Frankenstein Unbound

Review #2534: Frankenstein Unbound.

Cast: 

John Hurt (Joe Buchanan / The Narrator), Raul Julia (Dr. Victor Frankenstein), Bridget Fonda (Mary Shelley), Nick Brimble (Frankenstein's monster), Catherine Rabett (Elizabeth Lavenza), Jason Patric (Lord Byron), Michael Hutchence (Percy Shelley), Catherine Corman (Justine Moritz), Mickey Knox (General Reade), and Terri Treas (The Voice of Computer) 

Directed by Roger Corman (#368 - The Little Shop of Horrors, #684 - It Conquered the World, #852 - The Terror, #931 - Not of This Earth, #1007 - Attack of the Crab Monsters, #1039 - Five Guns West, #1042 - War of the Satellites, #1136 - Gas-s-s-s, #1147 - X: The Man with the X-ray Eyes, #1186 - A Bucket of Blood, #1423 - The Wild Angels, #1425 - The St. Valentine's Day Massacre, #1674 - Machine-Gun Kelly, #1684 - Creature from the Haunted Sea, #1918 - House of Usher, #2030 - The Trip, #2113 - The Undead, #2211 - The Intruder, #2275 - The Wasp Woman, #2295 - The Pit and the Pendulum, #2434 - The Premature Burial)

Review: 

"I don't know how to exactly sum up my career other than to think of myself as a filmmaker. I've done everything, every thing from being a messenger at Twentieth Century Fox to being a truck driver on location to being a writer, producer, director, distributor, and even a sometime-actor. So, I would say that Tm somebody who has worked in all areas of motion pictures. I would hope that I've contributed something to the American film industry and I've had a great time doing it. I'm not sure that I will be remembered in years to come. But, if I am remembered in film history, it will probably be as a medium- to low-budget producer-director who contributed along the way to giving other people opportunities."

Well, better late than never. Honestly, I wanted to do this film last November, but I just didn't have enough time to truly give the film the attention it deserved, even with the occasion of the film turning 35 years ago. Coincidentally, this month was the 100th anniversary of Roger Corman's birth (having been born on the 5th in 1926 in Detroit). Now, you might wonder, what the hell is Frankenstein Unbound? Well, it was the little-seen swansong of Roger Corman as a director. Sure, he had kept busy as a producer, but he had not directed a movie since the chaotic production of Von Richthofen and Brown (1971). Producer Thom Mount approached him with the idea to get back into directing and after a few years of ballooning budgeting (reported to be $11.5 million for a film distributed by 20th Century Fox in the US/Canada and Warner Bros. for the international market), Corman was there, complete with a $1 million fee. The film is loosely based on the 1973 novel of the same name by Brian Aldiss (whose other noted story that was turned into a film being "Supertoys Last All Summer Long", which served as the basis for A.I. Artificial Intelligence [2001]), for which F. X. Feeney, better known as a freelance journalist was tasked to write the adaptation, although Corman wound up being credited as a co-writer with his input on the script; Edward Neumeier (of RoboCop [1987] fame) apparently contributed to the script but was not credited. The movie was not a success with audiences (according to Aldiss, a screening he went to in London had just six people seeing it), managing to go to the video markets by February after being released in November. While Aldiss apparently was interested enough to want to do a "Dracula Unbound" to where he wrote a script, it never came to pass, and Corman stuck to producing all the way up until 2018. 

It almost pulls it off. As pulpy and as ridiculous as it might look, it really does almost work as a movie worth thinking about on the offbeat path when talking about Frankenstein-adjacent films. I imagine those who saw the Corman movies from three decades prior that freely had fun with the works of Edgar Allen Poe will have a bit of curiosity in seeing what Corman has to offer here...and just wish it all clicked more. So, what's the setting: in the future (insert yell here) of 2031, a scientist has made an energy beam weapon that could destroy an object on a molecular level that he thinks could lead to world peace only to have it cause bad weather and rifts in time. He just happens to be in his state-of-the-art talking sports car when he goes to 1817 and finds a scientist that not only exists along with Mary Shelley but also is totally not similar to him in developing a major scientific breakthrough with dangerous consequences. Of the main focuses, Julia seems to be the only one who is really pulling in an invested performance, having a solemn dignity in his delusions about being one above the rest as a creator that can't reckon with the idea of being wrong. this isn't to complain about Hurt, who is tasked to play an American for whatever reason, although Fonda isn't exactly swimming in praise when you consider that Rabett is meant to be the key force to setup the actual climax (to say nothing of the lack of things to really do for Patric or Michel Hutchence, best known as the singer of the underrated band INXS).

I can't say it is a compromised movie in producer interference, but it just seems to be out of step with really delivering on what it believes it wants to show in the perils of trying to play God in the guise of science. It just feels like a movie out of date despite its strange moments of charm that prove too fleeting for something that meanders far too many times to not earn its runtime (85 minutes). It has a few charming moments, at least; simply put, even goofy schlock is better than self-important slop. Nothing feels all that surprising or particularly involving besides the occasional splotches of gore (to say nothing of the curiously stretched makeup of the monster, which goes better than the lack of material for Brimble to chew on). After a climax of transporting people back to time and killing people off as swiftly as possible, it ends with a bunch of lasers going around to somehow deal with the monster, who then voices the last lines of the film about being "unbound" for whatever reason. And that's the last you see of Corman as a director, a...voice of the unbound as a guy goes to a crappy future looking for a city (speaking of premises that might have been better).  As a whole, Frankenstein Unbound begs to really cut loose in being a film besides the usual trappings of a Frankenstein movie that isn't bound enough in motivations or in energy to really rise to the occasion for entertainment. If you like to see curious last efforts or films that might be a hidden gem in the rough, this might just be up your alley.

 

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*I really did want to watch and review it for November 7 to close out 7 Days of The Week After Halloween (2025), but I instead went with the doubleheader Mayhem and Suitable Flesh. So it goes.

The Rookie (1990).

Review #2487: The Rookie (1990).

Cast: 

Clint Eastwood (Sergeant Nick Pulovski), Charlie Sheen (Detective David Ackerman), Raul Julia (Ulrich Sigmund Strom), Sônia Braga (Liesl Strom), Tom Skerritt (Eugene Ackerman), Lara Flynn Boyle (Sarah Ackerman), Pepe Serna (Lieutenant Raymond Garcia), Donna Mitchell (Laura Ackerman), Coleby Lombardo (Joey Ackerman), Marco Rodriguez ("Loco" Martinez), Xander Berkeley (Ken Blackwell), Roberta Vasquez (Officer Heather Torres), Hal Williams (Detective Powell), Paul Ben-Victor (Felix "Little Felix"), and Tony Plana (Morales)

Directed by Clint Eastwood (#1252 - Space Cowboys, #1310 - Million Dollar Baby, #1476 - Pale Rider, #1501 - Unforgiven, #1550 - Gran Torino, #1638 - Bird, #1757 - Sudden Impact, #1831 - High Plains Drifter)

Review: 

I'm sure you've heard this before: buddy cop movie pairing two distinct folks up for strange hijinks and action to go around. The script to the film is credited to Boaz Yakin (in his second credit after The Punisher [1989]) and Scott Spiegel (the co-writer of Evil Dead II [1987]). This was the second Clint Eastwood film released in 1990 after White Hunter Black Heart, a film that Eastwood apparently had a personal interest in (so, yes, "one for them and one for me"). While that movie wasn't exactly an audience favorite, The Rookie didn't fare too much better at the time because of its release in December 1990 that got overshadowed by Home Alone, released three weeks earlier (did you know that movie was the highest grossing comedy of all time for decades?). The highlight of the film for those at the time may have been the stunt work, with major scenes involving no miniatures or blue screens, which were filmed at night. Of course, this is also the movie where Eastwood gets sexually assaulted by a woman and it is also the same movie where Raul Julia and Sônia Braga were cast to play a couple of Germans. So there's that.

