Ford v Ferrari.

Review #1302: Ford v Ferrari.

Cast: 
Matt Damon (Carroll Shelby), Christian Bale (Ken Miles), Jon Bernthal (Lee Iacocca), Caitriona Balfe (Mollie Miles), Tracy Letts (Henry Ford II), Josh Lucas (Leo Beebe), Noah Jupe (Peter Miles), Remo Girone (Enzo Ferrari), Ray McKinnon (Phil Remington), and JJ Feild (Roy Lunn) Directed by James Mangold (#912 - Logan)

Review: 
I do not consider myself a big fan of racing. Granted, I do partake in flipping channels to see a race from time to time, but I can't say I know much about the 24 Hours of Le Mans or really much about manufacturers (one can do that when being on their feet to travel anywhere). Granted, one doesn't really need to do sports to enjoy sports dramas, and this film proves that assessment well with its execution. It has a dynamic cast that sit into the 1960s trappings without any hesitation and plenty of charm to go around to drive a fair rendition of the fact to make something worthwhile for 152 minutes without losing itself. The 1966 edition of Le Mans had already inspired a book with Go Like Hell: Ford, Ferrari, and Their Battle for Speed and Glory at Le Mans (2009) and a documentary with The 24 Hour War (2016), but this manages to inspire curiosity for its main subject without seeming trapped in too many familiar territories. 

It is a crowd pleaser, but it is a convincing crowd pleaser that works to gain attention for more than just parts involving cars going around fast (which is of course a great attraction in of itself). Undeniably, the highlight is Bale, capable of charm and eccentric nature that rolls well whether with Damon or his on-screen family. Damon is also well on his game too, relaxed yet endearing with delivering with the auto drama with conviction that serves the material with dignity. It really could just be a buddy film between these two, really, complete with grocery fights and wrench throwing. Balfe and Jupe also prove fine in the family aspect that gives a bit of depth when it comes to seeing a racer back home off the element. On the other side of the auto drama involves Bernthal, Letts, Lucas, and Girone in trying to capture the Ford-Ferrari rivalry (alongside micromanagement conflict, naturally), and each do their roles alright. For a film that doesn't really drive home an adversary but more so just drives conflict (specifically with Lucas' character) with a bit of amplification, at least one can see the passion behind trying to show a tense war of manufacturers trying to make their cars run fast and run well for a whole day on a world stage. It makes you care for a race like this much in the same one can get caught up in the moment when they watch their first ever auto race. If you never watch another race like this, at least you can say you had the privilege, which certainly rolls in this film's favor. It is a film about ingenuity in the fact of having the guts and talent to challenge the standards (in this case, racing), and that can be something you can find in plenty of sports films. It sure does prove to be a good time for while it lasted, that much is for sure.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Dr. Strangelove.

Review #1301: Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.

Cast: 
Peter Sellers (Group Captain Lionel Mandrake / President Merkin Muffley / Dr. Strangelove), George C. Scott (General Buck Turgidson), Sterling Hayden (Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper), Keenan Wynn (Colonel Bat Guano), Slim Pickens (Major T. J. "King" Kong), Peter Bull (Soviet Ambassador Alexei de Sadeski), James Earl Jones (Lieutenant Lothar Zogg), Tracy Reed (Miss Scott), and Shane Rimmer (Capt. Ace Owens) Directed and Producted by Stanley Kubrick (#044 - Full Metal Jacket, #065 - The Shining, #093 - 2001: A Space Odyssey, and #1046 - Barry Lyndon)

Review: 
When it comes to satire and black comedies, Dr. Strangelove sure comes to mind as one of the best. It should come as no surprise that it is the work of masters in terms of cast headlined by Peter Sellers and its director in Stanley Kubrick, who are each at their prime in a film that is razor-sharp in every aspect. The film was based off the novel Red Alert by Peter George, a thriller novel that treated its scenario of nuclear accident seriously. In his attempts to write a screenplay based on the book, he found that their was comedy present involving the absurd or paradoxical when it came to the balance of terror that was the arms race between the two superpowers of the world of the time, the United States and the Soviet Union. There certainly was plenty of inspiration involving Cold War tensions for Kubrick to make light of, with the Cuban Missile Crisis, the closest the two powers came to nuclear war, having occurred just two years prior. The "doomsday / mine-shaft" gaps are parodies of the missile gap, which had been popularized for political effect in the late 1950s. As such, the screenplay was credited to Kubrick, Terry Southern (an American novelist known for his dark absurdist style), and Peter George.

