Wild Team (1985)

**SPOILERS AHEAD, BUT C’MON**

On the fictitious island of Manioca (incidentally, Manioca is a starch used in Tapioca), Tiquito, the son of deposed President Cordura (Franco Fantasia) is kidnapped by minions of the tyrannical (and very European-looking) General Gomez.  A mining company with interests on Manioca hire super nice mercenary Martin Cuomo (Antonio Sabato) and his team to rescue the boy.  Explosions and double crosses ensue.

Umberto Lenzi’s Wild Team (aka Thunder Squad aka I Cinque Del Condor) is a Men on a Mission film with a slightly different angle.  Rather than being hired by a crooked government agency, the team are hired by a crooked corporation.  The basic idea is that it’s money, not government, that truly controls the countries of the world.  Cordura is a freedom-loving idealist, but he has to make a deal with this devil in order to save not only his son but also his country (the former takes precedence over the latter).  Martin only cares about the money he’ll get for this job, but of course he and his crew become more personally invested as events unfold (or at least that’s the idea; I never felt that anyone in this film gave much of a shit about anything other than being a warm body in a movie).  The corporation, headed by fat cat Harker (Geoffrey Copleston), cares only for their bottom line.  Consequently, they have no qualms about betraying Martin and his team and the people of Manioca as soon as there’s the faintest whiff that the winds of change are going to blow.  The corporation starts off working with Gomez, switches to Cordura, then back to Gomez.  It’s baffling, since they had projected a fifteen percent increase in profits under a more democratic government, but I’m not enough of a global economist to parse out the reasoning.  This is a theme running though many Action films of this bent: The people holding the purse strings and/or the leash are never trustworthy.  No matter how many guarantees they give, they’ll screw over their operatives if it suits their needs (and many times, they are never forthright in their goals and motives in the first place).  So, pro-tip: If you’re a mercenary with a high price tag, get paid up front, and always cover your own ass.

There are a couple of touches in the film that come out of left field, though they make sense in an Italian genre film sort of way.  The first is the use of psychics (yes, really).  Three people with ESP are hired by the mining company to help locate Tiquito.  They are strapped into a computer, and as they describe the “hits” they get on the boy, the computer “interprets” what they say and pukes out unhelpful data.  This scene is, number one, just plain odd.  I mean, why would you hire psychics, who are unreliable at best and charlatans at worst, when you can fly surveillance planes over the area to find what you’re looking for (and to be clear, it’s not as if Gomez’s camp is all that well-hidden)?  They certainly have the resources for it.  Number two, this sequence is way longer than it should be (always a sign that there’s simply not enough material to make one decent film).  This section of the film stands out because of the focus on it.  Yet, there are no parapsychological or fantastic elements in the entire rest of the film (I’ll admit, I got my hopes up for a fight with a giant snake toward the end, but naturally, they were dashed).

The storming of Gomez’s camp takes up a large part of the film’s middle portion, but it leads off with our heroes hang gliding down into the valley.  As with the psychic scene, this sequence is entirely too long, and it stops the film dead (this in a film without much life to begin with).  More than this, it’s bewildering because the hang gliders they use are the most brightly colored things they could possibly find.  Obviously, being covert is not a big priority on this covert mission.  Maybe Martin got a great deal on the hang gliders that he couldn’t pass up?

This leads into another interestingly flubbed facet of the film.  One of the team members is Sybil Slater (Julia Kent), and she is their explosives expert.  Apparently, her brother was meant to be in on the mission, but he’s in jail (let’s assume for blowing things up), and Sybil needs money for an attorney.  In order to prove herself, she blows up a ramshackle hut while she’s inside it (she gets a couple of black smudges on her face).  Sybil is also very aggressive.  As soon as the men pull up and commence drooling over her, she warns that she’ll “blow [their] balls off.”  For as tough as she’s supposed to be, however, she’s just a girl in a man’s world.  She’s scared by a snake in the jungle, and all the guys get a good laugh over this.  She lands her hang glider in a tree and can’t get down by herself, and all the guys get a good laugh over this.  In her defense, Sybil does blow stuff up real good, but she’s not going to win any awards for being a strong female role model.     

I’m going to be honest with you.  I’m not the world’s biggest Lenzi fan.  I know a lot of folks go apeshit over films of his (especially Nightmare City, which is decent fun in an incoherently incompetent way), but for me, they tend to be middle of the road at best, and Wild Team is no exception (in fact, it’s maybe more middle of the road than other films of his).  Granted, it was made with a tiny budget, but I’ve seen films with less money behind them made by people with less experience than Lenzi (who was used to low budget filmmaking) that were more cogent than this one.  Even Sabato, who normally provides some magnetism in his films (funny enough, his and Lenzi’s Gang War In Milan is a film I do enjoy), is as plastically charmless as the toy guns the actors use.  If you like seeing things explode, you’ll find something to like here, but this isn’t essential as an Umberto Lenzi film, an Antonio Sabato film (or an Ivan Rassimov film, take your pick), or an action film in general.

