does this represent a bold stand against the Hollywood trend of today and can it inspire others to make more original things, and more importantly, silence all of the people who keep annoyingly pointing out that noting is original anymore and moan at everything.

After discovering a mysterious pin that transports her to an alternate, futuristic, dimension, young Casey (Brit Robertson) seeks out grizzled Frank Walker (George Clooney), the man who may be able to provide her with the answers and explanation to what it all means.

To be fair, that summary is just the first twenty minutes. As I said, this is an original and unknown plot, so I want to keep it that way and make sure that you can experience this first-hand. Brad Bird has famously not yet made a bad film, The Iron Giant (though not commercially successful) was insightful and thoughtful, The Incredibles and Ratatouille were inspired and Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol was the best of that franchise and perhaps a modern action classic.

So, Tomorrowland. There’s no denying that Brad Bird is still a fantastic director, his vision and masterwork behind the camera is truly spectacular. The impressive mix of set-pieces and CGI make for one of the most spectacular cinematic worlds of recent memory. Tomorrowland’s environment is one that you want to explore and discover as the film progresses and therefore you are plugged into the action and science fiction elements that are dealt with and the way Bird builds suspense and excitement makes it feel like a ride of its own.

The philosophy behind Tomorrowland is also an interesting one, with a perspective that allows you to reflect upon the changing ideologies of modern times. Certainly Bird seems to have taken less of an inspiration from Disneyland and more its namesake. Walt Disney was a man that looked forward to the future, Bird was of a generation that still did. People like Bird and Disney would ask why then, have we started to fear the future.

Maybe because the modern day has given us something to fear for, is today worse than the past and therefore guarantees an even grimmer future. Perhaps, but those are the themes Bird raises time and time again. In fact, a little too often as the messages of peace and environmentalism may start off as subtle and meaningful, but by the end they reach levels of preachiness and certainly are not delicately placed, choosing instead to hit its audience over the head with these teachings to such a point that it almost feels as if other aspects of the film were pushed aside to make room for these.

That’s not the only thing that gets derailed by the end of Tomorrowland either. The entire film seems to take a nosedive off a cliff during those final twenty minutes. Well maybe that’s a bit harsh, but there’s no denying that most of the unique and inventive plot points that are established and developed for the most part of the film are suddenly resolved with what is sadly a rather conventional and uninspired climax. I won’t spoil it but let me just say that if you are expecting the film to wait until the last moment to pull its best trick out of its hat then you will probably be disappointed. Perhaps we should have seen this coming given that one of the main creative minds behind this project was David Lendelof, co-creator of Lost, another interesting premise with a rather lacklustre ending.

But if you focus on the poor ending alone then you are really missing the true charm of the film. The imagination is made believable by Brit Robertson’s careful coherence between confusion and confidence and George Clooney’s departure from the usual charm into a more embittered veteran figure. At the same time though he seems to have a lot of fun here, remarkable considering that the last blockbuster he did of this magnitude was Batman and Robin.

Inventive and visually stunning, Tomorrowland is definitely an original concept and can sum up what has been missing from recent filmmaking. Just be sure to remember that during those last few minutes.

Result: 7/10

Poltergeist (2015)

"Clear your minds, they already know what scares you."

If there’s one thing I hate its remakes that are unnecessary. The original Poltergeist by Steven Spielberg (he probably directed it okay, just look for some theories online and judge for yourself but in my opinion, he did it) is a marvel of intimate and paranoid horror involving more of a suburbia take on the usual horror tropes. The effects still hold up today and the themes are still relevant today, and it’s not as if it’s impossible to make a ghost story and not accused of ripping off Poltergeist, so why, please tell me, why would you remake it now?

A family is plagued by evil forces that lurk within their home. The attacks begin to escalate and eventually their youngest daughter is taken captive, resulting in the rest of the family having to come together to save her before she is lost forever.

The Psycho remake is regarded as one of the worst remakes of all time, why, because there is no reason for it to exist. It’s a shot-for-shot remake with nothing original innovative in sight. The same can be said for Poltergeist. A child touches a TV, we get it you’re a remake but just do something else instead of constantly trying to remind us of the original. You need more than nostalgia to survive in this world. It takes imagination and originality and some unique ideas to rise above the plot points and scares we’ve seen before. The only difference is that here they are not executed as well as they were in 1982. Whenever they do try to take a different approach it feels weird and pointless, if you were going to change anything, why would you change that tiny detail that makes no difference.

Actually that’s a lie. The other difference from the original is a near total dependence on CGI. Nearly everything is digitally enhanced in an effort to try and outdo its predecessor. But this remake never does, instead the effects look fake and unbelievable. I don’t dislike CGI, in fact I love it as long as I don’t know what is CGI ad what is real. Remember T2 and Jurassic Park, CGI heavy right, wrong, nearly half of those effects utilised practical creations and this resulted in a far better visual experience. Poltergeist just slaps the CGI on everything and it is very easy to separate the real and fake, much like real ghost stories.

