The Slumber Party Massacre.

Review #2605: The Slumber Party Massacre.

Cast: 

Michelle Michaels (Trish Devereaux), Robin Stille (Valerie Bates), Michael Villella (Russ Thorn), Debra Deliso (Kim Clarke), Andree Honore (Jackie Cassidy), Gina Mari (Diane), Jennifer Meyers (Courtney Bates), Joseph Alan Johnson (Neil), David Millbern (Jeff), Jim Boyce (John Raden Minor), Pamela Roylance (Coach Rachel Jana), and Brinke Stevens (Linda Dawn Grant) Directed by Amy Jones.

Review: 

"I think it's a funny little film, although it is violent and the premise is sort of offensive. If somebody came up to me and said, 'You're a monster for making that picture,' I'm not sure what I'd say."

Sure, let's go with a slasher movie directed and written by women. Well, for the most part. The original screenplay was written by author and activist Rita Mae Brown, who envisioned a parody of the slasher genre. Instead, it got turned into a straight slasher...for the most part. Enter Amy Holden Jones. She had won first place at a student festival for the AFI with a short she directed in 1975 that had Martin Scorsese as one of the judges. One year later, when trying to make a living without many funds, she found a way to reach Scorsese and asked for advice, which saw her subsequently called to serve as an assistant on Taxi Driver. Scorsese later felt that the best person to get in contact with for what she wanted was Roger Corman, who had her serve as an editor on films such as Hollywood Boulevard [1976]. Aspiring to direct, she had come across the discarded script (labeled "Don't Open the Door") and heeded the advice of Corman of "you've got to direct in order to direct." She rounded up people from UCLA and equipment to shoot a few scenes (showing off some action and dialogue) over a weekend (complete with editing on a moviola) that made for a seven-minute reel to show off to Corman at New World Pictures. Impressed at the reel and its cost of $1,000, he soon asked how much she could do the rest for it, and while she wasn't exactly keen on doing that particular picture, she replied with $250,000 (it ended up being done for a bit less) and got a chance to go with the movie to fulfill her wish of being a director (the other choice was reportedly being an editor for E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, a decision she never regretted), albeit with some re-writes to "emphasize the comic elements" that was shot in 20 days, which resulted in a moderate success with audiences. Jones subsequently directed three further films (with one more for Corman in Love Letters [1983]) while becoming noted for her screenplays for films such as Mystic Pizza [1988] and Indecent Proposal [1993]. A sequel was released in 1987 that had Corman serve as a co-producer along with director/writer Deborah Brock (incidentally, Sorority House Massacre [1986] was directed by Carol Frank, a personal assistant to Jones on Slumber Party).

It's the kind of movie that just dabbles in showing some pretty women, a lack of motive for its driller killer (aside from an escape that unlike Halloween [1978] is one where we don't see) and a few chuckles alongside the usual slasher fare that runs at a comfortable 76 minutes. The murders happen because a bunch of people all happen to congregate in one neighborhood (complete with dudes that change into pajamas or, heavens to betsy, the pizza man). What's not to like? It manages to have a few charming characters that happen to be having a party when mayhem ensues, complete with a synthy soundtrack (apparently done on a Casio). Apparently, the killer was originally dispatched in the living room without the bit involving the drill. Honestly, I did get the biggest chuckle for payoff in seeing a fight result in...a drill bit cut to pieces. Could it have been better as a straight spoof? Maybe, maybe not (I do wonder if the original script was a "get it? get these slasher tropes?"). It's the kind of movie where a person decides to go for the pizza box right by the recently dead pizza guy. For some, the movie was probably their only prominent role in a movie (for Stille, it was her debut). It's not exactly a showcase of great acting, but I suppose acting natural for a chunk of time within ordinary conversations is better than nothing. Stille and Meyers make a suitable sibling duo to eventually stumble onto things besides girl-talk, while Villella does make for a creepy enough killer to sneak through for terror (the gore is selectively shown within drills). You get a bunch of gags within the blood that for me manages to make it as a "guilty pleasure" slasher movie that I can't help but like. It plays fast and loose with the surroundings of house-bound terror with likable enough people and worthwhile execution that makes it a suitable recommendation for slasher enthusiasts. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*Somehow stumbled onto an apparent scare-checking site, wonder if it's interesting - The Slumber Party Massacre (1982) — 25 Jump Scares | Scarechive

*Stille tragically killed herself in 1996 at the age of 34.

The Grey Fox.

Review #2555: The Grey Fox.

Cast: 

Richard Farnsworth (Bill Miner / George Edwards), Jackie Burroughs (Katherine 'Kate' Flynn), Ken Pogue (Jack Budd), Wayne Robson (Shorty (William) Dunn), Timothy Webber (Sergeant Fernie), Gary Reineke (Pinkerton Detective Seavy), and Sean Sullivan (Newspaper Editor) Directed by Phillip Borsos.

Review: 

"If I had the time, all this attention would be very heady. I suppose I enjoy the wheeling and dealing more than most film-makers. It's a charge but [it] can't compare with being behind the camera." - Phillip Borsos

It seemed prudent to try and make an effort at celebrating a Canadian movie to start out July because there are little gems of curiosity that came around from the country up north. Phillip Borsos was born in Australia to a Hungarian sculptor and English nurse that moved to British Columbia in Canada when he was five years old. With an early interest in filming from a young age, he studied at the Vancouver School of Art. Borsos made a handful of commercials and documentaries, with Nails (1979) getting enough attention to be nominated for an Academy Award for Best Documentary Short.  He was first interested in doing this film when he saw picture of Bill Miner in a restaurant. He credited Jan Troell with giving him the confidence to do a feature film himself. Production started in early 1980 with getting casting, unit selling (selling for thousands of dollars each) and the script (done by John Hunter) ready. Richard Farnsworth was cast in the title role when Harry Dean Stanton dropped out due to wanting to be in One from the Heart. For taking Stanton from under them, American Zoetrope allowed them the use of support facilities. Film was done in the winter before going through extensive editing in 1981 (at one point, the editor fell ill for months) without even having a distributor, although United Artists Classics eventually got the bid. Released in the winter of 1982 in its native Canada before a March 1983 release in the States, the movie was a mild hit with audiences at the time. He ultimately would do four more feature films of varying quality: the American thriller The Mean Season (1985), the Canada/US One Magic Christmas (1985), the biodrama Bethune: The Making of a Hero (1990), and Far from Home: The Adventures of Yellow Dog (1995), which was released shortly before his death from leukemia in 1995 at the age of 41. The Toronto International Film Festival rated The Grey Fox as among the best Canadian films of all time for their lists in 1984 and 1993). In 2004, the Whistler Film Festival named their main awards Competition program for Canadian films after Borsos. In recent years, it was restored and given a proper release on home media*.   

