The Stunt Man.

Review #2499: The Stunt Man.

Cast: 

Peter O'Toole (Eli Cross), Steve Railsback (Cameron), Barbara Hershey (Nina Franklin), Allen Goorwitz (Sam), Alex Rocco (Jake), Sharon Farrell (Denise), Adam Roarke (Raymond Bailey), Philip Bruns (Ace), Charles Bail (Chuck Barton), and John Garwood (Gabe) Directed by Richard Rush.

Review: 

"The idea of a fugitive hiding his identity by posing as a stuntman and falling under the dominance of a director seemed like a marvelous way to examine our universal panic and paranoia over controlling our own destinies. And it offered a chance to do it inside the structure of a big screen big action picture, which would be entertaining at the same time.”

It does help to look outside the box with someone who directed a total of twelve films. Richard Rush liked films from a young age, once stating in an interview that he saw Mildred Pierce (1945) fifteen times while working as a theater usher. He attended the UCLA Film School and stated with clear honesty that the Theater Department was wonderful while not learning anything about film, with his real education coming with making propaganda (his word) TV programs about the Korean War. He had a production company to produce commercials and industrial films before selling it so he could make what became his first film: Too Soon to Love (1960), which he ended up selling to Universal Pictures for $250,000 (of note is one of Rush's co-writers was a young Francis Ford Coppola) that was described once as "the first American New Wave film". Other highlights include some work for AIP such as The Savage Seven, studio work for Columbia with Getting Straight (1970), a "love it or hate it" film that served as an early example of the buddy cop movie with Freebie and the Bean (1974). Rush could not get as much work after The Stunt Man: he was paid to walk away from Air America [1990] and the production of Color of Night [1994] had a publicized disagreement about the best cut that gave him a heart attack, although Rush's version on DVD apparently was better than the theatrical version. At any rate, save for a DVD documentary about the making of The Stunt Man, Rush mostly retreated to his Bel Air residence for the rest of his life*; he died in 2021 at the age of 92.

In 1970, Paul Brodeur's novel The Stunt Man was published. Almost immediately, there were ideas of making a film adaptation, which actually started with Brodeur's Harvard classmate Frederick Wiseman. Francois Truffaut and Arthur Penn apparently were considered for the film but instead ended up doing films that have been said to have story elements from the book (with Day for Night [1973] and Night Moves [1975], respectively). At any rate, with the relative hit of Getting Straight (1970), Rush came into the picture in 1971 that originally was to have William Castle as producer. Columbia Pictures had the film rights and Rush wrote a treatment that apparently was described as one the executives were too confused about what genre it was (asking if it was a comedy, drama, social satire, or action adventure and getting "yes, all" as an answer does tend to make things a bit weird). Having decided to buy the film rights from the studio to work on a screenplay with Lawrence B. Marcus, Rush tried to shop for a studio to fund it to no avail (it did not help when the movie that ended up being called Hooper [1978]* was originally in development as "The Stuntman"). Eventually, the funding for the film came by way of Melvin Simon*, who actually was a prominent real estate investor before he tried his hand at producing in what he later called a "big mistake" (likely the most noted film with financing from Simon was Porky's [1982]) and was distributed by 20th Century Fox to little release.

I really wanted to like this movie. It is fascinating, sure, because this is a film that Peter O'Toole said was not so much released but "escaped". But I can't help but feel like most of the movie is a smoke and mirrors show to hide what is basically a shaggy dog story more than some sort of mixture of adventure-comedy-drama. Oh but certain stuff in the movie is just part of a movie- that only works if you are absorbed into the idea that the film is actually going to fool you, and, well, I didn't. It's not nearly as fun as, say, Hooper, and it is not nearly as compelling to answer the question of "is that it?" beyond presenting a mish-mash between Railsback and O'Toole-well okay there is Hershey, but eventually one starts to roll their eyes at the perceived free spirit (the first time you see her is in makeup trying to look like an old woman, which might actually be a bit funny in the punchline). Honestly, the most interesting part of the film is the exchange between Railsback and Bail (actual stuntman playing himself) in the art of the stunt, since it actually goes into something meaningful: selling the stunt with natural dialogue that is amusing in what it says about people with the stones to go through with a jump. Of course, O'Toole is basically doing an imitation of Rush (complete with clothes given by Rush to O'Toole) that has an amusing ego within wily maneuverings that extends to doing scenes on a crane. By the time the movie maneuvers through 131 minutes of semi-interesting moments involving stunts and moments meant to make one understand the PTSD-haze* of the lead focus, you just wish the conceit was funnier. It is one of those movies you might encounter in the middle of the night and possibly find something really curious within its game of conceit in movieland that is sometimes entertaining and other times is somewhere in the middle.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Incidentally, Rush wanted to do a film about Barry Seal for many years, as evidenced here - MONEY INTO LIGHT: AN INTERVIEW WITH RICHARD RUSH (PART 4 OF 4)

*Call it a hot take, but I think I enjoyed Hooper more than I enjoyed The Stunt Man.

*You might recognize Simon because he and his younger brother Herb bought the Indiana Pacers in 1983 and Herb still owns the team.

*I imagine that if my father had lived long enough to talk to me as an adult, it would've been something to talk to him as an adult, given that he served in Vietnam.

Used Cars.

Review #2398: Used Cars.

Cast:

Kurt Russell (Rudy Russo), Jack Warden (Roy L. Fuchs / Luke Fuchs), Gerrit Graham (Jeff), Frank McRae (Jim), Deborah Harmon (Barbara Jane Fuchs), Joe Flaherty (Sam Slaton), David L. Lander (Freddie Paris), Michael McKean (Eddie Winslow), Michael Talbott (Mickey), Harry Northup (Carmine), Alfonso Arau (Manuel), Cheryl Rixon (Margaret), Al Lewis (Judge H. H. Harrison), Woodrow Parfrey (Mr. Chertner), and Dub Taylor (Tucker)

Directed by Robert Zemeckis (#317 - The Polar Express, #352 - Who Framed Roger Rabbit, #581 - Forrest Gump, #648 - Beowulf, #701 - Back to the Future, #747 - Back to the Future Part II, #748 - Back to the Future Part III, #1527 - Cast Away, #2229 - I Wanna Hold Your Hand)

Review: 

 “This movie is structured on a classic Frank Capra movie except that everybody lies.”

Look, sometimes movies don't get the right type of luck in reaching audiences. Or they just don't get it, who the hell knows. You might remember that Robert Zemeckis had his directorial debut with I Wanna Hold Your Hand (1978), that 1964 comedy involving teens and The Beatles that flopped on initial release. But Zemeckis continued on with Bob Gale on another production together two years later with Used Cars, which now had John Milius and Steven Spielberg serve as executive producers. Apparently, Milius was the one who came up with the idea of the movie with Spielberg that had thoughts of a Las Vegas used-cars salesman, which at one point had George Hamilton floated as a possible lead. Gale and Zemeckis did research at used car lots, as one does. The movie was shot around the Arizona area in the span of a month in 1979. On July 11, 1980, Used Cars was released in theaters and was a marginal success (it was made for substantially more money than Hand, for example). Apparently, the release was bumped up a month by Columbia Pictures (as led by a man that had sold cars at one point in his life) due to good test screenings, and yes, I said *good* screenings. As as a result, the movie came out just barely after the release of movies such as Airplane! (1980). The next movie directed by Zemeckis was Romancing the Stone (1984), which lit the match for his eventual breakthrough as a director. Incidentally, Used Cars (1980) was the only R-rated Zemeckis movie until Flight (2012).

