Redux: A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984).

Redux #474: A Nightmare on Elm Street.

Cast: 

Heather Langenkamp (Nancy Thompson), Robert Englund (Fred "Freddy" Krueger), Johnny Depp (Glen Lantz), Ronee Blakley (Marge Thompson), John Saxon (Lt. Donald "Don" Thompson), Amanda Wyss (Christina "Tina" Gray), Nick Corri (Rod Lane), Leslie Hoffman (Hall Guard), Joseph Whipp (Sgt. Parker), Charles Fleischer (Dr. King), and Lin Shaye (Teacher) Written and Directed by Wes Craven.

Review: 

Editor's note: while the original review was roughly on point for 257 words (as opposed to the usual "not great" reviews that I have slowly re-done over the past few years), it is obvious this one needed a re-doing anyway after eleven years. Enjoy.

In his life and career, Wes Craven made twenty feature films as a filmmaker, with all but one that belonged to the horror or thriller genre. The Cleveland native had been raised in a strict Baptist family while studying philosophy and writing at Johns Hopkins University before becoming a filmmaker rather than stay on as a teacher; he stated that seeing To Kill a Mockingbird (1962) was the film that "changed his life". His first major effort came up with The Last House on the Left (1972) that was wildly controversial and successful. The Hills Have Eyes (1977) was mildly successful while his first two features of the 1980s in Deadly Blessing (1981) and Swamp Thing (1982) were deemed fine. But it was this film (his fifth as a filmmaker) that really put him at the forefront. Craven had several inspirations for this film, such as the real-life stories covering "Sudden arrhythmic death syndrome", in which newspapers were covering the sudden death of Hmong refugees who had fled Laos (and other Asian countries) to America in the midst of war that saw them suffer nightmares and die in their sleep. Several studios rejected the screenplay except New Line Cinema (as operated by Robert Shaye), which at the time was mostly known as a distributor. As one already knows, the film (made on a budget of $1.8 million) became a franchise, even though Craven had really intended for it to end on a strange evocative note (apparently, the one they came up, involving a door with effects-use came about after brainstorming ideas with Robert Shaye that was quoted by Craven as having "amused us all so much, we couldn't not use it."). Craven rejected doing the 1985 sequel (which didn't even have a returning cast member besides Englund) but he did return to collaborate on the third film and Wes Craven's New Nightmare (1994). Craven died at the age of 76 in 2015. The series even went through the usual cycle of getting "remade" for modern audiences, although that 2010 remake (as directed by Samuel Bayer with Jackie Earle Haley as Freddy) is currently the last movie with the name to be released, even with the rights reverting back to the Craven estate.

It really is a movie all about facing reality, which actually works wonders at the hands of Craven for likely his best directing effort in terms of horror craftsmanship. It is funny, for all the times I've re-watched Halloween (1978) over the years, I forgot how good A Nightmare on Elm Street was in terms of its place among slasher movies, since it features a killer threat that isn't merely a lumbering presence (complete with having a cool supporting presence in an established actor). Sure, the bodycount and characterization of its lead threat would get further complicated in later films, but nothing touches the original in entertaining terror. Imagine being trapped in a dream that just won't end, one that seems very real and very much in one's conscious in terms of boogeymen. For his performance, Englund (cast because David Warner had scheduling conflicts after being cast originally) was inspired by Lon Chaney's monster performances alongside Klaus Kinski in Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979), which extends to the way he approached using his claw (in one interview, he stated a goal to "be mildly erotic", since we are talking about a dream invader). The strange thing is that the remake strived to have the makeup resemble third-degree burns (as based on photographs seen at the UCLA Medical Center) more closely and yet the first film probably did it best when it comes to terror, which features a few moments in shadows (alongside the other stuff, of course). It is tremendous how a performance can really work so well in making a capable villain, where he moves with theatricality to make a terrifying predator in ways that were not surpassed in the sequels to come. Saxon already was a presence in horror movies such as Black Christmas (1974) after years spent in Italian films and Westerns. Saxon has that familiarity factor where we just go with whatever he is playing, whether that involves authority figures or not (interestingly, he and Englund each wrote their own scripts for a third Nightmare film, which didn't come to pass); Blakely has the other side of the coin in fairly established presences (Nashville, for example) that actually does pretty well in conniving complicity (I roll with that final shot because, well, the hook was going to be weird regardless of how it went). Langenkamp had minimal film/TV experience but fit the bill of what Craven envisioned for basically an every-girl. It just clicks with her in terms of reactive timing and curiosity that is easy to roll with in confronting fear that stands starkly among most of the final folks in a slasher (her subsequent key appearances in the 3rd and 7th film were well deserved, one would say). The rest of the cast may be disposable lambs, but they at least are neat to go along with for a bit (Depp being a future star in the decade must've sure been a hell of a surprise, suffice to say). It manages to do so well with its budget through the execution of its crew and director in crafting an enjoyably spooky time in the play between fantasy and reality that isn't diminished by its subsequent franchising (for example, the gore went beyond blood out of a bed but probably doesn't have a fraction of the enduring power). Craven crafted a damn good classic that seemingly gets better upon re-watching for its craft on display, which is the mark of being one of the best slashers of its time that is a worthwhile statement to muse about four decades later.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Redux: Godzilla (1954).

Redux #167: Godzilla (1954)

Cast: 

Akira Takarada (Hideto Ogata), Momoko Kōchi (Emiko Yamane), Akihiko Hirata (Dr. Daisuke Serizawa), Takashi Shimura (Dr. Kyohei Yamane), Fuyuki Murakami (Dr. Tanabe), Sachio Sakai (Hagiwara), with Ren Yamamoto (Masaji Yamada) and Haruo Nakajima & Katsumi Tezuka (Godzilla) Directed by Ishirō Honda.

Review:

"Having seen the terror of the atomic bomb in real life, it is most important to weave this element into the film well, so that everyone will understand."

From my review on June 16, 2012:

This is the first world cinema film to come from Japan [on Movie Night]. Gojira (also known as Godzilla) is a film franchise over 50 years old with 28 films in exactly 50 years (1954-2004). This film is chilling, with good atmosphere, with some night scenes that are genuinely frightening. The effects look good to this day, giving you a scare and two. The setting in Japan with the black and white color of the film make it even more threatening as the effects could be hide any mistakes visible in color. Setting it in Japan after the devastation from World War II only adds to it more. The scene that is chilling is at the near end is with the choir girls singing as the city is in peril. This film may be a bit slow at times, but it is still an achievement in filmmaking to this day after 58 years.

I had been waiting to look back at the original Godzilla (known in the Hepburn romanization as Gojira and occasionally released on home media as such) for a long time. After all of these years, I looked forward most to covering it again probably more than seeing the follow-up films that came in its wake. But to know it is to understand how it came together so curiously: Tomoyuki Tanaka had first come up with a idea to do a giant monster film after the failure to make a film in Indonesia (set during the Japanese occupation the previous decade, incidentally). He was flying back on a plane, and it came to him to basically take inspiration from The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms (1953) and the Daigo Fukuryū Maru incident, in which a boat had suffered from contamination after the Bikini Atoll was going through nuclear testing in March of 1954 (one crew member died from radiation sickness, the others survived). Shigeru Kayama was hired to do the initial treatment (which had ideas such as featuring footage of the Maru that went by the wayside) before Takeo Murata and Ishirō Honda wrote the screenplay; Honda had been hired to direct after people such as Senkichi Taniguchi declined. Teizō Toshimitsu and Akira Watanabe designed the creature under the supervision of Eiji Tsuburaya while two performers would be in the suit. Toho actually had a radio drama air during the summer in order to try and build interest for audiences before eventually showing photos of the monster in newspapers prior to release. The movie was first released in one city (Nagoya) on October 27, 1954 before getting a nationwide showing on November 3, 1954, to profound success in its native country. As people already know, an Americanized version of the film was released in 1956 that was trimmed and re-edited, although Toho would later use the "King of the Monsters" label to refer to the character to go along with even showing the edit as "Monster King Godzilla (Kaiju o Gojira)" in theaters. While he didn't direct the 1955 sequel, Honda would direct various other productions for Toho, such as the color monster movie Rodan (1956) and seven of the follow-up Godzilla films from King Kong vs. Godzilla (1962) to Terror of Mechagodzilla (1975).