The real Bill Miner was a curiosity unto himself. The Michigan native served time in jail by the time he was 20 years old and eventually did enough stagecoach robberies to get him into San Quentin, where he did in fact stay until 1901, when he moved to the province of British Columbia, now 55 years old, which is where the film starts its story of the man associated with the first train robbery in the province. With the role falling to Richard Farnsworth, what you get here is a lovely Western filled with a rich look at the B.C. frontier and a look at a man out of time as a bandit in the new century. You won't see much bloodshed on this frontier, but you will still see a landscape of emotional relevance that studies a man who lives the way he knows best: an offbeat bandit. Farnsworth had appeared in countless movies over the past few decades as a stuntman-turned-actor, and it is his confident spirit that you see in his eyes and demeanor that make you understand the nature of being in his shoes, a man warped in time that sees the moving picture and regains the vigor to be what he desires most: a sly fox in a land of hens. We're enchanted by a gentleman who happens to love robbing things. Playfully fiddling with history (who says he didn't encounter a woman as free-spirited as Burroughs) as an elegy for a proud and vulnerable rascal that doesn't even move a muscle when he, well, knows when he is beat. In the real story, the wrong car of a train got robbed in 1904 that saw him make off with little money and kidney pills before he and his gang were subject to a successful manhunt and conviction. Miner did in fact escape the penitentiary in 1907 and never did get captured in Canada, although his attempts in robberies in the States eventually led to him going to prison (and escaping, twice). While back in jail in 1913, he died from gastritis from drinking bad water; he was 66 years old. But the film closes on him in the best place possible: adrift and, most importantly, free. At 92 minutes with a lovely Canadian landscape to gaze at and plenty of spirit to carry the way, there's a little bit of everything worth watching for all involved to encounter.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Happy Canada Day. I know I've skipped a Canada Day or two in the past few years, but I felt it was a good time to get one in and spotlight a worthwhile Canadian movie because I care about you folks. See you soon.

Song of the day!

Interview for the film: Canadian Radio Sanctuary: Richard Farnsworth and Phillip Borsos on their 1982 movie The Grey Fox.

*As late as 2014 apparently, this movie wasn't on DVD and only on iTunes and VHS, as evidenced by this - O Canada Blogathon: The Grey Fox (1982) – MOON IN GEMINI

Chan is Missing.

Review #2503: Chan is Missing.

Cast: 

Wood Moy (Jo), Marc Hayashi (Steve), Laureen Chew (Amy), Peter Wang (Henry), Presco Tabios (Presco), Frankie Alarcon (Frankie), Judi Nihei (Lawer), Ellen Yeung (Mrs. Chan), and George Woo (George) Directed by Wayne Wang.

Review: 

"I was always trying to do something that was different. I want to go back and do something where I can unlearn everything that I learned. I always tell film students that everything you learn might be helpful, but, in the end, you want to unlearn all of that and just trust your instincts and make the film you wanna make."

Well, I suppose it helps to understand the perspective that comes with a director's upbringing for certain movies. Wayne Wang was born and raised in Hong Kong and his parents (who had escaped from China after the war) aimed for him to go to America to study and prepare for medical school (the unrest in Hong Kong in 1967 did not help matters) by going to Foothill College. While he lived with a Quaker family, they actually had a radical interest in the burgeoning counterculture that left an impression on him. Combined with having a class involving art history, Wang found himself wanting to become involved in the arts which led to him studying at the California College of Arts and Crafts in Oakland. He thought about majoring in painting but soon changed his major to film because UC Berkley's Pacific Film Archive came into focus to help him get more absorbed into film. After graduate school, he went back to Hong Kong and worked a while at a station that didn't exactly gel with his new-found ideas about film. At any rate, he went back to the Bay Area and became involved in the local Asian filmmaking community while also teaching English at a Chinese language center. In 1975, he worked with Rick Schmidt on a low budget drama called A Man, a Woman, and a Killer that he co-wrote and co-directed that came and went to little fanfare. Chan is Missing (1982) ended up being his breakthrough film onto a career of over four decades. Over the prevailing years, Wang has made a variety of films in and out of the system ranging from Dim Sum: A Little Bit of Heart (1985), The Joy Luck Club (1993), The Center of the World (2001), Maid in Manhattan (2002) and his most recent film, Coming Home Again (2019).

With this film, Wang wrote the script alongside Issac Cronin and Terrel Seltzer (who essentially aided in the narration, they did not write dialogue) that came from the experiences that Wang had involving the center alongside his experiences seeing his elder brother try to cope with living with the high-strung nature of America*. Featuring a mix of professional actors and community folks, the film was shot all around Chinatown over the course of ten weekends (a list of locations utilized for the film can be seen in this link). The result was a festival hit that received considerable distribution that was considered noteworthy given its Chinese American director.  In fairness, the ambiguity and playing with the genres of the mystery noir with its own humor about where it lies with in Chinatown is the point. Wang shot the film with an intention of "evolution of the Chinese written word in mind", which basically meant the movie became what it was after plenty of time in the editing room (apparently Wang spent two years editing). You've got a structure that is then expanded upon with some improv (as aided by the Asian American Theater Company) and a mix of English, Mandarin, and Cantonese to go with songs that were chosen for what one would hear going down Chinatown such as "Grant Avenue" or “Sabor a Mí”. It is a light affair at 76 minutes that borders on a travelogue (hey at least it isn't the scenic route) you might see on television with where it comes and goes with a mostly committed Moy and Hayashi along the way that sees plenty of varying leads about a mystery that isn't really a mystery at all. The film, possibly like the Asian American experience, isn't exactly something you can peg down as one thing, which I suppose is more effective and curious for some. As a whole, Chan is Missing is a decent movie, managing to have a playful energy that can be worth your interest if you understand what you're getting into with the nature of perceptions in culture that can crisscross for whatever type of effect is possible. You just might encounter something you didn't expect with this movie, for better or worse.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Tragically, his brother suffered from schizophrenia.

*Apparently, the movie is available on YouTube: A MAN, A WOMAN, AND A KILLER (77 min., ©1975). Directed by Wayne Wang and Rick Schmidt.

Friday the 13th Part III.

Review #2437: Friday the 13th Part III.

Cast: 

Dana Kimmell (Chris Higgins), Paul Kratka (Rick Bombay), Tracie Savage (Debbie Klein), Jeffrey Rogers (Andy Beltrami), Catherine Parks (Vera Sanchez), Larry Zerner (Shelly), David Katims (Chuck Garth), Rachel Howard (Chili Jachson), Richard Brooker (Jason Voorhees), Nick Savage (Ali), Gloria Charles (Fox), and Kevin O'Brien (Loco) Directed by Steve Miner (#761 - Friday the 13th Part 2, #1148 - Halloween H20: 20 Years Later)

Review: 

Maybe someday I will be generous to the Friday the 13th series. Honestly, it has been so long since I saw the first movie that I only remember the lack of interest I had in the characters before they got killed in various ways involving blades and other things, although at least the first movie had Betsy Palmer for some sort of chance at respectability. No I don't care, the movie is not a quality slasher in enjoyment for me. Sorry. Of course, the second movie now was a Jason movie, complete with rushing it like it was a conveyor belt, with the first three movies coming out within a year of each other. There were a few changes from the second movie. There were a few changes from the second movie. Sure, Steve Miner would return to direct, but they could not recall the services of (final girl) Amy Steel due to an apparent issue with her agents. Scriptwriter Ron Kurz also turned down the project. Apparently there were ideas floated around about setting it in a psychiatric hospital or involving a final confrontation. Instead, Martin Kitrosser and Carol Watson were hired to write for the movie; Petru Popescu provided significant re-writes that ended up in the final script, but he was not given credit. Apparently, the real focus of the film was to make sure the 3D (as assisted with 3-Depix cameras from Marks Polarized Corporation) would look good on screen, with Popescu claiming that the casting sessions were targeting actors for their looks rather than their acting ability and David Katims was once quoted as saying "the writing and the acting didn't matter at all." With a budget of $2.2 million, the movie was a substantial success, making fifteen times its budget with audiences. In 1984, the intended final film of the series was released by Paramount. It may interest you to know that this is the first movie of the series to feature its killer with a hockey mask, since you might remember the last movie had a sack over his head.

