The Company of Wolves.

Review #2613: The Company of Wolves.

Cast:

Sarah Patterson (Rosaleen), Angela Lansbury (Granny), David Warner (Father), Tusse Silberg (Mother), Micha Bergese (Huntsman), Brian Glover (Amorous Boy's father), Graham Crowden (Old Priest), Kathryn Pogson (Young Bride), Stephen Rea (Young Groom), Georgia Slowe (Alice, Girl Killed by Wolves), Susan Porrett (Amorous Boy's mother), Shane Johnstone (Amorous Boy), Dawn Archibald (Witch Woman), Richard Morant (Wealthy Groom), with Danielle Dax (Wolfgirl), Jim Carter (Second Husband), and Terence Stamp (The Devil) Directed by Neil Jordan.

Review: 

"In a normal film you have a story with different movements that program, develop, go a little bit off the trunk, come back, and end. In this film, the different movements of the plot are actually separate stories. You start with an introduction and then move into different stories that relate to the main theme, all building to the fairy tale that everybody knows. The opening element of the dreamer gave us the freedom to move from story to story."

I figured that with all of the ideas around for anthology horror movies, what about ones that happened to stray a different path? In 1979, there was a collection of short stories published called The Bloody Chamber that had been written by Angela Carter. Among the ten stories included "The Company of Wolves"'. These were stories in which Carter aimed to "extract the latent content from the traditional stories", as opposed to what others might call adult renditions of fairy tales (such as "Bluebeard", Beauty and the Beast, and in the case of Wolves, "Little Red Riding Hood". This was only the second movie for Neil Jordan, who had studied literature and history before becoming involved in student theatre and later television in his native Ireland. He met Carter at a writer's conference, and she wanted to do a screen version of one of her stories rather than, say, a 30-minute thing for a TV company. Jordan later stated that to him, the film is a "fairy tale" while challenging the notion that it had to belong to any category of horror, fantasy, or as a children's film. With shooting in England that dealt with heightened sense of reality in mind (per Jordan's ideas) from production designer Anton Furst to go against a limited budget, most of what was desired came across on screen, save for the ending, where they wanted akin to diving onto a floor rather than, well, what you get with wolves and screams. Chris Tucker (of The Elephant Man fame) was behind the effects behind the wolf transformation scenes (most of the wolves used were actually dyed dogs). Carter was involved in one further adaptation with The Magic Toyshop in 1987 for cinemas/television prior to her death in 1992 at the age of 51; both of her screenplays were included in the collection The Curious Room.

Oh sure, "fantasy-horror" is one thing, but having a structure akin to a Chinese box (one box fitting within the next) is fascinating enough here for at least one check within its 95 minute runtimee. So, what are those embedded stories? Well, they come around as someone dreams from their country house about being in an old village with a forest that revolve around a few tales of a young groom with a unibrow (yes, yes, "eyebrows that meet", granny could only know so much) that has a call of nature to see him go away for a time, another involves a unibrow man that encounters a dark-suited man in a car (with one neat cameo) with a potion to offer, another story offers a woman appearing at a wedding party to put wrong to right (devastating fun), and the last tale involves a she-wolf who gets shot and bandaged before going back into the night. And in the midst of that, you get to see some time with Lansbury playing a superstitious grandmother for a good chunk of time. It's a macabre tale that some will probably read with "Freud" on the mind (who among us sees wolves in a sensual matter? well, I don't say that, but...) while others like me have a chuckle at the tales provided in offbeat charm. Patterson accompanied a friend to an audition and wound up being cast. Her vulnerability in the face of development of growing up and looking at the world as one to actually be involved in beyond seeing things as either made of snips (and sails & puppy dog tails) or sugar (and spice & everything nice).  It isn't a movie for going along with the narrative in a straight line, but the horrors of growing up and seeing the world around you for what it really, madly, truly, deeply, looks like. You look at the movie and feel entrapped in a dream that is worth seeing all the way through for what comes in and out in reading the film besides the head-rolling, wolf-splashing time seen here. Horror, fantasy, fairy tale(s), it's a good time for the season.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*This is like when people discuss if Peeping Tom was actually a horror movie - stop lying to yourself! This is almost as annoying as those who don't like too much gore in their horror movies.

The Manchurian Candidate (1962).

Review #985: The Manchurian Candidate.

Cast:
Frank Sinatra (Maj. Bennett Marco), Laurence Harvey (Raymond Shaw), Angela Lansbury (Mrs. Iselin), Janet Leigh (Eugenie Rose Chaney), Henry Silva (Chunjin), James Gregory (Sen. John Yerkes Iselin), Leslie Parrish (Jocelyn Jordan), John McGiver (Sen. Thomas Jordan), Khigh Dheigh (Dr. Yen Lo), and James Edwards (Cpl. Allen Melvin) Directed by John Frankenheimer (#559 - Grand Prix)