 

Admittedly, it is a movie that is more historical for what it spawned in its wake more than just being a perfect movie. It is easy to see where the American edit found the 96-minute runtime something to try and edit down for some sort of idea of standards in getting to the point, and one might wonder what the fuss is in that buildup to destruction. But admirers (such as the one I grew up with) see those composite shots mixed with miniatures and can enjoy the craftsmanship anyway for a movie that is sobering in its spectacle and depiction of sacrifice that is moody and capably made in a manner that set a blueprint worth cribbing from in the years to pass. In the seven decades since its release, technology has improved in making a movie monster look more "real" and for some there have been some quality follow-up Godzilla films (perhaps in story or otherwise), but the power of the original still manages to strike a nerve in terms of the sheer curiosity it generated in how it all came to be. Even trying to make an American rendition (1998, 2014) only shows that big money isn't everything (I say this as someone who likes some of those films in selective ways). The acting works with the bleak atmosphere in sheer confidence for what its director wanted to do in humanism, working its main triangle (Takarada-Kochi-Hirata) to worthwhile drama, particularly with Hirata in terms of conflict for what is most important when it comes to technology and the face of danger. Shimura just provides the established presence of worried curiosity that makes the mark handily. Sure, you would see some of these actors again in other Godzilla films, but they really did just hit out of the park in tension on the first try in ways that is easier to celebrate rather than replicate. The movie has carefully dedicated angles, as worked on by Masao Tamai with the cameras of the time (namely old ones) to go alongside a dazzling musical score by Akira Ifukube to accentuate the terror. It just manages to balance the fine line of showing terror (mostly in the reactions rather than directly interacting with the creature) without testing one's patience for the matters at hand. The prayer-for-peace sequence is especially startling in its sincerity. The climax itself is carefully curated in a way that you don't always see in impactful decision-making without needing bombast to drive it all home, particularly in those last moments musing about the nature of where nuclear testing or war may go if left to certain hands. Far from exploitive, there is real passion at hand from Honda and company in what we end up celebrating as a whole rather than simply going right in on just the effects. Metaphor or monster, the power of Godzilla is in just how enduring it all is as the years go on in humanistic filmmaking that made for worthwhile entertainment in ways that we still marvel at to this day.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

The Fog (1980).

Review #2312: The Fog (1980).

Cast: 

Adrienne Barbeau (Stevie Wayne), Tom Atkins (Nicholas "Nick" Castle), Jamie Lee Curtis (Elizabeth Solley), Hal Holbrook (Father Patrick Malone), Janet Leigh (Kathy Williams), Nancy Loomis (Sandy Fadel), Ty Mitchell (Andrew "Andy" Wayne), Charles Cyphers (Dan O'Bannon / Dan the Weather Man), James Canning (Dick Baxter), John F. Goff (Al Williams), George Buck Flower (Tommy Wallace), Regina Waldon (Mrs. Kobritz), Darwin Joston (Dr. Phibes), Rob Bottin (Blake), and John Houseman (Mr. Machen) 

Directed by John Carpenter (#068 - Halloween (1978), #634 - Escape from New York, #712 - The Thing (1982), #732 - Escape from L.A., #1221 - Dark Star, #1298 - They Live, #1479 - Big Trouble in Little China, #1605 - Starman, #1874 - Assault on Precinct 13, #2130 - Vampires)

Review: 

"I think the primary reason I'm making movies is to get a response from the audience, is to get the audience to go with me down on whatever path I'm trying to take them with, whether it's to make them laugh or make them jump."

Admittedly, it does feel nice to inquire further into the works of John Carpenter. The Fog was the fourth feature film of his after the broadcast of Someone's Watching Me! (1978) and Elvis (1979). Of course, the genesis for what became The Fog came a few years prior around the time of Assault on Precinct 13 (1976), which had featured Debra Hill as a script supervisor and assistant editor in her first collaboration with Carpenter (with whom he wrote Halloween [1978] with). Apparently, the inspiration came when the two were promoting Assault in England and saw Stonehenge in the mist. This would collide with inspirations such as Val Lewton's films such as Isle of the Dead or I Walked with a Zombie to go along with the 1958 film The Trollenberg Terror, the Tales from the Crypt books, and the wreck of a ship called the Frollic. The Fog was written by Carpenter and Hill, who produced the film as part of a two-movie deal with AVCO Embassy Pictures, which was then followed the following year with Escape from New York (1981). The manner in which Embassy did a deal with Carpenter and Hill irritated Irwin Yablans, who apparently had a verbal agreement to produce the film and did a lawsuit. The result of this was that Carpenter and Hill wound up on working with an eager Yablans for Halloween II (1981). Prior to release of The Fog, Carpenter oversaw reshoots of the film because the original version apparently didn't work in his eyes to go along with needing to compete with horror films that would be released around the same time (with their levels of gore). The prologue alongside certain moments of gore to go with tinkering with the nature of the climax (such as showing the top of the lighthouse) are the most significant things that were done in these re-shoots. The movie was made for roughly $1.1 million and was a relative success with audiences. A remake was directed by Rupert Wainwright in 2005 (with Carpenter and Hill being producers) to tremendous failure.

 

It's interesting that the movie starts with a quote from Edgar Allan Poe’s poem “A Dream Within a Dream" ("Is all that we see or seem/But a dream within a dream?"). The faceless horror that arises from a strange ghost story (well, aside from the climax that sort of feels like a zombie film when they try to board up the church), complete with Houseman being the perfect voice to sell the opening in gentlemanly fashion. A. & A. Special Effects (as operated by Dick Albain Jr) were behind the fog effects, which they did on soundstages with fog machines that combined with various uses of dry ice, fog juice and optical effects (in one instance, a miniature of rocks, black velvet and dry ice to combine later) for what you see here. Barbeau had considerable television experience (most notably on Maude) but this was her film debut, one in which her character doesn't even share a scene physically on-screen with anybody other than her on-screen son. She still manages to pull off a strong performance here, charming and strong enough to carry the tension for sights and sounds. Holbrook is the logical choice for sobering truth in such carefully curated time on screen, one wracked with unnerving energy at seeing cracks form in his faith at the hands of a terrifying discovery (namely coordinating death). Curtis and Atkins are as familiar to us as bread with their warm presences, but (to me, anyway) that is a fun thing to have when seeing people get wrapped in terror. You do get your moments of slashing every now and then, but it mostly is a film trying to roll along with atmosphere (such as an expected on-point music score from Carpenter) and a threat of fog that can in some ways work out for suspense, by the time it gets most of its characters in line for the climax. The 90-minute runtime does end a bit abruptly, but it is still strange but enduring horror experience in which one gets bit of shock and gore at the revenge-plot play out ("six must die", as one sees). As a whole, Carpenter's fourth effort as a filmmaker managed to make an old-fashioned ghost story work out with eerie enjoyment and a solid cast that makes for a pretty good time to see play out all the way to its end. A neat little gem that ranks firmly in the second tier of Carpenter films, you won't miss with this one when it comes to calmly-built terror. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Well, that is a wrap on Halloween: The Week After VI. We had plenty of fun going through a historic October (45 reviews, because I just had to look for as many "different" films as possible) to go along with some useful loose ends fulfilled for this first week of November. Anyway, here is the list of candidates that just missed out on the cut of October 1 - November 7:

The Monster, The Man Who Changed His Mind, The Collector, The Gorgon, The Last Broadcast, Torture Garden, The Wolfman (2010), Quatermass 2, The Bride, The Thing That Wouldn't Die, Vampire in Brooklyn, Amazing Mr. X, Underworld 2, Friday the 13th Part 3, Frankenstein 1970, Alraune, The Plague of Florence, The Student of Prague (1926), The Bat, One Exciting Night, Wizard of Gore, Mary Reilly, Color out of Space, The Invasion, I Know What You Did Last Summer, Final Destination 3, The People Under the Stairs,  The Fly II, Van Helsing, Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh, Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II, It's Alive, Martin, Monkey Shines, I Vampiri, The Abominable Snowman, The Aztec Mummy, From Hell It Came, The House on Sorority Row, Vampire in Venice, Blood for Dracula, Scream Blacula Scream, Planet of the Vampires, Ravenous, The Grudge, Hellraiser II, 

Death Line, Squirm,...

...As for what might be next, well, I do have one surprise up my sleeve.

The Lords of Salem.

Review #2311: The Lords of Salem.

Cast: 

Sheri Moon Zombie (Heidi LaRoc / Adelaide Hawthorne), Bruce Davison (Francis Matthias), Jeff Daniel Phillips (Herman "Whitey" Salvador), Judy Geeson (Lacy Doyle), Meg Foster (Margaret Morgan), Patricia Quinn (Megan), Dee Wallace (Sonny), Ken Foree (Herman "Munster" Jackson), María Conchita Alonso (Alice Matthias), Andrew Prine (Reverend Jonathan Hawthorne), Richard Fancy (A.J. Kennedy), Camille Keaton (Doris Von Fux), Bonita Friedericy (Abigail Hennessey), and Nancy Linehan Charles (Clovis Hales) Written and Directed by Rob Zombie (#743 - Halloween (2007), #1590 - House of 1000 Corpses, #1751 - Halloween II (2009), #1756 - The Devil's Rejects, #1920 - 3 from Hell, #2090 - The Munsters)

Review: 

"50% of you will think this is the greatest thing ever, and 50% will hate it...I think I wanted to let everyone there know that it's OK to feel that way about a film like Lords. It's meant to make you unsure about what you just saw. That's the way the things that I like are—they're not for everybody. People have this delusion that everything has to be for everybody at all times. Every album must be liked by everybody, and every TV show must be liked by everybody, and every movie must be liked by everybody. Everything then becomes bland."

Those with a familiarity with history involving witches or Salem might know that people accused of being witches were not actually burned at the stake. In fact, of the hundreds accused of doing witchcraft in 1692-1693, the thirty that were found guilty suffered the hands of hanging or for the small few, torture (one was pressed until they succumbed to their wounds...and was an 81-year-old man) or death by filthy prisons. Naturally, there have been dozens of books and films that have used the trials as a key topic, whether that involves comedy such as I Married a Witch (1942) or allegories such as The Crucible (play or film). But I suppose it makes sense that one would go and make a film that plays around with the idea that yes, witches really could just be as real as you or me through the old tricks. It was reported in 2010 that Zombie, fresh off the debacle of Halloween II (2009) would get around to writing and directing this film while on his concert tour circuit for shooting in 2011. He apparently had came up with the premise a few years beforehand, but it eventually was tinkered with by Zombie in order to make a "strange, dreamlike movie" (as noted in interviews here, he took inspiration more so from European trials of witches than Salem, which he was misinformed about). He did the film in collaboration with Haunted Movies (so basically, Blumhouse), which at the time had done Insidious and The Bay, particularly because he had total control over the script and casting for a fairly low budget movie. The next Zombie production would come across with 31 (2016), which would go through crowdfunding for certain financing.

I sometimes wonder if I give Zombie a bit too much slack as a filmmaker for all of the fairly average stuff he does. What we have here is a slow burn movie that shows fascination with what Zombie finds interesting about both witchcraft and in "Satanic Panic" that is grim and unforgiving. It may be disjointed; it may not be all that one might think when it comes to the previous Zombie films in terms of stark strangeness in the unfinished cycle of violence but "mixed bag" seems aptly appropriate to try out once if you know what you are getting into. Some might find it basically cribbing from Rosemary's Baby (1968), but given how "fine" that movie was, sometimes you really can just crib from fine movies as long as you don't insult my patience with attempts at simplicity. As before, S.Zombie headlines a R.Zombie film. This time around, there is a passive nature to a character with such a strange and stunted job (it's a radio gig where they hang out about the same level as a couple of inebriated folks) before one eventually sees the logical conclusion of a downward withdrawn spiral. She handles the affair with subdued grace that is probably her most compelling performance for the films I've seen of her. Geeson, Wallace, Quinn play along in weird neighborly charm that is fun to see play out from scene to scene that has fun with self-help in the name of a certain kind of worship. Interestingly, Davison had previously been featured in The Crucible (1996); he was cast when Bruce Dern dropped out of this film due to scheduling conflicts. His curiosity (which went from being a shill for himself to actual curiosity) in the face of impending dread is entertaining to see play out, needless to say. Rounding out the cast is folks such as an unnerving Quinn along with understated presences in Phillips and Foree, who work out fine. The movie has some interesting imagery eventually play out through its trek of dread (such as strange visions or priests) that at least looks like the kind of movie Zombie wanted to just go out and do in having cruelty and uncertainty (for the audience) be the point. As a whole, it might not play well for everyone, but there is promise shown by Zombie in terms of odd duck dread that has a worthy enough cast to carry the waters for a cruel experience that might just work for those that know where to go with a director interested in making a movie to leave you unsure of what you just saw. I ended up going with it enough to say it is fine for one patient viewing, which is more than enough when trying to branch out for horror movies down the road.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next up: We close out our sixth week after Halloween with John Carpenter's The Fog.

Ring 2.

Review #2310: Ring 2.

Cast: 

Miki Nakatani (Mai Takano), Rikiya Otaka (Yoichi Asakawa), Nanako Matsushima (Reiko Asakawa), Yoichi Numata (Takashi Yamamura), Rie Inō (Sadako Yamamura; Mebuki Tsuchida as young Sadako Yamamura), Kyoko Fukada (Kanae Sawaguchi), Yūrei Yanagi (Okazaki), Hitomi Satō (Masami Kurahashi), Hiroyuki Sanada (Ryuji Takayama), Fumiyo Kohinata (Ishi Kawajiri), and Kenjirō Ishimaru (Detective Keiji Omuta) Directed by Hideo Nakata (#1747 - Ring and #1755 - The Ring Two)

Review:

Yes, it seemed ideal to cover Hideo Nakata's first sequel to a film with Ring in the title. You might remember that Ring, as adapted from Koji Suzuki's 1991 novel of the same name, was released on the same day as Spiral on January 31, 1998. Wracked with the choice between film adaptations of the first book and the second book, people apparently were really big on picking the first one and ignoring the second one straight up. Nakata was once quoted saying that one of the changes for adaptation was to not involve the use of a "psych-meter" that was key in the horror-mystery plot. At any rate, here one is with the same director and writer (Hiroshi Takahashi) and a handful of cast members from before came out Ring 2; unlike the last two films, this one was not an adaptation of the novels (at the time of its release, Birthday, a short story collection novel and the fourth of the series, was not out). One year later in 2000, Takahashi returned to write Ring 0: Birthday, a prequel to the series. Nakata declined an offer to direct that film, although as you probably already know, he wound up being the director for the the 2005 sequel to the American remake.