Sure, you could watch a character play with a yo-yo that could make you remember the days of 3D. Or you could watch something that is not so needlessly padded. Sorry (not sorry), this movie sucks. I don't care if someone finds it goofy, this is just a boring film in the long run, and it isn't even because of the violence. It is as paper thin as the other two movies, and if I don't care one iota about the people in the film before they get turned into eye-popping targets for death, why should I care about the movie as a whole? What, is seeing an annoying character like Shelly get bounced supposed to be a highlight? (he starts out by faking that he is dead only to later on in the film actually get killed only for no one to believe him HAHAHAHA GET IT?). The final girl setup is unbelievably stupid, mainly because it lacks definition. You're supposed to believe that two years prior, the character ran into the woods, was attacked by Jason, had a struggle...and woke up right in her bedroom with no memory of what happened after being in the woods. Yes, Jason Vorhees, famously remembered for attacking folks in the woods without killing them (apparently, one idea floated by Popescu was that actually Jason raped her, which makes even less sense). Kimmell just can't sell it anyway, because everyone just seems to be on autopilot mode, where you just hear the lines and then you forget about it just as quickly. In general, there is nothing particularly appealing about the characters that makes me want to stick with them besides wondering what stupid 3D thing is going to happen next, but Jason is just going around killing people just...because. You could see that done better with Halloween II (1981), for crying out loud. As a whole, with middling characters that pad out a 95-minute runtime with lazy ambition and lame 3D ideas, the third movie manages to do exactly nothing fresh or interesting with a series that had little innovation in the first place.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Cat People (1982).

Review #2290: Cat People (1982). 

Cast: 

Nastassja Kinski (Irena Gallier), Malcolm McDowell (Paul Gallier), John Heard (Oliver Yates), Annette O'Toole (Alice Perrin), Ruby Dee (Female), Ed Begley Jr (Joe Creigh), Scott Paulin (Bill Searle), Frankie Faison (Detective Brandt; dubbed by Albert Hall), Lynn Lowry (Ruthie), and John Larroquette (Bronte Judson) Directed by Paul Schrader.

Review: 

"Cat People wasn’t successful. It really fell between two stools: it was an attempt to have things both ways, which is to have a classy film and a horror film. Well, the horror audience went and said, ‘Hey, this doesn’t look like a horror film, it’s not for us’, and the sophisticated audience went and said, ‘Hey, this is just a horror film.’ So it wasn’t really satisfying to the audience."

Sure, give a few decades and you can just remake a movie right then and there. The 1942 Cat People had been a team effort that had DeWitt Bodeen write the screenplay as based in collaboration with producer Val Lewton, director Jacques Tourneur, and editor Mark Robson. The process of remaking the film was first brought up by Milton Subotsky before Universal Pictures eventually got the rights and made their own push that took several years of the 1970s (Robert Vadim was interested to direct at one point). You might recognize the screenwriter in Alan Ormsby, the co-director and writer of Deranged (1974) and a variety of other writing projects. Universal tapped Paul Schrader (who once labeled the 1942 rendition as one that he didn't find very good) to direct the film, with most knowing him for his work on scripts such as Taxi Driver (1976) before becoming a director with Blue Collar (1978); he claimed that he had contributed to the writing of the film in terms of its prologue and the ending to make it more distinct from the original, although Ormsby claims otherwise. The movie was a mild success with audiences at the time, or at the very least managed to accomplish the goal of not inspiring a filmmaker to try and do their own remake of a remake four decades later. Schrader has been quoted as saying that in his attempts to do a genre film as a "very salutary exercise" in not being about himself, he ended up making a movie that ranked up there as among his most personal.

The funny thing about the films is that it accomplishes one thing in particular: it sure is distinct on its own merit from the original that you won't mistake it as a copy because of its erotic elements within the perils of flesh. You might remember that the original dealt with a woman (played by Simone Simon) who thought they were descended from a tribe of, well, cat people that may or may not turn into black panthers when aroused (it basically had elements of the noir); the lady in that movie went the whole road to marriage without getting kissed. Here we have a woman who must confront the peril of really having a family tradition of were-cats that must kill in order to turn back. It just so happens to involve a few bits of skin and the mix of effects and cats in a movie best described as lurid curiosity for 118 minutes. If you asked me which movie called Cat People is the better among the two, I think I would throw my hands in the air and shrug at it basically being a dead heat because each are from accomplished filmmakers that represent their era quite well in overall enjoyment vs. rewarding the patience of those who are into what it is selling. Kinski practically lifts the film almost entirely to the realm of curious because of how she acts in the film without really even acting that much to begin with (apparently, she seemed to felt manipulated when it came to her assessment of the resulting film). Her grace really does have the instincts of a cat in frenzied timing that sells the plight of flesh. Whether you compare the two films or not, she sure exceeds Simon when it comes to worthwhile lead performances by a handy margin. McDowell may not be in the movie too long, but he sure is loopy enough to belong in weirdo enjoyment that he sells from the word "go", but I say that as someone who went with the film's peddling of ideas right then and there (you really should just see it right then and there rather than skimming the plot). Heard and O'Toole are fine, albeit on a smaller scale that only works some of the time in trying to do a would-be love triangle that only works for those who like the actors enough in the first place; Heard just happens to be the ideal guy to chase a girl like Kinski in strange pursuer/pursued, as opposed to the mild other. Besides, it is quite the curiosity to see Heard having to engage with the climax in a cathouse blues type of way that really will make or break the film for you when it comes to stupendous suspension of disbelief; I dont know if I would call the film "classy", but even "dedicated" is a better way to put it than,  say, "not fun horror". It is a movie that looks and sounds exactly on point of mystical curiosity, never turning itself off even when not going all-out for effects work (you get some blood anyway). As a whole, it is a strange sensual kind of sensationalism that one will either take right in for scintillating enjoyment or baffled disappointment. It feels good to be on the side of the former but have it your way among the creatures of the night.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Class of 1984.

Review #2213: Class of 1984.

Cast: 

Perry King (Andrew Norris), Merrie Lynn Ross (Diane Norris), Timothy Van Patten (Peter Stegman), Stefan Arngrim ("Drugstore"), Michael J. Fox (Arthur), Roddy McDowall (Terry Corrigan), Keith Knight ("Barnyard"), Lisa Langlois (Patsy), Neil Clifford (Fallon), Al Waxman (Detective Stewiski), Erin Flannery (Deneen), David Gardner (Principal Morganthau), and Linda Sorensen (Mrs. Stegman) Directed by Mark L. Lester (#324 - Commando)

Review: 

"Class of 1984 was prophetic in terms of high school violence. I never imagined how disastrous that situation would become over the years. But at the beginning of the film, it does say that it's a warning to America: that this will be happening everywhere."

Sure, why not another movie involving punks. I suppose it makes sense to go with the film that helped pave the way for stuff like Firestarter and Commando. Cleveland native Mark L. Lester had graduated from Monroe High School in the San Fernando Valley before starting his career with a handful of B-movies directed such as Steel Arena (1973) before eventually getting to "less B-movie studio" stuff such as Roller Boogie (1979). Anyway, he had an idea for what became this film by a trip back to the Valley to see his old high school and what he saw from the students of the now. As such, he got Tom Holland to work on a first draft of what became the script before others came along. Lester, alongside Holland and John Saxton, were credited for the screenplay with Holland being credited for the story, although others such as Barry Schneider did work on the film (specifically punk dialogue) but requested no credit. Really the film is just inspired by the 1955 film Blackboard Jungle, if crossed with a bit of A Clockwork Orange. Holland had been an actor in a variety of parts for the past decade before becoming a film screenwriter with this and The Beast Within in the same year of 1982. Eight years after the release of Class of 1984, Lester returned to write (alongside C. Courtney Joyner) and direct a follow-up with Class of 1999, albeit with a completely different cast and, uh, now featuring robots for teachers.