On the surface, one might wonder humor could be found with the scenario of an accident that could lead to nuclear warfare. The answer comes out pretty quickly with a film that captures an atmosphere where such a ghastly thing could happen in eccentric hands with subtlety. This for a film with plenty of interesting to go around, such as a general who believes in a Communist plot involving water fluoridation prior that threaten one's precious bodily fluids, or a crazed scientist resisting the urge to have his hand rise to a familiar position, or even a cowboy style wearing pilot that provides the most famous image from this film for its climax involving a missile and him. Sellers is the star of the show, playing three roles with such brilliance that could only come from a comically unique actor, for which he had already showcased with his various disguises in Kubrick's previous film Lolita (1962). He just blends into his two surrounding sets and actors (one being Hayden and the other being Scott and Bull) with perfect ease, each having their own distinct mannerisms and voices without seeming like a distraction from artistic depth. Scott is just as excellent in his role, where over-the-top isn't so much a guild-line as it was a case of Kubrick utilizing takes that were thought to be warm-ups for less ridiculous takes with the actor (for which he swore to never work with Kubrick again, although he later came to appreciate his performance). One can see him give his all with unapologetic grace and bluster that is keen to the moment needed. This goes just as well for the gritting Hayden, who is absolutely the one needed for a madman general like this, needing only a cigar and some talk about the water to make him captivating to view in humor. Pickens (a rodeo performer who also appeared in Westerns), told to play the role straight, is just as fine a highlight in part because his natural cadence shines through to make for laughs without seeming inauthentic. The rest of the cast have their small moments, such as Wynn and his deadpan delivery for his last line that lands perfectly, or Bull and his expressive nature when he first comes into the war room with a small camera, or Jones (who had acted on stage for nearly a decade) with a short but capable way to make a film debut, or Reed and her one-scene show with Scott.

The film is a funny one about such serious things because it knows how to utilize its surroundings without playing everyone for complete fools while having plenty of style to go around in terms of cinematography (Gilbert Taylor, with that wonderful look) and its set design (Ken Adam, with that wonderful war room), where one can see a thriller alongside the satire without seeming like two different films. After all, a serious rendition of potential nuclear warfare through accident would be shown that same year with Fail Safe (itself based off the novel of the same name from Eugene Burdick and Harvey Wheeler), which ended up being released ten months after this film from the same studio after Kubrick and George had sued for copyright infringement. In any case, this is a wonderfully dark comedy that plays on the fears and culture of the time with zest and prime work from its cast and crew to make this an easy winner for everyone, having a bittersweet climax that seals everything up quite nicely (changed from the original intent of having it end with a massive pie fight). It still stands true today because its basic framework of human error and the attitudes of warfare when the chips all seem to be in place for it.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Caddyshack II.

Review #1300: Caddyshack II.

Cast: 
Jackie Mason (Jack Hartounian), Robert Stack (Chandler Young), Randy Quaid (Peter Blunt), Dan Aykroyd (Captain Tom Everett), Chevy Chase (Ty Webb), Jessica Lundy (Kate Hartounian), Dyan Cannon (Elizabeth Pearce), Jonathan Silverman (Harry), Dina Merrill (Cynthia Young), Marsha Warfield (Royette Tyler), and Brian McNamara (Todd Young) Directed by Allan Arkush.

Review: 
This film is awful. Are you really that surprised? How could anyone think that this would be a good idea, particularly after eight years and only one returning co-star from before? Is the fault of this cinematic waste really all at the feet of its producer trio (Neil Canton, Peter Guber, Jon Peters)? Oh sure, Harold Ramis returns to serve as writer (co-writing with Peter Torokvei), but it is evident very early that this is the product of re-writes that have warped its original draft into something out of the Four Horsemen of the Movie Apocalypse: Terrible direction, listless acting, miserable atmosphere, and awful execution. One could almost be impressed with how dumb this proves to be, if they didn't burst into flames first. Going from an R rating from the previous film to a PG rating (when PG-13 already had been introduced as a rating) is the first sin one could identify for this film, oddly enough. It sure is hard to believe how Arkush found himself on such a strange film, having started his film career with Roger Corman at New World Pictures with films such as Hollywood Boulevard (1976) that eventually led him to mainstream studio stuff like Heartbeeps (1981). Since this film, he has primarily served as director for TV shows and telefilms. At least one can say Arkush has just one awful standout in a string of several things to list for a career, where probably no one could have done much better with. Predictably, this film proved to be a financial failure, making just half of its $20 million budget back (while the previous one had made roughly six times its $6 million budget).