Review:
This film is often billed as a neo-noir along with being called a suspense thriller, and while I'd argue the latter label applies more than the other, I can't deny the quality of the film, which is tremendous. It manages to be a cohesive thriller due to how it utilizes its cast. Each of the main cast members shine in the roles that they play, from Sinatra and his capable heroism to Lansbury and her cold calculative nature. Leigh isn't as big of a standout, but she does certainly contrast with the weirdness of the characters that form the story. Dheigh doesn't have much screen-time, but he does a fine job in an adversarial role. But it is Harvey and how he portrays this complex character that truly stands out. His scenes about how "unlovable" he is particularly a good standout in understanding the nature of his character, where he isn't merely an unlikable dupe. His moments in the film with Parrish and McGiver aren't too long, but they contrast perfectly in comparison with his scenes opposite Lansbury and Gregory, and those scenes certainly do lend to an emotional payoff, for better or for worse. Speaking of which, Lansbury and Gregory are also finely cast, with one of my favorite scenes being their exchange over the latter needing a more memorable number to use in his speeches. There are numerous parts of the film that serve as fine highlights (such as Harvey jumping into a lake with Sinatra watching), but I think the scene with Harvey and his men is a particular good one in how it executes itself with a fine sense of cleverness even with a premise as odd as brainwashing (or the motives) seems. This is a film that manages to lure you in with suspense without being too obvious about it along with taking its time, with a riveting climax to boot. On the whole, this is a fine feature that has enough from its cast and its style of telling its story with thrills.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Beauty and the Beast (1991).

Review #891: Beauty and the Beast.

Cast:
Paige O'Hara (Belle), Robby Benson (The Prince/Beast), Richard White (Gaston), Jerry Orbach (Lumière), David Ogden Stiers (Cogsworth), Angela Lansbury (Mrs. Potts), Bradley Pierce (Chip), Rex Everhart (Maurice), Jesse Corti (LeFou), Hal Smith (Philippe), and Jo Anne Worley (the Wardrobe) Directed by Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise.

Review:
What is there to say about Beauty and the Beast that countless others haven't said over the past 25 years since it was released? Especially from someone who had never seen it before? I'll try to keep my words around the usual level of babbling for a movie like this. In any case, it's easy to like Beauty and the Beast. It's also easy to love it. Why is it so easy? Maybe it's the gorgeous animation, or maybe it's the wonderful songs, or maybe it's the characters that give the movie its depth. There is a certain kind of grace the film has, from the opening scene narrating the tale of the Prince's turn into the Beast, to a climax that is executed neatly. The ballroom dance sequence is a particular scene that stands out, from the waltz to the animation (with the background animated in CGI mixing with the traditional animated characters) to just how delicate everything is handled, which makes for a fantastic scene. There is never a dull moment in the movie, and it certainly looks like great care was taken in terms of how everything flows from scene to scene. The characters are enjoyable as well, exuding their own fair kinds of charm and depth. O'Hara does a fine job at portraying this main character with a good deal of wit and grace, and her scenes with Benson are as entertaining as one would expect, with the latter giving the character the right amount of conflict and presence. White is a fun villain (with his look certainly helping), conveying the right amount of arrogance and some form of charm within an enemy as delightfully evil as this. Orbach and Stiers certainly go well together, and they (along with Lansbury) contribute to making these songs so catchy and so enjoyable, especially "Be Our Guest", with the rest of the cast also doing a fine job. On the whole, this is a great film, complete with everything anyone of any age could enjoy, from animation to characters. At 84 minutes, it's an easy film to recommend to anyone, especially if you're in the Disney mood.

Countdown to 900 Reviews: 10, 9...

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Reluctant Debutante.

Review #405: The Reluctant Debutante.

Cast
Rex Harrison (Jimmy Broadbent), Kay Kendall (Sheila Broadbent), John Saxon (David Parkson), Sandra Dee (Jane Broadbent), Angela Lansbury (Mabel Claremont), Peter Myers (David Fenner), and Diane Clare (Clarissa Claremont) Directed by Vincente Minnelli.

Review
Good morning (or night) everyone. This is probably the first film review on this show done in the morning rather than in the afternoon, or at night, but why does this matter? Eh, I don't know, I suppose to make review that accompanies this seem less weirder. This is the first film here on Movie Night starring Rex Harrison, a former stage actor and also a film actor for over 40 years. His performance seems easy to sum up: Talk dialogue easy to forget and then drink while the rest of the film goes on. But around the middle the film starts to give Harrison something to do, he starts to have something to do, and the character (though mixed) isn't too bad. Kay Kendall (who would sadly die at only 32) is okay, but her character is kinda odd. She doesn't want her (step)daughter to like this normal-ish, decent young man, but she'd wants her to like an awkward, boring, weird young man. Maybe it makes sense to someone else, but it doesn't have too much sense to it. But the rest of the actors aren't too bad, they aren't too cliche, and sometimes the film does generate laughs, not from cliches, of course. It seems weird at times and it may like it goes in circles, but it does have some enjoyability, and I imagine it will be better than that remake. But hey, what do I know.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Mr. Popper's Penguins.

Review #236: Mr. Popper's Penguins.

Cast
Jim Carrey (Thomas Popper), Carla Gugino (Amanda Popper), Madeline Carroll (Janie Popper), Maxwell Perry Cotton (Billy Popper), Angela Lansbury (Selma Van Gundy), Desmin Borges ( Daryl), Philip Baker Hall (Mr. Franklin), Dominic Chianese (Mr. Reader), and Clark Gregg (Nat Jones) Directed by Mark Waters (#151 - Mean Girls, #204 - Freaky Friday)

Review
Based off the book by Richard and Florence Atwater, the film attempts to be a good-natured adaptation, and...it languishes in parts. Carrey does a standardized act, almost pulling "The Eddie Murphy Act" The rest of the cast do a standard job as well, not really going one way or the other. While it isn't really much of anything, I don't feel any hate for it, I really can't find much hate for something I hadn't heard much of in the first place. If I had to list something else for this film, I'd list the penguins are not "Stuffed Animal Approved" by my stuffed penguin. *snickers* Alright, alright, I kid.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.