Sure, let's just assume the opening title card makes sense in calling the film "based partially on a true event". What we have here is a movie that basically takes things by the horns for a manic muddle of a time (94 minutes) that you can see coming in some of the beats that matter for a crime thriller with plenty of contradictions fit for its target in what it calls punks, complete with a performance by Teenage Head (after an opening song by Alice Cooper). As a production shot in Canada, you've got a mix of actors where McDowell (as the most experienced) ends up doing the best of the whole bunch, with Van Patten perhaps being just a bit above King in the second tier. There is just something quite curious that comes from a sequence involving McDowell getting students to learn biology in clearly the sanest way he believes possible: holding a gun to them, for which McDowell shows that he was not merely a guy there for show. King does fine with the material, but I find the descent (whether that means dealing with cops) far more interesting than the elements involving teaching or family. Go figure that the most noted actor among the youth was Fox (who had a handful of television appearances and exactly one film appearance before this) and not Van Patten, who does sell those times when one really wonders what kind of sociopath can play their hand in commanding attention. Granted, the group around him are not as particularly convincing, but I suppose that is how it goes when it comes to playing it simple with punks at the forefront of doing things for the sake of things (like making people take their clothes off or getting to stab folks in a ruckus).

Really the film rides on just how much you go with the ending. After a whole film of punks getting what they want as the goons they are, it goes right in to revenge flick for its climax, which at one point sees a guy getting his hand sliced off before a totally-not ironic title card for the ending. On the one hand, sure, totally sounds about right for a vigilante film. On the other hand, it really seems more appropriate to call it a movie where a man has been descended into a pit of hell by the punks that had been terrorizing him. It probably isn't a surprise that Lester is proud of his film to the point where he has called it "prophetic" in that aim to do Death Wish in a high school (and when it comes to punks among the society, 1983's Suburbia probably does it a tad better). I'm not sure how much of that belief is applicable when it comes to this film and the decades that followed its release, but regardless of that fact, the movie is mostly entertaining enough in the long run to inspire a look for being a boiling time for those interested in that sort of thing.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Creepshow.

Review #2128: Creepshow.

Cast: 

Wraparound story: Joe King (Billy Hopkins), Tom Atkins (Stan Hopkins), Iva Jean Saraceni (Mrs. Hopkins), Marty Schiff (Garbageman #1), and Tom Savini (Garbageman #2) 

"Father's Day" segment: Carrie Nye (Sylvia Grantham), Viveca Lindfors (Bedelia Grantham), Ed Harris (Hank Blaine), Warner Shook (Richard Grantham), Elizabeth Regan (Cass Blaine), and Jon Lormer (Nathan Grantham)

"The Lonesome Death of Jordy Verrill" segment: Stephen King (Jordy Verrill) and Bingo O'Malley (Jordy's Father/Doctor)

"Something to Tide You Over" segment: Leslie Nielsen (Richard Vickers), Ted Danson (Harry Wentworth), and Gaylen Ross (Becky Vickers)

"The Crate" segment: Hal Holbrook (Henry Northup), Adrienne Barbeau (Wilma "Billie" Northup), Fritz Weaver (Dexter Stanley), Robert Harper (Charlie Gereson), and Don Keefer (Mike the Janitor)

"They're Creeping Up on You" segment: E. G. Marshall (Upson Pratt) and David Early (Mr. White) Directed by George A. Romero (#738 - Night of the Living Dead (1968), #1155 - Dawn of the Dead (1978), #1588 - Day of the Dead, #1901 - The Crazies)

Review: 

To put it lightly, hell yes, I was ready to do this film for quite a while. What better combination could one have for an anthology film than a director as damn good as George A. Romero and a writer in Stephen King? What better way to do it than to have five stories and a runtime of two hours too? Three of the stories were done by King straight for the film while the other two are based on short stories King had previously done before. It is made as a homage to those EC Comics of yesteryear such as Tales from the Crypt, complete with animation utilized to depict it as a comic book (Jack Kamen, who did story art on a handful of Crypt stories, contributed the comic book artwork). It came out in the middle between Knightriders (1981) and Day of the Dead (1985) for Romero, which one would say is a good place to cite for a director as dedicated to delivering enduring films. Two sequels followed, albeit with less fanfare. The second film (released in 1987) had Michael Gornick (cinematographer of the first film) serve as director while Romero wrote the screenplay based on three stories as done by King, while the third film (released in 2006) had none of these aspects. In 1983, Romero and Richard P. Rubinstein went to work on an anthology TV series that was loosely based on the film (of course since Warner Bros. released Creepshow, one couldn't just keep the framing device from before): the result was Tales from the Darkside, which ran for four years and even had two King stories serve as episodes while Romero also wrote a few episodes. In 2019, Shudder (a streaming service) premiered a show based on the film,  which has run for four seasons.

Anthologies are hard to do right, particularly for horror, as demonstrated by ones given general praise such as Dead of Night (1945) or the ones with even better quality such as Kwaidan (1964). Creepshow is a damn good showing of the macabre with clear enthusiasm shown for each and every story that makes a good effort in capturing the feeling of reading something cribbed from a book or someone with a really amusing sense of dark amusement in the campfire. The frame device is what else but a dad giving his son crap for reading a weird-looking book of horror that can only go one way when you've got a kid that believes those paper ads really are helpful. Interestingly, Joe King (Stephen King's son and actor here) really did become a horror writer as an adult. The first story in "Father's Day" (17 minutes) is fine. It involves a family awaiting a relative coming for cake on (what else?) Father's day, which is ironic since no fathers are actually there to eat it. Most of it is actually a yarn told about this relative who may or may not have offed her old father after he had apparently killed her lover. The folks here all get a surprise when somebody else shows up for cake...yeah, it's a decent story to get you started with eventual grisly conclusions (and one fun effects moment involving critters). Next up is "The Lonesome Death of Jordy Verrill", which runs  the shortest (next to the wrapround anyway) at 14 minutes. This is the one with Stephen King overacting a bit while playing a yokel that touches and waters a meteorite that lands on his farm. Daydreams and all, some sort alien vegetation starts growing all certain places...it makes for a decent story, even if King is probably an unusual choice to headline a story alone (for the most part). The ending is a good one in the allure of terror brought on already when it comes to things that latch onto you at night.

"Something to Tide You Over" (25 minutes) is probably the highlight of the film, if you think about it.  It has Nielsen (who I should remind you had dabbled in serious roles on TV and film for decades before Airplane! (1980) gave him his calling in comedy) in an interesting role as a man bent on letting a guy dig himself into a hole on the beach with the tide coming in. There's something enchanting about the cold energy he brings to such a deluded role, and amusingly it is being played off against Danson for that weird mix of cold blooded humor. Of course, it's the ending that makes it count, and I enjoyed seeing it from the perspective of Nielsen when it comes to what you see and can't see even with camera all around. "The Crate" (39 minutes) runs the longest for some odd reason. All it involves is something that apparently has resided in a crate for over a century that comes to the attention of Weaver and later Holbrook, who finds it a good way to interact with his onscreen wife Barbeau. It's more an offbeat amusing story than anything, complete with fantasies of offing an annoying wife, but it makes for a good tale of curiosity over just what happens with a hairy beast and open spaces. "They're Creeping Up on You" (16 minutes) closes out the proceedings with a good ol' shock story time. Marshall plays a real s.o.b. who is really obsessed with cleanliness in his place, complete with taking calls and saying as such even when they are trying to talk to him about other things (you know, business, probably leading to a guy's death...). Things just get weird when, well, something really does creep up on him to a massive extent. Not ideal for those who just ate food they know didn't have anything on it before they swallowed.  The visual stylization that occurs for each story is a neat touch, and in general the film works at giving you useful payoff without just being a starstudded mishmash. As a whole, Creepshow is a horror fan's dream when it comes to giving you a couple of good little stories that give you good payoffs to go with spirited filmmaking from Romero and company that justifies its two-hour runtime with worthy entertainment value that holds well in its time by a hard margin.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Tales from the Darkside: The Movie.

