-
#543 – Three Supermen in the Jungle (1970)
Three Supermen in the Jungle (1970)
Film review #543
Director: Bitto Albertini
SYNOPSIS: The international thieves known as The Supermen are once again caught by the government and, along with government agent martin (again), they are forced to accept a mission on their behalf. This time, they are to head to Africa to stop the Russians from taking control of a uranium mine owned by the local tribe…
THOUGHTS/ANALYSIS: Three Supermen in the Jungle is a 1970 Italian film, and the third in the “Three Supermen” series of films. We once again see the thieving duo known as “the Supermen,” who run around in their bulletproof suits, up to their old tricks, and the government wants to apprehend them to undertake a critical mission. They once again get agent Martin to do it, who is stopped just as he is about to get married, and the three are reunited once again to undertake a mission of critical importance: to head into the jungles of Africa, and prevent the Soviets from acquiring a lease on a uranium mine protected by the local tribe. The film’s plot is essentially following the trope of the “African jungle” adventure, somewhat leaning on parodying them, but mostly just a typical old comedy. As you might expect, a lot of the tropes about Africa, the jungle and the “natives” are outdated stereotypes that are not based in reality, but but certainly not as bad as some other films that do this: being a comedy means that you take these tropes less seriously, and not as indicative of reality.
The films in this series have got constantly less fantastical and sci-fi: as the first one had elements of cloning, and machines that could turn things into precious jewels, and the second just centred around retrieving a film, the third one just revolves around the lease on a uranium mine, which is never actually seen, which is probably a more typical cold war plot. The film makes up for the thin plot by having a variety of locales, plenty of comedic sequences, and energetic fight scenes that instead keep the film at a good pacing, and energetic through most of its run. It feels less threatening than the other films, and perhaps goes for a much more slapstick approach to it’s violence. I wouldn’t say this makes it more for younger audiences though, as there’s plenty of scantily-clad women and innuendos abound. While the second film replaced all the main characters form the first, here they’ve managed to retain two of the three from the second, so at least there’s a bit of continuity. Again, the actors aren’t quite the professional acrobats as the ones in the first film, but the fight scenes are still have plenty of energy and action, with a competent level of choreography involved.
Overall, Three Supermen in the Jungle is a perfectly entertaining low budget film that is lacking in substance or novelty sci-fi elements, but relies on it’s slapstick humour and energetic fight scenes to sustain its energy throughout its runtime; for which it succeeds fairly well. Its fairly forgettable and it’s tropes are outdated, but its got enough going for it to keep viewers from falling asleep.
-
#542 – Three Supermen in Tokyo (1968)
Three Supermen in Tokyo (1968)
Film review #542
Director: Bitto Albertini
SYNOPSIS: The pair of thieves known as “the supermen” are caught in a trap by law enforcement. However, they are offered a deal: their sentence will be commuted if they accept a mission to find a film of a spy and diplomat that, if revealed, will cause a huge political scandal. The two supermen are joined by Martin, a government agent, and the three head off to Hong Kong and eventually Tokyo to find the film and the spy…
THOUGHTS/ANALYSIS: Three Supermen in Tokyo is a 1968 film and the sequel to the 1967 film The Three Fantastic Supermen. The film opens up with the two international thieves who wear bulletproof suits known as “the supermen,” who are attempting to steal the statue of David, which is being transported for exhibition. unfortunately, the whole setup is a trap to lure the two thieves, and the government agent Martin manages to bring them in. The thieves are offered a deal: the criminal charges against them will be dropped, if they agree to undertake a mission on behalf of the government to retrieve a compromising film that a spy has in their possession, that they will show to the public in twenty eight days. The revelations of this footage will bring down the government, and might instigate world war three, so the stakes are pretty high. The two thieves are sent along with martin to Hong Kong and then Tokyo, where they believe the film and the spy who filmed it to be hidden. The film, like it’s predecessor, is a spy spoof/parody poking fun at films like the James Bond 007 series, and is situated in a big scene of Italian spoofs that were released around this time (and for a long while after). The story is fairly standard with no real surprises, but the emphasis is more on the entertainment and comedy than the plot. The humour itself has some decent moments, but not as gripping as the first film, which had a lot more outlandish elements to keep it interesting.