When it comes to acting, the biggest ugly duckling in a sea of ugly ducklings is losing Rodney Dangerfield to studio disputes (which is why Ramis decided to reluctantly come back to write the script), since he might have made this at least seem palpable. In his place is Mason, who actually had received good notices on stage and television (including a Tony Award for his one-man show The World According to Me alongside an Emmy Award after the film's release). If it sounds like I am trying to give slack, it really is more me trying to resist asking the best way to describe his performance when it comes to jokes: In what world is Jackie Mason a replacement for Rodney Dangerfield? Flashy dress styles can't make up for sluggish attempts at humor (with PG trappings, remember), and the story revolving around him isn't any better. It sure is interesting to see Stack in a terrible comedy sequel (insert reference to him not being in Airplane II here), but his wooden deadpan delivery here doesn't quite work out here, since it doesn't register as many laughs as before, sadly. Quaid, playing a crazed lawyer that obviously exists in cartoon world where threatening people and giving them wedgies in public, manages to come off as aggressively unfunny, owing in part because this film doesn't have any real clue what to do with him. The less said about Aykroyd and his silly voice for this character, the better. Oddly enough, Chase returns (for which he later said he regretted doing), looking much like a bored cat when dealing with such lame gags, although he technically is the highlight, since he draws an occasional laugh. You know, I actually thought to try and count the amount of time that he is on screen. The total ended up being around fourteen minutes, with a good chunk of it being after an hour has already passed. I then thought, why not just count the minutes for Quaid and Aykroyd as well? Quaid and Aykroyd show up for about 8-9 minutes each. Honestly, any of these three leave more of a lasting impression than Lundy, Silverman, Merrill, or McNamara do as the young leads. That's not to say that the caddies present in the previous film were comedy magnets, but at least one could follow Michael O'Keefe and his pursuits (golf and ladies, namely) without being completely lost in the all-star cast chokedown that this film spews down the throat for 98 minutes. After all, you can see the parallels between the Dangerfield-Knight-O'Keefe-Murray pairing from before and the Mason-Stack-Silverman-Aykroyd "quartet" here, for which each can't quite live up to even the lowest of expectations. For one thing, they barely share that much time on screen as a group, and the golf game at the end feels so thin in actual depth (complete with "wacky" golf course designs). If you can't care about what goes on, you might as well just stare at the bathroom wall for ninety eight minutes instead.

For all that can be said about the film not being funny, a bunch can also be said about the fact that the golf aspects are tremendously terrible. The first film may have had a few weird swings from its main actors, but at least one could actually believe they were playing golf. It was based off the experiences that Harold Ramis and Brian Doyle-Murray (both co-writers of the first film) had as caddies when they were growing up, but this film seems to treat golf like it is some sort of wacky piece of puddy that can be manipulated to do any odd thing, with golf trajectories that seem more in like with a cartoon than anything, right down to giving the gopher more to "say". Even the plot aspects involving the club are boring, where motivations seem thrown out on a whim. There will be nobody who can give this film a defending, unless producers count as impartial I guess. Mercy is a quality one really shouldn't have for dumb movies like this, but I present the fact that it perfectly belongs in the pantheon of movies like Troll 2 and Rollerball (2002). There are no real reasons to ever watch this film, unless one prefers comedy torture from films instead of bad standup routines, or if they have a death wish of the cinematic kind.

Overall, I give it 1 out of 10 stars.

Silkwood.

Review #1299: Silkwood.

Cast: 
Meryl Streep (Karen Silkwood), Kurt Russell (Drew Stephens), Cher (Dolly Pelliker), Craig T. Nelson (Winston), Fred Ward (Morgan), Diana Scarwid (Angela), Ron Silver (Paul Stone), Josef Sommer (Max Richter), Charles Hallahan (Earl Lapin), Tess Harper (Linda Dawson), Sudie Bond (Thelma Rice), Henderson Forsythe (Quincy Bissell), and Bruce McGill (Mace Hurley) Directed by Mike Nichols (#175 - Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, #550 - The Graduate, and #637 - The Birdcage, and #1157 - Wolf)