It is a silly and loud affair that almost seems tailor-made for those who enjoyed stuff such as Lethal Weapon, Tango & Cash, you get the idea. But I can't help but wonder if the problems with the film come from the fact that Sheen and Eastwood just don't mesh that well together. Even Tango handled that better. One sometimes wonders who exactly was thought of for the role besides him, as if even Emilio Estevez would've been better off playing the toils of someone trying to be by-the-book in a weary world (this is where I try to not just wish for a different movie in the middle of talking about this movie*). But Eastwood doesn't exactly come off that great either, as if he himself is tired of playing a Dirty Harry pastiche (ironically, The Dead Pool from two years earlier was a better movie). The movie just seems flat-footed for a good chunk of its two-hour runtime, never really getting into full gear with its energy beyond neat stunts (again, mostly at night). It just feels like an obligation film, one that goes through the motions that almost sounds like it was supposed to be a parody of the action thriller, right down to the assault scene which is there because, uh, because. But instead the parts that are meant to be funny aren't as funny and the parts that sound like they want to be serious (such as the flashback trauma) sound like a riff. Even the moments where Julia says racial epithets (get it, he's playing a rough German?) sounds like it was dug up for a joke for the parody rather than an actual serious/fun thriller. Boyle was on Twin Peaks in the same year this premiered and it can easily be said that she has more to actually do on that show than here*, which is kind of sad, and the less said about Skerritt's lack of presence, the better. Julia and Braga technically are the best part of the film, but they can't save the film from meandering as much as it does. As a whole, I wish I could appreciate the movie more, but there is a clear air of lethargic nature to the whole proceedings that you don't get from the usual Eastwood fare. Even when the Dirty Harry movies got a bit long in the tooth, you could still see some zip to them. Here it just doesn't sound like anyone but the stuntmen is having fun, but it doesn't seem quite enough to make for a well-rounded film to actually recommend.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

*For whatever reason, I thought of Tom Hanks. Or hey, what if it was Emilio Estevez matched up with his father Martin Sheen? Or even Eastwood playing the beleaguered lieutenant for a whole film would probably be ideal. 

*As a person who's seen the first six Twin Peaks episodes, anyway.

Lionheart (1990).

Review #2406: Lionheart.

Cast:

Jean-Claude Van Damme (Lyon "Lionheart" Gaultier), Harrison Page (Joshua Eldridge), Deborah Rennard (Cynthia Caldera), Lisa Pelikan (Hélène Gaultier), Ashley Johnson (Nicole Gaultier), Brian Thompson (Russell), Vojislav Govedarica (Sgt. Hartog), Michel Qissi (Moustafa), Abdel Qissi (Attila), Ash Adams (Francois Gaultier), George McDaniel (Adjutant), and Jeff Langton (Sonny) Directed by Sheldon Lettich.

Review: 

"Most Van Damme movies are basically structured like old Fred Astaire movies. Astaire’s movies employ a very simple plot (“I have to convince her to marry me before she can marry that rich guy who doesn’t really love her”) which Astaire uses to hang his dance numbers on. Similarly, in Van Damme movies there’s a simple plot (“They killed our parents, we must get revenge”) which we can then hang a number of fight scenes on. In an Astaire movie, it all leads to the big crucial dance number at the end (where he wins over the girl). In a Van Damme movie, it all leads to the big fight at the end (where he kills the guys who murdered his parents)."

Admittedly, I can't blame Jean-Claude Van Damme from getting into the "input" side of filmmaking. This was the debut of Lettich as a director; after serving for a few years in the Marine Corps (specifically radio operator and with the 1st Force Reconnaissance Company), he went on to study Photography in college before becoming interested in being a filmmaker in the late 1970s (inquire further here). So, you've got two ideas crash into one: Van Damme wrote an outline for a fighting movie in the underground while his friend Sheldon Lettich had a script in mind involving the "classic era" of the French Foreign Legion. Sure, that script didn't go anywhere (apparently it was intended for Sylvester Stallone, since the two had written Rambo III [1988] together) but I think you get how Lionheart would come out combining the two a bit. Well, that and both guys liked the movie Hard Times (1975). Imperial Entertainment tried to get a different writer to do rewrites so as to not spend much money on Lettich, which is where S. N. Warren came in. However, Warren's rewrites (save for the name) were basically curtailed Lettich was hired to do a rewrite and just direct the movie; the result is that Warren, Lettich and Van Damme got credit for the screenplay and the latter got credit for the story; Van Damme also served as fight choreographer for the movie.* The movie was shown as "A.W.O.L.: Absent Without Leave" at the Cannes Film Market in May 1990 and picked up by Universal Studios for later distribution in early 1991. Strangely, the movie was released in France as "Full Contact" (better than the working title of the movie in the first place: "The Wrong Bet"). The movie was a relative success with audiences, following along the line of Van Damme star movies such as Bloodsport (1988) and Cyborg (1989).

Sure, it is a bit of a ridiculous trip down the road (the egregious "ass club" of Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991) has a teammate), but there is something quite endearing about its execution that I can't help but like. You've got an array of fights that for whatever reason go from the mean streets to at one point taking place in a pool. You've got a movie that decides, screw it, you are getting straight-to-the-point drama that can only go the way of a swift kick to, well, you know. It runs on sheer audacity from Lettich and Van Damme to make for a relatively enjoyable time. Having not seen Bloodsport in about six years, I imagine that my reasoning that Lionheart is the better "fighting without the cops knowing" movie (incidentally, both movies have a final fight where the lead must rally from a big injury, whether that involves being unable to see or, well, a bad rib) mainly because this movie actually seems to have some sort of enjoyment beyond being tall tale hokum. It probably helps that the movie is just about a guy trying to make good rather than about revenge (okay maybe it is an "on the run" movie, but at least it is a worthwhile pursuit, though I'm not really sure the Legion looks that good). Sure, it might be easy to compare him to Steven Seagal (both have their own "command" of reality in dialogue), but there is just something about Van Damme and his physicality that goes hand in hand with a sly sense of charm to watch play out against all odds. I think it helps that he isn't thrust into a side dynamic of romance and instead has a pal to engage with in Page (likely best known for the TV show Sledge Hammer!), who is quite a charmer. Unusually, you've got Thompson playing second fiddle to Renard (speaking of TV regulars, a regular on Dallas), which is mostly so you can see the allusion of tension between her and Van Damme that is somewhat cheeky if not entirely routine. The 105-minute runtime is about on point for a movie that arranges several fights with people watching in the distance (notice how the view from the street isn't too different in enthusiasm from the view from a different locale later on) that looks pretty good in brutality and the final fight does manage to evoke some triumph. It is a solidly decent time likely worth checking out if one is already curious about what Van Damme brings to the table in action, that is for sure.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Well, maybe I am being a bit vague about Van Damme being involved with films: apparently Van Damme contributed uncredited editing on Bloodsport [1988] and Cyborg [1989]. 