The main difference between this film and the first one is that none of the original actors return in the sequel, apart from one side character. The main issue with this is that the three main characters (the thieves) were professional acrobats, and could pull off some quite impressive stunts and choreography during the fights and action scenes. The replacement actors clearly do not have the same level of expertise, and the film loses one of it’s most unique aspects. The action scenes are still competent, but are lacking compared to its predecessor. Credit to the film should be given for actually shooting a good amount of the film on location in Tokyo. On the downside, there are instances when goons in the fighting scenes are clearly white people made to “look” Japanese with make up and such. Overall, Three Supermen in Tokyo doesn’t quite match up to the original film, and any unique elements that it had are done away with, leaving a more streamlined, average film that could easily get lost amongst the sheer volume of Italian films spoofing the spy genre.
-
#541 – Bong of the Living Dead (2017)
Bong of the living Dead (2017)
Film review #541
Director: Max Groah
SYNOPSIS: a group of friends obsessed with zombies and getting high find their fantasies have come true and the zombie apocalypse is here. Unfortunately, their fantasy about fighting in the zombie apocalypse falls short of their expectations…
THOUGHTS/ANALYSIS: Bong of the Living Dead is a 2017 zombie film, and is not related to the previously reviewed 2010 Bong of the Dead (there just happens to be a “budding” market for films about zombies and weed apparently). The film mostly centres on a group of childhood friends who grew up imagining what to do in the zombie apocalypse, and have now grown up to smoke weed and talk about the zombie apocalypse. The group finally gets their wish though, as zombies start appearing and they can start preparing their plan for survival…or just get high. I don’t know. The film tries to do quite a lot in terms of it’s story and genre: it’s a stoner comedy film, but also a meta-zombie apocalypse film that riffs on the tropes of the genre, but also takes a dark and dramatic turn for the last twenty minutes when the reality of the situation catches up to the cast. A such, it feels like it’s trying to do too many things at once, and there’s no core around which the film coheres. A lot of the film does involve the characters just getting high, which I guess would be the dominant theme, but the comedy just isn’t there to make it a simple stoner flick: as mentioned, it tries to go for a meta-take on the zombie apocalypse, but this commentary is loosely scattered through the film, and doesn’t take root. It feels like it wants to do a Shaun of the Dead-esque approach in this regard, but also a bunch of other things too.
The characters each have their own personalities and set themselves apart, but most of them don’t really come across a likable. The wobbly acting is perhaps intentional for the most part as it attempts to in-part parody low-budget zombie movies, but the actors do a decent job of handling the more emotional and dramatic scenes at the end; however, it is still a bit jarring when you have spent the film not taking them seriously. I’m not quite sure about the setting of the film: one of the main characters runs a DVD rental store, which doesn’t seem like the kind of thing that would actually exist in 2017, and there’s no mobile phones anywhere, which makes me think that maybe it’s set in the early 2000s, but there’s no reference to the timeframe, so again, it’s another element that seems a bit unclear. This is certainly an indie film, but definitely not a one-man show created nearly entirely by one person: this has a full crew attached, as evidenced by the near-full credits that roll about twenty minutes in with the title card. I’m not opposed to the idea of having credits at the start of a film (this is the way they were originally presented), but to have them show up as the first act of the film ends and bring it to a stand still for nearly five minutes is pretty disruptive for the film’s pacing.
