A Bucket of Blood.

Review #1186: A Bucket of Blood.

Cast: 
Dick Miller (Walter Paisley), Barboura Morris (Carla), Antony Carbone (Leonard de Santis), Julian Burton (Maxwell H. Brock), Ed Nelson (Art Lacroix), John Brinkley (Will), John Herman Shaner (Oscar), Judy Bamber (Alice), Myrtle Vail (Mrs. Swickert), and Bert Convy (Lou Raby) Directed by Roger Corman (#368 - The Little Shop of Horrors, #684 - It Conquered the World, #852 - The Terror, #931 - Not of This Earth, #1007 - Attack of the Crab Monsters, #1039 - Five Guns West, #1042 - War of the Satellites, #1136 - Gas-s-s-s, and #1147 - X: The Man with the X-ray Eyes)

Review: 
Horror and comedy films are generally entertaining on their own, but mixing the two genres together can certainly invite the possibility of something really interesting, particularly if you have a good set of hands on and behind the camera. Roger Corman and an handy ensemble cast are sure up to the task. Unsurprisingly, the budget and time to shoot for this film was fairly low - $50,000 and five days (shooting under the working title of "The Living Dead"). The sets themselves were leftovers from another AIP film, Diary of a High School Bride (1959). Fittingly, the sets would be re-used for The Little Shop of Horrors the following year. Miller, although he was happy with the story and humor from the finished product, wasn't too happy with the production values, noting the mannequins used for the statues and the fact that they didn't put plaster on him (instead using grey makeup) for the last scene. Corman and screenwriter Charles B. Griffith spent a day drifting around beatnik coffeehouses, using observations of the scene along with ideas and reactions to make the basic story, which in some ways resemble Mystery of the Wax Museum (1933).

In any case, this is a pretty enjoyable little movie, shining fairly well with a good degree of black humor and occasional scares that prove efficient for a 66 minute run-time. Perhaps a longer film might've resulted in the characters being fleshed-out a bit more (or perhaps a bit more emphasis on horror), but the material involving the beatniks is pretty funny anyways, as one might expect from people with a bit of pseudo-intellectualism and offbeat nature. Miller does well making this hapless yet ambitious lead interesting to view the film through - after all, he is basically playing a serial killer (with a calling card, no less), but he manages to have the right kind of presence the film needs to go on. The other cast-mates don't have as much time, but they each do decently with their roles when needed, such Morris and her encouraging nature or Burton and his offbeat poetry. The movie has its limits with money and time, but it manages to carry itself with some dark charm through some magic with silly lines and a game cast that make for a good time. Like with other Roger Corman films, this is certainly one to advise for anyone with a curiosity towards some fun that makes for quite a delight.

Rest in peace to Dick Miller, who died yesterday. He was a noted character actor who appeared in several films over six decades of work - appearing in films such as The Terminator (1984) alongside over a dozen films for Roger Corman.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Witness (1985).

Review #1185: Witness.

Cast: 
Harrison Ford (Det. John Book), Kelly McGillis (Rachel Lapp), Josef Sommer (Chief Paul Schaeffer), Lukas Haas (Samuel Lapp), Jan Rubeš (Eli Lapp), Alexander Godunov (Daniel Hochleitner), Danny Glover (Lt. James McFee), Brent Jennings (Sgt. Elton Carter), Patti LuPone (Elaine), Angus MacInnes (Fergie), Frederick Rolf (Stoltzfus), Viggo Mortensen (Moses Hochleitner), and Timothy Carhart (Zenovich) Directed by Peter Weir (#960 - The Year of Living Dangerously)

Review: 
Witness is an interesting crime thriller, standing out for its well-done structure and story (which won an Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay) with plenty of entertainment value and a game cast. The story was written by Pamela Wallace, Earl W. Wallace and William Kelley, with the latter two doing the screenplay. Kelley had contributed to scripts for Gunsmoke in the 1970s while Wallace served as executive story consultant, and it was the development of an outline for the show that resulted in a film script, originally named Called Home. The script (consisting of 182 pages originally) languished for years, with 20th Century Fox rejecting it due to the fact that they didn't make rural movies. A re-write of the screenplay resulted in Ford expressing interest in doing the movie, and eventually the film found its studio in Paramount Pictures. Weir was hired to do the film after funding for The Mosquito Coast (which was made the following year with Ford) fell through, and this was his first film made in America after several features made in his native Australia.