Smithereens.

Review #1987: Smithereens.

Cast: 

Susan Berman (Wren), Brad Rinn (Paul), Richard Hell (Eric), Nada Despotovich (Cecile), Roger Jett (Billy), Kitty Summerall (Eric's wife), Rbynne White (Landlady), and D.J. O'Neill (Ed) Directed by Susan Seidelman.

Review: 

“Back then – but maybe even more so today – the idea of wanting to be famous but not having any specific talent, that idea of reinvention, was everywhere. Back then, a lot of the bands, they weren’t exactly great musically, but they sort of had the energy and attitude that meant they could perform at CBGBs or Max's Kansas City, and in some ways the whole idea of Wren, who’s posting Xeroxed pictures of herself all over the subway, it’s a form of self-promotion that’s not all that different from taking a selfie and posting it on Instagram.”

Admittedly, the films that are best suited for featuring in women cinema are the ones you do not see coming. Susan Seidelman was born and raised in Pennsylvania to a hardware manufacturer and a teacher. She studied fashion and arts at Drexel University before finding an interest in filmmaking from a film appreciation class that talked about filmmakers (such as from the French New Wave). She studied at New York University with their film school. Her influence with this film came from her living experiences in the East Village apartment that she lived in when at NYU, which featured a changing musical scene. This was her debut feature film, which was shot in 16mm for $40,000 with a mix of "guerrilla style" filmmaking on the streets and subways of New York. She co-wrote the film with Peter Askin and Ron Nyswaner (he would later write Philadelphia a decade later) and she also served as co-producer. The film had a delay in production because the lead actress in Berman suffered a broken leg while on a fire escape for a scene. Several bands are featured for a song or two in the background, such as The Feelies, The Nitecaps, The Raybeats, Richard Hell and the Voidoids, Dave Weckerman, Singers and Players, and ESG. This film was the first independent film to be screened for competition at the prestigious Cannes Film Festival, which helped open the door for other opportunities. Her second film is likely the one she is most known for with Desperately Seeking Susan (1985), which had a handful of future stars and Madonna. A filmmaker for four decades, she has directed an array of films with a mix of comedy and drama to varying levels of recognition.

The best dramas have a bit of biting humor in them, as is the case with a film that involves a wannabee rock star trying to make their way across the country that has exactly one non-newcomer in Richard Hell, a punk rock artist in several bands of his day. It is a worthy time capsule of a New York in the 1980s that lingers in an enjoyably weird sense that looks at identity and self-fulfillment from a feminine perspective (Seidelman has been quoted as saying that looking at the film shows a New York City that doesn't exist anymore). Berman is exquisite in a devilishly rotten role of narcissism. You know that she isn't the nicest person in the world and yet you are still quite curious to see her on screen in all of her brazen mischief that comes with all of the wandering that she does, right from her first scene of her seeing a pair of sunglasses that happen to match her outfit and snatching them right from under them. Anything has clearly got to be better than languishing in New Jersey in her eyes, even if she has to use folks like a parasite. The idea of re-inventing oneself is something we can all see in ourselves because it still seems prevalent now more than ever in the age of social media. Her utter selfishness at what she thinks she wants out of herself and people makes for quite a compelling movie for 89 minutes that makes for capable drama in how much we see ourselves in her - her impulsive nature is both humorous and tragic in this weird way that she wants recognition to belong somewhere with her one distinct feature being resilience above all. Rinn makes a capable foil in "normalcy", one with plenty of patience to act against Berman that is her antithesis in being a face in the crowd. The scenes spent between the two are shaky because they are meant to be shaky, as if all Berman can think is about anything other than Rinn when in a van. Hell is the ideal punk in all of the cool characteristics that is just as much a user of people as Berman. I especially like a sequence where she is trying to make conversation with Hell before the lady that he was speaking to comes back and loudly tries to get her seat back, which results in petty amusement when they engage in a brief fight while Hell slowly walks away with a grin on his face. The final scene is probably the most striking in terms of showing the film at what it all really means when it comes to needing a place to spend one's time. The cycle begins anew with an outcome yet to be written in the process of trying to morph a persona that others will latch onto in curiosity rather than ignoring her as just a face in the crowd. As a whole, the enjoyability of the movie does not hinge on how much one likes the main character as much as it how much they enjoy the time spent asking about the nature of identity and resilience within a wannabee who (like probably a good deal of people) think they have all the wants in the world. 

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Between the Lines.

The Verdict (1982).

Review #1935: The Verdict.

Cast: 

Paul Newman (Frank Galvin), Charlotte Rampling (Laura Fischer), Jack Warden (Mickey Morrissey), James Mason (Ed Concannon), Milo O'Shea (Judge Hoyle), Lindsay Crouse (Kaitlin Costello Price), Edward Binns (Bishop Brophy), Julie Bovasso (Maureen Rooney), Roxanne Hart (Sally Doneghy), James Handy (Kevin Doneghy), Wesley Addy (Dr. Towler), Joe Seneca (Dr. Thompson), and Lewis J. Stadlen (Dr. Gruber) Directed by Sidney Lumet (#035 - 12 Angry Men, #036 - Network, #404 - The Anderson Tapes, #1065 - Deathtrap, #1446 - Murder on the Orient Express, #1450 - Dog Day Afternoon, #1545 - Before the Devil Knows You're Dead)

Review: 

A combination of a director known for his crafting of actors into diverting character dramas and a powerhouse star and script surely would work out for a fair classic, you might say. The movie is an adaptation of the 1980 novel of the same name by Barry Reed. In addition to writing for American Bar Association Journal alongside novels, Reed had his own legal practice in Boston, Massachusetts and he had a reputation for specializing in medical malpractice, personal injury, and civil litigation. Interestingly, one of his proteges was Jan Schlichtmann, a lawyer noted for his own case that became a book and film about a lawyer taking on a big name (in this case, two companies sued for leukemia deaths), which you might know as A Civil Action (1998). Right before publication of The Verdict, producers David Brown and Richard D. Zanuck purchased the film rights. The two hired David Mamet to write a screenplay based on the book. By this point, Mamet was noted for his array of off-Broadway plays in the 1970s such as American Buffalo. The first produced screenplay by Mamet was the 1981 adaptation of The Postman Always Rings Twice. It shouldn't be too surprising that there were numerous choices for directors and main stars: James Bridges was the initial choice for director and Robert Redford was the first-pick star, but when Bridges became busy with Urban Cowboy (1980), the producers went with Arthur Hiller as the potential director...before a disagreement with Mamet saw him depart (of course, Zanuck wasn't particularly big on the ending of the original script, which ended before the jury came back with the verdict). Jay Presson Allen came in to try and deliver a new script, and when Bridges had time at last to do a project, he also seeped his fingers into writing for the film, but it all went for naught when Redford and Bridges had disagreements over the nature of the main character (Redford irked at the idea of playing the character with the flaws as written). Not long after, Lumet was asked to do the film, and he elected to go back to the original Mamet script, complete with Paul Newman as star. 