It's very amusing that there basically are three Ring sequels in Japan and America that saw Nakata direct two of them, and it is the one that features psychic energy being channeled into a body of water that is somehow the best among the group. That is not particularly a compliment, because there just isn't enough tension here to make one believe that it really matters to justify itself beyond just feeling like an epilogue to the original. Some have apparently thought of the film as apparently taking some inspiration from Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977), which probably has something to do with the attempts at branching out beyond spooky tapes with, well, psychic energy and the apparent abilities of one certain person. The acting is passable but never particularly comes off as compelling with the various people that come and go (such as quiet kids, and a little bit of "oh hey, it's the person from the first film"); Nakatani has some of the curious energy required in inquisition, up to a point. The unravelling of what one gets to know about Sadako (such as a facial reconstruction) is interesting...some of the time. It basically is a procedural (with its own ideas of infecting one in more ways than one) that tries to coast on ideas that surely work better for those into "thoughtography" that isn't particularly scary. Some might call it the kind of movie that fits right in for those looking to absorb atmosphere and subtle nature, but it just seems hollow here, managing instead to feel like a collision of conversations that can only go so far before you wonder if you are going around in circles. The movie can't quite stick its trip down the well when it comes to finding a way to make sense of its actual landing (why is only this person who was saved, well, who really knows?), particularly in its actual final scene, which seems even more open to "throwing your hands up" than definitive, and I should mention that, well, the first film just happened to stick the landing closer in unsettling nature in ways the second never really gets to. As a whole, it has a few ideas perhaps worth looking into for 95 minutes that you either will go right in for as a proper way to follow Ring or you will just leave off mildly disappointed.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Rob Zombie's The Lords of Salem

Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2.

Review #2309: Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2.

Cast: 

Jeffrey Donovan (Jeffrey Patterson), Erica Leerhsen (Erica Geerson), Stephen Barker Turner (Stephen Ryan Parker), Kim Director (im Diamond), Tristine Skyler (Tristen Ryler), Lanny Flaherty (Sheriff Ronald Cravens), and Lauren Hulsey (Eileen Treacle) Directed by Joe Berlinger.

Review: 

"“My original intent was to make a comment on the dangers of blurring the lines between fiction and reality. Even I didn’t realize how prescient that idea is. We’ve never had more information available at our fingertips yet the truth has never been more elusive.”

Remember The Blair Witch Project? Sure, you probably enjoyed it when it came out 25 years ago in 1999. The film starts with people gushing about the phenomenon of the film and the interest of in how the website apparently really sold folks about the events that supposedly appeared in Burkittsville, Maryland (a town with less than 200 people) as a "documentary". Unfortunately, you are reading the words of someone who thought the original film was an overrated, over-hyped, under-produced fluke. Part of me thought about re-watching the first film before seeing the "sequel", particularly since it had been five years since I saw that film (and three since I saw the 2016 "whatever you want to call it" Blair Witch). But since I had an inkling that this was not going to be a particularly "good" experience, I didn't want to consider watching two mediocre movies back-to-back, so here we are with a curiosity. Artisan Entertainment, wanting to rush out a follow-up as quick as possible, went with Joe Berlinger to direct; he had gone to the studio to pitch a script to the studio that they were more interested in ignoring to instead approach him with scripts they had cobbled together about the Blair Witch (in found footage, again), which he rejected. Amusingly, Berlinger has been on record as saying that he thought the original film that was both effectively done by the filmmakers along with one that "aggravated" him because of its camera work (with relation to reality) along with its marketing hoax that made people really think they were watching a snuff film. At the time, he was noted for his work with Bruce Sinofsky in documentary filmmaking, such as their films chronicling "the West Memphis Three" with the Paradise Lost trilogy (1996-2011).  He co-wrote this film with Dick Beebe. After the film had been shot, Artisan decided, yes, let us change the "ambiguous psychological horror movie" they fast-racked into production to piggyback off the first film to impose more "commercial" elements to the film in post-production, such as seeing brief moments of gore or interrogation that occasionally pop up in the film (for the latter, it was meant to bookend the film as one whole video sequence); Berlinger has been quoted as saying that Artisan did not care for the idea of going for a "Hitchcock-ian" idea of seeing nothing with its violence because in the view of the executive (as quoted by Berlinger), "our audience can barely spell "Hitchcock." The result of spending $15 million was a movie that had a fair audience showing, albeit not one on the level of the original. Berlinger has continued to direct documentaries, although he did return to narrative films once more with Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile (2019). There apparently exist efforts by online people to do an "Artisan Studio Removal Cut" for viewing if you know where to go.

Before I forget, apparently the "book of shadows" involves a witch's book of illusory incantations. That, and the film is a "fictionalized reenactment of events that occurred after the release of The Blair Witch Project [1999] (specifically November 1999)". That's one way to get moving for a film after it gushes about trips to Burkittsville (and TV pundits talking about the first movie like suckers), having a guy get a tube stuck up his nose. Obviously, this is so one can flash back to how things will eventually end up in the "conventional" narrative. It probably is not a great sign that the first 15 minutes has one interesting sight: Director, being first shown lying on a gravestone with a cigarette. The movie may say that people fear what they don't understand but the only thing people should fear here is that the original Blair Witch Project not only managed to trick people into believing the crap spewed out in "found footage" but that people actually thought they could make a follow-up that wasn't just as dumb as before. At least this time one isn't hearing "what was that?" while the camera gets shaken round and round like before...it just merely is a silly movie that has little to no suspense but at least has a narrative worth making fun of to go with some bloodshed, which at least is something tangible. The idea behind the film was yes, the characters we are to follow were the killers and also are blinded by hysteria when it comes to the aforementioned legend. The problem with that is ironically the same problem that happens with cruddy "traditional horror" movies and the aforementioned 1999 movie: I do not like these dorks that much. Director and her attempts at playing "Goth" is at least alluring in ways that Leerhsen just manages to come off as annoying (so anyway, ever heard of a "Wiccan"?). At least Flaherty is meant to be amusingly over-the-top. I shudder to think about the film really would be with the original intent of romp-gone-dour, but what you get is a movie that might as well be thrown up into a toilet. The ideas of trying to be "subversive" for a horror audience at least was handled with some sort of amusement in The Cabin in the Woods (2011; wow, I found a way to compliment that movie in less time than I ever expected). The movie doesnt work for much interest in "what horror fans want" because it doesn't have cohesion in actually making the trip worth shuddering over. All you get is a panicked feeling. As a whole, this compromised mess of a movie is amusing in its monumental mediocrity that shows ideas of interest but flails around just a bit too much (studio or otherwise) to be a worthy winner.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Next up: The sequel to Ring...well, the real one this time with Ring 2.

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

Review #2308: Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

Cast: 

Robert De Niro (The Creation), Kenneth Branagh (Victor Frankenstein), Tom Hulce (Henry Clerval), Helena Bonham Carter (Elizabeth Lavenza Frankenstein), Ian Holm (Baron Alphonse Frankenstein), John Cleese (Professor Waldman), Aidan Quinn (Captain Robert Walton), Richard Briers (Grandfather), Robert Hardy (Professor Krempe), Trevyn McDowell (Justine Moritz), Celia Imrie (Mrs. Moritz), Cherie Lunghi (Caroline Frankenstein), and Ryan Smith (William Frankenstein) Directed by Kenneth Branagh (#041 - Thor)

Review: 

"Frankenstein feels like an ancient tale, the kind of traditional story that appears in many other forms. It appeals to something very primal, but it’s also about profound things, the very nature of life and death and birth—about, essentially, a man who is resisting the most irresistible fact of all, that we will be shuffling off this mortal coil. It was sent to me as I was rehearsing a production of Hamlet, and it seemed to me that the two things were linked. Hamlet and Victor Frankenstein are each obsessed with death. Hamlet’s whole story is a philosophical preparation for death; Victor’s is an intellectual refusal to accept it."