In any case, it is interesting to see a movie set within the community of the Amish, particularly with the differences shown between the kind of life lived by Ford's character as opposed to the Amish characters and how he adapts to spending some time there. It comes off as more than a crime thriller at times, having moments of passion and romance between Ford and McGillis that helps give the film plenty of energy to go around. Ford is superb, playing his role as if he was in a modern Western drama (and not in a usual action kind of film), resourceful in his pursuit for justice while also taking note of the people around him and how he stands out quite clearly from them. This is particularly notable in one scene near the climax, where he stands up for one of his fellow Amish when they are harassed by town-folk who seem to view them as a curiosity or something to pick at, particularly when mocking their committal to nonviolence in war. McGillis shines as well, being a warm graceful presence with a degree of curiosity, whether when interacting with Ford or with Haas, who does fine for his scenes. The other members of the cast have their moments to shine, such as Sommer and his quiet but lurking presence or Rubeš and his wise and thoughtful presence. It is interesting to see Glover playing against type, although he doesn't have too much on screen. The film never feels flat at 112 minutes, having a fine balance between drama and action that never feels overwrought or disrespectful. You never get the sense of boredom at any real point, with each scene having a real sense of purpose and a well-made look from cinematographer John Seale. The movie has its fun moments, such as the barn-raising sequence or when Ford is trying to get the kid to identify the suspect through a ride-along. The climax is certainly effective enough with a quiet ending that wraps things up just fine. On the whole, this is a gripping tale that has its elements of thriller and romance wrapped within a community story that makes it stick out from other films in an captivating and entertaining way that is a solid pick worth recommending.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Glass (2019).

Review #1184: Glass.

Cast: 
James McAvoy (Kevin Wendell Crumb / The Horde), Bruce Willis (David Dunn / The Overseer), Samuel L. Jackson (Elijah Price / Mr. Glass), Sarah Paulson (Dr. Ellie Staple), Anya Taylor-Joy (Casey Cooke), Spencer Treat Clark (Joseph Dunn), Charlayne Woodard (Mrs. Price), Adam David Thompson (Daryl), and Luke Kirby (Pierce) Directed by M. Night Shyamalan (#039 - The Sixth Sense, #902 - Split, and #1183 - Unbreakable)

Review: 
There is a certain absurdity to the fact that this film exists, acting as a sequel to two different movies while being the final part of a trilogy labeled by some as the "Eastrail 177 Trilogy" that are fairly different from each other in tone from film to film. Unbreakable (2000) was a mystery kind of thiller, Split (2016) was a horror thriller, and this film certainly feels like a psychological thriller. I suppose the tradition must follow that the last installment is the one that helps deliver satisfaction and/or answers to its audience that makes it stick out from the previous ones. Well, there are certainly answers given in this film...along with more questions. What can one expect from something that resembles One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975) for comic books? It is the kind of movie that clearly has ambition to inspire discussion and interest over a variety of things (specifically within human nature) while trying to play with the expectations of the audience within the script, which ultimately plays into a flawed but interesting result. It definitely feels like the weakest of the three films, but I did find something worth watching, even if it perhaps took a bit longer than it should have, particularly with something that lasts 129 minutes. There are clear highlights on a technical level such as Mike Gioulakis and his cinematography (which certainly shows off a variety of colors) and West Dylan Thordson with the music, and Shyamalan does manage to make something worth inspiring curiosity in, even if he can't quite resist trying to trick the audience perhaps one too many times with twists.