Review: 
On November 13, 1974, a chemical technician was killed in a car collision in Crescent, Oklahoma is what is believed to be an accident. Karen Silkwood, of course was more than just a blurb on the newspages, since she was an activist who was investigating wrongdoing into the plutonium plant that she worked in, for which she had been contaminated. Her death inspired a lawsuit against the plant she worked for, which had two trials before a final settlement in 1986, with the closure of the nuclear fuels plant having occurred the year after Silkwood's death. In any case, it does seem interesting to make a biopic drama based on her short life that attempts to stick to a group of the basic facts alongside movie-magic that conjure some ambiguity that goes off mostly without a hitch. Perhaps it proves a bit too long at 131 minutes, but one that can't really be denied is that the movie has a well-picked cast to ready its ship along when it is required to. The cast really does seem to seep right into these ordinary folks without trouble, really, where even knowing the fate of its focus doesn't make for much predictability, one who has a bit of tunnel vision for what she believes is the imperative thing to do. This is key with Streep, who pulls in a tremendous performance, filled with spark of persistence and warmth that make her story flow for its audience that makes her interesting enough to follow with. Russell, in a departure from the usual action genre roles, pulls off a rugged turn that seems just as down-to-earth as the lady he acts opposite with, and they do share some casual chemistry together whenever he is on screen. It shouldn't prove too surprising that Cher was suited for an understated yet fine performance here. In her second film since venturing back into acting (after starring in Come Back to the Five and Dime, Jimmy Dean, Jimmy Dean on stage and screen the previous year), she seeps right into an unassuming role and does just fine with making the right impression with just being oneself. The rest of the cast does alright with filling out this world with no big troubles, where one doesn't need a clear villain or hero to really drive the facts along (McGill does play his role pretty adversarily, but not at the expense of realism). Is our focus a martyr or someone who got caught up in their own moral imperative? However one feels about the muddled circumstances of her ultimate fate, one cannot say that the film isn't still compelling through and through its real-life surroundings that will provoke at least some discussion when it comes to whistle-blowing and what proves to be the right thing to do, no matter what the risks could prove. In that sense, this proves to be a decent piece of entertainment headlined by Streep and her cast to go along with a well-run story from the headlines.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

They Live.

Review #1298: They Live.

Cast: 
Roddy Piper (John Nada), Keith David (Frank Armitage), Meg Foster (Holly Thompson), Raymond St. Jacques (Street Preacher), George Buck Flower (Drifter/Collaborator), Peter Jason (Gilbert), Sy Richardson (Black Revolutionary), Susan Blanchard (Ingenue), and Norman Alden (Construction Foremanst) Directed by John Carpenter (#068 - Halloween (1978), #634 - Escape from New York, #712 - The Thing, #732 - Escape from L.A., and #1221 - Dark Star)

Review: 
It should only make sense that the only way to see aliens of the subliminal kind are a pair of sunglasses. The idea for the film came from the 1963 short story "Eight O'Clock in the Morning" by Ray Nelson, which he subsequently adapted with artist Bill Wray into a graphic comic named "Nada" in 1986. As such, the screenplay credit went to Frank Armitage, a pseudonym for Carpenter (who naturally also co-wrote the music score with Alan Howarth). In any case, it really is a variation on Invasion of the Body Snatchers (why else would you have the aliens shown in black-and-white for most of the film), only if the aliens were already here and ready to help people sell out and obey in the vein of an sci-fi action thriller. In that sense, it works out pretty well in the film's favor, one that is packed with plenty of entertainment that is derived from clever subversive material and a mold of action and humor to go alongside it that never seems dull or too convenient. The film holds itself on the every-man in Piper, who signed onto the film after Carpenter met with him in the middle of his run as a professional wrestler. He can play the parts of the action hero like one could see in a b-movie (with that noted bubble-gum line seeming right out of his one-liner notebook) that comes in handy when needed that surely paved the way for other wrestler-turned-actors, but he plays himself with careful simplicity that seems just right for a guy like him. David does a fine job with a quasi-sidekick kind of role, where he can join alongside the action against sellout aliens or even the fight just to believe there even is one needed, which leads to the key highlight for both actors: a five minute fight scene between the two where they just take it to the other. It really does prove astounding how one can make such a scene that is so memorable (imagine having to rehearse that for three weeks) while not leaving the film off balance during the other parts of its 94 minute run-time. Foster is fair and subtle, and the other castmates pull their momentary plays on screen with interest in making a small environment like this seem like one to look at for a while and think about. The effects involving the aliens (resembling ghouls) looks pretty neat for the intent that the film wants to do. The action is also pretty well-done with blending with the rest of the film without suffocating it, and the climax is a nice touch. Of course a film that is meant to be subversive has its shares of political devotees, which are either people who understand the film or partisan ghouls for a certain supremacist side (I only include this sentence lest someone actually think this film is about anything but yuppies and unrestrained capitalism) or nearly as annoying Marxist hacks. In any case, one can enjoy the film for either its action content or its attempts at saying something about the nature of our society when it comes to commercialism through the lens of science fiction that delivers plenty of thrills and thought to go around.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974).