Admittedly, the legal aspects of the film aren't completely on the level, as I suspected from a cursory bout of research. For the record, if you are suing a hospital and they offer you a settlement, your lawyer cannot simply reject the offer (without even consulting the clients), and the opposing council doesn't go around telling the client about offers either. But I suppose if you can buy a film that hinges its big finish on having the jurors challenge their doubts in their beliefs, institutions, and the law itself, you can do almost anything. But the movie as a whole is pleasant as a stone-cold thriller of possible redemption as baptism by fire, utilizing its 129 minutes to general effectiveness. It relies heavily on the performance of Newman, in his only appearance in a feature film with Lumet as director. He pulls off a great performance, plundering the depths of redemption in an understated and powerful manner that never blusters or hits a false note from start to finish, one where burying the case is not the end of his own road. Sure, one could put the highlight as the last scene in the courthouse or even the final shot with a rejected call, but the best one might be a sequence where Newman is taking photos of his client (a comatose victim) before he processes what he is doing when the photo is developing and snaps himself to action without having to say a word. It isn't so much as chewing the scenery as it is just a case of a damn good actor being accompanied by pretty decent support in the cast besides him. Rampling makes a quality counterpart to Newman, since each are wayward spirits to begin with, and the last sequence where they share time together (i.e., not just stare at each other) is quite effective in its shock, while Warden accompanies Newman as the long-suffering lawyer pal in useful character presence. Mason (in the twilight of his career) is the ideal foil to Newman, bringing dignity to a role of slime, which goes just as well for O'Shea in steely impatience. As a whole, it is more of a thriller of the lead character rather than a straight-boiled court drama, which results in a slow burn experience that ultimately shows Lumet and Newman in their proper environments: rehearsed excellence, one that has endured well for itself after four decades. 

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

An Officer and a Gentleman.

Review #1867: An Officer and a Gentleman.

Cast: 

Richard Gere (Zack Mayo), Debra Winger (Paula Pokrifki), David Keith (Sid Worley), Robert Loggia (Byron Mayo), Lisa Blount (Lynette Pomeroy), Lisa Eilbacher (Casey Seeger), Louis Gossett Jr (Gunnery Sergeant Emil Foley), Tony Plana (Emiliano Santos Della Serra), Harold Sylvester (Lionel Perryman), David Caruso (Topper Daniels), Victor French (Joe Pokrifki), and Grace Zabriskie (Esther Pokrifk) Directed by Taylor Hackford.

Review: 

It is hard to believe the age of some movies from time to time, probably more so when you get older and older. Released forty years ago in the summer of 1982, An Officer and a Gentleman manages to elevate material that seems destined for the old-fashioned bin into quality entertainment that makes for a useful romantic drama with solid casting and direction behind it. The movie came from director Taylor Hackford, doing his third film effort and second feature; his debut was a short called Teenage Father (1978), which won an Academy Award for Best Live Action Short Film. The Santa Barbara native was a graduate of the University of Southern California for pre-law and even served in the Peace Corps, and his spare time using a Super 8 camera got him into changing his interests. Douglas Day Stewart wrote the script for the film, which he based on experiences as a Naval Officer Candidate that saw both tough training and dating a factory girl when training in Rhode Island. Stewart did not get to fly nor get the girl, but he did do some time as a ship's officer before he became a writer on television, and his first film credit would come with The Blue Lagoon (1980). It is Hackford that elected to keep the ending of the film despite the objections of Gere (who thought it was overly sentimental), with the rehearsals of the scene ending up being the final persuasion for it.

Admittedly, it is the professionalism in its romantic drama settings that carry the film more than anything, showing its working-class pairings with general honesty. In an older time, a movie about Aviation Officer Candidates (AOCs) might have been ripe for the war effort, but this is a movie that actually wants to show growth with its lead performances and romance as something that isn't just point A to point B. Gere (fresh from his star role in American Gigolo (1980), which like this film was originally offered to John Travolta, who turned each down) makes for a quality hustler to watch grow, one wrapped in jaded pride. It is the vulnerability seen in one scene with Gossett Jr about who he would be without the training required that proves the most poignant. Of course, him and Winger make a quality pairing together, since they each have to show just why they aren't just only good for romantic scenes, which namely involves dueling prides from messed-up people with daddy issues. You aren't quite sure what will happen next with them, but they resonate well with each other that it becomes a moot point. It should be noted that Gossett Jr wasn't actually the original choice in mind for the Sergeant role, as R. Lee Ermey (a Marine drill instructor before becoming an actor) was originally cast, but Hackford decided to cast Gossett Jr instead while having Ermey serve as a technical advisor (alongside Buck Welscher, a drill instructor for AOCs). Gossett Jr proves exactly right for the role, hard driving but always on point for what is needed in emphasis. Any scene he is in, he commands it with no sense of hammy overtones (naturally, Gossett ended up with an Academy Award for his performance). Keith and Blount make up the other side of the romance angle in terms of superficiality that works best for the former in doomed charm. The others in the cast are generally interesting to see in bits and pieces, such as the spry Plana or Eilbacher, or with Sylvester and Caruso, while Loggia is only utilized for the opening sequence with Gere to show just how far the difference is between father and son. The second half does end quite well for itself, although it certainly has to strain itself a bit just to make it worth without folding into complete predictability, and I think the first half generally worked better in deliberate pacing, but it still works. For a 124-minute movie, it does utilize its time wisely in building the main and supporting characters necessary to make the final result all the more worth getting there. In the end, it carries itself to a general triumph of stirring romance and military drama that is worth the curious look all these years later.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Redux: Tron.

Redux #098: Tron.

Cast: 

Jeff Bridges (Kevin Flynn / Clu), Bruce Boxleitner (Alan Bradley / Tron), David Warner (Ed Dillinger / Sark / Master Control Program), Cindy Morgan (Dr. Lora Baines / Yori), Barnard Hughes (Dr. Walter Gibbs / Dumont), Dan Shor (Roy Kleinberg / Ram), and Peter Jurasik (Crom) Directed by Steven Lisberger.

Review: 

“Tron is so idealistic. It was the digital frontier and we were seeing it and exploring it for the first time. We were very, very idealistic and you can feel that when you watch ‘Tron.’”

The art of making a good film, or at the very least a memorable one, comes from how one uses their imagination and circumstances to get there. Born in New York City but raised in Hazelton, Pennsylvania, Steven Lisberger studied at Tufts University within its Fine Arts school, where he soon formed an animation studio that bore his name. Their first animation project in Cosmic Cartoon earned a Student Academy Award nomination in 1973, and the studio eventually made a handful of projects such as commercials, title sequences, and feature segments. Probably the most noted production the studio did was Animalympics, a series of two specials commissioned by NBC to pair with both the 1980 Winter and Summer Olympics (one special worked out better than the other, but the studio did cobble together a theatrical version for overseas and home video), which had a staff of animators with connections to bigger and better things (such as animator Brad Bird and art director Roger Allers) along with slight connections to Tron. Lisberger would direct two further features after the release of Tron in Hot Pursuit (1987) and Slipstream (1989), although neither approached the audience curiosity of Tron (he of course would serve as a producer on the eventual release of Tron: Legacy in 2010). Lisberger had seen the potential for computer animation with the video game Pong in the last 1970s that came from a sample reel from a computer firm, which went nicely with the creation of a backlit neon character for an advertisement for a radio station by Lisberger and company. The effects presented here feature use of computers that could only give you static images that resulted in coordinates for each image having to be entered in for each image in say, a light cycle. The movie is actually a hybrid of animation and live-action rather than just a movie of computers (there is 15-20 minutes of actual computer animation in a 96-minute movie), what with the use of hand-animation and filming certain characters with light sources to go alongside backlight and diffusion (take a look at the actual look of the suit without the glowing colors sometime) and special animation cels with Kodaliths. On a level of costumes and sound, folks were dazzled by its execution, for which the film won two Academy Awards while being shut out for effects because of a perception that the film cheated by using computers. The influence of Tron can't be understated in the four decades since its release, with John Lasseter being quoted as saying that without Tron, there would not have been Toy Story (1995).