In the long run, the film rests on the shoulders of McAvoy, who is the shining light among the others, managing to once again showcase the numerous personalities of the character he plays with effectiveness and no touch of tiresomeness. He inspires his share of terror and humor while keeping the movie rolling, and his scenes with Jackson or Willis are an enjoyment. If you thought that Willis was bit too subdued before with Unbreakable, then I suppose you will have quite the experience in seeing how subdued he is here, since he doesn't have as much presence (or lines) to speak of, although at least the climax does give him something to do. Jackson finds his footing and voice gradually, and it is interesting to see him to try and pull the strings as a take on the brilliant mastermind that works fairly well. The others don't have as much strength to their presence or as much interest. It is the character (and narrative) that Paulson plays that don't stir as much enthusiasm, since I am more interested to see her consequence for the idea that one can simply lock up super beings (the cliche of believing they can't escape is even present here) than what makes her tick. The returning three characters from the previous parts of the series are okay in the small amount of time they have. It is nice to see Clark return to reprise a role from nineteen years ago, but he doesn't really have too much to do before the last half. Taylor-Joy is fine, but the dynamic between her and McAvoy takes some time to get used to again, and the last scene is a bit of a weird sell. Woodard is alright in her small role. Honestly, this is an okay movie, but it is certainly one that require patience and some understanding to really help get a foothold on its thought process, one that likes to deconstruct the tropes of the hero and villain, which has its share of potential. It just so happens that the twists that occur within said narrative that make the true payoff a bit muddled but also one to give thought to. If one is expecting a big showdown for a climax, they won't get exactly what they may expect - but they may instead get something a bit more interesting if not offbeat. Time will tell what will occur to the reputation of this film as a whole - after all, the first film managed to develop a cult following over time. I can't say it is as consistent or as entertaining as the other two films, but this film does at least serve its purpose for a trilogy about super beings without serving as a letdown.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Unbreakable.

Review #1183: Unbreakable.

Cast: 
Bruce Willis (David Dunn), Samuel L. Jackson (Elijah Price/Mr. Glass), Robin Wright (Audrey Dunn), Spencer Treat Clark (Joseph Dunn), Charlayne Woodard (Mrs. Price), Eamonn Walker (Dr. Mathison), Leslie Stefanson (Kelly), Michaelia Carroll (Babysitter), Whitney Sugarman (Physical Therapist), Bostin Christopher (Comic Book Clerk), Elizabeth Lawrence (School Nurse), and Chance Kelly (Orange Suit Man) Directed by M. Night Shyamalan (#039 - The Sixth Sense and #902 - Split)

Review: 
What would the world be like if a super human suddenly existed? Unbreakable (the fourth film directed and written by Shyamalan) puts forth the possibilities of what could happen through its own take on the superhero origin story that has stood out in the years following its release. When it was released in November of 2000, films involving superheroes (with their respective origins) were not as vast as they are today, particularly one like this that takes itself seriously as a mystery thriller and make it work for the most part while having its parallels to the three-part structure of a comic book story.

Undeniably, it is the performances from Willis and Jackson that really dominate the film, whether when by themselves or when they act against each other. Willis delivers a subtle performance, being easy to follow along with his pursuit of meaning without needing to make a quip or feeling bland. On the other side of the coin, Jackson does well with his performance with a good degree of subdued nature that is interesting to watch. One particular favorite scene of mine involves him arguing with a customer wanting to buy a comic book drawing for his 4-year old son, as one can see his point (in some way) about being insulted at the idea that his collection is like a toy store in his delivery of said lines. Clark is certainly one to take time to get used to, but he does a fine job with acting opposite Willis as an on-screen son that drives the points for the film home handily. This can be applied to Wright as well, who shows off a human element for her parts on screen.

The movie doesn't rely on action to drive its point home, relying on music from James Newton Howard and cinematography by Eduardo Serra to carry a mood of suspense, with only one fight sequence occurring near the end, which is quiet but effective in its own way. Admittedly, the part that doesn't stand quite well as the other aspects of the film is the nature of the ending. I find that the twist is fairly clever and that it likely works just as well upon a re-watch, but it is the sudden nature of the ending (complete with a title card) that makes the execution feel a bit abrupt. The best thing that can be said is that at least the problem isn't that there needed to be a big grand climax to make this tale more interesting, since the movie works just fine without needing too many effects. With the entertainment that the film delivers, it is no wonder that the film eventually received a follow-up, although not certainly in the way one expected. Although the film was a moderate success that made back three times its $75 million budget, no direct sequels followed for over a decade. Sixteen years later, Split snuck into theaters as a psychological horror thriller through the eyes of a super-villain (who had a presence in early drafts for this film before being dropped) with a subtle connection to this film that eventually resulted in a sequel (and the third part of what is considered a trilogy) named Glass (2019). In any case, this is a rewarding movie with an interesting story and characters that is light on spectacle but filled with perspective on the human element for a superhero tale.

Next Review: Glass (2019).

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events.

Review #1182: Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events.