On November 4, 1994, audiences got their chance to see a big-budget adaptation of a classic novel that had seen a dozen (or so) films that cribbed from it since the 20th century began. You might remember that Francis Ford Coppola had spearheaded a production to make a lavish adaptation of a famous horror novel for which the result was the lavishly mediocre Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992). But one can't stop there as a producer, I suppose, as here we are looking at the other horror movie that had Coppola involved, albeit not as director; the source material, as one already might know, is the 1818 novel Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus by Mary Shelley. The movie was originally written by Steph Lady prior to Coppola buying the rights to it; he planned to direct the film before deciding to ask Branagh to direct the film while also saying the importance of casting Robert De Niro as the Creature. At the time, Branagh was rehearsing a production of Hamlet and he perceived links between it and Frankenstein when it comes to the obsession with death (you can inquire about Branagh's mindset prior to the release of the film here, for example) You might remember that the Belfast-born Branagh had trained at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art before eventually becoming a director with Henry V (1989), the first of several adaptations of the work of William Shakespeare. Frank Darabont was brought in to do a second draft by Branagh. Audiences didn't really go out in droves as compared to the folks that saw Bram Stoker's Dracula (it wasn't a failure of course with its $45 million budget). Darabont later called it "the best script I ever wrote and the worst movie I've ever seen", stating that Branagh was entirely to blame (or give credit to, if one liked the film) for what essentially became an "operatic attempt at filmmaking". According to Lady, his script was used by a friend who taught at a film school about when a good script is "in the hands of a bad director." The makeup from Daniel Parker, Paul Engelen and Carol Hemming at least earned attention, receiving an Academy Award nomination (and it certainly seemed deserving, the creature does look pretty good here).

There is something at work in one's soul to try and understand where it all went up for a monumental example of being forgotten. How do you manage to make a movie with such a noted actor like De Niro and not end up being thought of first or even second in Frankenstein-adjacent movies? How do you make a movie with loads of amniotic fluid and eels to go along with a deliberately phallic tube...and not have any great lasting appeal? Even the defenders of Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) can point to the style of the film as a lasting legacy (I personally put the legacy in that stupid look of its title character, but your milage may vary), but this is merely a movie that seems to fall by the wayside even with two memorable actors trying to lead the way. Branagh was once quoted as not being able to resist having a scene involving re-creating Elizabeth despite its difference from the novel because "it seemed to make psychological sense", one that could be different from the "high camp" from the two James Whale films. This seems to be amusing because of how much he figuratively seems to eat the movie right from under De Niro, gallivanting as if this really was a show for the stage. In his attempts to mine tragedy in what essentially is a war of creation, you get a performance that is purely in the middle-ground that (unfairly or not) really does remind one of better days with Peter Cushing as Frankenstein. Maybe that is just the curse of doing a Frankenstein film that ends up having to do things that might remind you of one of the more famous adaptations because you just expect it, even if it tries to repulse you with the idea of something that could just be possible somewhere beyond imagination. De Niro actually does pretty well with his performance (apparently, he studied stroke victims when it came to finding the voice for the Creature), it just so happens that he falls upon the strange double-edged sword that comes with being such a noted presence in acting that may be a bit lost among the makeup and the aforementioned bombast behind him. But the sequence with him taking shelter within a barn and a downtrodden family that features him seeing and learning about people on some sort of level is still a worthwhile one to view as a highlight, particularly with the end result of a creature that now has its worldview confirmed of hatred surrounding its existence. The dangers of the obsession with trying to win the game of creation pulls handily with Carter for a confused performance that at least has one shining moment: right around the climax, the book and film get to collide with each other in having a would-be bride be interrupted by the Creature...only here she gets her heart ripped out (okay, there's a scene right after that too, but it is more fun to let one be only a little bit surprised by revealing only the obvious moment of interest). The rest of the actors are left to sway at the weird execution of a film that veers between melodrama and disturbing (poor Cleese doesn't get much time underneath that wig, but I appreciate the effort), which mostly means Hulce and Quinn are left on the wayside a bit. The 123-minute runtime is probably a bit too much to really hold things together for what the movie believes itself to be in great tragedy, but at least it does try to keep the foot on the pedal of frantic filmmaking, for better or worse. Processing the film ended up where I liked the movie just enough. I don't know about calling it "profound" in being disturbing, but it is fairly entertaining even in profound averageness, so I suppose that is better than nothing. Highly ambitious even with its ultimate short-sighted execution, you might find something worth watching for a film that now can celebrate a third decade of anniversary. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Blair Witch 2.

The Curse of the Werewolf.

Review #2307: The Curse of the Werewolf.

Cast: 

Clifford Evans (Don Alfredo Corledo), Oliver Reed (Leon Corledo; Justin Walters as Young Leon Corledo), Yvonne Romain (servant girl; Loraine Carvana as young servant girl), Catherine Feller (Christina Fernando), Anthony Dawson (Marques Siniestro), Josephine Llewelyn (Marquesa Siniestro), Richard Wordsworth (Beggar), Hira Talfrey (Teresa), John Gabriel (Priest), Warren Mitchell (Pepe Valiente), and Anne Blake (Rosa Valiente)

Directed by Terence Fisher (#257 - The Curse of Frankenstein, #258 - Dracula [1958], #272 - The Hound of the Baskervilles [1959], #469 - The Revenge of Frankenstein, #833 - Spaceways, #857 - Frankenstein Created Woman, #858 - Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed, #859 - Dracula: Prince of Darkness, #1280 - The Brides of Dracula, #2096 - The Mummy [1959], #2263 - Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell)

Review: 

I figure that you need at least one werewolf movie every so often to remind oneself about how fresh werewolf tales are for films, since the first few came out in the 1910s before the first definivite one came with Universal's Werewolf of London (1935). Hammer ended up making just one werewolf film. Anthony Hinds produced and wrote the screenplay for this film, which cites the novel The Werewolf of Paris (as written by Guy Endore in 1941, having already co-written film scripts such as 1935's Mark of the Vampire and Mad Love), which happens to have its own interesting idea about werewolves: a person born in awful circumstances, which differs from book to film: the book featured a baby born on Christmas Eve after the rape of a girl by a priest hat is set around the time of the Franco-Prussian War (1870), while the film depicts a servant girl raped by a beggar born on Christmas Day that is set in 18th century Spain. The sets were done at Bray Studios that took the place of their intended use for a "Spanish Inquisition" film that did not go forward due to objections (probably doesn't help the working title was "The Rape of Sabena"). It is the first werewolf film in color. The movie was directed by the same filmmaker that had directed Hammer to success with The Curse of Frankenstein (1957), Dracula (1958) and The Mummy (1959) in Terence Fisher, although the result was not nearly as successful, mostly because of censors that saw the movie trimmed down (to one with barely any attacks, apparently). Legend of the Werewolf, as made by Tyburn Film Productions in 1975 as an attempt to serve as a successor to Hammer, was written by Hinds, with inspiration taken from the Endore novel (without credit given to Endore this time around).