Review #1297: The Texas Chain Saw Massacre.

Cast: 
Marilyn Burns (Sally Hardesty), Allen Danziger (Jerry), Paul A. Partain (Franklin Hardesty), William Vail (Kirk), Teri McMinn (Pam), Edwin Neal (Nubbins Sawyer - The Hitchiker), Jim Siedow (Drayton Sawyer - The Proprietor), Gunnar Hansen (Leatherface), John Dugan (Grandpa Sawyer), and John Larroquette (Narrator) Directed by Tobe Hooper (#348 - Poltergeist)

Review: 
When it comes to raw and authentic pieces of slasher horror, there really is nothing like this film. Sure, there had been previous films that had linings of what you could call a slasher (such as Psycho or Peeping Tom from 1960), but this one certainly stands out in a decade that burgeoned an era of horror films with a crazed killer and certain bladed tools (which is true for Black Christmas as well, released in the same month as this film) that had its influence from serial killers. It is a discomforting film that is unflinching in its method of madness when it comes to horror, right down to its grisly imagery that starts from the very get-go, lingering in terror in a manner that stands just as tall as it did over four decades ago. Hooper utilized his idea of making a film about isolation and darkness to go along with graphic coverage utilized on news outlets of the time, co-writing the screenplay with Kim Henkel. The budget has been estimated to be around $80,000-140,000, with unknown actors utilized for the roles, who had to deal with humid conditions that once peaked at 110 degrees. 

It manages to be such an unsettling film with its gritty imagery and the moments that surround its title massacre, where being isolated in the backwoods almost seems scary enough before encountering creeps like these. It comes together at its own pace for 83 minutes without leaving the horror mind begging for more, giving one quite a fear already without having to go for the gut every time. That's not to say that this film is restrained in any way, it just means that the film works so well without even having to show such a big body count or with having to build its deaths up to high levels. When it needs to let itself into the madhouse, it does so without too much trouble. Of the castmates that we are introduced to early on, Burns comes out the best, proving capable with the opening parts that soon settle into much creepier elements, such as watching someone talk about their former job in the slaughterhouse or faced with having to have dinner with some disturbing people and the screams that come with it. It might not take much to seem convincing when it comes to having to deal with terror for a movie, but she sure does a pretty good job in making it seem real enough to resonate with its audience. Neal and Sideow are creepy enough when the time is needed, and Hansen (who wore just one mask throughout the whole film due to fears over damaging their only costume) is excellent with a role that requires only to make a lumbering chainsaw-wielder have some sort of voice that doesn't usually come from these particular movies. It never lets go on suspense and the looming horror by being grisly yet effective with its choices from Hooper. 

It should prove no surprise that there were follow-up films released in the years to come. Twelve years later, Hooper returned to direct a sequel, which mixed slasher and black comedy elements. There were two following sequels released in 1990 and 1995 (the latter directed by Hinkel) before a remake was released in 2003, which inspired its own prequel three years later. After that followed Texas Chainsaw 3D (2013), which acted as a direct sequel to only the first film. Naturally, another prequel to the series followed with Leatherface (2017). On the whole, this is a film that can be credited as a key influence for the slasher genre along with being a great horror film that delivers most on its intent of showing terror in the woods with a chainsaw and imagery to go with it.

Thankful to have done five reviews in the span of a week for Halloween - The Week After, the first themed-week of any kind in years for this show. It was interesting to think of what should and should or shouldn't be included while making sure they were (mostly) written on time. I don't usually tell what a following review will be, so that's a new one. Actually, I can say what the next one will be, since I pushed it to be after this theme week ended. Hope you enjoyed it.

Next Review: They Live.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Evil Dead.

Review #1296: The Evil Dead.

Cast: 
Bruce Campbell (Ash Williams), Ellen Sandweiss (Cheryl Williams), Hal Delrich (Scott), Betsy Baker (Linda), and Theresa Tilly (Shelly) Written and Directed by Sam Raimi (#611 - Spider-Man)

Review: 
"[Sam Raimi] has made the most ferociously original horror film of 1982" - Stephen King.