Cast: 
Jim Carrey (Count Olaf), Liam Aiken (Klaus Baudelaire), Emily Browning (Violet Baudelaire), Kara and Shelby Hoffman (Sunny Baudelaire), Jude Law (Lemony Snicket), Timothy Spall (Mr. Poe), Billy Connolly (Dr. Montgomery), Meryl Streep (Josephine Anwhistle), Catherine O'Hara (Justice Strauss), and Cedric the Entertainer (the Constable) Directed by Brad Silberling (#267 - Casper)

Review: 
When it comes time to turn books into film, I suppose the best ones to use are the ones meant for children, particularly ones with entertaining qualities that will give plenty for the audience to go for - this book series certainly has some of that, along with a defining dark mysterious feel throughout the thirteen book series done by Daniel Handler (under the pen name Lemony Snicket). With so many books to adapt, it's pretty easy to see why one would combine the first three books (named The Bad Beginning, The Reptile Room, and The Wide Window) when making a feature film, although perhaps the best way to adapt these books would be through television (which occurred a decade later). The film obviously intends to replicate the dark style of the series with its look, using only a small range of colors (such as green or black) while being filmed on sound-stages, which certainly is an interesting way to give the film something to stick out. It certainly reminds me of a Tim Burton film with its look, and at one point he was considered to direct the feature (along with Barry Sonnenfeld) - in fact, Handler was hired to write a script for the film, but setbacks (such as concerns over the budget, which ultimately was over $140 million) and delays led to an eventual change from Handler (who had done numerous drafts) to Robert Gordon for the screenplay.

With all of that in mind, the film that comes from it is an okay product that reaches entertainment level more often than not, but it ultimately is a muddled movie that perhaps needed a bit more focus to really reach its full potential. It seems the film works best when it actually is trying to have a plot than with some of its offbeat characters. Honestly, the highlight of the movie is Carrey, who chews as much scenery as one could possibly do under makeup (done by Valli O'Reilly and Bill Corso, who ended up winning an Academy Award for it) without falling too much into self-parody, in part because he is pretty amusing with a good touch of sinister nature to him that keeps the film moving at times. Aiken and Browning are fairly decent, although I wonder if they would've been more interesting with further portrayals for more adaptations. Law is alright in the occasional moments that he chimes in with his voice. The adult characters (besides Carrey and Law) are each fairly silly, oblivious to the the plan of the villain (much like with how it worked with the books), but I feel that each don't really have the kind of presence to make them feel anything other than just okay, as if the episodic nature of the film makes the flow of the film a bit inconsistent, particularly with the end of the second story and the beginning of the third one (serving as the climax). At least the film seems to have a good touch of faithfulness to its source material, and it seems to work just fine at 108 minutes long, but it never really seems to be too comfortable with its tone, trying to do dark aspects with touches of humor that is okay at best. The style is nice and dandy, but the story perhaps needed something more. Perhaps if the film had inspired a desire to have further sequels (which did not come to pass despite being a moderate success), this one would've have came off a bit better, but as a whole this is just an okay if not too exceptional piece of entertainment, one that can be recommended for a fan curious for more from the series or perhaps someone wanting a bit of style within some mystery.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Troll 2.

Review #1181: Troll 2.

Cast: 
Michael Stephenson (Joshua Waits), George Hardy (Michael Waits), Margo Prey (Diana Waits), Connie McFarland (Holly Waits), Robert Ormsby (Grandpa Seth), Deborah Reed (Creedence Leonore Gielgud), Jason Wright (Elliot Cooper), Darren Ewing (Arnold), Jason Steadman (Drew), David McConnell (Brent), Gary Carlston (Sheriff Gene Freak), Ben Meyer (Bells), and Don Packard (Sandy Mahar) Directed by Claudio Fragasso.

Review: 
It is odd to admit how long it took to watch this film, in part because of the fact that it has quite the reputation for being so awful. How many movies can spawn a documentary (named Best Worst Movie (2009), naturally) detailing its creation and its aftermath years later? The best way to describe this movie is to say that it is a palate cleanser kind of film, as anything one watches before or after it will automatically feel much better in comparison, as if one needs to watch something horrid in order to appreciate film. In the long run, it isn't the worst film ever made or even the worst one ever watched, in part because of how ridiculous the final product manages to be. The Italian director-writer combo of Claudio Fragasso (under the pseudonym of "Drake Floyd") and Rossella Drudi (a married couple) wrote a screenplay that was in broken English. Calls by the actors to ad-lib the lines were denied by the director, who would later describe them as "liars" and "dogs" - take that for what you will. The script was apparently inspired by the frustration of Drudi's friends becoming vegetarians. What better way to mock your friends than with killer vegetarian goblins taking the place of vampires in a vampire story?