So, you get a movie depicting the war between one's "soul" and "spirit" that basically has a guy cursed from the very moment he is born...and a film that doesn't really show its wolf for about an hour into its 90-minute runtime. You basically have three threads loosely connected into each other for a movie that is clearly not Hammer's best film but might be up your alley in terms of mediocre fun. It has less use of the makeup (as designed by Roy Ashton that might remind one of Jack Pierce's work on The Wolf Man) that you might expect to go with a fairly decent look to it all in cinematography for a movie that basically goes all in on the idea of trying to confront the terror of werewolves with love, with bleak results. One basically has three plot outlines to go through in succession that sort of tie together: the story of a beggar and his eventual descent into ravaging (after a drawn-out scene of a Marques), the birth and growing up of young Leon (complete with "dreams") and then Leon in adulthood seeing love and lust collide. It is a strange way to collude things together. This was the first leading role for Reed, who had appeared in a number of bit parts since the mid-1950s, which included appearances in Hammer's The Two Faces of Dr. Jekyll (1960) and Sword of Sherwood Forest (1960). He may not get as much time to grab the screen, but he ends up being the highlight of the film anyway, portraying the inner war of spirit and soul with worthwhile timing to make for suspenseful interest. The clash of what makes up a man when confronted with love and lust in a burgeoning adulthood is at least something worth thinking of beyond just labeling it as just a Lon Chaney impersonation. It pretty much overshadows Evans, who is fine if not exactly remarkable (Welshmen playing a "Don Alfredo" is not as silly as it could be). Feller is adequate for a role that doesn't even give her a final shot at the end. Dawson and his scene-chewing in such a short time will be hit or miss for some, but I'm totally fine with it in terms of unsettling strangeness in a land not too strange to us. The movie works just enough for those with the patience to go with its variation on the tragic figure in the werewolf that has a worthwhile performance to lead the way and make things at least end on a solemn note worth noting. As a whole, the movie doesn't compare greatly with the prior work of Fisher, but for a film that has some interesting conflict once it gets good (at least when the censors weren't busy), it might prove enough to win out in the end, depending on one's patience for the overall construction that comes out here.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next up: 30 years later, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

The Hills Have Eyes (1977).

Review #2306: The Hills Have Eyes (1977).

Cast: 

Martin Speer (Doug Wood), Susan Lanier (Brenda Carter), Robert Houston (Bobby Carter), Brenda Marinoff (Baby Katy Wood), Virginia Vincent (Ethel Carter), Dee Wallace (Lynne Wood), Russ Grieve (Big Bob Carter), Cordy Clark (Mama), Janus Blythe (Ruby), Michael Berryman (Pluto), James Whitworth (Papa Jupiter), Lance Gordon (Mars), Peter Locke (Mercury), and John Steadman (Fred) Written and Directed by Wes Craven (#474 - A Nightmare on Elm Street, #558 - Scream, #633 - Red Eye, #939 - Swamp Thing, #1156 - Wes Craven's New Nightmare, #2135 - The Last House on the Left)

Review: 

"It soon became clear that I wasn't going to do anything else unless it was scary."

Sure, sometimes you just get pegged into a corner. Wes Craven was just looking to find a film to direct after the release of The Last House on the Left (1972), which generated controversy and shock from the people (read: a few losers among the bunch) you would expect. He tried writing scripts with Sean S. Cunningham (with decidedly non-horror tones), but they couldn't attract financial funding. Even trying to do a take on the "Hansel and Gretel" fairy tale didn't go for much. Craven took the advice of his friend Peter Locke to go out to the deserts in Nevada and just go make a film, particularly since Locke was interested to do an exploitation film. In trying to not just do another House of the Left, Craven took inspiration from the legend of Sawney Bean, who apparently was the head of a large clan in 16th century Scotland that murdered and ate over a thousand people in a quarter-century that eventually saw them captured and executed. Films such as The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (as directed by Tobe Hooper three years prior) and The Grapes of Wrath (1940) also have been stated to have played influence on this film (Craven once stated that his original script was to take place in the fall of 1984). After the film was released (to considerable success), Craven next went into television with Stranger in Our House (1978) before his next feature in Deadly Blessing (1981). In 1985, a sequel was made on the cheap with The Hills Have Eyes Part II by Craven (featuring Berryman and Blythe returning) that basically died in limited theaters that he later dis-owned. The 1995 HBO film Mind Ripper was apparently written originally with the idea to be a third Hills film (as co-written by Craven's son Jonathan) before that was changed prior to production, which was produced by the Cravens. A remake of the film was done in 2006 that saw Craven serve as a co-producer before it was followed by a sequel that saw it written by the Cravens.

Admittedly, the experience of the film probably does depend on when you see it. Craven also served as editor on this film (much like his previous film) and he clearly had an intent in mind with horror on the frontier. There is a rage that comes out in what you see from the two families in the film that aren't exactly as different as one might like to think about (one is a cannibal, but sure). Whitworth and Berryman (who actually was born with a condition where he has no sweat glands) probably stand out among the cannibals when it comes to unnerving presence that unsettles you from time to time, possibly because stumbling onto terror (one that can't be reasoned with in "normal timing") that could get you and just leave you there in the middle of nowhere is an unsettling one to consider. The effectiveness of the other side is in watching their degradation in terms of adjustment from the cheery family nature to abject terror (probably around the moment where one of them is crucified) in the 89-minute runtime is handled with commitment by the actors, mostly with Speer (incidentally, Wallace would be the one to get plenty more horror work in the next few years, while Houston became an Academy Award-winning documentarian). Consider Grieve in an early scene talking about his former job in such a "particular" way for a former cop about people. It is a fairly creepy movie that moves along with its abject creeping nature with worthwhile timing that hangs on every little weird note possible. The plight of survival is a horrific one when civilization isn't so easy to find out there and violence isn't just on the sidelines to hear about but instead is in your face. The ending (the true one, not the alternative one that ends with an epilogue of Ruby and the others) is a stark one worth highlighting when it comes to the final progression of revenge in savagery that lets it coat over the audience in its abruptness. As a whole, it is a smidge better than his first effort as a filmmaker in terms of execution with its visceral power for atmospheric entertainment. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars

Next up: The Curse of the Werewolf

Madhouse (1974)

Review #2305: Madhouse.

Cast: 

Vincent Price (Paul Toombes), Peter Cushing (Herbert Flay), Adrienne Corri (Faye Carstairs Flay), Robert Quarry (Oliver Quayle), Natasha Pyne (Julia Wilson), Michael Parkinson (T.V. Interviewer), Linda Hayden (Elizabeth Peters), Barry Dennen (Gerry Blount), Ellis Dale (Alfred Peters), Catherine Willmer (Louise Peters), and John Garrie (Inspector Harper) Directed by Jim Clark.

Review: 

As it turned out, this was the final film that Vincent Price appeared in for the illustrious (interpret the word all you want) American International Pictures. He had appeared in over a dozen of their film productions since House of Usher (1960). Price (then by his sixties) wasn't exactly left without work of course; he just merely didn't do as many films as he did with his regular appearances on television in the remainder of his career. This was a co-production between AIP and Amicus Productions (as founded by Max Rosenberg and Milton Subotsky). The movie is loosely based on the novel Devilday by Angus Hall; development had started in 1970 when AIP purchased the novel rights. Robert Fuest (the guy behind those Dr. Phibes films that had Price) was at one point tapped to direct but nothing came of it. Jim Clark was recruited to direct, having previously done The Christmas Tree (1966), Every Home Should Have One (1970), and Rentadick [1972]). Greg Morrison's script was apparently bad enough that Price wanted re-writes, which led to Ken Levison doing revisions while they were shooting the film (Robert Quarry supposedly did re-writes for a chunk of dialogue as well). Referring to the finished film as "stillborn" (one that had re-edits imposed by Subotsky, who was disliked by Price just as much as he disliked Arkoff). Clark never directed a feature again, although his contributions to films such as Midnight Cowboy (1969) ended up being his legacy to go along with editing, which included the Academy Award-winning work in Marathon Man (1976) and The Killing Fields (1984); Clark died at the age of 84 in 2016.