Blue Steel (1990).

Review #2361: Blue Steel.

Cast: 

Jamie Lee Curtis (Officer Megan Turner), Ron Silver (Eugene Hunt), Clancy Brown (Detective Nick Mann), Elizabeth Peña (Tracy Perez), Louise Fletcher (Shirley Turner), Philip Bosco (Frank Turner), Richard Jenkins (Dawson), Kevin Dunn (Assistant Chief Stanley Hoyt), and Tom Sizemore (Robber) Directed by Kathryn Bigelow (#1258 - K-19: The Widowmaker, #1548 - The Hurt Locker, #1820 - The Loveless, #2188 - Near Dark)

Review: 

"What was interesting to me was kind of a heretical, irreverent look at a particular moment in time. You have this woman who's a police officer. And believe it or not, that was very difficult to get made because the police officer was a woman. I was asked to make her a man, and then we could get financing. I said no, the whole point of making this was that she was a woman. It seems so strange today to think of that as being an obstacle, but it was a big obstacle."

The road for what became Bigelow's third feature film is a tricky one. According to Bigelow, Universal Pictures had tried to develop a movie that would be about gangs in East Harlem that had her interested in writing and directing that had come after Walter Hill had been in the process of setting up a producing deal there around the time of Streets of Fire. Years later, Oliver Stone apparently was interested in doing a project but about South LA gangs...and then he got involved in Salvador and Platoon while she did Near Dark. Long story short, Stone liked that film and was interested in doing whatever she wanted to do next, complete with being producer, and Bigelow sent him, well, the script for Blue Steel, which eventually came around with Stone and Edward Pressman producing. I wonder who exactly came up with what in the script for the film, since Bigelow shares the writing credit with Eric Red; they had previously written Near Dark (1987) together, although Red has apparently labeled the script as basically a "female version of The Hitcher". Apparently, the climax of the film (you know, the gun fight) would've had Curtis nude, but she said no to that, being quoted as saying "Everyone would be watching my breasts flopping around instead of watching the scene." Bigelow in the past was quoted as having an interest in "treading on familiar territory", describing Blue Steel as a "mutation that maybe implies a different genre". The movie was released by MGM in the wake of Vestron Pictures' impending doom as a company, and the movie made a small amount of money while Bigelow next directed with Point Break (1991).

Some reviews of the time compared the movie to Halloween (1978) because of the whole boogeyman thing and having Curtis, I guess, but I don't seem to remember the part in the earlier film where the lead became a cop. But what we do have is a weird movie, one that is entertaining but stupefying in its execution to varying levels of effectiveness that tries to play two different angles: the plight of a (woman) cop that has to come to terms with who they really are when faced with rough surroundings...and also a nut that has an obsession with her and, well, things that lead him to want to shoot again and again. Technically speaking, the movie is kinetically interesting in general action while dragging along at 102 minutes to a conclusion that will befuddle the viewer in its certain positioning (ambiguity or overwrought, you might wonder) while seeming digging new ways to throw itself in melodrama. But how many films do we let certain things fall by the wayside because of our relative enjoyment, anyway? Is it nitpicking to wonder where the line should be drawn with a movie where a robbery takes place but somehow the guy in the front of it thought he saw a knife rather than, well a gun*. But Curtis does hold the film together with a generally tense performance that shows the struggle that arises with her position that only is solid when she essentially plays nice in the box she is constrained to, and that's without even mentioning her interactions with the other side of the coin of someone trapped in the strange world of struggling with their position and place. We the audience know what we know, so if someone can badger her about her method the way they do in one particular scene, imagine how is in an actual active scenario. If you're not with her and her charm that comes through even in the plight around her, then, well, the rest of the film goes down with her, for better or worse. Silver is mostly effective in evoking tension, albeit with a few obvious beats (bad enough he carves names into bullets, does he need to have voices in his head and also spout lines about death?) to go with the newfound power of a gun, which I'm sure could be interpreted in different ways**. The scenes the two share with each other are curious enough to make a worthy enough cat-and-mouse game to a certain point, being more interesting in the start and close rather than the holding down that comes with stretching things out. Brown moseys about with a casual charm, albeit with late usefulness in the long run, since it is more a movie of doubts and moods that might as well be a dreary dream. You don't exactly get much time to spend with Bosco and Fletcher[*] besides the bare minimum that comes with semi-resolved (?) family tension either. By the time the movie moves to its endgame around Wall Street, you have a movie that is frantic enough to possibly override the inevitable quibbles because it has a committed director and star that want to make an entertaining thriller. In a sea of varying effectiveness when it comes to women-leading action movies, Blue Steel is at least a solid enough recommendation to seek out for the ride it goes on in the curiosity about the nature of power and, well, the thrills.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*I don't want to pick all the way to hell, but probably the most ridiculous idea is that our lead comes to her parents, sees a fresh bruise on her mom, arrests her dad but decides in the middle of a conversation with him in the back of the car to just...let him off with a warning to not be who he is anymore. Or something. 

**Something something Freud something something penis. Actually, I wish my memory was a bit better, because I swear it isn't too particularly hard to find a movie about someone finding a gun and deciding to mosey around the city with it. Instead, I keep wondering why I haven't watched Gun Crazy.

[*] Bosco was a Tony Award winning actor for 1989, while Fletcher, well, you know her Academy Award-winning role in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, but for me, her performances as Kai Winn on the massively underrated Star Trek: Deep Space Nine was probably just as cool.

Mo' Better Blues.

Review #2350: Mo' Better Blues.

Cast: 

Denzel Washington (Minifield "Bleek" Gilliam), Spike Lee (Giant), Wesley Snipes (Shadow Henderson), Joie Lee (Indigo Downes), Cynda Williams (Clarke Bentancourt), Giancarlo Esposito (Left Hand Lacey), Bill Nunn (Bottom Hammer), Jeff "Tain" Watts (Rhythm Jones), Dick Anthony Williams (Mr. "Big Stop" Gilliam), Abbey Lincoln (Lillian Gilliam), John Turturro (Moe Flatbush), Nicholas Turturro (Josh Flatbush), Robin Harris (Butterbean Jones), with Samuel L. Jackson (Madlock), Leonard L. Thomas (Rod), and Charlie Murphy (Eggy) Produced, Written, and Directed by Spike Lee  (#1255 - Do the Right Thing, #1543 - Inside Man, #1643 - Malcolm X, #1976 - She's Gotta Have It, #2181 - School Daze)

Review: 

"I always knew I would do a movie about the music. When I say the music, I’m talking about jazz, the music I grew up with. Jazz isn’t the only type of music that I listen to but it’s the music I feel closest to."

Believe it or not, this was the first collaboration between Spike Lee and Denzel Washington on film. 