Some of the cast certainly had their own strange experiences with being in this film; one of the actors was actually out from a mental hospital at the time of his scenes being filmed, and another had their shoes screwed into the base of a tree pot that meant he had to stand inside the pot for hours on end. George Hardy was a dentist (who still maintains a dental practice) before being in this film. The villainous goblin queen's costume was designed by the actress playing her. The actors were only given the parts of the script scene by scene, with little context. How does one give the actors heavy criticism when they are stuck in something so ridiculous? Hardy is amusing, in the sense that he is playing a parent who sure takes his sweet time to realize the obviousness of the evil town. The "And you can't piss on hospitality! I won't allow it!" sequence is so amusing, and it is made even funnier in that it was the scene that Hardy did for his audition that was liked by the filmmakers enough to cast him. Stephenson is amusing, since he has to react to not only seeing visions of his dead grandpa, but also evil goblins without looking completely confused. Reed is amusing as the villain in a chew-the-scenery kind of way. Naturally, the "They're Eating Her!" sequence from Ewing (complete with fly on the forehead right before the big line) is one to be patient to giggle for. At least the actors don't seem completely stuck in a zombie state as one might think of something like Manos: The Hands of Fate (1966) or the Birdemic films (2012, 2013).

To the surprise of no one, this is not actually a sequel to the 1986 film Troll, as it was meant to called "Goblin", but distributors in America wanted to called it Troll 2 to try and garner success in markets. I guess "Attack of the Killer Vegetarian Goblins" or "A Nightmare on Nilbog Street" would've been a bit too on the nose. I will admit, I did not expect a scene where a kid figures out that the only way to stop his family from eating contaminated Nilbog food is to... urinate onto the food. Apparently, the script was originally intended to have the kid to simply act possessed and scream while on top of a chair, but this was changed by Fragasso when it came time to film. This is the kind of movie that surely has sincerity in its ridiculous plot decisions, whether with a romance scene with corn, ghostly interventions by a dead grandpa (including using a Molotov cocktail), a "Stonehenge Magic Stone" that gives the goblins their power, a double-decker bologna sandwich that saves the day, and so on. Despite all of these things, there is an amusement to be had with watching this film, where filmmakers who should have known better persisted on to make something they really thought would work out without being laughed at so much. It's a horror film with semblances of fantasy that surely thinks it is doing something worth making on the cheap. In a sea of awful movies, Troll 2 stumbles into place among other horrid pieces of the crop without question, with a 94 minute run-time that will certainly mesmerize a viewer in some way - for better or worse. Before we know it, this film will have celebrated three decades since arriving to stalk the halls of entertainment for groups that persist in watching dreck like this. I can only imagine how it will feel decades from now when it reaches half a century or more, having an ooze of charm that makes it memorable and makes one appreciate in a sense what it means to make or watch film.

Overall, I give it 1 out of 10 stars.

Reservoir Dogs.

Review #1180: Reservoir Dogs.

Cast: 
Harvey Keitel (Mr. White/Larry), Tim Roth (Mr. Orange/Freddy), Michael Madsen (Mr. Blonde/Vic Vega), Chris Penn ("Nice Guy" Eddie Cabot), Steve Buscemi (Mr. Pink), Lawrence Tierney (Joe Cabot), Randy Brooks (Holdaway), Kirk Baltz (Marvin Nash), Edward Bunker (Mr. Blue), Quentin Tarantino (Mr. Brown), and Steven Wright (K-Billy DJ) Directed by Quentin Tarantino (#638 - Kill Bill: Volume 1 and #639 - Kill Bill: Volume 2)