You'd think there would be something a bit more there with a film mentioning "special participation" by recently departed actors (Basil Rathbone and Boris Karloff had worked with Price on some of those AIP films, and it was Samuel Z. Arkoff who insisted the clips be included in the film by any means necessary). It is a fairly decent movie that just happens to pale in comparison to the real pinnacle of Price and his theatricality in Theatre of Blood (1973). You will find a few interesting things here involving carefully-constructed horror that is at least semi-amusing. Cushing and Price had appeared in two earlier films but hadn't shared any scenes together prior to this film (with Scream and Scream Again and the Phibes sequel); they starred in one more film with House of the Long Shadows [1983]. They have some fun together, most notably with the climax that tries to make sense of the actual killer (the idea of a would-be actor being the age of Cushing, then in his sixties, is probably a bit too out there, but the forgiving type won't be too hard on it). Price might not have been big on AIP (he was quoted by Clark as referring to Arkoff and company as a word that rhymes with "mocksucker"), but he still gives it his best try anyway. You get a bit of fake "backstage filmmaking" action to go with a middling procedural (which reminds me a bit of Strait-Jacket) that has him stumble onto being interviewed by an actual interviewer in Parkinson for a chuckle. Corri is at least semi-effective in weird eerie timing that I appreciate, which is more than one can say for some of the supporting people that basically aren't given much to do anyway (Quarry included). The movie is incredibly predictable (just who could it be when you think of name actors?) but is bolstered by at least having a useful "Dr. Death" getup and some amusing moments to perhaps be enough for 91 minutes of an evening. Mild farewells for films that remind one of the old films are better than no farewells at all. People who like Price films might not have a great one on their hands here, but it at least is something that can be watched without having too many moments of embarrassment to see play out.

Overall, I give 7 out of 10 stars.

For Halloween: The Week After VI: one year later for a Wes Craven film, The Hills Have Eyes.

Phantom of the Paradise.

Review #2304: Phantom of the Paradise.

Cast: 

Paul Williams (Swan / singing voice of the Phantom), William Finley (Winslow Leach / the Phantom), George Memmoli (Arnold Philbin), Gerrit Graham (Beef; Raymond Louis Kennedy as singing voice), Jessica Harper (Phoenix), Mary Margaret Amato (Swan's groupie), Janis Eve Lynn (a groupie), Cheryl Smith (a groupie), with Archie Hahn, Jeffrey Comanor & Harold Oblong (the Juicy Fruits / the Beach Bums / the Undeads), and Rod Serling (the introductory voice) Written and Directed by Brian De Palma (#801 - Mission: Impossible, #1230 - Carrie, #1471 - Scarface, #2139 - Sisters)

Review: 

"I've always thought rock and horror were very close stylistically. I felt I had a solution in combining two separate audiences. Obviously, I didn't."

In 1974, when Halloween night became November morning, a movie came out with elements borrowed from a variety of literary sources from Gaston Leroux's The Phantom of the Opera to Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Gray to the famed Faust legend that was directed by Brian De Palma. You might remember that he had just scored a pretty decent hit with Sisters (1972), his sixth feature film but first with considerable attention. Interestingly, the root for making the film was De Palma hearing a Beatles song in an elevator played as "muzak" to go along with experiences trying to pitch material to indifferent executives and an idea from his friends (Mark Stone and John Weiser) about a "Phantom of the Fillmore"; De Palma wrote the film, although apparently Louisa Rose (his co-writer for the aforementioned Sisters film contributed, but the original screenplay just lists De Palma). Apparently, it was a chance meeting of De Palma with Williams at A&M Records while the former was trying to raise money for the film that led to the casting seen in the film because of his particular "look". This was the first major role for Paul Williams, who previously appeared in minor roles such as Battle for the Planet of the Apes (1973) while becoming a noted professional songwriter, most notably writing the lyrics to songs such as "We've Only Just Begun" to go along with being a regular on the TV circuit. The movie was independently financed (with funding from real estate guy Gustave Berne, who actually was a co-producer on Theatre of Blood), but it found a place at 20th Century Fox because of producer Edward Pressman, who sold the film to the one who happened to bid the highest. The movie was a flop at the time of release, even with such promising ideas from Fox to have costume parties held at its big-city premieres (it was apparently on Halloween night, after all; Pressman has stated that the promotions focused more on the music and specifically Williams were ineffective for the film and he later did his own promotion of the film as "horror phantasy"). However, viewers in Winnipeg (Manitoba, Canada), they apparently loved it enough for the movie to be screened for several weeks (okay, Paris apparently was cool with the film, but Movie Night loves the city of Winnipeg far more than the country of France; besides, one came up with "Phantompalooza"). Well, there was one considerable influence the film had: music duo Daft Punk apparently cited the film as their foundation point as a favorite of theirs. The next film for De Palma would be Obsession (1976), which would end up as a decent hit before he made some film about teenage revenge.

Musical, comedy, horror, it's a delight depending on what genre you're looking for (for those questioning its place in the latter category, call it the horrors of selling one's soul and get back to me). If you appreciate films like The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975; emphasis on "you", because I sure didn't), it surely will have an electrifying effect for its viewer in enjoyable glam-like rock and acid-tongue humor for a particular industry that happens to have a game cast. De Palma really believed even in 1969 (as per production note research) that rock and horror were merging with the growing success of the Rolling Stones and Alice Cooper and thus a film should be done in the rock world beyond concert films, and I think I see where he was going with that vision for a movie that is delirious and rapid in execution. It is a broad movie where you feel every beat and every style; one critic called it an "elaborate disaster", and I fail to see how that was meant to be criticism; it's a movie about people sealing deals in blood, what do you expect?. True to form, Williams really does pull off the standout performance as both composer and actor for this film, managing to be conniving in the great double-act that can be both soul-sucking and darkly amusing. Finlay makes for a worthwhile tragic figure, robbed of his soul and his livelihood to the point where he is figuratively bound to a person with devastating results. Graham provides great amusement in his interpretation of glam rock (he may not get to provide his own vocals, but he sure moved like he did them) in great theatricality to go along with support from Memmoli and a young Harper. The film is electrifying and actually pretty funny in its look on the music industry and the exploitative horrors that come with art that is prey to big business (note the changing band played by the same people that starts and close the film), and that includes the women that are seen exploited in certain ways (take note of the auditions) as well. It is a demented and worthwhile film that may very well become even more interesting to look upon in rewatches, which is quite the compliment for the true mix of horror-comedy-musical you would hope for anytime and anywhere.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Now then, we enter a tradition that I enjoy making up so November can start off well, with the last five Novembers seeing: Dracula [1979] (2019), Revenge of the Creature (Part II, 2020), Halloween Kills (Part 3, 2021) The Cat and the Canary (4.0, 2022), and Lifeforce (Year Five, 2023). 

For Halloween: The Week After VI, let's go with Madhouse tomorrow night.

Braindead.

Review #2303: Braindead.

Cast: 

Timothy Balme (Lionel Cosgrove), Diana Peñalver (Paquita María Sánchez), Elizabeth Moody (Vera Cosgrove; Elizabeth Brimilcombe as Zombie Vera), Ian Watkin (Uncle Les), Brenda Kendall (Nurse McTavish), Stuart Devenie (Father McGruder; Stephen Papps as Zombie McGruder), Jed Brophy (Void), Murray Keane (Scroat), and Glenis Levestam (Nora Matheson) Directed by Peter Jackson (#1486 - Bad Taste, #1507 - Heavenly Creatures, #1540 - King Kong (2005), #2259 - Meet the Feebles)

Review: 

"The film is basically like a theatrical farce in many ways. Lionel ends up with a problem of having all these zombies in his house, without wanting anyone else to find out about it ...every possible thing that could go wrong, does go wrong."