What can really be said about this film that hasn't already been said by better writers? Originally filmed as "Book of the Dead", The Evil Dead is a grand achievement in film-making, reaching plenty of highs in horror on a humble budget racked with high ambition from its director. Sam Raimi had become fascinated with the idea of making films as a teenager, doing so with fellow Royal Oak, Michigan native Bruce Campbell on a Super 8mm camera, with his feature debut being It's Murder! (1977). The following year, he was inspired to make a prototype horror film, one that would soon take the lesson of featuring plenty of gore (blood). Raimi's result was Within the Woods, made on a $1,600 budget in 1978 that took inspiration from numerous horror such as H. P. Lovecraft's writing that would feature both Campbell and Sandweiss. It proved to be a minor hit when it premiered in a Detroit theater alongside The Rocky Horror Picture Show. In order to make a feature film, Raimi (who wasn't even 21 when production started) would need around (or over) $100,000, for which he and Campbell raised slightly below that amount through asking for donations (which they would need to do again in order to try and finish it after completing half the film by late 1980). It certainly was a film engaging in terror to make for the actors and crew, where certain scenes required thick contact lenses that could only be utilized for 15 minutes at a time. The cabin they used in Tennessee was an abandoned one that needed renovation such as putting in electricity and a telephone, but it did not spur having to deal with cold temperatures that led to frozen camera and wires along with them burning furniture prior to finishing production to stay warm. There is plenty more that really could be said about how this is an achievement in thriving over a low budget with plenty of shock value to go around that can be gruesome alongside thrilling in its 85 minute run-time while leaving the audience curious for more. The way that the demons speak, combined with the intricate filming and certain shots make for a disturbing time that I readily enjoy, where its cast manages to keep the horror trappings on full display without succumbing to cliches, starting with Campbell. When it comes to dealing with terror and the madness, he just happens to have the right kind of entrancing quality where one can just watch him with no hesitation that proves key in what makes the best horror films tick, whether one has fake blood down the face or not. The rest of the cast do fine jobs with what they are given (especially when having to wear makeup), with Sandweiss proving the finest of the bunch in that regard. You could point to nearly any scene when it aims for spooks, really, but the slow-moving sequence at the end, coupled with the tracking shot for the finish, is likely the one that seals the deal just right. When you want a sincere horror film that means what it wants that rides high on suspense with a few effects and other aspects (such as some interesting music from Joseph LoDuca), this is a pretty good example of one that does everything near perfectly. The film eventually found footing in distribution (in part because of such glowing recommendations such as King), and it inspired two sequels (1987, 1992) along with a reboot/remake in 2013 and even a television series. You really can't go wrong with a film like this, as it oozes in terror that clicks to your senses and stays with you after its last shot - just what the best horror films do, after all.

Next Review: One more for the road for Halloween - The Week After. It's a bit of a surprise, but it's coming...Tonight.

... ..... ..... ... ........

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Sleepy Hollow.

Review #1295: Sleepy Hollow.

Cast: 
Johnny Depp (Ichabod Crane), Christina Ricci (Katrina Van Tassel), Miranda Richardson (Lady Mary Van Tassel and The Crone Witch), Michael Gambon (Baltus Van Tassel), Casper Van Dien (Brom Van Brunt), Jeffrey Jones (Reverend Steenwyck), Christopher Lee (The Burgomaster), Richard Griffiths (Magistrate Samuel Philipse), Ian McDiarmid (Dr. Thomas Lancaster), Michael Gough (Notary James Hardenbrook), Marc Pickering (Young Masbath), and Christopher Walken and Ray Park (The Headless Horseman) Directed by Tim Burton (#040 - Batman, #107 - Beetlejuice, #132 - Alice in Wonderland, #196 - Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, #262 - Corpse Bride, #316 - Batman Returns, #969 - Planet of the Apes (2001), and #1257 - Pee-wee's Big Adventure)