Review: 
Reservoir Dogs is the first major motion picture directed by Quentin Tarantino, who also wrote and co-starred in it. Tarantino had done a select amount of jobs beforehand, such as working at a video store or production assistant for an Dolph Lundgren exercise video. It was his meeting with producer Lawrence Bender in 1990 that helped elevate Tarantino to making this film on a much higher scale; Bender gave the script to his acting teacher, whose wife was a friend of Harvey Keitel. The signing of Keitel (who also serves as co-producer) helped in raising the budget for the film from the original intended amount of $30,000 to $1.5 million. There were a few films that influenced Tarantino, such as The Killing (1956) and Kansas City Confidental (1952), and it's not hard to see his love of films, which certainly comes through in a heist movie that is fairly entertaining in how it conducts itself, holding itself well enough through its dynamite cast. Keitel, Roth, Madsen & Buscemi are the main group that we follow throughout a film that utilizes plenty of snappy dialogue and choice use of violence that sprinkles itself throughout its 99 minute run-time, conducting itself out of order (without showing the heist itself) without feeling disjointed or too much like a chore to reach, never really having a period of sluggishness. It doesn't ever feel like a movie bogged down by heist cliches, but rather one that rolls with what it is without focusing too hard on falling in line with expectations. It may be a bit much for some with its style/violence, but there is still a valid amount of substance involved to make it work. Keitel shines the best, having a hard-edge to his character of a career criminal that is instantly one we can follow without reluctance, and he has some entertaining moments with the other members of the group. Roth finds time to shine with ease, and Buscemi is snappy but worthwhile when on screen. Madsen plays his role with a fine bit of ruthlessness and unpredictability that sticks out in various ways. Penn and Tierney (known for his previous portrayal of mobsters and tough guys in films prior) round out the main cast, and each play their respective parts handily without trouble. The film clicks itself pretty early with its opening sequence, inviting you into a look of these folks through an amusing conversation and music choices that work to give the movie some flavor. The film works out enough to not go off the rails in its climax because it keeps a fine level of thrills and tension going that make for a worthwhile debut for Tarantino.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Black Sleep.

Review #1179: The Black Sleep.

Cast: 
Basil Rathbone (Sir Joel Cadman), Akim Tamiroff (Udu the Gypsy), Herbert Rudley (Dr. Gordon Ramsay), Patricia Blake (Laurie Munroe), Phyllis Stanley (Daphnae), Lon Chaney Jr. (Dr. Munroe aka Mungo), John Carradine ("Bohemund"), Bela Lugosi (Casimir), and Tor Johnson (Mr. Curry) Directed by Reginald Le Borg.

Review: 
With horror films, there surely is an expectation for terror and suspense with some sort of capable cast of characters to make something worth watching as entertainment. With this film, that statement isn't too particularly true, since the only thing that drives the film is its cast. It has an occasional shocking moment or two, but there isn't enough energy present in its story to make something other than just a fairly forgettable piece in a decade filled with films with frights and schlock that stand out much clearer. When the most interesting thing to view is one shot of an exposed brain seeping cerebral fluid (second place going to Rathbone's hand double used for the surgery being an actual neurosurgeon), perhaps your movie needs a bit more noteworthy things to go around. Undeniably, the one thing that does shine above all else for this feature is Rathbone, who manages to give his role a fair bit of dignity that goes past being just the madman scientist who values results over things such as not operating on living patients and their brains, balancing a bit of tragedy with scientific ambition. Alas, not even he can save this film from falling into the world of blandness. Perhaps the story from Gerald Drayson Adams and screenplay by John C. Higgins (both of whom were mostly writers for adventure or mystery films) is to blame a bit. The dilemma involving the use of live brains would probably work better for a film with a bit more action to it, or at the very least would work better in a film that had a more compelling second lead than Rudley. He isn't too particularly interesting, and his chemistry with Blake is cursory at best, so there isn't too much driving drama (or much suspenseful horror, for that matter) besides occasional moments with Rathbone until the climax. It doesn't help that Chaney is tasked to simply growl, either. Lugosi appears in the film, although he has no spoken lines. Sadly, this was the last film of his to be released during his lifetime, as Lugosi died on August 16, 1956, just two months after the film's premiere. Tamiroff, playing a role originally intended for Peter Lorre (prior to disputes over salary rates) is alright, but he falls into the background for a good chunk of it. When the film finally decides to arrange an ending, what better way than to have Carradine chew a bit of scenery as a character who believes he is a legendary crusader from the 11th/12th century? It may be a bit ridiculous to see him (along with Johnson and another actor playing people affected by the brain surgery) run amuck on the people doing the experiments, but at least it is something to give the film a bit of a jolt, even if it is a bit on the over-the-top side, what with Carradine chanting "Kill!" and all. On the whole, it isn't a terrible experience, and the 82 minute run-time isn't too interminable to go through, but it really is only worth it for people willing to look past the lack of suspense and look more at the atmospheric moments and a fairly game performance from Rathbone. I don't think that the film does enough to prove a winner, but it is at the least a curious little horror film that serves its purpose better than some other horror films of its time (such as The Beast of Hollow Mountain (1956) for example), so take it for what it's worth.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Slap Shot.