Furthermore, by asking your actors to imagine everything that happens around them and not presenting them with anything to react against, the result is only made worse by the fact that you can tell the actors are only staring at a green screen, struggling to convey real emotions from their position when faced with just some basic directing.

To be fair though, despite a rather lacklustre attitude and reaction to the horror around them, the acting in the movie is credible. By far Sam Rockwell is the best part of the film and if the rest of the film was better we might even praise him as amazing. As well as that the rest of the film is made in a proficient way. Don’t be mistaken, there’s nothing horrible or terribly wrong about the film, but at the same time it does nothing at all to stand out or make an impression and when you’re remaking a horror classic like this then all you’re really doing is tarnishing the original.

As you can see with my list of top five best horror remakes the best ones will always try something new, whether it be increased body horror, faster pace, paranoia or introducing A-list talent in the production. But here there’s nothing new on offer, and nothing that can scare me because I’ve seen it all before.

Result: 3/10

Top 5 Horror Remakes

The Poltergeist remake is hitting cinemas very soon, are you excited? Me neither. But to be fair the horror remake idea is neither a new concept nor a terrible one as commonly believed. I know it would be easier to name more examples of shameless cash-ins that merely borrow the name of the original in order to rake in more profit from teenagers that have probably never seen the original anyway. But there are exceptions to this rule.

Of course a clever person would point out that the various horror classics of the 1930s were based on novels that were previously adapted in the silent era. Then these classics were once again remade in the 1950s by the Hammer Studio. But I’m ignoring those because… well to be honest once you play that card it’s hard to ignore it and in the end my list would end up  being made up of films that you didn’t even know were remakes. Another clever person might point to Evil Dead 2, but (though that is one of my absolute favourite horror flicks) is still a sequel to the original, though I can understand the reasoning behind calling it a remake.

A few that didn’t make the list include Tom Savini’s Night of the Living Dead (1991), House of Wax (1953) and The Blob (1988).

5: Dawn of the Dead (2004)

Zac Snyder has now moved on the bigger budgeted blockbusters, but many still cite this remake of the Romero classic as his best work. Though it may have been an unnecessary remake that would have benefitted from adopting a new title and using its own merit to gain attention, it still gets your heart racing. Terrifying and action packed with a rejuvenated pace thanks to a nifty idea of allowing zombies to run (pretend it wasn’t on 28 Days Later first). Dawn of the Dead also captures the paranoia and stress of the original being cooped up in a shopping mall. It would be very easy to credit this film with assisting the recent zombie resurgence of The Walking Dead.

4: Cape Fear (1991)

This psychological horror was definitely an undisputed classic in its own right. If you want to remake something the right way then martin Scorsese is the man to call, with the Departed also attributing to his career. He is undoubtedly the master and pioneer of those traditional Hollywood methods, particularly in terror and suspense. Not only does he pay homage to the original (including cameos from Gregory Peck and Robert Mitchum who both starred in the original), but by taking full advantage of his $35 million budget he could distinguish his own vision and themes of obsession.

3: Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)

The best remakes take the premise, concepts and themes of the original and apply them to the modern context in which they are presented. The 1950s Body Snatchers expressed paranoia of creeping communism but this version is more concerned with fears of conspiracy and cover ups instead. The chilling and sometimes gruesome nature of what the mysterious pod people carry out for an extended look at the extent of such a plot and the way it somehow manages to be both bleak and stylised all at the same time is remarkable. That scream at the end is still terrifying.

2: The Fly (1986)

Few remakes eclipse the original as completely as David Cronenberg’s The Fly did, and the original is by no means a bad film, choosing to surround itself in mystery and intrigue instead. But the body horror style is enough to make anyone’s skin crawl. The tragic of the love story that Jeff Goldblum becomes entangled in, as well as the dark sense of humour and the sheer terror of a prolonged and gradual transformation as the mad scientist’s body slowly but surely deteriorates only adds to it. The process of merging with a fly may be an allegory for any illness, possibly the AIDS epidemic of the time. The creature feature, monster model is seconded only by one…

1: The Thing (1982)

The original was certainly a significant standpoint of paranoid cinema and one of John Carpenter’s favourite movies. But by swapping politics for gore Carpenter not only created the most impressive creature feature of all time (seriously, the practical effects are more horrifying than anything CGI can ever craft) he also managed to maintain that sense of paranoia as the men turn on each other out of fear over whether or not the shapeshifting alien is impersonating one of them as it chews through the Arctic base. So many elements of this film inspire shock and awe, to name just one, the doctor slams the defibrillator down onto a wounded man’s chest only for it to split in two, revealed to be a set of jaws, and starts to chew him up. Nothing else demonstrates John Carpenter’s ability to master scare value. Or does it why don’t we just wait here for a little while… see what happens…