I don't do car dealerships, but good god, I do love ensemble comedies. It is the kind of old-fashioned hokum that would've fit right at home in the days of Old Hollywood (as if it was an inverted A Wonderful Life), even if others might shudder at the thought of "crass" characters for a comedy. The thing is that they are *fun* and crass characters for a delightfully exploitative movie. What, have you never thought about a used car salesman going into politics? (as opposed to 70-year-olds running for president again and again) It wasn't like the previous decade was a normal one, what with people becoming president without the voters being involved. It is a barrage of crude brilliance that could only come from people who wanted to blaze a trail of humor at all costs and played it extremely cool in the process. Sometimes I wonder what makes Kurt Russell so good that he could've had his own fan club. I think it just is the fact that he seems to have the swagger to pull off nearly any performance with no sense of bullshitting you. He can do the action movie hero type (as one loves), he could do drama (I see Miracle [2004] every year), and most importantly, he can do comedy. Of course, this was his first film in five years, having moved away from Disney productions after The Strongest Man in the World (1975) that saw him do television and even play Elvis. With this movie, you need someone with a cocksure attitude, and you get that in spades with Russell, who is tremendously devious and tremendously funny for what clearly should've been the role to help see Russell as a legitimate talent*. He just rolls the hustle on his mind with no hesitation and the confidence that arrives in slippery likability, where one loves to watch what harebrained idea that he wants to peddle next. His time spent with Harmon is probably the only time he tries to really be honest (well, as much as one can when being around a dead person for a good chunk of the film), and even then it is still funny to see him squirm in chicanery. But the real focus is on folks you see around Russell like the superstitious (and funny) Graham or the slippery McRae or the lesser-shown McKean & Lander (who at that time were paired together on TV with Laverne & Shirley) in tech hijinks. But of course, Warden and his double role (for a time, one of them dies and is buried in an Edsel that is both touching and amusing) helps to seal the film as a real treat. He practically seems like the kid in a candy store in grousing humor that plays off the whole "one guy looks like this, the other guy acts like this" thing that makes me smile every time I see him on screen (one line in particular stands out about the "country going to the dogs" because when a politician was bought, they would stay bought). The cut-in sequences (where the boys decide the best way to raise awareness for their dealership is illegal cut-in commercials) are special standouts in ludicrous energy and audacity*, but the real show-stopper is the climax involving plenty of cars that might as well have been a cattle drive like Red River (1948) with such rousing spectacle and lunacy on display. In total, one doesn't see a cop out in a movie that looks at people and sees grifters all in line. As a whole, the screwy logic on display in salesmanship and outright lies to fill a hustle has managed to age spectacularly well for a movie that definitely deserved better in its time. But four decades (and a half) is still plenty of good milage for a director who got even better from here, so check it out.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*He also tried to have a baseball career but suffered an injury. Is this the third film of the trinity of movies that people didn't get in the 1980s with The Thing and Big Trouble in Little China? Or would Tango & Cash make it a square? At least Escape from New York got him to righteous status.

*One scene has a naked lady in it, as one does when packed with an R-rating. Just be ready for breasts, as they say.

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.

Heaven's Gate.

Review #2237: Heaven's Gate.

Cast: 

Kris Kristofferson (Averill), Christopher Walken (Champion), John Hurt (Irvine), Sam Waterston (Canton), Brad Dourif (Mr. Eggleston), Isabelle Huppert (Ella), Joseph Cotten (The Reverend Doctor), Jeff Bridges (John L. Bridges), Geoffrey Lewis (Trapper), Paul Koslo (Mayor Lezak), Richard Masur (Cully), and Terry O'Quinn (Captain Minardi) Written and Directed by Michael Cimino (#1458 - The Deer Hunter) 

Review: 

"I wanted you to feel what it was like to walk down a street in that period: to follow those noisy wagons, to cross all that activity, what you felt, what you heard. People made so much dust; my God, was it dusty! That makes the streets dirty... when hundreds of wagons go around, they raise dust. And very often, we took the time to record the background sound. In the store, for example, we recorded numerous conversations, with the intention of inserting them into the soundtrack later. This isn’t general background noise; you hear people, in a corner, argue over the price of a knife, discuss the merits of a particular rifle... each of those people are engaged in a very specific activity and you hear them."

Believe it or not, I was awaiting the chance to watch this film in the best scenario and presentation possible. No, I was not waiting for this day to come just to deluge you with some spiel about the production of the film being the legacy of the film for years and years. August seemed to be the best time to see if this film truly deserved to be acknowledged as something beyond just being thought of by critics and audiences as a failure. The attention to detail actually shouldn't be surprising considering that Cimino (the Yale graduate in fine arts of painting) was quite familiar with the arts before his filmmaking era had begun. In fact, his cinematographer for this film (Vilmos Zsigmond) equated Cimino's selection and placement of extras (which could be as many as fifty) in particular places for shots to painting to go with doing as many takes as it seemed necessary to get the right one to use for a scene. Let us run down the various versions of the film really quickly: Cimino's first screening was for studio executives in June of 1980 (initially before all of the hubbub happened, United Artists wanted a Christmas 1979 release), which ran for 325 minutes that he felt would only be a little bit longer than the final cut. The November 1980 screenings (which lasted a week and had critics going "the Devil has just come around to collect") saw a 219-minute version cut by Cimino. Five months later, a 149-minute cut came and died in theaters. Cimino would only direct four films (the last being The Sunchaser [1996]) prior to his death in 2016. Both of these versions were released in some form of the days of home media. In 2005, a "restored cut" came out for screenings that was assembled by MGM archivist John Kirk with no involvement from Cimino, who had stated that even the original premiere version wasn't really a "director's cut". Finally, in 2012, a version restored and supervised by Cimino himself that lasts 216 minutes and removes the sepia tint that had been present in every edition (which is one that you can see here); it was screened to apparent applause and ovations that Cimino got to hear for himself (while saying once that he "never needed vindication") before an eventual home media release, with the Criterion release being the one I saw for myself.