In terms of the film’s production, there’s a decent amount of competence with regards to how it’s filmed; nothing too special, but it works. The makeup on the zombies looks good, and there’s a decent amount of gore when there needs to be, but the film seems to refuse to capture anything violent on film, and any physical violence on the zombies cuts away just as it happens, or is partially obscured. I’m guessing this is either to do with trying to secure the film’s rating, or having no way of making it look convincing without hurting the actors. Either way, it is a noticeable hole in the film. Overall, it feels like Bong of the Living Dead wants to both be a stoner zombie movie, while also being a commentary on the stoner movie…while also adding a serious side to the stoner zombie movie. You’ve got a lot of sitting around smoking weed, some nudity, and some zombie whacking, while the plot point about the characters being zombie movie buffs setting up a meta-narrative doesn’t really go anywhere. The last act switching to a much darker tone as the events of the film start to take their toll on the cast does have some emotional weight to it eventually, but when you’ve been watching these people just smoke weed and base their personality on one-dimensional comedy traits, then trying to make you care for them in the last twenty minutes is a huge uphill climb that the film makes for itself, made worse by the way some of these characters act just makes them downright unlikeable. Credit to the film for trying to do something a little different, it just tries to do too many things a little different…
-
#540 – Bong of the Dead (2011)
Bong of the Dead (2011)
Film review #540
Director: Thomas Newman
SYNOPSIS: A meteor shower that strikes the Earth has the effect of turning everyone in to zombies and thus causing an apocalypse. A few months after this, two stoners, Tommy and Edwin, discover that the zombies can be used as fertiliser to create super powerful weed. With this in mind, and their weed stocks running low, they decide to travel to the zombie infested areas to get more of their fertiliser, but on the way, they run into a young woman surviving on her own…
THOUGHTS/ANALYSIS: Bong of the Dead is a 2011 film written, produced and edited by Thomas Newman. The film opens up meteors falling to Earth, one of which lands in a man’s garden, who starts to transform into a zombie. This opening scene is played with no dialogue, as we slowly see this man transform into a zombie, along with his wife. This opening scene is fairly clever, using no dialogue, and just showing the man’s transformation using plenty of visual effects. The way his wife is shown to be as much of a zombie as he is when she’s just sitting watching TV is quite clever, and the ending shot of them sitting on the sofa casually picking out each others organs and eating them is such a well executed shot thanks to all the gore and practical effects, and its certainly not what you would expect from a low budget film called Bong of the Dead.
When we get into the film proper, we see something a bit more of what we expect to see: a few months after the meteors have caused a zombie apocalypse and wiped out society (supposedly, we don’t really see anything of it), two stoners, Tommy and Edwin are hiding out in their apartment, when Edwin shows Tommy he has found a way to turn the zombies into fertiliser that can grow super strong weed, they decide to brave going outside into the infected zones to make some more of this weed. Along the way, their car breaks down and thy meet Leah, a mechanic who helps them fix it. I think the film can be easily split into it’s good and bad points: the story is very typical and threadbare, and just consists predictably of a lot of weed smoking and occasional zombies. There’s a villain who appears in two separate scenes, but he doesn’t really have much of a role. The rest of the film is just scenes of empty dialogue that exist probably just to extend the run time. Speaking of which, the film stretches to nearly one hundred minutes, which is way too long for this sort of film. As always, I try not to be too harsh on low budget films like this made mostly by just one person, and try to judge a film based on what it tries to achieve with what it has, but the script definitely needed some help with regards to pacing, content, and just simple cuts. We also get an end credits scene that sets up for a sequel that, unsurprisingly, never came. Why do so many of these low budget films love to set up for a sequel that they never make?
On the positive side, the film’s gore is really good and creative: the practical effects are flowing with flesh and blood, and even in close-ups, it looks pretty convincing. The action scenes where the zombies are getting sliced up look great, and there’s so much blood and gore that covers everyone it’s quite impressive, and gives a real authenticity to proceedings. Apart from this though, the rest of the production is more obviously limited by the budget and being a mostly one man operation, with fairly obvious greenscreens, and a lot of scenes being shot in someone’s house. Even though the camerawork and framing feels like it could have been better, for one person with a camcorder, it’s fine. Overall, for an almost one-man production, Bong of the Dead does some things better than you would expect: the practical effects are good, and there’s some effort put in to throwing about as much blood and gore as possible in some scenes. This is counterbalanced in the story not having anything special outside of typical stoner humour and zombie apocalypse stuff, and an overly long runtime dilute the positives, so we’re left with a fairly typical film that does what you expect. nevertheless, credit where it is due to Thomas Newman for pulling this off almost entirely by himself.