The inspiration for the movie came from Lee's interest to do a jazz movie with his own perspective after seeing Bertrand Tavernier's 'Round Midnight (1986) and Clint Eastwood's Bird (1988). The script for the film came up when Lee was working on Do the Right Thing (1989), with the first-draft screenplay being written in fifteen days. The fourth feature film directed and written by Lee, the movie was shot in roughly eight weeks with a budget of $10 million. The movie features the music of the Branford Marsalis quartet with Terence Blanchard doing the trumpet, with Delfeayo Marsalis lending assistance to Bill Lee with the producing of the music recordings (this was the last of four films where the Lees worked together, as they soon had a falling out). One isn't actually seeing the actors (most, anyway) playing the instruments, but they sure do a good job looking the part in imitation, which is more than enough. The first of nine movies Lee directed in the 1990s, it was a mild success at the time; the next movie directed by Lee after this one was Jungle Fever (1992).

Overlooked or not, there is something quite soothing about the way the movie flows in looking at the edges that come with trying to work at one's craft at the expense of relationships. It is hard to show maturity and know what one really wants when one could be working on something else, you might say. It is a movie based on mood and energy that is a curious one in basically reflecting its introduction and ending when it comes to parents and their son when it comes to shaping them and making a choice for them (in a movie where the rest of it is comprised of fallout from certain choices made, naturally). There is a crushing pressure one can feel in trying to hold on to themselves and not burn out into the night while also trying to think that everything is totally normal with how they do things within "fundamentals", and that includes one's love life. Undeniably, the sequence involving Washington opposite the two women in bed (at different times, obviously) is the most striking when it comes to misplaced ideas about people. Washington does pretty well with all of that in mind, mainly because he glides from place to place with weary disposition for what he seems to really want in life beyond that smooth facade of confidence (it takes more than talent to be a saint of jazz, shall we say). Basically, he treats the two women (C.Williams and J.Lee, the former making their film debut) in his life like they were items to check out at the store (incidentally, Lee called it a movie specifically about relationships and not a love story). The two women are only seen in that lens but each handle it with clear differences when it comes to timing and, well, allure. The Turturro brothers pop in from time to time to provide a few chuckles in the business interest side (if one ever believed the current times are weird for stereotypes, inquire further about this movie being called "anti-Semitic" and look to now when it comes to how much people like to waste time looking for stereotypes that aren't there). Lee also does pretty well in shaky stature (as one does when finding new ways to play characters in one's own story, which he did for his first nine movies). By the time the movie has its reckoning with certain decisions made in and out of good reason, one has found a pretty good time with the rhythm that the film has accomplished for itself, one filled with worthwhile interest in showing the power of human contact and making one's mind besides drawing it all in the craft. The relationships matter all around us: the music and the people we hold to us and how it matters so much to hold it tight to us as long as we can, which in this sense works out pretty neatly in the long run.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

To Sleep with Anger.

Review #2346: To Sleep with Anger.

Cast: 

Danny Glover (Harry), Paul Butler (Gideon), Mary Alice (Suzie), Carl Lumbly (Junior), Vonetta McGee (Pat), Richard Brooks (Babe Brother), Sheryl Lee Ralph (Linda), DeVaughn Nixon (Sunny), Reina King (Rhonda), and Cory Curtis (Skip) Written and Directed by Charles Burnett (#1975 - Killer of Sheep)

Review: 

"There’s always been this issue of the black middle class’s responsibility to continue to be a force in the black community. One of To Sleep with Anger‘s themes deals with that issue, of the middle class abandoning the rest of the race, deserting the culture and then returning to it. The film is really about connecting the past to the present."

Admittedly, Charles Burnett deserved better as a filmmaker when it comes to actual attention for such a worthwhile debut. Killer of Sheep (1978) had the reputation of a classic for years before actually getting a real release decades later. Burnett's second feature suffered worse: My Brother's Wedding (1983) got screened to a film festival by foolish producers before he could finish editing that scared off distributors when the movie got mediocre reviews. It took until *2007* before the movie could even be re-released to considerable attention. And yet, To Sleep with Anger (1990) had its own fate. The movie apparently came out of the failure of producing a PBS film about irony and tragedy (yes, even the Corporation for Public Broadcasting can be picky with how they want their money spent). Instead, he sought out to do a movie about folklore and "the Black experience"; you have to remember Burnett was raised in Watts as the family moved from Mississippi when he was three years old. According to Burnett, the character played by Glover is based on a folk story called "the Hairy Man", which evidently refers to a part-devil, part African spirit, part-conjure doctor. Made on a budget of $1.1 million for distribution by The Samuel Goldwyn Company...the movie was not a financial success, which Burnett attributed to distribution, stating that it never got shown in more than 18 theaters. Apparently, it did not get a DVD release even as late as 2011, but hey, one can even find a Criterion DVD of this movie nowadays. Burnett's next film would come with The Glass Shield in 1994.

 

Within folklore and slow building curiosity is what happens when one really can just get under one's skin in the strangest ways possible. The 102-minute runtime is palpable enough for tension that wraps around an entire family because certain things really can upset the illusion of stability. Past and present are wrapped in a tug-of-war that should be pretty clear when you see the introduction that has a guy in flames while “Precious Memories" plays in the background. There have been quite a few movies and stories about the perils that come with looking upon tradition versus roots (I'm reminded of the Alice Walker short story "Everyday Use" in that sense), but with this one, family really can be forever in the folk sense. The movie probably benefits best from looking at it unfold its layers with its intriguing ensemble. Butler was more of a stage presence than a regular film actor, but he manages to do well in those moments spent toiling as a patriarch that we can relate to in terms of someone who clearly has something of the old place in their ways, which goes just as much for Alice and her carefully stated homespun charm. Glover's character basically has the shadow of the Devil around him with that worthwhile charm that manages to do so much or a movie that grounds itself in what you can and can't see around its odd atmosphere (admittedly, the high-rolling friends that arrive in the shadow of Glover that never leave will be pretty relatable for some in more ways than one). He is the stirring of the part of the soul that we think we have buried down there. It proves pretty clear with the simmering animosity one sees between Lumbly and Brooks (the latter is the youngest son, which naturally leads to the nickname "Babe") when it comes to how one approaches tasks in the family that are totally real to see play out because of the commitment on screen. The simmering discontent between a family that is more tightly wound than tightly knit before the arrival of a certain harry presence makes for a neat enough conclusion in playing things out to the crispest joke of them all in togetherness and resilience. As a whole, the tapestry of a family can wither or grow depending on how one sees the face of superstitions and things around them, and To Sleep with Anger makes for a fairly clever broiler with plenty of charms to go around.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Child's Play 2.

Review #2287: Child's Play 2.

Cast: 

Alex Vincent (Andy Barclay), Brad Dourif (the voice of Chucky), Christine Elise (Kyle), Jenny Agutter (Joanne Simpson), Gerrit Graham (Phil Simpson), Grace Zabriskie (Grace Poole), Peter Haskell (Haskell Sullivan), Beth Grant (Elizabeth Kettlewell), and Greg Germann (Mattson) Directed by John Lafia.