From 1889 to 1893, a reported range conflict, now generally referred to as the "Johnson County War" occurred in Wyoming involving county settlers and cattle companies (the Wyoming Stock Growers Association) trying to prosecute who they felt were rustlers that led to a variety of lynchings and deaths, such as Ella Watson and her husband Jim Averell or a murderous gunfight involving Nate Champion. The film utilizes real-life names such as Watson, Averell, Champion and Cannon but is generally fast and loose with actual events (such as the death of one person who actually lived until the 20th century). Cimino had envisioned making a film loosely based on the War since the early 1970s (after being inspired by the history of barbed wire in relation to the Old West), but it was only just before The Deer Hunter (1979) garnered Academy Awards that had United Artists onto the idea of giving him money and carte blanche to do what he wanted in filming (located mostly in Montana and Idaho). The result was a film that had a studio executive write a book detailing the movie in all the grisly details (Final Cut, published in 1999). What I see from this film (set in 1890) is one that tries to thread the needle of being the epic of mythmaking, one that wonders just what really lies beneath the fabric of what we call America (complete with a line musing about it "always was" a danger to be poor in the country). It is a movie all about tragedy in its mosaic that demands plenty from its viewer that is easy to see its qualities and drawbacks that are quite distinct from those who saw it in its "prime". Beneath all of the lush photography (and an edited tint, remember) is a film for those with the patience to gaze at the building tragedy that arises from knowing blood will be spilled on this soil as manifested by the destiny of those to live with people who look and act like themselves. The obsession for perceived perfection by Cimino bleeds out quite evidently in the weirdest of ways. In other words, to get to the climatic sequence of wagons and wood, one must see for themselves a sequence of roller-skating (which is where the title comes from) or plenty of stilted moments of this would-be love triangle. Kristofferson and Walken seem to battle for who dominates the screen best in terms of presence in the trouble of staying with the loyalty they wish to express to both Huppert along with the uncertain frontier (Walken has that certain type of glare and Kristofferson has that facade of trying to seem like a common man). Poor Huppert seems lost in trying to hack it beyond hazy charm when Walken can just waltz into his introduction without losing a step. Hurt gets to play an observer removed from actually being involved with the general plot (because of his hollow character) that is sort of effective in a sea of one-note stuff. Poor Bridges chimes in just as little as one thinks by the time of the halfway point, while Waterston seemingly is one really good scene away from being the true presence of soulless manifest the film seems to think he is. The film gives one a hazy outline to basically use their imagination in trying to make one see themselves in these folks that are not merely outsiders, which is only somewhat successful. Its battle sequence at the end makes for a poignant hollow victory for all involved, one where the blood will stay on the soil long after all involved have shuffled off the coil that is considered "settled" to go with that last scene of an older and, well, settled lead presence in the privilege that comes with compliance. I can't call it a great movie because really it is just a bit too bloated to really rise to greatness (although being close to sprawling flawed films like Dances with Wolves is not a bad thing), but I think it is pretty obviously a movie worth checking out to see for oneself (while paying attention, naturally) to assess where it ranks in the pantheon of tragic Westerns and mythmaking as a whole.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Hello folks. As you can see, we have another August upon us, which means a theme month once again.

2021: "Anniversary in August"

2022: "Action in August"

2023: "Around the World in August"

The theme for 2024 is "Acknowledged in August", which will cover films that were either lambasted or forgotten by critics or audiences at the time of release in an attempt to see if, well, they deserve to be acknowledged for possibly worth having a cult following. What better way to start than with a film trashed to hell and back in Heaven's Gate? From Michael Cimino to Robert Altman, we will cover some films that may or may not be "something to acknowledge". There will be a few new releases covered alongside the Acknowledged stuff this month, as evidenced by the next review: Trap.

The Apple.

Review #2147: The Apple.

Cast: 

Catherine Mary Stewart (Bibi Phillips; Mary Hylan as singing voice), George Gilmour (Alphie), Grace Kennedy (Pandi), Vladek Sheybal (Mr. Boogalow), Allan Love (Dandi), Joss Ackland (Hippie Leader/Mr. Topps), Ray Shell (Shake), Miriam Margolyes (Alphie's landlady), Derek Deadman (Bulldog), Michael Logan (James Clark), George S. Clinton (Joe Pittman), and Francesca Poston (Vampire/Star Rock/Mr. Boogalow's Receptionist/BiM band keyboard player/Lapmate Mr. Boogalow's Penthouse Party) Directed by Menahem Golan.

Review: 

"I cannot be that wrong about the movie. They just don't understand what I was trying to do."

What would you say makes a proper turkey film candidate: a director who believed his film was going to vault him into the American film industry, or a director contemplating jumping off a balcony when he hears negative reviews of his film? I'll do you one better: try both for the same film. The original story was done by Coby Recht and Iris Recht. The long and short story of how things came to be is that Coby, a successful Israeli rock producer, was inspired by his experiences with Barclay Records, which was led by Eddie Barclay. He thought there was something odd about Barclay in the "looking like a villain" department that got him to write something with his wife that would be described as "1984, but music". This was developed in the course of 1977, complete with song demos ready before the pitch stage (in Hebrew). In the course of the grapevine, it came to the attention of none other than Menahem Golan. Born in British Mandate of Palestine (before it became Israel), Golan had done studying in directing and filmmaking abroad before staging plays in Israel. He became a director with El Dorado (1963). Operation Thunderbolt (1977) is probably the most noted of his films as director (the Israeli production ended up nominated for the Academy Award for Best International Feature Film), and it happened just before he became involved with his cousin Yoram Globus with ownership of the Cannon Group, which they purchased in 1979. Of course, with Recht, he knew Golan because the latter had been a director of children's theater stuff in Israel that Recht performed in. Apparently, a good deal of the actual script involved "Heaven", at least before Golan (the only screenplay writer) turned it into something less extreme for some sort of accessibility to the audiences. The budget ballooned from $4 million to $10 million, complete with a considerable cost to do the recording and mixing of the music. When it came time to the Montréal Film Festival, someone thought to make vinyl records to promote the film. The result was that when viewers saw said film, they ended up throwing the vinyls onto the screen. Golan would direct a handful of films after the failure of The Apple. Enter the Ninja (1981) was so successful for Cannon that it started a craze of ninja films (with Sho Kosugi being in two further Cannon ninja films). Golan did musical rom-coms with Mack the Knife (1989) and films with noted stars in The Delta Force (1986, which had Chuck Norris and Lee Marvin) and Over the Top (1987 - yes, the one about arm wrestling and Sylvester Stallone); Golan died at the age of 85 in 2014.

Okay, so we have a film involving the Faust legend being told through the record industry that has a great deal of, um, things in it. It has a lead actress in Stewart who came out of the blue from auditioning to be a dancer here to, well, being cast to act (with dubbed singing) and a lead actor in Gilmour that never appeared in another film. For a film that was 92 minutes long, it sure felt like two hours, because it is probably one of the most overbearing films to ever ooze onto a theater. Sure, if you look at the film closely from piece to piece, you can see the allegory in just how weird the industry of buying and selling folks seems straight from the Biblical times, but nothing can prepare you for the overall outcome that shows, and I kid you not, a Rolls-Royce in the sky. From what one knows about the edits made, there was a "Creation" song sequence that apparently gave some clarity to what the hell is going on with this film, but, well, somehow it had a bunch of mishaps in staging (complete with a brontosaurus costume collapse). And apparently Golan had come up with a four-hour cut of the film! I cannot imagine having the stones of Golan to believe that this really would be the ticket to the American film industry, and yet you can see it all blasted here. Stewart and Gilmour don't have a prayer when it comes to trying to give the film any sort of interest in trying to care about these people when contrasted with the costume hodgepodges. Squares don't make for fun, unless you are Kennedy trying to make the best of these costumes and uh, trying to sing "Coming" (take one guess). Sheybal, a fiercely proud Polish actor, is probably the only person one can a grip on because of the obvious Devil figure he plays, which is probably the best thing to say about the film when it comes to someone who has more focus on what to do than the people behind the camera (Shell is at least eccentric in that snide sense of support). This might be the kind of film you show people when they say the old days had all of the best music and say, "take this one on, sucker!" Golan thought he had a grip of what the 1960s were like to him, but really he made a movie that buried the 1970s into the finest paste imaginable. The fact that this and Xanadu were released in the same year is only a testament that aiming for the hip and wild in music really does come once in a full moon, but I have sympathy for that other film because that movie had Electric Light Orchestra on the soundtrack (others can say they like Olivia Newton-John, but no one messes with the electronic kings). This on the other hand is a film that involves gala events with crowd vital signs and hippies. As a whole, The Apple is a junky film that aims for the moon and explodes two feet off the launch pad to reveal termites everywhere. Golan may have been involved in plenty of films in varying quality, but perhaps none of them were as bizarre in ambition and resulting meltdown as this one turned out to be.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Next: Happy Thanksgiving. Two of the previous three Thanksgivings have seen a doubleheader of crap, so enjoy the night with something really fun to call crap: The Trial of Billy Jack.