MVT:  For as blandly slapdash as it’s shot and edited, the action in the film is the only thing holding this film together, like a cheap brand of duct tape.

Make or Break:  We are introduced to Martin and his team during a training exercise for soldiers.  After beating the soldiers quite handily, Martin’s crew still come out of the site in handcuffs (and if they didn’t, it sure looked like they did from where I was sitting)!  There’s absolutely no logical explanation for this, and it lets you know just how dumb this whole thing is going to be.

Score:  5/10

Ironmaster (1983)

Thousands of years ago, the Tribe of Zod (before whom I’m sure they all knelt) grappled with the paucity of game to hunt in their domain.  But then, the Earth trembled, and the people were frightened.  Tribal leader Iksay (Benito Stefanelli) decides that good-hearted, musclebound lad Ela (Sam Pasco) will inherit his mantle when he is gone rather than his own son Vood (George Eastman).  Needless to say, Vood doesn’t cotton to any of this, and after he discovers iron (prior to the Bronze Age, mind you), he conquers the land, but Ela still has a few tricks up his non-sleeves.

What Umberto Lenzi’s Ironmaster (aka La Guerra Del Ferro: Ironmaster) draws its direct inspiration from is Conan the Barbarian’s “Enigma of Steel” speech.  Unlike John Milius’ superlative epic of savagery, however, there is little wisdom to be found in this film’s take outside of what it says about weaponry and men swinging their dicks.  Conan’s father speaks to his son about the relationship of men to their world (“This you can trust”).  Vood’s relationship with the Earth is strictly on the basis of exploitation and power (“War is our reason for living”).  Disregarding the differences in subtlety of approach, Ironmaster does still have legitimate things to say, though.  When humans discover something new, something which has the capacity for destruction, they will tend to use it for that purpose first.  Iron is not a strong material with which to build sturdier shelters for these people (Vood’s tribe live in caves for the entirety of the film, and the other prominent tribe dwell in straw huts) but a tool for subjugation.  In this way it talks about man’s inherently bellicose nature, and this is even stated outright in the film’s opening monologue.  While these sentiments do ring true, they’re addressed bluntly in the movie, creating rather obvious, facile metaphors where the possibility of a more nuanced insight is just as attainable.  This is not to say that a high degree of finesse is essential in this sort of story, especially considering its genesis.  Unfortunately, it does point to the filmmakers’ method of building narrative, for me, this was an issue.

What I mean by this is that Lenzi and company structure the film in a “lather, rinse, repeat” fashion.  There’s a scene of Vood and his minions slaughtering a bunch of people.  Cut to Ela and Isa (Elvire Audray) wandering around, lamenting their plight, and arguing over if and how they will fight Vood.  Cut to Vood lording it over his newly enslaved iron gatherers.  And so on.  It gets old after the first two iterations, and this is in a film that’s almost one hundred minutes long.  That it’s all delivered in the plainest manner possible only makes it more painful to endure.  This is how much I like all two of you; I sat through the whole thing just to report this.

But back to the film’s more interesting elements.  Aside from the abuses of physical power in the film there are the abuses of religious power.  Ela’s tribe worshipped the god Zod, and he is more or less a benevolent deity (he’s called “Punisher of Evil”), in as much as any absentee god is.  His mouthpiece (priest, what-have-you) in the tribe is Rag (Jacques Herlin), and he is thoughtful and considered in his counsel to Iksay.  Nevertheless, Rag is an older man, so what he augurs in the flames of the tribe’s camp fires could just as easily be his interpretation of probabilities based on past experiences, but his advice is still sound.  After Vood unearths the iron, he is approached by Lith (Pamela Prati), who worships Eferron (get it?), the Earth Trembler.  Vood and Lith use the gift of iron as proof that Eferron has named Vood as supreme ruler and that the god’s wish is for his people to crush the world beneath their feet.  Of course, the other tribe members are enthralled by this, largely because they are inherent followers.  However, they also experience the feeling of might that comes with conquest, and they desire more.  This is all reinforced by Lith and Vood’s insistence on their divine right.  With just a small amount of manufactured/imagined proof, the pair gull their fellow men under the guise of Eferron’s will.  This is not to say that Lith and Vood don’t believe that they are justified in their motivations or the genesis of same (or we are never shown anything indicating different).  By that same token, Lith seems far more deceptive than Vood, so if anything, one could easily suppose that the entire plot is Lith’s machinations with Vood acting as bulky figurehead for a male-dominated society.  

