Dan's DVD Dumpster Diving

Gibson would have been a better fit.

Superman/Shazam!: The Return of Black Adam (2010)



This isn't technically a movie, but a DVD compilation of the short films DC Animation used to produce for their direct to video features. I debated skipping this as part of the Dumpster Dive but ultimately felt it close enough to the spirit of the project. The first short is the titular Return of Black Adam and it was the showcase segment of the release, running an extended 25 minutes rather than just 12. The film does a pretty efficient job of condensing Captain Marvel's origin story and throwing him in with both Superman and the villain Black Adam, but the details are so condensed that the whole thing just boils down to a big punch-out. The fight itself is fine, but not especially exciting, and doesn't leave me wanting more Captain Marvel. The second short is a horror themed piece on The Spectre, an apparition who seeks revenge on sinners. Story wise there isn't much here; it's a very straight-forward revenge plot with almost no mystery. But stylistically, it's good fun. The various murders are these really neat horror set-pieces with classic movie monsters and more of a violent punch than expected. I quite liked the eerie score too. The next short is a more conventional superhero adventure, with Green Arrow protecting a young Princess from being assassinated at an airport. It's basically just an extended set-piece, but a good one. The setting is well-utilized, the action evolves consistently, and there's a decent enough narrative through line. Not especially memorable but solidly entertaining. We close out with Jonah Hex in probably the best short of the collection. I was immediately excited when I saw the film was written by Joe R. Lansdale, who also wrote the excellent Jonah Hex episode of Batman: The Animated Series. Where all the other shorts here had these really disposable plots, Lansdale is able to tell a gripping little Western, with twists and turns, multiple characters, escalation of stakes, and a ghoulish little ending. There's a lot packed in here, in fact if any short deserved an extended runtime, it was this one, just to let its plot beats breath and soak in the atmosphere a little more.

Overall, this is a hard movie to call. On the one hand, it's pretty insubstantial and unambitious, but it's also easily one of the more entertaining DVDs I've watched for this series. Really though, judging these stories in this context is not entirely fair. These shorts weren't meant to function as part of an anthology, but as an appetizer to get you hyped up for the feature presentation. And in that regard, I think they get the job done pretty well.

B-

This is incredible, best thing I've read on these boards in some time.

If memory serves, I watched Dersu Uzala from a rather dingy website (library couldn't get me a copy in time) that looked like shit and was just generally a horrible way to watch a Kurosawa movie, or any movie for that matter. When I finally did track down a DVD copy in 2014, I logged Dersu Uzala as a first time watch on Letterboxd despite having technically seen it before.

I think I've seen that, at least parts of it when I was a young lad.

Edmond (2006)



Here's another one of the more interesting movies in this series, a David Mamet screenplay based on one of his plays directed by Stuart Gordon, of Re-Animator and From Beyond fame. Were I more fully aware of Edmond's pedigree earlier, there's a high chance I would have watched this much, much earlier. William H. Macy is Edmond, a mild-mannered upper-middleclass businessman who, after visiting a fortune teller, decides to leave his wife one night and wanders New York City on a dark odyssey in search of sex which builds increasingly violent. The set-up is reminiscent of Falling Down, but lacks that film's supposed sense of power fantasy or dark comedy. Edmond's just dark, a relentless portrait of misogyny and racism embodied in one of the most pathetically vile protagonists I've ever seen. William H. Macy commits fully to this rather unpleasant person and the film on the whole is uncompromising in foregrounding the worst bigotry. This isn't just pointless misery though, there's this reoccurring sense of entitlement which underlies Edmond's behaviour. His racism is driven in part by a misguided belief that Black people have it easier than whites, and it unfair he has to work so hard. His misogyny is defined by his expectation that sex is owed to him. Edmond will frequently meet with sex workers, but always backs out, either because the price is too high, or because he's asked to do something to fulfill the act. It's an interesting commentary on bigotry all told. The film on the whole probably works better as a scenario than it does a fully formed story - certain plot developments do feel contrived and for all Macy's talent Edmond is more vessel than character - and I didn't fully buy the ending, but this is a well-made little movie that deserves a look.

B-

At this point we can’t tell if these were “gifts” or movies you stole from the Redbox.

City Heat (1984)



There's so much mystique to a movie built around the showdown of two actors. Bette Davis and Joan Crawford in What Ever Happened to Baby Jane, Al Pacino and Robert De Niro in Heat, Bugs Bunny and Michael Jordan in Space Jam. 1984 gave us Clint Eastwood and Burt Reynolds in City Heat, as a cop and a private eye who reluctantly team up. Pretty awesome, right? Well, it might have been five years earlier. Not to say the two weren't still stars, but so much of Eastwood's and Reynolds' brand of macho tough guy feels uniquely suited to the grit of 70s cinema rather than the clean cut slickness of the 1980s. Granted, with the right material, I'm sure Eastwood and Reynolds could have produced magic together in any era. City Heat is not the right material, an aimless crime story which can't decide if its a throwback noir, an action movie, or a farcical spoof. The lack of coherence is most sharply felt in the leads. Reynolds is game for comedy and plays into the goofball antics while Eastwood is doing a standard variation on his no-nonsense cop. A film built entirely around the collision of its stars and they feel like they're in different movies, and both movies suck too. Reynolds tries his best but isn't actually given any funny bits to work with, while there isn't an engaging enough story or stakes to give Eastwood's action hero any weight. The action scenes themselves are also lacking. There's a certain passive entertainment in just watching Clint shoot bad guys, but the scene construction is pretty poor, while the inconsistent tone makes it impossible to build any tension.