Health.

Review #2061: Health.

Cast: 

Carol Burnett (Gloria Burbank), Glenda Jackson (Isabella Garnell), James Garner (Harry Wolff), Lauren Bacall (Esther Brill), Paul Dooley (Dr. Gil Gainey), Donald Moffat (Colonel Cody), Henry Gibson Bobby Hammer), Diane Stilwell (Willow Wertz), MacIntyre Dixon (Fred Munson), Alfre Woodard (Sally Benbow), and Dick Cavett (Himself) Directed by Robert Altman (#900 - Nashville, #1433 - M*A*S*H, and #1890 - The Delinquents)

Review: 

"HealtH could have only been made when it was made, and that was the end of the Carter era."

Somehow, at the end of this little blurb about talking about a film that did not get a proper release is a joke. But I'm sure you already came into that with a film made by a director as noted as Robert Altman that has the dubious achievement of having never received a proper home video release. You may or may not already know that Altman was an interesting presence amongst filmmakers you could say have their own style of filming. He may not have had the best of times with his initial feature efforts such as The Delinquents (1957), but his lengthy time spent in television work would shine well when he got to do regular film work after the massive hit of M*A*S*H (1970). Over the next ten years he would direct in a variety of genres that went from the Western (McCabe & Mrs. Miller) to horror (Images) to psychological drama (3 Women). Some films ended up better than others, as evidenced by Quintet (1979). Altman had at least one film released from the year of 1969 to 1980 that went from That Cold Day in the Park (1969) to Popeye. Now back to this film (sometimes referred to as HealtH or H.E.A.L.T.H.): it was shot in the Don CeSar Beach hotel in St Petersburg Beach, Florida for a number of months in 1979. He rushed the film to production just to make sure that it could be done for 20th Century Fox while Alan Ladd Jr was still around. He wrote the script in collaboration with Frank Barhydt and Paul Dooley. It was planned for a released in the winter of 1979, but changeover at the studio led to shuffling for test previews in the spring of 1980 with ideas of getting it seen in full by the summer (the aforementioned Popeye film somehow went better despite being filmed in 1980 for release in the winter, incidentally). It did not end well, and Altman had a falling out with personnel, particularly with one that didn't return his calls for weeks on end that led to being labeled as "scum" by the director. Long story short, there was no public release of the film until New York’s Film Forum showed in 1982, but there were enough film festival showings to account for a knowing of it. It certainly did not come from 20th Century Fox, who had decided the film was not commercially viable enough for release in 1980. So, what did they decide was a better candidate for release than an Altman film? Oh! Heavenly Dog.

I can't promise you a good punchline for the end of this review, but I thought it tickled me. There are two sides that can come with talking about a film not appreciated in its time: the part where you call it a hidden gem that deserves your attention or one that you believe was best left to rest in the dustbin. This is a film that at least one person liked watching on the Fox Movie Channel enough to record it and try to put it online. As for me, I enjoyed it about as much as I thought would happen for an attempt at a satire of politics of the time that is a frenzied hodgepodge of observations that come from looking at a health food convention that really is looking at the conventions that come with America. In other words: showmanship has run amok, and one can still see the carnival atmosphere that we call politics now more than ever. Granted, it isn't exactly packed with a developed story, and it definitely isn't on the same level as, say, Nashville (1975), but it really did deserve an audience to judge it for themselves rather than letting it being thrust into the shadows (for the decade of the 1980s, Altman was left with making films on small-scale budgets, with varying respect). To me, the movie stumbles around two timelines to make light of: the end of the Jimmy Carter era (beaten in a landslide by Reagan in the fall of 1980) and the Dwight Eisenhower-Adlai Stevenson elections of the 1950s that incidentally saw the candidate with vast media drawing Powe win each time. Life is messy, and Altman made a whole movie about the odd carnival of hucksters in health and beyond. The film isn't really wrapped in an involving plot of note, so it really does verge its entertainment on just how much you like the people involved in said film. This namely involves folks who can be pegged to sentence-descriptions such as Garner and his general huckster observer persona or Jackson in a spry and uptight impersonation of Stevenson right down to the speeches. Of course, those 50s elections didn't have a third-party worth mentioning, so Dooley is more just there as the ignored option, but I like Dooley and his huckster self that seems too much for these fellow hucksters, so it shouldn't surprise me that he had a hand in writing this. Woodard is probably the only sane observer of said proceedings, which includes a man of great bluster in Moffat or the always enduring presence of Gibson. Burnett is basically there as the wishy-washy presence that is mildly funny in tension, but one wonders if there was more one could do with this role (this reflects perhaps most on Cavett, who might as well be trying out a mild sedative). At least Bacall and her slogan-happy presence of feeling oneself is amusing in just how much of a puppet one can be with slogans (in being used and using others). It is interesting to make a film about two women running for president and have one of them go on to win to form a new leadership of sexless strength. As a whole, the movie is merely fine, but 20th Century Fox should have known better than to think that it was going to work out nicely to skip over releasing this film (one that cost $6 million!). It isn't a great sort of missing gem or far from easy to ignore, instead falling along the middle with a few amusing moments that with a proper release would've nurtured a possible cult favorite. As it stands now, the only way to enjoy it is for those who enjoy digging further into Altman films or for those who like to watch bootlegs.  But hey, don't take my word for how the film worked when it came to satire and its targets, take it from Ronald Reagan, who was reported to have seen the film in 1982 and called it "the world's worst movie". That I think tells you all you need to know about Health.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Day After Trinity.

Review #2048: The Day After Trinity.

Cast: 

Interviews and archival footage of various individuals [listed by profession]:

Interview: Haakon Chevalier [writer], Hans Bethe [physicist], Francis Fergusson [writer], Robert Serber [physicist], Robert Wilson [physicist], Frank Oppenheimer [physicist], Isidor Issac Rabi [physicist], Freeman Dyson [physicist], Stirling Colgate [physicist], Stan Ulam [mathematician], Robert Porton [G.I.], Françoise Ulam [writer], Dorothy McKibben [office head], Robert Krohn [physicist], Jane Wilson [writer], Holm Bursom [rancher], Dave MacDonald [rancher], Susan Evans [resident], and Elizabeth Ingram [merchant].