Review: 

Honestly, I forgot about Chucky. If you remember, the original film came out in 1988 as inspired by the experiences of Don Mancini involving consumer demand for the Cabbage Patch Kids while he was studying film at UCLA. The resulting film had clear influence from stuff such as the TV film Trilogy of Terror, The Twilight Zone, A Nightmare on Elm Street, among others. Of course, it wasn't all Mancini, because there were key re-writes done that resulted in Tom Holland and John Lafia given credit for the screenplay alongside Mancini. Holland was the one who had it involve a doll possessed by a serial killer involving voodoo, as opposed to Mancini's doll manifesting "the id", while Lafia stated his biggest contribution was the backstory of the killer-turned-doll and the name Chucky (inquire further). The eventual result was a hit with audiences that obviously necessitated a sequel. Lafia, the previous director of exactly one film with The Blue Iguana (1988), was chosen to direct (as it turned out, it was the second of three theatrical films he did to go along with work in TV, music, and even the live-action aspects of the video game Corpse Killer prior to his suicide in 2020). The second film was successful enough with audiences to inspire, well, you already know. A third film was rushed out into theaters nine months after the release of the second film with Mancini returning to write (with Jack Bender being tapped to direct) and Dourif being the long returning actor (Justin Whalin replaced Alex Vincent to play an older Andy).

Admittedly, it doesn't have as much staying power that the original had when it comes to sheer audacity in its premise of a killer with the perfect timing to wreak havoc in a particular family atmosphere. But it is solid enough to at least work in some useful enough slasher thrills without straining too much in credibility to work out for those who know what they're getting into. For better or worse, the movie sidesteps the two key adults from the last film (Chris Sarandon and Catherine Hicks), instead focusing right on Vincent and a plot that mostly involves "Chucky did it" after one gets the setup to bringing back the once-burned, multiple-timed shot threat back with a somewhat amusing method: public relations and an electric power surge. I suppose someone must've dozed off watching a Frankenstein movie or two in their days, but there is one more caveat at least: Chucky either needs to get moving on doing his voodoo ritual (which if one remembers has to be done on Andy) or he'll be stuck in the doll forever. The acting is serviceable for what is needed in getting a solid body count setup without being too dull for words, complete with Dourif (whose dialogue was recorded in advance, unlike the first film) being just as effective as he was before when it comes to further craven desires of escape at any cost (Ed Gale does a few moments with in-suit stunt performing as before). Vincent is no slouch for his age of course, because he makes the plight of the once-and-future doll survivor work in worthwhile sympathy and curiosity for the rough surroundings that befall him, with only the offbeat Elise around for useful rapport. Agutter and Graham are fine, but let's face it, the most interesting moment is seeing what happens with skepticism going down the gutter to (film) reality. The slasher sequences carry the movie right through 84 minutes in swift dealing to go along with a climax in a bewitching enough warehouse and a fitting closing that just lets the film end on its own wayward path. Child's Play 2 is a decent enough sequel with a few interesting slasher moments to prove worthwhile in the attempt at making a killer doll return something worth being curious about.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Tremors (1990).

Review #2286: Tremors (1990).

Cast: 

Kevin Bacon (Val McKee), Fred Ward (Earl Bassett), Finn Carter (Rhonda LeBeck), Michael Gross (Burt Gummer), Reba McEntire (Heather Gummer), Bobby Jacoby (Melvin Plug), Charlotte Stewart (Nancy Sterngood), Ariana Richards (Mindy Sterngood), Tony Genaro (Miguel), Richard Marcus (Nestor Cunningham), Víctor Wong (Walter Chang), and Bibi Besch (Megan Wallace) Directed by Ron Underwood (#808 - City Slickers and #1930 - The Adventures of Pluto Nash)

Review: 

I'm surprised that I hadn't encountered Tremors before, but then again you never know how many monster comedies will come your way in the horror season. The original idea for the film came from S. S. Wilson and Brent Maddock, a writing duo that had first met when studying at the University of Southern California. After years of doing shorts, the two had their big break in writing and selling what became Short Circuit (1986), complete with a subsequent sequel in 1988. They wanted to break into producing alongside writing, and one idea that their agent Nancy Roberts liked involved inspiration from days spent hiking on a Navy base and wondering what would happen if there was something under a rock that meant they couldn't get off. They worked with Ron Underwood on outlining it in considerable detail before going through the trudge of trying to sell their script, which slowly but surely ended up with distribution by Universal Pictures. This was the debut feature film for Underwood (also a USC attendee), who had worked for several years in a variety of positions for films and TV, such as an adaptation of "The Mouse and the Motorcycle". The screenplay (as originally known as "Beneath Perfection") was originally finished in 1988 and the movie was shot over the course of nearly two months in 1989. The end result was a mild success (being released in January 1990 after all) with audiences that ended up spawning a certain kind of audience curiosity in six further Tremors films (1996, 2001, 2004, 2015, 2018, 2020), with Wilson and Maddock being involved in the first three sequels (complete with each directing a film); Michael Gross appeared in each one of the films, which had varying levels of success on home video. There also was a television series that briefly ran in 2003 that had involvement from Wilson and Maddock.

Well, you do get your monster worm with tentacles, with a mix of those effects being through puppets and wire (Tom Woodruff Jr and Alec Gillis were behind the creature design). People that had fun with say, Piranha (1978), will have a ball with this film for 96 minutes (well, they both involve shark-like monsters). This is mostly because it manages to generate plenty of warmth in its harkening back to some of the familiar beats of the old creature feature without having the aura of being beneath it. One doesn't have a weak link among the actors when it comes to commitment of timing to go with a quality creature look (referred to as "Graboids") to fulfill the basic needs one would like from a horror movie that likes to have a chuckle with its viewer. Bacon and Ward make for quite a fun pair to lead the way that one would almost assume they were playing brothers (interestingly enough, it took a while for Bacon to warm to the film beyond calling it one done for the money) with how they pair off each other in shades of the everyman. It probably works best that Carter just rolls along with only some of the cliches that come with science babble or in monster-peddling, mostly because the film elects to just let the monster origin just go by the wayside (the studio actually wanted an explanation for the monsters and even compelled the filmmakers to do a scene; the scene, involving earthquakes and a dead coyote, did not fare well in testing and was deleted). Gross and McEntire (a debut performance for the noted singer) makes for quite the pairing in offbeat enjoyment to round out the general curiosity. You don't get too many desert-bound horror movies, but this one makes the best of it in maintaining curiosity for its apparent threat and why we grow to care about what happens around this small town, regardless of how the body count goes. Cheesy with pride and clearly committed, Tremors is a delight for all who enter its range of curiosity.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III.

Review #2262: Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III.