Another thing this movie does (in fact, what so many movies of this ilk do) is places its various factions into distinct groups with little to no intermingling.  So, along with Vood’s warmongers and Isa’s peaceniks, we also have the Mudmen, the Ursos (read: Apemen), and (apparently) the Lepers.  This is important for several reasons.  One, there need to be distinctions between the factions which the audience can easily distinguish.  Two, there need to be contagonists to get in the way of both the protagonists’ and antagonists’ goals.  Three, other tribes are needed to draw out the plot and pad the runtime with (in this case, rote) action set pieces.  Four, there need to be more wildly inhuman tribes outside of the main two so that the primary conflict makes a bit more sense.  After all, if any of the contagonist tribes were physically indiscernible from Vood’s or Isa’s, they would become viable contenders for rulers of the land rather than visually interesting monsters/subhumans to be dominated.  I mean, the Baseball Furies were never going to rule all the five boroughs of New York City any more than the Crazies were going to rule the above ground world of Manhattan, but they are memorable as serious (but still minor) obstacles in their cinematic universes.

One final distinction, perhaps the most important one (perhaps not; I’ll leave that to you), is in the nature of the two tribes as embodied in their locales.  Vood’s tribe is hard.  They live in caves next to a volcano.  Their weapons are rigid, unbending.  Their men even eat iron (yes, really).  Isa’s tribe is populated with tranquil fishermen.  They live in individual straw huts under an open sky.  They have no weapons because they believe that people will leave you alone if you do them no harm.  At first, Ela believes that the way to defeat Vood is with iron weapons of his own, but he comes to the realization that flexibility can overcome inflexibility when applied properly.  The ultimate revelation of the film falls in line with Lao Tzu’s quote, “nothing is softer or more flexible than water, yet nothing can resist it.”  And while, the protagonists follow their learned philosophy to the correct conclusion of this story, we know how humanity will develop down the line (assuming this all takes place on our Earth, naturally), making for a hollow victory of sorts.

MVT:  George Eastman’s Hercules-esque headgear is the best thing in the film.  Normally, I would be inclined to give it to Eastman himself, but he doesn’t do anything especially notable in the movie, and besides, he looks better doing it with the headgear on than with it off.

Make or Break:  The Break for me was Vood’s discovery of the semi-titular ore.  The volcano effects are quite well implemented, and this is in many ways the most interesting scene in the entire film.  Sadly, it also inexplicably succeeds in being overlong and dull.  The repetitive structure of the film’s remainder is simply more nails in the coffin, comparatively speaking.

Score:  4.75/10        

Episode #299: Take Aim at Nightmare City

Welcome back for another episode of the podcast you have come to love and cherish...at least we hope so?

This week Sammy and Will cover Nightmare City (1980) directed by Umberto Lenzi and Take Aim at the Police Van! (1960) directed by Seijun Suzuki!!! We hope you enjoy the episode and our ever getting closer to episode #300!!!

Direct download: ggtmc_299.mp3

Emails to midnitecinema@gmail.com

Adios!!!

Episode #292: Blind Woman in Milan

Welcome to another episode of the GGtMC!!!

This week our show is brought to us by diabolikdvd.com and it was Will's turn to program the show!!! Will chose Blind Woman's Curse (1970) directed by Teruo Ishii and Gang War in Milan (1973) directed by Umberto Lenzi.

Direct download: ggtmc_292.mp3 

 

Emails to midnitecinema@gmail.com

Adios!!!

Cinema de Bizarre Review of the Week: Eyeball (1975)

Directed by Umberto Lenzi

Starring Martine Brochard ("Paulette Stone"), John Richardson ("Mark Burton"), Ines Pellegrini ("Naiba Campbell"), and Andrés Mejuto ("Inspector Tuleda")

Country: Italy, Spain

EYEBALL (original title: Gatti rossi in un labirinto di vetro, which translates to "Red Cats in a Glass Maze") is an Italian slasher directed by Umberto Lenzi - a prolific exploitation filmmaker who was all over the place in terms of the genres he tackled: Eurocrime, Gialli, American Slashers, Cannibal films, "Macaroni Combat", etc. In EYEBALL, a group of tourists en route to Barcelona are dropping dead one-by-one at the hands of a mysterious red-gloved killer who keeps the eyeballs of the victims as trophies. The frustrated Inspector Tuleda, who's on the verge of retirement, eventually comes into the picture and tries to pin down a suspect, but someone else usually ends up getting killed just as he seems to be making progress in his investigation.