Review: 
Sometimes you really need something eccentric when it comes to horror and old folktales. It should only prove fitting that Tim Burton served as director for a film like this, which started out originally intended to be directed by Kevin Yagher (known primarily for his special efforts work such as the Crypt Keeper for Tales from the Crypt) from a script by Andrew Kevin Walker (writer of Seven) that would be a low-budget slasher based off the short story "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow" by Washington Irving. There had been a few adaptations of the story done before, such as The Headless Horseman (1922) and The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad (1949, narrated by Bing Crosby), but this is certainly the most lavish attempt involving the story. The film takes plenty of liberties with the original story, ranging from the occupation of its main character to its climax, while having plenty of heads rolling around in a film that has plenty of style and a bit of humor that blend fairly well as its own thing. It pulls off a few frights together (particularly when combined with all the present fog), holding ground for most of its 105 minute run-time, with stand-out makeup and a fairly dynamic drive that feels reminiscent of Hammer horror films. The vibrant blood shots certainly help in that department, with well-executed gore and an interesting monster to boot. Depp seeps right into his part with tight conviction that would fit just fine in the traditional horror films of yesteryear without being lost in having a good time with such a squeamish yet compelling role. Ricci proves fine for a storybook type of role while having a bit of chemistry with Depp. Richardson proves to have a wicked time, playing two parts that come together just right. There certainly is an interesting cadre of supporting actors, ranging from Gambon and some fair theatrics to Hammer veterans Lee and Gough (who each get a scene each that plays out fine), and there really isn't a bad performer in the bunch to deter from the tense atmosphere the film wants to pull off. Walken may not say an actual word when it comes to the Horseman, but he sure has the chops to make it compelling to watch each and every snarl. The cinematography by Emmanuel Lubezki is exquisite, where the color only serves to help make its fantasy/horror trappings stand out more than the usual expectation, particularly when the Headless Horseman lurks around (the music from Danny Elfman is helpful as well with that intent). The climax does tend to feel a bit convenient when it comes to having to close off its telling of the legend (namely when its big bad tells someone the nature of their scheme that involves the horseman as well), but at least it can fall back on spectacle (exploding windmills? Why not?) to make it all seem worth it without having to beat you over the head with ridiculousness. On the whole, this proves to be an alluring experience, inviting you in with an interesting atmosphere and some capable acting that makes a different mark on a classic folklore without becoming lost in clichés or being anything other than a nice fright for the horror folks.

Next Review: The Evil Dead.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Blair Witch Project.

Review #1294: The Blair Witch Project.

Cast: 
Heather Donahue, Joshua Leonard, Michael C. Williams, Bob Griffin (Short Fisherman), Jim King (Interviewee), Sandra Sánchez (Waitress), Ed Swanson (Fisherman With Glasses), and Patricia DeCou (Mary Brown) Directed by Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez.

Review: 
Sometimes you need to check out something different with horror. Found footage horror is the presentation of film as being "discovered", for which it is generally seen in real-time through its characters, with the cinematography being "done" by the camera-holder, which may result in some shaky camera work or raw acting. This was not the first found footage of its kind (Cannibal Holocaust was released in 1980, with its content resulting in obscenity charges for its director), but this film certainly helped give popularity to the idea of making films like this, for which one could still see in the following decade with films such as Paranormal Activity or Cloverfield. Twenty hours of footage was shot over the course of eight days, for which the editing took eight months to make an 82 minute run-time. With a budget of $60,000 and a midnight premiere at the Sundance Film Festival in January of 1999, the film became a surprise hit as one of the most successful independent films of all time with a gross of over $200 million, and two sequels followed in 2000 and 2016. It definitely is a successful tale of marketing through the Internet, with a (still-running) website that meant to portray the film events as real with stuff such as police reports, interviews, "missing" flyers and a mockumentary that premiered around the film's release that gave backstory details.

If one really does find themselves scared of the unexplained, of the paranormal phenomena that one cannot see right away that keeps you off balance, then you will likely get a kick out of this film. For me, I couldn't find myself really being that scared at nearly everything that this film presents, and it combines itself with bland characters that makes this a polite disappointment. I go into horror to see if there will be a fright or some entertainment, and this is essentially the equivalent of doing animals with your hands on a flashlight: it only works if you have the imagination and passion for it. You can make a film involving offbeat characters that aren't quite likable if it is done right, but this isn't one of those examples. Watching a bunch of folks stumble around a forest and bicker isn't what I call atmosphere, and having an actual seen horror not show up is not what I call scary. Technically speaking, there was meant to be a shot of the horror in the film, with a pan to the left that would show a woman in a white gown in the distance, but the cameraman forgot to do so and it was not re-shot. Maybe one is supposed to have Jaws in mind when it comes to a film that holds its monster in place for most of its run-time. This falls apart pretty quickly because I actually felt something for that film and its encompassing terror that lurked (and actually showed up), where with these three the strangest thing that happens to these theater folks is having the tent shaken by the director. Actually, I take that back, the stick figures are a bit spooky to look at. It doesn't seem too fair to pick at these main three took hard, since they are just making the best out of some improvisation with a little bit of intensity (and swearing) that maybe could get a rise out of someone that has more interest in what is actually going on. By the time the climax hits with a bit of a thud, I am more inspired to put the disc back in its compilation case and have it rest back on the shelf than actually look up the lore. If one is big on films with a bit of history for it and trappings of the unseen supernatural, you might fit this just fine. For me, not so much.