Cast: 

Kate Hodge (Michelle), William Butler (Ryan), Ken Foree (Benny), Toni Hudson (Sara), Viggo Mortensen (Edward "Tex" Sawyer), Joe Unger (Tinker "Tink" Sawyer), R. A. Mihailoff (Leatherface), Tom Everett (Alfredo Sawyer), Jennifer Banko (Little girl), Beth DePatie (Gina), and Duane Whitaker (Kim) Directed by Jeff Burr (#1104 - Stepfather II)

Review: 

You know, the idea of making another Texas Chainsaw Massacre film didn't make me roll my eyes like I thought it would, even with the first film officially turning 50 years old this month. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (1986) was a decent audience favorite in the annals of "made some money". Sure, some people hated it (a horror sequel that the establishment can't get behind? waiter, this dish is cold!), but the eyes of a cult following always wins out, and I sure liked it just fine. Anyway, The Cannon Group had the rights to the series purchased by New Line Cinema, who naturally thought of wanting to do their own Chainsaw movie. The film was written by David J. Schow, who is mostly known for his horror fiction, which is sometimes labeled as "splatterpunk". He wrote a handful of screenplays for film (direct-to-video and features) along with TV; interestingly, he would go on to co-write the screenplay for The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning (2006). Jeff Burr was brought in to direct after ideas of asking Tom Savini and Peter Jackson failed (Jonathan Betuel also came in and out) before they went with Burr. Burr made roughly over two dozen features (some for video) that were generally in horror (with few exceptions such as Eddie Presley [1992]) prior to his death in 2023 at the age of 60. The movie was quickly shot in the summer of 1989 and was shot in California of all places. The rating of the film was meant to be an R but take a guess at how it worked out with the MPAA; the original rating was an "X" before several minutes were cut from it (remember that the last one had been released unrated), particularly with the ending that basically saw the negative cut right then and there before a release not in the fall of 1989...but in January 1990. They apparently fired Burr and then re-hired him (and then they let him go after production ended to help edit a new ending, thanks to Michael Knue). The middling audience reaction led to New Line ditching the rights, but the next in the series would come out with even less fanfare in The Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1995).

What? I was fine with this movie. Honestly, this was pretty surprising. Sure, it may not be as horrific as the original feature or as darkly glee as the second feature, but I thought it was suitably entertaining in the same way that one is seeing a wind-up toy refined for enjoyment. It is familiar and semi-glossy without making me think of it as a huge sellout because the characters are semi-compelling. It is familiar goop involving the dangers of, well, picking up a conversation with people on the backroads in Texas that I can accept. When talking about the film and its troubles with the MPAA, one statement included by Burr (whether by them or him) is that the films "all revolve around an alternate family unit who does not have any conventional morality." Really the films all seem to play around with different perspectives on the same idea of loopy people who just do whatever they please, which here is cut and dry when talking about a creepy child or Leatherface spelling "f-o-o-d" with a learning tool. To introduce the film when it comes to the travel is Hodge and Butler, who may be ordinary, but they at least are useful lambs to the eventual terror. Undeniably, the highlight is Foree. The power of Foree is that a test screening liking him so much ended up influencing a decision to edit the film (without the knowledge of Burr) so that his character doesn't die at the end (evidently the last shot wasn't exactly the choice of Burr either). Playing a survivalist who just happens to hit the backroads only to encounter weirdos is a useful task for a character actor to chew on, so points to Foree there. Evertt and Unger, and (in particular) Mortensen, are weird enough on their own to fit the standard set from before with goofy abandon. The mask for its title character may not be as ideal in grim quality as before, but the character is one driven by seemingly seeing everything as food that I find to be a strangely curious one to view as a pitiful creature (pity, no pity, you get the idea). Regardless of how the film would've been in a different moment where the loser MPAA didn't get in the way of its violence or with someone not as weird in franchising as New Line, I found this to be a solidly average movie (the 85-minute runtime is short as well). It is not better than the two films that preceded it, but it did not offend my tastes or expectations when it comes to making a play on familiar aspects with loopy flair. There is enough for me to like to actually say one should at least give it a shot when it comes to saw action.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Frankenstein looms.

The Adventures of Ford Fairlane.

Review #2163: The Adventures of Ford Fairlane.

Cast: 

Andrew Dice Clay (Ford Fairlane), Wayne Newton (Julian Grendel), Priscilla Presley (Colleen Sutton), Lauren Holly (Jazz), Brandon Call (The Kid), Maddie Corman (Zuzu Petals), David Patrick Kelly (Sam the Sleaze Bag), Morris Day (Don Cleveland), Robert Englund (Smiley), Ed O'Neill (Lt. Amos), Gilbert Gottfried (Johnny Crunch), and Vince Neil (Bobby Black) Directed by Renny Harlin (#016 - Die Hard 2, #670 - Cliffhanger, #745 - A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master)

Review: 

"I just really commit to what I do as a performer. It's not about being misunderstood, I think my career took off at a time when the world was changing a lot. Women were really fighting for their rights, gays were coming out of the closet, so I was like a lightning rod for every group looking for publicity. And that's what really caused a lot of craziness in my life." - Andrew Dice Clay

Oh hell, I knew this was coming. When it comes to hearing about films with dubious reputations, one of the films that popped up every so often was this one, and perhaps for good reason. This was the first and perhaps only starring role for the one and only Andrew Dice Clay. Clay (who used his middle name for his stage name as opposed to "Silverstein") was born in Brooklyn and found a talent in entertaining from a young age.  He was actually a drummer when it came to entertaining as a teen before deciding to become a comedian, which saw him cite people such as Elvis Presley and Sylvester Stallone as influences. He went from impressions to a moniker known as, well, the "Diceman". This persona was known for his brash and raunchy sense of self (such as say, a performance at Rodney Dangerfield's club) that garnered attention and controversy. Raunchy nursery rhymes got him banned from MTV, for example. He did a handful of films and television during this time, most notably with supporting roles in Casual Sex? (1988) and Crime Story. Eventually he got his own HBO special, and it led to his own film here, which came in the wake of selling out Madison Square Garden in back-to-back nights. The film was based on characters as created by Rex Weiner, who had written a handful of stories published in serial form for New York Rocker and the LA Weekly. David Arnott, James Cappe, and Daniel Waters (remember Heathers? Or Hudson Hawk, which I should get back to someday...?) helped to write the film (evidently an early script exists here). Amidst all the fanfare and whatever you want to call controversy, the film was not a major hit with audiences. One year later, the concert film Dice Lives was released to little fanfare that comes from a NC-17 rating and a decision by Fox to not distribute the film because of their attempts to try and position Clay away from that aforementioned Diceman persona. He may never have become a big film presence, but Clay still plugs away at the comedy routine (older stuff had, well, nursery rhymes) with occasional appearances in film (A Star is Born (2018), for example). This film was directed by Renny Harlin, who was pretty busy as a director, because this film came out exactly one week after the release of his other effort for Fox in Die Hard 2, which apparently happened because Fox pushed the release date back (according to Waters, it was supposed to come out in May of 1990, as opposed to July, "to build Dice awareness…big mistake!" There probably is even more for one to discover about the film as a curiosity in the audio sense).