Well, one needs guts or laughs every now and then. Peter Jackson had actually met Fran Walsh and Stephen Sinclair while in the midst of preparing the short-film-turned-feature debut Bad Taste (1987). Eventually, after the release of his next film Meet the Feebles (as co-written by the group for release in 1989), it finally came to pass with the three doing a script together. Jackson stated his goal of making "a splatter film that non splatter fans can go see", one that freely aimed for cheap laughs because of his liking for comedy and a general interest to entertain people. Made for roughly $3 million over the course of eleven weeks, the movie wasn't an initial hit with audiences (New Zealand is not exactly a populous place), but it eventually grew a reputation for its gore while keeping Jackson on the steady path of filmmaking, as evidenced by his next feature being the biodrama Heavenly Creatures just two years later (Walsh co-wrote that film while Sinclair went on to write, uh, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers [2002] and Russian Snark [2010]). The film runs at 104 minutes, although in its original release it had a few cuts away from its native New Zealand (due to its similarity in title to a film called Brain Dead, the States called it "Dead Alive" for release). 

What, a horror movie that is funny even with plenty of gore? You don't say. This is a warmhearted solid movie that happens to involve a "Sumatran" rat monkey and zombie descendants. You've got an embalmer that shows up for one scene for us to find out he wears a swastika underneath his stuff. You've got a reverend that kicks ass for the Lord. You've got a special-effects laden baby of disgusting nature. And most of all, you've got a climax that ends with plenty of blood and a big mother of a final confrontation that just lets the film end right then and there. It basically runs as a soap opera (set in 1957 complete with an old shot of the New Zealand flag right then and there) and plays everything over-the-top to eager worthiness. The effects were crafted by Bob McCarron and Richard Taylor to go with some miniature work by Jackson, and the blood apparently came from maple syrup, red food coloring and some other strange substance. This was the first film appearance for Balme, who still goes around talking about how enjoyable the experience was in filmmaking. He is tasked with making for a goofy dork that we can follow along with even in the madcap hilarity that arises in a silly performance that in some ways would've been right at home with the familiar slapstick times that happens to handle a heavy lawnmower, although most might also say the baby sequence is just as peak in amusement (you just have to see it to get it). Peñalver plays well in goofy warmth that plays to some of the expectations imposed in reactive timing when the situation requires it, whether that involves the meet-cute (after "foreshadowing" in fortune telling) or the eventual reunion that might as well be a scream-union. Moody is delightful in caustic timing that is quite amusing to play off Balme even when it comes to just being a voice (hence Brimilcombe) after a while, with the lunch sequence being particularly gnarly to play out in casual gutty timing. In a sea of movies with attempts at trying to top each other in effects or films they believe are the genre-savvy film for its generation, sometimes you need something to remind you of what real craftsmanship looks like. As a whole, it is the splatter movie for the entertainer at heart, clearly moving on its own terms in manic energy and glee in entrapping its viewer for a movie that straddles itself onto farce with worthwhile commitment and execution in every scene. 

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Closing up the October part of the schedule with Phantom of the Paradise.

The Cabin in the Woods.

Review #2302: The Cabin in the Woods.

Cast: 

Kristen Connolly (Dana Polk), Chris Hemsworth (Curt Vaughan), Anna Hutchison (Jules Louden), Fran Kranz (Marty Mikalski), Jesse Williams (Holden McCrea), Richard Jenkins (Gary Sitterson), Bradley Whitford (Steve Hadley), Brian White (Daniel Truman), Amy Acker (Wendy Lin), Sigourney Weaver (The Director), and Tim de Zarn (Mordecai) Directed by Drew Goddard.

Review:

" I’m going to leave that to others to decide. If subversion comes along, so be it. I just love that we’re throwing the ultimate horror party. And really, we’re telling stories about why we tell stories, with what the characters go through. That’s the nature of creation."

Well, it was bound to happen someday. Drew Goddard started off as a production assistant before eventually becoming a staff writer for Buffy the Vampire Slayer (2002-03), which you might remember was created by Joss Whedon. Goddard wrote his first film screenplay with Cloverfield (2008). The movie came out from a desire of Goddard to work with Whedon on something, which went from brainstorming an outline to eventually getting down to writing a first draft in the span of three days. According to Whedon, he envisioned the film as one that would be a "serious critique of what we love and don't about horror movies", one that would have what they liked in being scared along with making light of what they didn't care for recently while Goddard once called it as "more a critique of society" in posing the question about why one feels the need to marginalize youth on screen. The movie was originally slated for release by MGM...in 2009. Financial difficulties with the studio eventually led to it being released by Lionsgate years later (it was first screened in 2011 before release in March of 2012). Based on a promo campaign that pushed for as little spoiling as possible, the film was a fair hit with audiences. Goddard has continued to write in television and film (while directing once more with Bad Times at the El Royale [2018]).

Sure, maybe there is a worthwhile metaphor worth holding up for this film. Sure, maybe this is your ideal horror movie for its era that holds up well in an era of references and other things. But man, I really, really did not care that much for this movie as much as other people seem to vaunt it as a cult classic, particularly with its ending. In trying to make a "loving hate letter" to the horror genre, all I found that doesn't even have a payoff on the levels of Scream (1996). In trying to present that the monster is basically interchangeable, all I got out of that was a movie that is exhausting more than clever. The acting tries to have people play both "character" and the "archetype" to decidedly mixed results, because if you're going to play homage and parody with the slasher, you better have something charming brewing beyond Kranz being the standout. Get it? Our five guys to follow up (spoiler: not actually five) are not actually the cliches you think they are but are still pretty one-note anyway? Get it? Call me crazy, but you know what was more fun? Watching the strange charm of seeing Jenkins and Whitford together basically watching the build-up for people dying because, and I say this sincerely, they actually are funny. They may reflect the viewer when it comes to viewing our leads and waiting for things to play out (or in an amusing moment, watching them scoff at the failure of a certain horror scenario play out) but honestly, I would probably rather watch them play out for the whole film. Of course, perhaps I am not the kind of person to really understand "meta" or whatever but consider that some have seen plenty of horror films that actually let you think about its cliches and don't come off as exhausting. The Deadly Spawn (1983) wasn't much more than its effects sequences, but I was more interested in where it was going to end up in its house-bound locale than here with its attempts at playing on the joke (it also didn't have an ending that made me roll my eyes). Hell, Shaun of the Dead (2004) just shut up and rode its romcomzombie foundation for a consistent ride that commented on the old stuff but actually was worth its stuff in the elements. But, well, I can at least say it isn't on the level of The Blair Witch Project (1999) in being overrated? You want horror movies with "meaning"? Then give me something worth its salt to actually hold up beyond essentially chuckling at itself. Time will surely give credit to this film for its playing with the tropes of horror, but I'm not going to lose any sleep in calling it average. It has a few interesting moments in curiosity in actual violence, specifically a moment of release to build-up the actual reveal, and it sometimes is funny when it comes to looking at them beyond cliches. But as a whole, it manages to overwhelm and underwhelm itself in misplaced ideas about horror and youth for overall execution that makes it just average in the long run. Go into the film with as little expectations or knowledge as possible and see for yourself, for better or worse.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next up: two better horror movies with elements of humor, and the first is Braindead.