Archive: 

J. Robert Oppenheimer, General Leslie Groves, President Harry Truman, Senator Joseph McCarthy, among others. Produced and Directed by Jon H. Else.

Review: 

On July 16, 1945, the first detonation of a nuclear weapon occurred in human history. Trinity, if you did not know, was the code name for the detonation of the atomic bomb, one that would be dropped in a desert basin formerly known as "Apache country" but was known by folks as Jornada del Muerto. The following month after the test, two atomic bombs would be dropped in Japan that served as the precursor to end World War II. It was the culmination of years of development that triggered a tremendous effort wrapped in anxiety. This anxiety was wrapped in layers: the fear of trying to develop a bomb in a race against time and also the fear of just what might happen when it would go off. At the time of 1980, it was noted that there had been over a thousand nuclear explosions since that day, with the atomic bomb being not even the second-most destructive force ever done to the earth we walk on. The film, if you did not know, takes its title from a quote stated by J. Robert Oppenheimer, described as "father of the atomic bomb", who when asked about efforts to try and initiate talk in politics to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, said that it should have been done "the day after Trinity". The film is narrated by Paul Frees. The film had writing done by David Peoples, Janet Peoples, and Jon H. Else, with the latter also serving as a both director and interviewer. It is his most known film, although he has maintained a steady career of directing and shooting various productions for nearly five decades. The results of the film (as funded by various sources, one being an association with KTEH, a California TV station) was an Academy Award nomination for Best Documentary Feature.

One does become quite fascinated for the need for such plutonium and the need to have as many people possible in Los Alamos, complete with footage to set the canvas.  You get a useful sense of who Oppenheimer was when it comes to the type of personality it takes to deal with urgency and curiosity that come with the dawn of being involved in the world more than just science by the 1930s (as one does when becoming involved with certain left-wing outlets); with these links comes being trailed by the FBI. There is a wry humor that comes and goes in the perspectives shown in the film, whether that involves the recollection of bets about how much the impact of the bomb will be in TNT count or if it could incinerate the whole state of New Mexico. You can hear from various noted sources such as Dyson, who at one point mentions a "Faustian bargain" when it comes to the bomb or the depression that kicked you for one scientist when it came to the bombing. Frank Oppenheimer's perspective on his brother is also quite helpful. In the end, one can only agree that the desert really does seem small when it comes to seeing the bomb footage. Such a day brings a fledged horror if you think about it: folks who were there in the preparation of doing something that had never been done before that saw fufillment of their mission...with the immediate next thought being shock and awe. Oppenheimer went from doing a "kind of strut" when the test was done to, well, distress. The last section of the film shows footage of people who suffered the effects of the atomic bomb along with the perspective that comes after the war. Perhaps it is for the best the film doesn't mention Oppenheimer and his encounter with President Truman, in which the latter later called him a "cry baby scientist" when it came to the fallout from the decision to drop the bombs (and therefore achieve surrender). Oppenheimer is featured here in archival footage most prominently, one who obviously felt the best course of action was to unite people together rather than blow them apart in terms of knowledge that contrasts with the growing paranoia of the age, as represented by folks like Joseph McCarthy (a true bastard if there ever was one, although he is only seen briefly). The dealings of the people around Oppenheimer (which included several members of the Communist Party, such as his brother) and the machinations that come with politics and just who gets to say what happens with pressing a button would come to haunt him. This would lead to the hearing involving the Atomic Energy Commission, which was mainly driven by Lewis Strauss. It is the type of documentary that will drive great curiosity and emotion to learn more, even about people such as Strauss or Edward Teller (I would like to point out that Isidor Issac Rabi, interviewed for this film in 1980, is often thought to be the one who popularized the saying that "It would have been a better world without Teller." - food for thought). As a whole, Oppenheimer is presented in the most ideal way possible for a documentary about a dead subject: one that seems alive in the hearts and minds of those who knew him best. It makes the kind of tragedy that could make for a film, perhaps one that would fully show what it means to say about the test, "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds"...

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

The Life and Times of Rosie the Riveter.

Review #1819: The Life and Times of Rosie the Riveter.

Cast:

Featuring Wanita Allen, Gladys Belcher, Lyn Childs, Lola Weixel, and Margaret Wright. Produced and Directed by Connie Field.

Review: 

One of the main draws to doing a month dedicated to women directors is the idea of covering film from a variety of interesting perspectives that have not received attention in the past. In particular, the documentary is one area that always merits attention, and Connie Field is a filmmaker that has earned considerable curiosity in a filmmaking career that has spanned four decades (with an Academy Award nomination and Emmy Award win to her credit). She was born in Washington, D.C. to a Jewish family; she worked as an organizer for several movements, both feminist and anti-war during the 1960s. Her work for Newsreel (distribution for independent films) got her into filmmaking, and it was the discussion over a late 1970s reunion of "Rosie the Riveter" near her that interested her in making a documentary, one that would surely seem interesting involving the perspective of women from a time not too far removed from the current woman. This film was her directorial debut. Over the next couple of years, she would focus on a variety of subjects such as American veterans of the Spanish Civil War, the story of the 1961-64 Mississippi voter registration movement, and the struggle of anti-apartheid activists against South Africa's system (a series of seven films). The icon "Rosie the Riveter" involved work in the factory and shipyards that would produce munitions and war supplies, and the term was used for songs and film (nineteen years later, the Canadian perspective was covered in Rosies of the North). The movie proved quite suitable in both the festival circuit and on television, having first premiered at the New York Film Festival in 1980 alongside broadcasting on the PBS program American Experience in 1988. The runtime is 65 minutes (as edited by Lucy Massie Phenix and Connie Field).

As you might guess, one will be quite interested to hear the recollections of five women, ones based in Los Angeles (CA), Brooklyn (NY), San Francisco (CA), Richmond (CA), and Detroit (MI) that all worked during World War II (hundreds were interviewed, but only these five are shown). Well, actually it starts with a recollection of the late 1930s from the perspective of the five women, whether that involves molasses making or housework (with one account even stating how she got a job on the thought that she was a man, considering how "tough" the job was). There is plenty of old footage utilized to go along with the recollections, most notably with The March of Time newsreels, specifically footage imploring the importance of women to join the war effort (and stay in the effort). As one might see, it was an interesting time, one that wasn't always rosy (whether that involved welding or union), but it is the prospect of making something meaningful that attracts one more than anything. Of course, making more money than before helps too, but it is pride in riveting that drove one forward that is universally relevant, where the ordinary is extraordinary. The history that one hears from this film is quite fascinating, with one account even talking about putting a torch up to help defend against a Filipino worker being mistreated by an officer. Sure, the war propaganda made them to be heroes, but that didn't mean there wasn't discrimination and sexism to be found. Of course, the end of the war meant a push to "return to normalcy", which pushed away the people working during the war, where co-workers were now competitors for the jobs that were left over, as if going back to homemaking was just something one could snap right back to, even with a "baby boom" - the film shows footage of Marynia F. Farnham, M.D, who actually co-wrote a book about "psychologically disordered" contemporary women. Sure, one can go to working in kitchens, department stores and mimeographing, but it just isn't quite the same (interestingly enough, Wright actually ran for president as an independent, receiving over 49,000 votes in 1976). The last words in the film strike especially, with one of the women (Weixel) talking about how that particular time of war produced a smart looking group of ladies that loved one another in a feeling that one would wish for this country again, but not for war. Now more than ever, one can still see the importance of such a film in its perspective on history from the people who lived it that makes a suitable hour to spend that will make you look further.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: The Loveless.