City Heat was reportedly a troubled production, originally written by Blake Edwards, who was also set to direct until Eastwood fired and replaced him with Richard Benjamin. The results were not well-received. City Heat was one of the worst reviewed movies of Eastwood's career and while I don't know if I found the movie quite that bad - it's more just plain lousy than it is actively annoying or unpleasant - I also can't really defend it at all. The whole thing just feels like a waste of every one's time, Eastwood and Reynolds especially. For this to be the only movie the pair did together is a shame.

D

Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987)



For the longest time, I thought I had seen Superman IV: The Quest for Peace. The one with Nuclear Man and Jon Cryer. The one produced by Cannon Films on a shoestring budget with laughably bad special effects. The one that basically tanked the franchise until superhero movies had their resurgence in the 2000s. But at a certain point, I realized I had no memory of actually watching Superman IV like I did with the other Superman movies and that my knowledge of the film was likely just from travelling in geek circles for most of my life. It's possible I did see the movie as a child and just don't remember, but for the sake of being thorough, Superman IV had to be a part of the dumpster dive. Actually seeing the film for myself, it doesn't take long to live up to its reputation. From the opening set-piece, it's clear how unbecoming of a superhero epic this movie is. I'm not just talking about the bad special effects, although it is telling that the filmmakers use the same hideous optical of Superman flying twice just in the opening. No, I'm talking about a general lack of awe. The movie begins with Superman rescuing Russian astronauts in orbit over the Earth. Fine idea, but there's no build-up or excitement to accompany Superman's introduction in the film. He just shows up, immediately solves the problem, and leaves. This effectively sets the tone for just how pedestrian Superman IV is. Even if the movie had exquisite special effects, and it decidedly does not, there's little care in terms of presentation, or imagination in crafting interesting set-pieces. In an era where superhero IPs are more valuable than gold, it's strangely fascinating to see a Superman movie made so carelessly. From here, the movie becomes a mess of half-baked subplots, including: a little boy who writes a letter to Superman asking him to solve the Cold War and Superman's anxiety over nuclear weapons, Lex Luthor escaping from prison with his wacky cousin and creating Nuclear Man to destroy Superman, Clark wants to sell the farm but is holding out for a farmer and not a development company, the Daily Planet is bought out by a crass businessman who starts undermining the paper's journalistic integrity, the businessman's daughter Lacy has the hots for Clark Kent, Lois Lane likes Superman and...honestly Lois isn't given much to do here but she remains Supes's love interest on the periphery anyway.

Superman IV was famously hacked to pieces in editing and consequently, a lot of these subplots just go in circles without ever being resolved. What does remain doesn't make a whole lot of sense. There's a genuinely rich premise here with Superman involving himself on global politics which invites so much drama and ethical consideration...but none of that happens. Superman just shows up at the U.N., announces he's going to destroy all the nukes, and everyone applauds. Case closed. This is obviously very stupid, but the bigger issue is the squandered dramatic potential. What happens when a country's leader says no? Does Superman respect that authority, or does he impose his will and make the choice for himself in the name of saving lives? What right does Superman have to decide the world's fate? What are the ramifications of a quintessentially American superhero disarming the rest of the world and further entrenching America's position as the leading global superpower? Eh, fuck all that, Superman just throws all the nukes in the sun. Certain plot developments also just sort of happen. I have no idea why Nuclear Man is after Lacy in the movie's third act. I asked Twitter, but the response I got was basically "why are you watching Superman IV in the first place, idiot?". Not sure the response of "I'm doing a DVD dumpster dive" would have made a lot of sense. Superman is poisoned by Nuclear Man and is seemingly on death's door, but then he uses some Kryptonian technology and is actually fine. Then there's a truly embarrassing scene which is a straight-up remake of the Superman and Lois flying sequence from the first movie, except it looks infinitely worse despite being made almost a decade later. It's also completely pointless. At the end of the scene, Superman kisses Lois to erase her memory again Superman II style. Which raises the question, how often has Clark revealed his identity to Lois on a whim and then memory-wiped her afterwards? He does it so casually here that it seems almost routine.

So yeah, Superman IV is pretty terrible and fails in basically every area I expected it to...but I also didn't hate it. Maybe it's just the result of subterranean expectations, but there are parts of this movie that I actually thought were kind of cute. For all its flaws, and there are many, there's also an earnest quality to the movie that feels entirely appropriate for Superman. Like, Lacy starts off as a villain transforming the Daily Planet for the worse. But as she spends more time with Clark, his innate goodness starts to rub off and inspires Lacy to be a better person too. That's such goofy wholesomeness that I can't help but be charmed. Then there's a whole double date scenario where Superman agrees to an interview with Lois at the same time that Clark's supposed to take Lacy out. It's a straight-up sitcom plot that plays out exactly how you're expecting it to, but it's fun. To that end, there's also some comedic moments here that are legitimately funny. And if nothing else, the movie still has Christopher Reeve's indelible charm as Superman. He's so effortlessly believable in this role and I also enjoyed watching Gene Hackman ham it up as Lex Luthor. I don't want to overstate Superman IV's positives as the movie on the whole is quite bad and not something I'd recommend, but it's not a complete wash either. With a little more care, I think it probably could have worked and even in its present state it's still kind of watchable.

D+

Spared no expense.