Do you yearn to know what lies beneath a film that name drops Art Mooney for a plot point to go with Clay narrating every now and then straight out of a silly noir and a koala puppet for some reason?  There is something there in this strange hodgepodge of a performance from Clay. Sure, the chunk of that is filled with obscenities, but I think it actually works out in his favor with such a loopy film that favors every tawdry cliche in the book. It is kind of amusing to watch this goof play around with clubs and chicks like they were clothes off the rack with a "playing hard to want" confidence. Outdated? Maybe, but it is that kind of outdatedness that seems strangely in-date when it comes to loud blowhards and even louder sense of self that reminds one of Elvis in the weirdest of ways (is it a coincidence that there is a Presley cast in the film?). His crudeness and reaction to some of his own one-liners amuse me in that weird way, what can I say? If anything, it should be even more over-the-top just to bash it over your head. Listening to a selection of material of Clay makes me realize that, well, some people really do just not know what "schtick" is (sure, there are things offensive to not let stick in conversation or in society, so good luck enforcing that beyond "mean words"). Shocking folks can't stay fresh forever, but good ol' ridiculous ideas in trying to make certain folks work as stars can never die out, you might say. Holly plays the "under-looked assistant presence" that you've seen in a few detective-schlock, but she is game for the whole thing in patience (to a point), so that works out. Same with Corman in goofball antics. You know, I'm actually not surprised to see Newton as the main threat, because he was actually pretty conniving in License to Kill (1989). There is some sort of hokum with the ranging plot about "the industry", but it is serviceable as a counter to Clay in the idea of silly dumb noirs, particularly since he basically stumbles and fumbles around more than anything. Gottfried is actually under-utilized here, which is amusing in context because Howard Stern was considered for this small role, and I can say that Gottfried's ribbing of Clay is desperately needed more in the film, particularly since his final scene is him acting out getting electrocuted. I think any film that gives O'Neill and Englund time to be silly (one gets to sing terribly and the other gets to be goofily creepy) is at least worth spending a few brain cells with - I play favorites, what can I say? As a whole, the movie isn't exactly the kind of thing you can hang as the great underrated classic or something that needed a boatload of sequels, but I would at least say the quality was better than one would have you to believe, particularly for those with the patience to sit through a grab-bag of corny lines and cliches. It is a vanity project that is a lightning rod for people who didn't like who Clay was as a comedian or found something odd in the idea of trying to make him a presence in films. Three decades later, in a climate filled with even more attempts at vanity projects and varying levels of schtick from comedians (real or imagined), I would say this is at the very least a decent one to check out. Maybe not "cult classic", but "fine" works out just the same.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Night of the Living Dead (1990).

Review #2138: Night of the Living Dead.

Cast: 

Tony Todd (Ben), Patricia Tallman (Barbara Todd), Tom Towles (Harry Cooper), McKee Anderson (Helen Cooper), William Butler (Tom Bitner), Katie Finneran (Judy Rose Larson), Bill Moseley (Johnny Todd), Heather Mazur (Sarah Cooper), and Russell Streiner (Sheriff McClelland) Directed by Tom Savini.

Review: 

If you remember, George A. Romero and John Russo wrote a film called Night of the Living Dead in 1968. Russo was the one who came up with the idea to make a narrative about a runaway that sees aliens harvesting corpses for food in a cemetery that Romero combined with ideas of a flesh-eating ghoul and some stuff "inspired" by Richard Matheson's book I Am Legend (1954). When the original intended title of "Night of the Flesh Eaters" was changed to what you see today, the copyright notice was accidentally removed. The Dead series went two ways: Romero did his first follow-up with Dawn of the Dead in 1978 while Russo wrote a novel called Return of the Living Dead in the late 1970s that got turned into its own film in 1985. Anyway, Romero wanted to make a remake of the film in part because of the worry that someone else might do one first because of the lack of copyrights and such; a five-year battle had been spent in lawsuits with Continental Releasing that saw them get the rights but little money because the company had gone out of business. The fact that he was approached by Menahem Golan of the 21st Century Film Corporation made it all too easy, and he is credited as the sole screenplay writer (as based on the 1968 film by Romero and Russo) alongside executive producer while Russo served as a producer with original producer Russell Streiner. The film was the first (and so far, only) theatrical effort by Tom Savini, who had thought about being the one for effects work for this film but was instead drawn to serve as director (his previous experience in that field was episodes of Tales from the Darkside). Calling it an apparent nightmare where the producers only let less than half of his ideas come through (combined with cuts made to avoid an X rating), the result was a minor flop with audiences. Nine years after the release of this film, Russo came up with his own revised version of the 1968 film and called it the "30th Anniversary Edition" that saw a handful of new scenes to try and give a "more modern pace." 

The movie follows the original for a good deal of its beats, whether that involves the opening sequence of the cemetery that leads to a character dying at the hands of falling onto a gravestone, the confrontation in trying to get a car running with a fiery end, and a character being "another one for the fire." There are a handful of differences, with probably the easiest being the fact that the character of Barbara is given something to actually do in this one after the graveyard sequence. Granted, there were interpretations that called the original some sort of subversive film within 1960s society. Sure. I think that is people just trying to dance around just not saying "oh look, zombie film, what a fun one". The splatter film had its innovators, and Romero is right there at the forefront that made it great exploitation. The remake doesn't exactly improve on anything done, but I was fine with the overall result because its familiarity works to the advantage of being something I like to see rather than just loud noise. Todd asserts a confident presence just as much as one had seen with Duane Jones twenty years prior, even if the conflict between him and Towles is probably more hotheaded than before to moderate results. Tallman fares better because there is more reason portrayed here (look, if you want catatonic, Judith O'Dea did exactly what was to do back then) that gets to go through the wringer with weary timing that gets to handle the climax with useful results. The effects were meant to not be overblown in gore (so as to respect the original), which basically means one gets stuff that was inspired by such events like an autopsy or death camp footage that works about on the level one would hope for 1990. The 88-minute runtime is slightly shorter than the original film that may or may not be as cynical as the original depending on how you interpret the ones who stand in the presence of hunting the undead that didn't get killed in the first days. As a whole, it stands firmly in the middle: it doesn't do anything great with this familiar material, but as a remake that managed to be moderately entertaining (and a cash grab attempt for Romero and company), one can't go wrong here with a decent time here.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next: Sisters.

Tales from the Darkside: The Movie.

Review #2129: Tales from the Darkside: The Movie.

Cast: 

Wraparound segment: Deborah Harry (Betty) and Matthew Lawrence (Timmy)

"Lot 249" segment: Steve Buscemi (Edward Bellingham), Julianne Moore (Susan Smith), Christian Slater (Andy Smith), Robert Sedgwick (Lee), Donald Van Horn (Moving Man), and Michael Deak (The Mummy)

"Cat from Hell" segment: William Hickey (Drogan), David Johansen (Halston), Paul Greeno (The Cabbie), Alice Drummond (Carolyn), and Dolores Sutton (Amanda)

"Lover's Vow" segment: James Remar (Preston), Rae Dawn Chong (Carola), Robert Klein (Wyatt), Ashton Wise (Jer), and Philip Lenkowsky (Maddox) Directed by John Harrison.

Review: 

Well, when you have a good film going for you, why not do a television series? The success of Creepshow in 1982 led to the creation of Tales from the Darkside with a pilot (as written by show creator George A. Romero) in 1983 and a syndication run that started the following year, which ran until 1988 in displaying stories of sci-fi or fantasy that adapted various authors such as Stephen King or Harlan Ellison to go with narration, that, well, "Man lives in the sunlit world of what he believes to be reality. But ... there is, unseen by most, an underworld ... a place that is just as real, but not as brightly lit. A darkside." I went on a lark and watched the DVD boxset of the series roughly four years ago. It was...decent if not very wavering in quality, but somehow, I found myself comparing it to the other show that followed the lead of EC Comics in Tales from the Crypt, which started its run on television almost immediately after the end of Darkside. Perhaps it makes perfect sense that the show's success would inspire a feature film in 1990. This was the feature film debut for director John Harrison, who had started in film as a first assistant director on Creepshow (1982), which he also composed the music for. He also wrote and directed a handful of episodes on Darkside. Richard P. Rubinstein (who also produced Creepshow) and Mitchell Galin (who produced with Rubinstein the Darkside spinoff Monsters) produced the film.