Altered States.

Review #1754: Altered States.

Cast: 

William Hurt (Dr. Eddie Jessup), Blair Brown (Emily Jessup), Bob Balaban (Arthur Rosenberg), Charles Haid (Mason Parrish), Thaao Penghlis (Eduardo Echeverria), Drew Barrymore (Margaret Jessup), Megan Jeffers (Grace Jessup), Dori Brenner (Sylvia Rosenberg), Peter Brandon (Alan Hobart), George Gaynes (Dr. Wissenschaft), and Jack Murdock (Hector Orteco) Directed by Ken Russell (#687 - Tommy)

Review: 

Well, as the saying goes...sometimes you just have to see it to believe it. This seems doubly true when looking at the output that came from the divergent creation of its director in Ken Russell and its writer in Paddy Chayefsky. But let us get back to the beginning, specifically in 1978. By this point in time, he was a screenwriter that had won three Academy Awards for his screenplays (Marty (1955), The Hospital (1971), Network (1976)). He had his inspiration to write a novel from a conversation he had with his friends Bob Fosse and Herb Gardner, who apparently wanted to make a monster movie in the guise of reality because King Kong (1976) was being made at the time. A three-page treatment eventually turned into a novel, with research being inspired by the work of John C. Lilly, best known for his work within isolation tanks (his work with dolphins inspired the book and su subsequent film The Day of the Dolphin (1973), incidentally). The book was a fair seller, and so it originally fell to Columbia Pictures (later Warner Bros. because of the rising budget) to try and make a film, with Arthur Penn tapped to direct. However, disagreements with Chayefsky led to him leaving the project. Apparently, when it finally came time for ask Russell, he was the 27th choice to be approached. He was picked because of his visual approach (remember that while he was the director of acclaimed films like Tommy (1975) and Women in Love (1969), he was also known for controversial works like The Devils (1971) and failures like Valentino (1977)). Keep in mind that Russell would have to film the script as written, since Chayefsky had full control. It would not go well. 

It was the last script from Chayefsky to be produced, as he died from a heart attack the following year at the age of 58, and he would be credited as "Sidney Aaron" (referring to his actual first and middle names). Russell would obviously defend the film from Chayefsky and his criticisms, stating that he had done "great justice" to the script without many modification, albeit without shooting or lighting the film the way he wanted; as quoted by Russell, "He would make suggestions, and I would listen courteously, and then disagree." (the producer of the film stated that Russell was fair with Chayefsky until filming began, while Russell related an experience of said producer asking the writer how he spelled "benign" and received "W.I.C.K.E.D" as a response). In other words, when you combine two highly-opinionated people who like to tell a story with their vision...you get something like this. The film made $19 million on a $14 million budget, although it would take Russell four years for his next project (for which he would remain busy as he had done in the previous decade).

The one horror (or science fiction, one would argue) work that Altered States seems to draw upon the most would be The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde; you might consider it more sci-fi than horror, but screw it, this is a movie about a guy who looks for the true self that ends up turning into a creature and all sorts of things that could result losing all of oneself, that seems suitably fair for horror. Of course, the funny thing is that one can see both sides of the argument for how the material was handled because of how much of a curiosity it ultimately proves to be in its off-kilter execution of trying to find the scope of man within interesting imagery (as done by Bran Ferren) and a particular way of handling dialogue (which with a different acting style could have really reached further pretentiousness). Curious folks might wonder how this falls even slightly into horror when the dialogue wants to go a row over the nature of just what man is or something like that, complete with imagery that harkens to what one might see in a trip with certain substances...then a caveman comes into the picture to go with primordial goop. Heightened performances from a handful of the folks present only goes to show that sometimes one really can make a weird studio movie and get away with it, particularly with all the discussion that comes from trying to reach some sort of ecstasy. Trust me, you have to go with what you hear, no matter how weirdly laced it all seems. With 103 minutes to use, Russell handles the material that comes from having to strive for semi-serious sci-fi mumbo jumbo laced with "trip" material likely the best way one could have done, provoking interest more than stone-cold confusion (one can respect the writer for his contribution to screenwriting while also trying to hold back terming it as massively esoteric). It should be mentioned that this was the feature film debut of Hurt, who actually handles the material fairly well, all things considered. It could have been one of those roles that could have made for amusement on the weirdo joke circuit (imagery or not), but he keeps things right where they need to be in terms of confidence that makes this pursuit go right. Brown does fair here, possessed with material that would have become hammy with less matched folks or perhaps folks who like to watch weirdo imagery to go with pseudo-legit lines about love and the human experience. Balaban is fairly casual with what is seen here, but I find more interest with Haid and his approach to hearing such weird material as the semi-skeptic (at least in terms of someone who isn't on the magic mushroom train). The ending will certainly hit differently depending on the perspective of the one who watches it, if only because it has to stick to Chayefsky's intent of making (in overall sense) a love story. Whether it accomplishes that in a climax with a bunch of (not nearly as timeless) effects is up to you to go with; I shook my hands and went with it, if only because the only other conclusion would have been too darkly amusing to contemplate actually seeing on screen. As a whole, the movie balances the tightrope between passable mumbo jumbo scifi horror and wacko mumbo jumbo scifi horror, but it is at least always watchable when it needs to be, serving as a strange concoction of vision and heightened tone that you won't quite forget for quite a while.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: The Ring Two.

Prom Night.

Review #1743: Prom Night.

Cast: 

Leslie Nielsen (Mr. Hammond), Jamie Lee Curtis (Kimberly "Kim" Hammond), Casey Stevens (Nick McBride), Eddie Benton (Wendy Richards), Michael Tough (Alex Hammond), Robert A. Silverman (Mr. Sykes), Mary Beth Rubens (Kelly Lynch), Pita Oliver (Vicki), David Mucci (Lou Farmer), Joy Thompson (Jude Cunningham), George Touliatos (Lt. McBride), Sheldon Rybowski (Seymour "Slick" Crane), and Melanie Morse (Henri-Anne) Directed by Paul Lynch.

Review: 

Hey, you like movies that seem like other movies? Well, you certainly will have one here with the movie: Want to think about Halloween (1978)? Or how about Carrie (1976)? Or how about phone call creeps like Black Christmas (1974)? Or maybe Saturday Night Fever (1977) is your preference...so why not a revenge flick involving prom, a masked killer, and more? Well, you might not believe this, but you get all that and more in a puddle of a slasher movie. Incidentally, if one is thinking about Friday the 13th (1980) in this discussion, Paramount Pictures actually had a choice to distribute both of those films, but Avco Embassy Pictures ended up with this film because they wanted to release it in more theaters than Paramount (over a thousand as opposed to hundreds). But let us give a little detail to its creators first, hmm? Before he went into film, Paul Lynch worked as a cartoonist and a photographer before he made his venture into filmmaking in 1968 in television. He made his feature film debut with The Hard Part Begins (1973) as one of his "people pictures". He had an idea to do a horror film after hearing about the success of films like Wes Craven's The Last House on the Left (1972). Actually, he had approached Irwin Yablans (the producer behind Halloween who had thought of the initial idea) with an idea about a killer gynecologist, but instead he was moved into doing a themed horror film instead. Although he has continued to direct since this film, this is likely the most notable one most would know in his line of work, which involved a handful of films done in his native Canada along with countless television series work. The film had two writers: the story was done by Robert Guza Jr while the screenplay was by William Gray.