Review #1178: Slap Shot.

Cast: 
Paul Newman (Reggie 'Reg' Dunlop), Strother Martin (Joe McGrath), Michael Ontkean (Ned Braden), Jennifer Warren (Francine Dunlop), Lindsay Crouse (Lily Braden), Jerry Houser (Dave "Killer" Carlson), Andrew Duncan (Jim Carr), Jeff Carlson (Jeff Hanson), Steve Carlson (Steve Hanson), David Hanson (Jack Hanson), Yvon Barrette (Denis Lemieux), Allan F. Nicholls (Johnny Upton), Brad Sullivan (Morris Wanchuk), Stephen Mendillo (Jim Ahern), Yvan Ponton (Jean–Guy Drouin), Matthew Cowles (Charlie), and Kathryn Walker (Anita McCambridge) Directed by George Roy Hill (#962 - A Little Romance)

Review: 
Minor-league hockey must seem like an interesting experience to play in or watch (whether at home or not), whether one lives in the Midwest or in Texas. The screenplay by Nancy Dowd was inspired by her brother Ned (appearing as Ogie Ogilthorpe in the film's climax) and his experience in playing this type of hockey. One of the teams that Dowd had played on was the Johnstown Jets, who had played in four different leagues before folding in 1977 (coincidentally the same year this film was released), with some of the players from earlier teams such as the Carlson brothers serving as the basis for characters in this film, as Nancy Dowd traveled with the team for a month. One of the slogans for the team was "Aggressive Hockey is Back in Johnstown", which certainly applies to this film as well. The film was shot in numerous locations, one of them being Johnstown, Pennsylvania along with three New York areas with accompanying hockey arenas. It is certainly obvious that the film embraces its hockey roots, from the usage of hockey goons (and accompanying fights) to its citing of "old-time hockey" greats such as Toe Blake to its hockey action along with a small-town charm (along with owners who seem to think of teams as a "tax write-off"), along with a few dated things (namely players without helmets).

Slap Shot is a wonderfully entertaining movie, having plenty of raunchy and silly humor while also shining well in its hockey action to make a fairly solid experience headed by a wonderfully game Newman. There is something wonderful about him in this film, having a fun sense of humor and clearly enjoying himself. He has fun in trying to give himself (and his team) something to play for again while showing off some sly charm in balancing his hockey life and his personal life with Warren, who matches him just finely with some amusement. McGrath does well with his time on screen showing some cheesy charm in trying to manage (and recruit) a colorful group like this while having to do such wonderful promotional things for the team such as having them do fashion shows. Ontkean is okay, but the conflict between the old-time/goon hockey styles certainly could have done with a bit of re-tooling, since I find myself getting lost in the admittedly silly nature of the latter style of play more than I care about if he plays dirty or his conflict with his on-screen wife in Crouse, although at least he makes up for it for the most part in the climax with quite a show on the ice. The group of players are pretty amusing, with the Hanson trio (based on the real brother trio of Jeff-Steve-Jack Carlson) being a treat each time they are on screen, whether when seeing them play with toy cars or when watching them on the ice. The gags certainly work more often than not, and while the violence can certainly feel a bit much at times, there is at least some realism to go around to make things not feel too much like a cartoon. The film builds up to a ridiculous but fairly satisfying climax (complete with gestures and a show) that helps make it feel worthy. On the whole, the film is full of ridiculous hockey action along with some salty remarks that certainly still sticks out in the four decades since the film's release, standing as an entertaining hockey movie worth a watch.

Welcome to 2019 and Season Nine, folks. I hope this year results in some enjoyable and interesting films and reviews - can't promise anything too concrete in what to expect, but hopefully there are some interesting surprises in store.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.