Oh, but what anthology isn't worth mentioning unless it has a framing device? The wraparound (taking up eleven of the 93 minute film) is a suburban housewife...and modern-day witch preparing a dish made of a kid she has locked up in her house, but the kid tries to stall by reading three stories from, well, "Tales from the Darkside". Needless to say that the story goes better than it does for the main characters of the real three stories, although I could do without the 4th wall moment at the end. "Lot 249" (28 minutes) is based on a short story by Arthur Conan Doyle first published in 1892 that saw Michael McDowell (a novellist and also most notably the writer of Beetlejuice) serve as screenwriter. The ending of the story is the most changed from the original and likely for the better, since it involves more than just being on the run. Besides, the story wisely lets the one we like the most mostly off without a hitch. Buscemi makes a suitable presence to strike revenge upon such confident jerks that come with Slater (a moderately convincing goof), Moore (this was her film debut), and Sedgwick. The mummy stuff is decent for a yarn, but yeah, go with gore. "Cat from Hell" (23 minutes) is based on a 1977 short story of the same name by Stephen King with Romero as screenwriter. The premise is as such: a man hires a hitman to kill a cat that apparently led to the deaths of three people. A good chunk is spent on telling said story of the cat, but it is at least spent with a darkly amusing Hickey, talking about a cat that seems like an assassin due to the nature of his work (drugs affecting poor little black cats). Besides, the conclusion of what happens when cat meets the mouth is a nice and grisly conclusion to see play out. "Lover's Vow" (29 minutes) is based on the Japanese folk story "Yuki-Onna", as originated by Lafcadio Hearn, which you may recognize because that story was adapted into Kwaidan; McDowell wrote this story with gargoyles taking the helm, in this case one that happens to strike on a bunch of drunks that have an artist survive and swear his life on not telling what happened. Remar is at least where on expects him to be when it comes to being good for middle material, which contrasts against the bare minimum of mystery provided by Chong for a story that, well, can only go one way, I guess. It's a decent story but somehow it feels lacking in that build to the inevitable, although the final moment is at least somewhat poignant. As a whole, the film is basically about on par with the show that it arose from: halfway entertaining if not exactly a great successor to Creepshow. It is basically a notch above Twilight Zone: The Movie (1983), to put it bluntly. The stories are decently handled with a few recognizable names, but one would be hard-pressed to say just which story is the real showstopper when it comes to such varying tones. It has a few fun moments for being an ordinary anthology that would probably fit just fine in the latter recommendations for any October, so take that for what it's worth.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next: A John Carpenter film - 25 years later!

Frankenhooker.

Review #2115: Frankenhooker.

Cast: 

James Lorinz (Jeffrey Franken), Patty Mullen (Elizabeth Shelley/Frankenhooker), Joanne Ritchie (Mrs. Shelley), Paul-Felix Montez (Goldie), Joseph Gonzalez (Zorro the Pimp), J.J. Clark (Mr. Shelley), Gregory Martin (Rufus McClure), Carissa Channing (Dolores), and Louise Lasser (Mrs. Franken) Directed by Frank Henenlotter.

Review: 

"This was never meant to be a horror film."

I know, the title is interesting. But how many Frankenstein-inspired movies can you do before you want to do something a bit different? Sometimes you need something that feels crafted out of the back of a joke premise or a perhaps an old sleazy advertisement. The director of this film is Frank Henenlotter, who was born in New York City. He saw a variety of films in his upbringing before he decided to make his own 8mm films with Valley of the Zombies (1946), The Wolf Man (1941) The Tingler (1959). He made his first short (16mm) in 1972 with "Slash of the Knife" (he described it as a "phony sex hygiene film" that was apparently too much to show right before a re-release of Pink Flamingos). He met a producer when doing that film that inspired them to try and do a longer film together. The first attempt did not work, but Henenlotter went back and wrote a script for one that could be done cheaper, which he did when walking around Times Square (which he called a "seedy, wonderful atmosphere".). The eventual result (filmed in 16mm but blown up to better quality later) was Basket Case (1982). The film played as a midnight movie for several years, and Henenlotter would direct again with Brain Damage (1988) and a 1990 sequel to the aforementioned Case, which was filmed back-to-back with this film at New York City's Pier 40. Henenlotter has since directed two further films and a couple of documentaries. Apparently, Henenlotter came up with a basic story in improvisation at a pitch meeting and then had to craft a real script later. This film was written by Henenlotter and Robert "Bob" Martin (the latter had met him when it came to a novelization of one of his films and had originally served as the editor of Fangoria magazine). As one might see coming, it was distributed by a company you probably wouldn't know in Shapiro-Glickenhaus Entertainment (so yes, there was enough money for a few pyrotechnics). The producer is the same guy behind stuff such as trying to form a version of The Protector (1985) that would make Americans want to watch Jackie Chan as a star. The film was released unrated, after the MPAA (jokingly or not) wanted to give it a rating of "S..for shit" and then an "X". An R-rated version was crafted for the market as well that apparently had one trim involve one less exploding body.

This is the movie that Bill Murray once talked about by saying, "If you see one movie this year, it should be Frankenhooker." How can I disagree with that? The film is everything you might see coming from a cheap b-movie with a provocative title that has an interest in diving right into guts and sleaze. You will get cheap chuckles to go along with, well, eyes to see skin for gore and elsewhere. This is the kind of film you would expect to be crafted of bits and pieces to make dark humor out of the idea of trying to hack one's love back to the living while also thinking they need a drill in the head. It may be spinning one funny joke to the ground, but it is doing so with evident amusement that doesn't shy away from crafting desperation for enjoyment in its 84-minute runtime. As expected from a low-budget production, there is just one noted name (well, for 1990) in a model-turned-actress Mullen to go with a cast headlined by Lorinz and his various appearances in other smaller scale films. But they make a good effort here, with the latter being our focus that achieves that level of deluded sweetness that doesn't seem like a bland pastiche of any Frankensteins you may have seen before. Mullen comes through for that climatic moment around the hour mark (after the opening shears her off) in purple attire and a particular expression of dialogue and face-turning. It is pretty entertaining when it comes to creatures of nature that happen to electrocute people for some reason. Gonzalez is this film's idea of an adversary (a pimp that happens to deal crack that the lead character uses to make into "super crack" and yes, I am serious), and while he isn't particularly too involved, it's still nice to see him take his licks as a heavy. Of note is Lasser, used for one scene against Lorinz about "lingering sanity" that apparently needed cue cards and ADR due to sickness. While I know the film is technically aimed as a comedy, it is a ghoulish kind of comedy that fits for the macabre in sheer energy that is seen in the hunt for body parts that could only lead to prostitutes and exploding parts of non-blood. That sequence of exploding hookers is one where you know it is coming and yet it still is quite amusing to see play out in sheer energy (the whole examination leading to that moment is also damn silly). The ending is especially amusing in horrific shock, since, well, it involves both an array of body parts coming out to move around but also an ending for the couple that could only happen when one wants to close it out with a punchline. As a whole, I dug the film for its effective pacing of the pursuit of grime and guts that manages to entertain with its own take on Frankenstein that is comfortably consistent for those who enjoy films from the wilder side of the street. Hell, I like stuff like this, an 8 is appropriate for such an offbeat experience.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Vincent Price as God intended in Theatre of Blood.