Keep in mind, there are numerous red herrings presented here, since one gets to follow along with numerous folks in its multi-faced presentation of high school weirdos that just happens to have a total body count of seven. So what does it involve you may ask? Well, there is a group of four children that get into an accident involving a dead body that think to hide their involvement from everyone...six years later a raspy voiced person (who just happened to have see what happened) calls each of them up and targets them for death. Of course it also just happens to be the same time that the man accused of being the killer has escaped the asylum...oh, and of course the whole "revenge at prom" thing is also present to go with a potential suspect in a janitor that likes to look at the folks. Oh hell, you'll have a good guess who it is if you pay attention to a certain bit of minutes in the beginning/end before it reveals itself. If you can believe it, Leslie Nielsen is here in one of his last serious roles (since this was the year of Airplane!, remember). Unfortunately, he doesn't have much to really do despite the high billing, since he kind of disappears for the middle of the film (it doesn't help that there were a few scenes removed from the theatrical version). At least Curtis helps out, albeit with acting and dancing. Granted, the role seems a bit too tailor-made for her, as if it should have been someone who wasn't already familiar with stuff like Halloween, but the perception at that time was that it was a B-movie; apparently the role was meant to be played by Eve Plumb (known for The Brady Bunch) before Curtis piped in with interest (of course, this decision also helped with securing financing, so there's that). What I am saying is that it all seems a bit too familiar, despite the fact that she is probably the best presence in the whole film (because she is the most caring of these weirdos). It's funny to think about: she was also the best of the "teenage" actors in that aforementioned Halloween film, which had more trouble with its loopy dialogue but managed to do more with its atmosphere to endure as a classic. At any rate, both of those films (along with the 1980 releases of The Fog and Terror Train) helped developed her image as a "scream queen", which works to the film's advantage in lasting legacy (one wonders what would have been with Plumb, but...). Stevens is kind of dull, but given the whole "oh hey, remember six years ago?", I guess that is better than if he was simply trying to hide away. Benton gives the all in trying to distract the usual horror stuff with melodrama that is pretty silly but "worth it", considering other highlights being Rybowski being a weirdo in a van to go with Mucci's tough guy act (and of course, the whole fight and head thing).

Of course, the film doesn't really have that much gore in it, as intended by Lynch to avoid a gratuitous feeling. It should be pointed out that the best scene however, is the one that Avco added later: a head-rolling scene involving the disco and screams. This is just a weird movie, one that has a variety of episodic moments that eventually get around to mysteries: by the 30th minute, you haven't seen someone get harmed, but you will have seen a cafeteria fight where a guy gets attacked in a ski mask. Oh, and you get a dance sequence by the time an hour has passed, because this was done around the era of disco. Honestly, I am fine with the music, because if you want to make a horror film that tries to not look like a cheap Canadian production, go big or go home (of course, if you are intending to see it, try to find a good looking version, since I initially found a version on the Web that looked really murky, but thankfully there are better ways to see it, which also includes a restoration). In that sense, it might be up to one's patience about what will win out for 92 minutes. There were follow-up movies, albeit ones only loosely connected to each other: Prom Night II: Hello Mary Lou (1987), Prom Night III: The Last Kiss (1990), and Prom Night IV: Deliver Us from Evil (1992), alongside a remake in 2008, and I cannot imagine any of them matched the curiosity of the original (besides, there would be other films involving a killer knowing a secret such as I Know What You Did Last Summer (1997)). For some, it might be a bit too dated to really hold interest within slashers in its era, while others will find a neat little gem involving mystery and disco that works on its own shuffle. Honestly, I found it okay enough to hold up as something to recommend, since it has just enough patience in its composition to make it all worth it.

 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

It's time to amp it up with the 1980s, which means more than two films for this decade and beyond with horror features...

Next Time: The Howling (1981).

original image:

The Long Riders.

Review #1625: The Long Riders.

Cast: 

David Carradine (Cole Younger), Keith Carradine (Jim Younger), Robert Carradine (Bob Younger), James Keach (Jesse James), Stacy Keach (Frank James), Dennis Quaid (Ed Miller), Randy Quaid (Clell Miller), James Whitmore Jr (Mr. Rixley), Kevin Brophy (John Younger), Harry Carey Jr (George Arthur), Christopher Guest (Charlie Ford, Nicholas Guest (Robert Ford), Shelby Leverington (Annie Ralston), Felice Orlandi (Mr. Reddick), and Pamela Reed (Belle Starr) Directed by Walter Hill (#1072 - 48 Hrs, #1091 - Last Man Standing, #1139 - Supernova)

Review: 

"I'd been dying to do a Western for years. I just like 'em. There's a kind of an idyllic quality that surrounds the shooting of them, it seems like a more fundamental film process, more to me what movies are about than clearing crowds off a city street."

The legend of outlaws has spanned a variety of media for over a century, and it is the intrigue of seeing the Old West and all the storytellers that can come from it that make it an interesting curiosity. Whether it is the ballad, or the dimestore novel, or the Western, there always seems to be an interesting idea waiting at the barrel for someone to make seem fresh. There had been various perspectives on the James legend, with one of the more recent films done before this one being The Great Northfield Minnesota Raid (1972), so it would only make sense for yet another adaptation of the James legend (of which there were at least fifteen prior to 1980), albeit with a twist - brothers playing brothers. The idea for the film came about after James and Stacy Keach had starred in a production on television together nine years prior, in which they had played the Wright brothers. James had the idea to play Jesse, while Stacy came up with financing as producer and financer for the play that James wrote. It was briefly staged in New Jersey and Off-Broadway, but they eventually decided to make it into a film for each of them to be involved, and they enlisted the help of Bill Bryden and Steven Phillip Smith to develop the screenplay (the Keaches would also serve as producer alongside Tim Zinnermann). Enlisting the Carradines came in the form of J.Keach approaching Robert Carradine during their time in the production of the TV film The Hatfields and the McCoys in 1974 about being involved with the film, and they soon approached David and Keith with the prospect of doing it, which they eventually agreed. The Quaids came after that, but finding the fourth group came after a bit of turnover, as the Bridges brothers (Jeff and Beau) could not do the film due to schedule conflicts, and it later fell to the Guests (incidentally, the Bottoms family of Joseph, Timothy, and Sam wanted to star as the Youngers). Interestingly enough, a Carradine had already been involved in an adaptation about the legend of Jesse James and Robert Ford, as the eldest Carradine in John (who had four of his sons become actors) had played the latter subject in two films with Jesse James (1939) and The Return of Frank James (1940). That particular film was noted by Walter Hill as the best film made about the Younger-James brothers in terms of character truth, even if the historical accuracy was low.