There are a number of elements that separate EYEBALL from the rest of its brethren and make it a somewhat unique Giallo. For one, the appearance of the killer is very much in the spirit of the traditional Giallo (gloves, coat, knife, obscured face), but the red aesthetic is far cry from the usual all-black look, which was the stock appearance of killers in most Gialli from a variety of filmmakers for a number of years. Secondly, the setting and the large group of characters make the film stand out. There are a few characters who would be considered leads and play a more important part in the overall story than everyone else, but at times it borders on being an ensemble piece. Whereas a lot of the more well-known Gialli focused primarily on a couple of characters, EYEBALL throws a whole bunch of them into the mix. The incorporation of so many characters could potentially pose a problem, but it's handled well here, and if anything it adds to the mystery element of the film by giving the viewer more suspects to choose from.

Visually, EYEBALL isn't on the same level as some of the more stylish Gialli from directors like Dario Argento and Sergio Martino, but it's not to say that it's a bland film or visually-unpleasant by any means. EYEBALL is shot really well, and there's occasionally a sense of urgency to how the movie is filmed, with certain shots - be it extreme close-ups or wide shots - that compliment the tone of particular scenes and the mental and emotional state of whatever character is being focused on at the time. And, again, the color red comes into play at many points in the film, which results in an interesting visual theme. It should also be said that the Bruno Nicolai score is quite good, but it fails in creating an ominous mood and would have probably been better suited in a Eurocrime film.

When it comes to the tropes and conventions of Gialli that fans of the genre look for, EYEBALL delivers the goods: boobs, blood, blades, mystery, and a decent amount of style. Story-wise, however, it's pretty standard for reasons that I needn't necessarily get into, and it's honestly boring at times. To be fair, though, the police procedural element is handled really well despite simply being there to move the story along. Inspector Tuleda's "I'm too old for this shit" mentality is justified, and there's also a bit of clashing when it comes to his methods of investigation and the more new-school methods that are practiced by his son and fellow Inspector, who's following in his footsteps. When it's all said and done, there's even a touching scene involving the two that adds depth to their characters.

As usual with Gialli and murder mysteries in general, you can expect red herrings. I obviously won't even allude as to who the killer is, but I will say that there's some good misdirection in this film as far as raising suspicion and, theoretically, keeping the viewer guessing. With one character in particular, the film brilliantly plays with our misconceptions and assumptions of certain people (and by "our" I mean the general viewer) in a way that I haven't seen in much Gialli, if any. As far as the characters, they're a fun enough group of people with a few stereotypes thrown in for good measure (the bickering lipstick lesbian couple, the handsome lead, the playful character who never takes anything seriously). As a whole, EYEBALL is watchable and has a few moments here and there where it shines, but it's certainly not essential Gialli.

Make or Break: There isn't really a great "Make" scene to speak of in the film, but at the same time there isn't anything that breaks the film for me either. I could go with the kill scenes that were sprinkled throughout, but instead I'll go with a scene that reminds me why I love Italian genre cinema in general. There's a mass interrogation scene where the lead Inspector is questioning everyone immediately following the death of one of the members of the tour group. One of the women in the group, when questioned by the Inspector, claims that the killer resembled "a big, crimson cat." A CAT. The look on the Inspector's face and his reaction to such a ridiculous claim is hilarious. Also, someone yells out "Murderess!" and another character blatantly lies to the Inspector in a way that comes across as unintentionally comedic. Only in Italian exploitation cinema will you find such ludicrous dialogue spoken with seriousness by idiotic characters.


MVT: Like another CdB Pick of the Week, THE GIRL IN ROOM 2A, I'm gonna go with the look of the killer. Ultimately, it's the interesting appearance of the killer that makes EYEBALL stand out more than anything. It's not a complicated or elaborate look by any means, but for a killer in a Gialli to be wearing such a bright primary color is noteworthy, in that the red really pops during the nighttime scenes. While it does look cool, it doesn't change the fact that it's also a dumb and inconvenient choice of disguise for a killer. The brightness of the red obviously makes you easy to spot (especially at night). Plus, the killer has what appears to be the hood of their red raincoat pulled entirely over their face, which means they obviously can't see shit and it's probably hard to breathe.

Score: 6/10

The Disc: The version of EYEBALL that Cinema de Bizarre carries is a DVD rip presented in a letterboxed widescreen print, meaning that you don't lose any of the picture and that the original aspect 2.35 ratio is intact, but it's not adjusted for widescreen televisions. In any event, the print looks decent, albeit not very crisp and obviously in need of remastering. Very watchable, though. The nighttime scenes are dark, but a good portion of the film is either filmed during the day or in doors, and what few nighttime scenes there are aren't pitch-black to the point where you can't make out what's going on. There aren't any issues with the sound either, as the dialogue is clear and audible throughout, but obviously not surround-sound material. English language only (dubbing), no subtitles available. The running time is approximately 90 minutes, falling - according to IMDB - around nine or ten minutes short of the Italian version.

Links:
Cinema de Bizarre
EYEBALL on Cinema de Bizarre

Be sure to use the promo code GENTLEMEN for 10% off your orders!