Next Review: Sleepy Hollow.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Dracula (1979).

Review #1293: Dracula.

Cast: 

Frank Langella (Count Dracula), Laurence Olivier (Professor Abraham Van Helsing), Donald Pleasence (Dr. Jack Seward), Kate Nelligan (Lucy Seward), Trevor Eve (Jonathan Harker), Jan Francis (Mina Van Helsing), Sylvester McCoy (Walter Myrtle), Janine Duvitski (Annie), Tony Haygarth (Milo Renfield), and Teddy Turner (Swales) Directed by John Badham (#086 - Short Circuit)

Review: 

1979 was an interesting time for films with Dracula. There were at least three major releases involving a variation of the character released that year: Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979) and Love at First Bite, with two minor films also being released that year named Nocturna and Dracula Blows His Cool. It shouldn't prove surprising, considering that the 1970s had already had numerous Dracula films, with a good deal of featuring Christopher Lee - who was featured in eight films as the title role, which ranged from the Hammer films to comedies. Dracula even had its own blaxpoitation film (another time, another year), so why not another Univeral Dracula film? Much like the 1931 film, it is based on both the 1924 play of the same name by Hamilton Deane and John L. Balderston and the 1897 novel by Bram Stoker. The screenplay was done by W. D. Richter, who you may remember as the writer of Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978), so there does seem to have a bit of promise. Langella, like Lugosi before him, had starred in the Broadway production of Dracula, with macabre illustrator Edward Gorey behind the sets and costumes that mostly consisted of black-and-white with red accents. The original book had a title character that is animalistic, while the play revised it to being more suave and polite that doesn't loom in the background as much. In that sense, one wonders how a stylish and slightly more polished Dracula proves to be. For me, I find myself in the middle, where I can applaud the attempt at trying to make something interesting with this character, but it can't quite work as a love story nor as a horror film, managing to be as average as the Hammer films that did less with the character before it. It definitely ranks below the aforementioned Nosferatu film in trying to depict a lonesome Dracula, this much is for sure. One can only feel underwhelmed when it comes to the excitement levels of this movie, where disappointment and quiet acceptance run the same street with this film, and it starts with Dracula himself. Langella does fine with the suave nature of such an alluring one to follow, particularly with the way he stares at others on screen. But I feel that he doesn't really come off as a threat in the scenes where the film needs it the most, right down to the lack of fangs (same with Lugosi, but with a different result) and a bizzare love sequence involving a blood red tunnel. Everything else seems so dry in comparison, where camp really sometimes does need to be king. Olivier seems ready to be in some other production for a different time while being a bit too quiet in comparison to the smaller featured Pleasence (who accepted the role of Seward over Van Helsing due to it seeming similar to his role that he played in Halloween the previous year), who also is just okay. Nelligan can't quite make this a riveting quartet for her side as well, where I never really seem to care all too much in this romantic angle. This is a film that needs panache for flavor, and instead one gets expired refreshments. The Hammer films may have varied in quality when it came to the title character (especially in their escalation of ways to kill him), but at least I felt that there was some sort of terror that lurked beyond that cape, where I actually want to see what could happen to the disposable- I mean the supporting characters. The climax is swift, but it's attempt to bait with its last shot is a bit too silly to make it really matter - at least try to be definitive if you only have one shot. The film has certainly an interesting history on how to be found. The original version of the film had warm colors, differing from Badham's desire to film in black-and-white. For future releases, the color timing was altered to de-saturate the look of the film, and a release of the original print has only just begun to be released onto markets. Honestly, one can hope their brightness level is where they want, or be curious over how it looked back in 1979, a time for Dracula like no other. Ultimately, this is an average film, just not having enough in its blood besides style to really deliver passion or scares meaningfully to win out. It could prove a curiosity if one wants to see another rendition of the most famous fictional vampire, for better or worse.

Next Review: The Blair Witch Project.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.