In a summer of movies such as The Thing, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, and E.T., Tron was only a mild success with audiences, making $50 million on a $17 million budget. You know, it is entirely possible that the best audience for this movie is a teenager in 1982. For one, they certainly would gawk at the dazzling spectacle that came from computers and believe it to be one of the best creations of its time in an era where Walt Disney Productions actually tried making movies with some sort of daring sensibility. Now, I imagine if you show the movie forty years later, one will try to consider the fact that spectacle goes only so far for a movie that seems to consider what would happen if your Pong console had people in it. Of course, Lisberger wrote this movie in a time when IBM was the dominant technology company to go along with being a spiritual allegory as his parents (both half-Jewish) had died when he was young. The film was written by Lisberger and Bonnie MacBird. MacBird had done multiple drafts and outlines before numerous writers ended up dabbling into the script, as she did not have involvement with the production of the movie after the script had been sold to Disney (for her part, she had written the film with Robin WIlliams in mind for the lead while having the themes of the folly of hubris to go along with the danger of going along with the status quo). So, with an interpretation of Alice in Wonderland with computers, particularly since every main actor is playing a double role, how does it hold up? Your mileage may vary, depending on one's patience. Some of the amazement I had when I first saw it a decade ago is still there, but it definitely is a movie that lives on the strength of presenting its effects and world more than any great acting or general coherence. Bridges is and always was a tremendous presence with charm to spare, which means he does just fine with the hodgepodge of whirring lights that might as well make one seem lost in the land of electronic Oz. Boxleitner and Morgan have the trouble of being key leads that are separated from Bridges for a portion of time that barely make a distinction from surface to computer characters. It is amusing that it is Boxleitner who is playing an electronic gladiator, which works out to the minimum in stirring interest; Morgan is just kind of there for the ride, with even Hughes seeming more interested in the experience of being the pseudo Wizard of Oz. Warner does pretty well in the corporate/computer stooge role because he excels in generating ooze to counteract the others playing Oz for some sort of meaningful fun. I give the effects credit for the time and effort taken to try and create a computerized world, one that seems to serve as a first step in further movies built on the steps of CG to create further inventive worlds to immerse oneself in, for better or worse. The plot is a jumble, one that tries to play parable while trying to fascinate the viewer about the world of computers in a time when a good chunk of people either didn't know how to use one or were scared by it. This results in a decent movie that happens to look prophetic in the age of computers where one can type sentences out from one's lap. In that sense, Tron is the ideal hybrid movie after four decades because of what it ventures to show within a scramble of ideas and views, living and dying on how much one cares for its execution- take that for its splash of idealism.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Redux: The Thing (1982)

Review Revised #712: The Thing (1982).

Cast: 

Kurt Russell (MacReady), Keith David (Childs), Wilford Brimley (Blair), Donald Moffat (Garry), T. K. Carter (Nauls), Richard Masur (Clark), David Clennon (Palmer), Charles Hallahan (Norris), Richard Dysart (Copper), Peter Maloney (Bennings), Joel Polis (Fuchs), and Thomas G. Waites (Windows) Directed by John Carpenter (#068 - Halloween and #634 - Escape from New York)

Review: 

The original review was 276 words. Seven years later, I decided to reconsider and make a revised review in light of the 40th anniversary of the release of this film.

The Thing from Another World (1951), if you remember, was a loose adaptation of the novella Who Goes There?, which had been written by John W. Campbell in 1938 (it was only discovered in 2018 that Campbell had actually wrote an entire novel before cutting it down to the novella published in 1938; the manuscript, called "Frozen Hell", was published in 2019). Howard Hawks had supervised the production while Christian Nyby served as director (while Hawks denied that he served as director, his uncredited contribution to writing alongside the fact that Nyby never directed anything as good as this movie ever again makes for an interesting argument). Producers David Foster and Lawrence Turman had wanted to do a remake more faithful to the original novella, as opposed to the plant-like creature of the 1951 movie. Several directors and writers came and went in consideration from Universal Pictures in the late 1970s and 1980s before John Carpenter was hired to direct and Bill Lancaster (writer of The Bad News Bears (1976)) was hired to write; this was the sixth feature film directed by Carpenter, who had just finished Escape from New York (1981); it happened to be the last screenplay written by Lancaster, who died of a heart attack at the age of 49 in 1997. Rob Bottin (who had worked with Carpenter on The Fog in 1980) was hired to help provide effects for the creature (with one exception in a dog cage, which was done by Stan Winston to help an ailing Bottin), which his team helped do out of chemicals, food, rubber, and mechanical parts that made the budget go to $15 million; while Bottin's effects received mixed attention at the time, he would continue to hone his craft and wound up with two Academy Awards for his contributions to visual effects. Released on June 25, in a month and year that saw movies come out such as Blade Runner (same day as this movie) and E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (released two weeks prior), The Thing would not be a major success nor a failure. Coming off the heels of movies like Alien (1979) probably did not help either, although this movie tries to go with a creature that isn't a man in a suit (as guided by Carpenter). Of course, the reactions that the movie received would make you think that they killed a dog on film, where even Nyby talked about the film negatively, saying "If you want blood, go to the slaughterhouse ... All in all, it's a terrific commercial for J&B Scotch" (now you see why I mentioned Nyby earlier when I relate the irony of a guy famous for "directing" one good movie trying to trash a movie that is way better than his). Years after the film was described as a cult classic, a 2011 version of The Thing was released that apparently serves as a prequel to this movie, and I cannot imagine how anybody really gave a crap about seeing what happens before you see Kurt Russell in a movie.

I haven't seen the 1951 movie in a number of years, but my recollections of seeing it as a straightforward tense movie probably seems right. The 1951 and 1982 movies are set in completely opposite locations and have tones that reflect the age they were made in when it relates to dealing with a threat from within, but the latter movie is especially more striking in its nihilistic execution. Carpenter has said that it is his favorite film from his line of work, even though the results of the film did not help his career the way he thought it would. I said the movie "flat out rules" a long time ago, but now I am even more appreciative of what was accomplished by Carpenter and company that has proven to be one of his most enduring works. The title creature is a ruthless being that pervades whatever it imitates without hesitation, and it makes for one hell of a spectacle and threat to watch on screen. To me, thinking effects are disgusting is like a compliment rather than a criticism, as if the only way to make a tense horror movie is to do it without a hint of cynicism. The best sequence might be the one where a desperate scramble to save a person by pressing on their chest that results in the ripping off of arms. Yes, the movie is a triumph of special effects, but it also is a triumph of paranoia with an ensemble cast that completely sells what is needed. Generally, it is easy to say that Russell does well with the material, because we have seen him do well in other productions before. But he has an effortless charm to him that makes him the kind of actor to just seep into a role without hesitation in everyman sensibilities, which happens in a movie where sanity hangs in the balance. The other members of the cast help in lending fear and irrationalities that doesn't drag the 109-minute run-time any further than it needs to. It seems fitting that two actors making early appearances in film before they became more known excel best: David (in his credited film debut) serves well in the tense glares to not get lost among the group while Brimley (who had a few film and TV credits) makes a stodgy and fierce presence in the face of futility and gruesome gore. The others contribute to the cold tension that bubbles slowly to the surface beneath the early little character quirks in a movie where danger can lurk by what is hidden just as much as what you see.

The music by Ennio Morricone is used selectively by Carpenter to great effect, present in terror without overwhelming you. The movie builds up to the handling of its chameleon-like monster with great planning that doesn't fall privy to the worst type of cliches seen in the lone location type of horror movies (namely dumb characters). The climax lends a welcome deal of futility and ambiguity that fits for a certain audience sensibility that doesn't turn out to be a cheat when you have tired characters that sit there and look at each other while a fire burns in the background. In other words, the movie sets itself up well for how it has to end without straining for it (so yes, ambiguity isn't everyone's thing, but at least it is a contrived ambiguity). In the end, there are a handful of Carpenter movies that could be argued to be his best work in the countless movies he made, and The Thing has certainly had its case strengthened in the four decades since its release with its handling of effects with tension and a great ensemble cast. Now more than ever, one should really check it out for those who are interested in science fiction and horror as it is a triumph of filmmaking from John Carpenter, a director who certainly deserves the credit for making classics of American cinema.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

The Dark Crystal.