United Artists agreed to help produce the film if they found a suitable director. Walter Hill certainly fit the mold of a man wanting to tell a good story. The Long Beach native grew up with an interest in film from a young age, although he once thought of being a comic book illustrator before he went into writing and eventually directing in order to tell his own stories. He has described his films as "rather retro", with his genre films generally trying to capture a serious framework within action that take inspiration from Sam Peckinpah among others - after all, he had worked with the director with The Getaway (1972); the clearest influence seems to be The Wild Bunch (1969), particularly with its use of slow motion for certain sequences of violence. Most (but not all) of his films can be argued to have elements of the Western genre, since Hill has noted his liking of complexity with a foundation on simple stories (Hill has argued they are essentially Old Testament morality tales), and this is the fourth feature film that Hill directed. It is a pretty good effort, one that does well with trying to capture a mosaic of the time and landscape that came with folks in the Old West that happen to engage in moral choices involving robbery and murder. In other words, it isn't just a straight action Western, nor one that gives focus to any one individual, instead being just a balanced film with a midwestern feel that makes its 99 minutes count with usefulness. There have been adaptations of the James story since this film (most notably with The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford), but this film still stands for itself after four decades because of its capable charm, although it wasn't a big hit with audiences upon release (Keach has maintained that the film made a profit, although United Artists was likely thinking about the other Western they released that year that nearly sunk the studio - Heaven's Gate), making just a bit under double its $9 million budget.

When it comes to the first group of brothers, one can say that David proves the best in relative interest, as he is the most adept in charisma without having to strain for it. This seems most apparent during a sequence involving Reed and a new love interest, which naturally ends in a knife fight with a rope for them to chew on and duel. Keith and Robert do fine with a little less time to show, although the sequence with the Pinkertons and an unfortune cousin is a good one. The Keaches do well in their balance of laconic steel (mostly with J.Keach), one that doesn't aim for straight sympathy for the James brothers but instead lets them paint the picture for one to judge - their scene on horseback jumping through the window is likely the best image and moment from the film. The Quaids have a reserved amount of time on screen (most likely due to cutting from the studio), but they do well with being members of chaos (chained or not) that don't fall into the background, mostly with Randy. The Guests lurk right where they need to be in terms of calm sniveling, while Reed and Whitmore Jr fill out the edges in terms of allure and lingering authority that make for a off-kilter balance of a film, revisionist in its approach without seeming like a film relying just on a gimmick. It hits with a worthy punch in its look upon the landscape and the outlaws that became names to remember, no matter the efforts of authority like the Pinkertons or even the firing of a barrel to stop it. While it may not be Hill's best effort, it serves as an interesting start to a productive decade of work that packaged plenty of thrills within some of the confines that made the Western what it was without being chained to it exclusively, and it is a curiosity worth looking into today.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Raging Bull.

Review #1463: Raging Bull.

Cast: 
Robert De Niro (Jake LaMotta), Cathy Moriarty (Vickie LaMotta), Joe Pesci (Joey LaMotta), Frank Vincent (Salvy Batts), Nicholas Colasanto (Tommy Como), Theresa Saldana (Lenore LaMotta), Mario Gallo (Mario), Frank Adonis (Patsy), Joseph Bono (Guido), Frank Topham (Toppy), and Lori Anne Flax (Irma LaMotta) Directed by Martin Scorsese (#990 - Taxi Driver and #992 - The King of Comedy, and #1276 - Mean Streets)

Review: 
"Movies touch our hearts and awaken our vision, and change the way we see things. They take us to other places, they open doors and minds. Movies are the memories of our life time, we need to keep them alive."

"I just can't fake acting. I know movies are an illusion, and maybe the first rule is to fake it, but not for me. I'm too curious. I want to deal with all the facts of the character, thin or fat."

It should only figure that one of the best films of the 1980s came about as a chance for Martin Scorsese to save his life and career and for Robert De Niro to have a soulfully devastating performance to lead a film of tremendous quality in their fourth collaboration together. This was the seventh film directed by Scorsese, with his previous effort in New York, New York (1977, a tribute to classic musicals) having been a failure with audiences that had led him to depression and an addiction to cocaine, which nearly led to his death. It was De Niro who had pushed for Scorsese to try and make a film about Jake LaMotta, who had written an memoir in 1970 called Raging Bull: My Story (which he said had a lot of heart despite not being a great book), which had depicted the noted rough fighter's life from youth to the end of fame that was comprised of moments such as his troubled childhood and struggles with the mafia and his own demons outside the ring. De Niro spent years trying to convince Scorsese to take up the project, since he was not a fan of boxing (or sports in general). Scorsese treated this film as if it could have been his last, and it would not prove to be the easiest of shoots for anyone, not particularly for its star or director. It's interesting to note the boxing sequences, which only last a fraction of time in a two-hour film and the fact that they were shot first over a period of ten weeks (having been designed on paper first and meant to be done over three weeks). The film was written by Paul Schrader and Mardik Martin, which went through a number of re-writes, with Scorsese and De Niro being soon tasked to do re-writes that were quite significant in molding the film's content, such as eliminating the depiction of LaMotta's father (it should be noted that Schrader's initial re-write, though thought to be potentially X-rated, was the one that had added Joey to the script) alongside the calm re-enactment sequence at the end from On the Waterfront. One great technique that helps in making this such a distinct boxing film is the way those scenes are shot - inside the ring, with distinct sounds that make for a raw and intense experience to view, particularly since the editing (done by Thelma Schoonmaker) cuts everything together with finesse to where one never gets lost in seeing this descent for 129 minutes.

For an actor who is tasked to play such a tormented man over the span of several years, De Niro sinks right into the part with no difficulty at all in an electrifying performance of the soul. This plays out whether when in the ring (having been trained by LaMotta and actually participating in three matches) or when confronting the people that know and love him with his jealousy and self-destructive tendencies as the film goes on and as he starts to wither down and grow old (having gained 60 pounds for the last half of the film) and he has to face his toughest opponent - trying to find redemption. One can't take their eyes off him and his seething performance that beats at you with a tremendous punch every step of the way. Pesci (known by Scorsese and De Niro because of his debut performance in The Death Collector four years prior) proves to be just as great in following along the action as one with plenty of raw spirit in keeping up with De Niro (with occasional confrontation) that make for captivating scenes, particularly with their last one together, where one tries to do a reconciliation, filled with quiet awkwardness to brilliance. Moriarty, making her film debut (thanks to Pesci), proves just as capable in her role, resourceful and knowing as the time goes by for the film. The rest of the cast prove just as well in filling the grimy world around the film, one that dares you in with a stark look from Michael Chapman in cinematography to go alongside tremendous ambition from Scorsese to show a man on the edge without any false sentiment or step. It seems obvious now to call it a masterpiece, although it had a gradual rise in reputation (having proved a fair hit with audiences) that is now considered one of Scorsese's best films (along with one of De Niro's best). With a stark devastating look and feel and a great director and trio at hand, you can't go wrong with this film, one that lands its punches everywhere in emotion.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.