Review #1468: The Dark Crystal.

Cast: 
Stephen Garlick (Jen [performed by Jim Henson]), Lisa Maxwell (Kira [performed by Kathryn Mullen]), Billie Whitelaw (Aughra [performed by Frank Oz]), Percy Edwards (Fizzgig [performed by Dave Goelz]), Barry Dennen (The Chamberlain - skekSil [performed by Frank Oz]), Michael Kilgarriff (The General - skekUng [performed by Dave Goelz]), Jerry Nelson (The Ritual-Master - skekZok) [performed by Jim Henson], Steve Whitmire (The Scientist - skekTek), Thick Wilson (The Gourmand - skekAyuk [performed by Louise Gold], Brian Muehl (The Ornamentalist - skekEkt), John Baddeley (The Scroll Keeper - skekOk [performed by Bob Payne]), David Buck (The Slave-Master - skekNa [performed by Mike Quinn], Charles Collingwood (The Treasurer - skekShod [performed by Tim Rose], and Sean Barrett (urZah/The Ritual-Guardian [performed by Brian Muehl]), with additional performances by Kiran Shah, Mike Edmonds, Peter Burroughs, Malcolm Dixon, Sadie Corre, Deep Roy, and Jack Purvis. Directed by Jim Henson and Frank Oz (#521 - The Muppets Take Manhattan and #795 - Bowfinger)

Review: 
"My feeling about puppetry relates to stylization, simplicity, boiling down to - it's a wonderful form and I really love it. But with The Dark Crystal, instead of puppetry we're trying to go toward a sense of realism - toward a reality of creatures that are actually alive and we're mixing up puppetry and all kinds of other techniques."

Jim Henson, if you didn't already know, was a tremendous force in puppeteering and comedy. Born in Mississippi and raised in Maryland, Henson had his influences in what he saw on television and heard on radio with the work of ventriloquist Edgar Bergen and television puppetry of Burr Tillstrom among others. In 1955, along with fellow puppeteer (and future spouse) Jane Nebel, he formed The Muppets, which would be featured in Henson's 5-minute show for WRC-TV in Sam and Friends (1955-61) that led to his own company in 1958 (now known as The Jim Henson Company). He soon went to the University of Maryland and learned further in craft and textiles (which led to graduation in 1960). In the following two decades, he would spend time with his puppets in various forms of television that ranged from commercials to talk shows to educational shows, with highlights including Henson's directorial debut in the short Time Piece (1965) and Sesame Street (1969). It was producer Lew Grade and his ITC Entertainment company that proved important to Henson in subsequent years: he helped to co-produce The Muppet Show (1976-1981) that helped the Muppets reach a broader audience, and he was executive producer for this film.

The film had a story from Henson (who also co-produced the movie) and a screenplay from David Odell (who had written for The Muppet Show), while Henson would direct alongside longtime collaborator Frank Oz (in his directorial debut). Henson had been inspired to make a film that had the darkness of stories such as the original Grimms' Fairy Tales, which would have spiritual influences from New Age philosophy such as the Seth Material, and noted fantasy illustrator Brian Froud would do concept art for the film. Instead of human beings on screen, this is a fantasy film with a showcase of animatronic puppets, which had a mix of control with rods/cables, radio control and human performances (which were grueling for the Garthim performers, since they had to be hung up on a rack at times to rest). The final result is a captivating and interesting film to view, one that does wonders with telling a capable fantasy story with atmosphere that makes a solid 93 minute experience for everyone, since one needs something that veers a bit into the dark now and then (it was a moderate success with audiences of the time, although some were put off by the dark elements, because irony is dead, perhaps). The voice cast do a fine job with filling the fantasy requirements needed, such as Garlick and his growing presence of confidence or Maxwell's warmth and spirit or the biting charm of Whitelaw to counteract the devious pit of decadence of the others. It builds its tension with care and appreciation for making entertainment on its own terms for everyone, one that can invite plenty of imagination over its subject matter (a TV series set years prior was just released in 2019, for example), with a climax that seals its fate of understanding with care. It invites one into a story of destiny and shattered crystals with careful pacing and a wonderful execution in style, puppetry, and music from Trevor Jones that prove very much worth a curious choice among the work of Henson.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Countryman.

Review #1467: Countryman.

Cast: 
Countryman [Edwin Lothan], Hiram Keller (Bobby Lloyd), Carl Bradshaw (Capt. Benchley), Basil Keane (Colonel Sinclair), Freshey Richardson (Mosman), Kristina St. Clair (Beau Porter), Jahman (Jahman), Papa Threecards (Sadu Baba), Munair Zacca (Periera), Dee Anthony (Mr. Porter), and Ronnie McKay (Wax) Directed by Dickie Jobson.

Review: 
"[Jobson] always knew which way the wind was blowing, and was first on the scene when the dust settled. An original thinker, he brought warmth, humour and friendship to all who had the privilege to be in his presence."

Everybody deserves to have their story told or make a film about something they feel deserves to be put on screen, no matter what the conditions are in making something worthy of an audience to be curious about. The ones responsible for helping to bring the film to production was Island Records, a British-Jamaican record label that had been founded in 1959 by Chris Blackwell (who one year prior had been saved by Rasta fisherman on the coast), Graeme Goodall, and Leslie Kong that was credited for helping to bring reggae and ska music to the mainstream. One notable group they brought attention to was Bob Marley & The Wailers, as Blackwell had given money to the group to fund their first album with Island. This was not the first film of Jamaica (which had gained its independence from the United Kingdom in 1962) to reach some sort of prominence, nor was it the first to have funding from Island Records, as they had helped give financing to Perry Henzell's The Harder They Come (1972), which had proved a hit in the country along with some success abroad (such as midnight showings). Helming the film as director was Jobson, a friend and business associate of Blackwell that had managed Marley's group for a time, with their music being featured in this film (with a dedication to Marley, who died the previous year). The film features a man known primarily as Countryman (both Edwin Lothan, who lived from 1946 to 2016), who had first been covered by Rolling Stone (referred to as Cunchyman) in their 1973 article "The Wild Side of Paradise". He was a real-life fisherman of Indian and African descent (coincidentally, he was to have a part in Henzell's No Place Like Home (1973), although the print was apparently lost for years).

Although it is an English-language film, this seemed like an appropriate film to fit in the world cinema label because of its interesting place as an adventure film with reggae touches and a near-mythic quality to its main focus. It has a strange mix of adventure and exploitation to it at times, and it doesn't quite live up to its thin story, but there is something worthy about the curiosity that this film brings to the table that makes it different from the usual fare. It may not have anything in terms of great acting, but there is certainly an appeal in seeing our title star engage with his world and the situations that can arise from it, such as dealing with alligators or with the wilderness at large that make for an interesting time to feel play out without needing so many details for 102 minutes. There really isn't that many things to highlight that don't involve our star, mostly because characters come and go as they please in a plot that somehow involves fabrications involving the CIA and smugglers in an election. It isn't exactly a winner, but it certainly seems to belong as a cult classic in its own certain way, for which one can seek it out on the Internet if one desires to do so. For those who have the curiosity for something around the bend with its view of mysticism and a distinct man to go with a blend of fine landscapes, this may prove worth it.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.