Showing posts with label Annie Ross. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Annie Ross. Show all posts

October 24, 2024

The Wicker Man (1973).

Review #2289: The Wicker Man.

Cast: 
Edward Woodward (Sgt. Neil Howie), Christopher Lee (Lord Summerisle), Britt Ekland (Willow MacGregor; Annie Ross as voice and Rachel Verney as singing voice), Lesley Mackie (Daisy), Diane Cilento (Miss Rose), Ingrid Pitt (Librarian), Lindsay Kemp (Alder MacGregor), Ian Campbell (Oak), Russell Waters (Harbour Master), and Aubrey Morris (Old Gardener/Gravedigger) Directed by Robin Hardy.

Review: 
"When you get into The Wicker Man, Tony and I decided to do a film which was kind of a reverse Hammer film -- a Hammer film which was actually about, or used, the reality of all the witchcraft nonsense that Hammer had used. And there we decided to do a story which used the old religion as part of a game -- in other words: if you could understand that the clues we littered about the script were telling you that we were in a pagan world, then you started to realize and indeed dread what was going to happen."

Sure, you never really know what is going on in the eyes of certain religious folk. The genesis for what became this film was a desire by Christopher Lee to make something different from the Hammer films that he had been doing for over a decade. He met with Anthony Schaffer (the writer of Frenzy and Sleuth) and came to an idea to work together. Robin Hardy, who had a film company partnership with Shaffer for over a decade (where he did commericals and information films), became involved as a director. In 1971, the rights to the 1967 novel Ritual, as written by David Pinner (he had turned it from an intended film treatment to a novel) were purchased; as Pinner put it, "the basic idea and the structure" of his book is in The Wicker Man, albeit with less humor; one piece of research Shaffer used was James George Frazer's The Golden Bough. Owing to the situation of the studio behind the film (i.e. a buyout), different versions of the film persisted: the original release was 87 minutes after trimming was forced upon Hardy. The movie received a few notices even with limited press, but one magazine soon called it "the Citizen Kane of horror movies". In 2013, "The Final Cut", apparently the most complete version possible of the film intended by Hardy (read further about the weird history here). Hardy returned to write and direct a film thirteen years later with The Fantasist (1986) before serving as writer for The Bulldance [1989]. Shaffer apparently wrote an idea for a follow-up film in "The Loathsome Lambton Worm", which would've somehow involved considerable effects sequences and basically undoing the ending of the first film.  An American rendition of the Wicker Man was released in 2006 to a distinct reception from anyone who saw it, you might say. That same year, Hardy's novel Cowboys for Christ was published that dealt in similar ideas of paganism and Christianity with American interlopers. Five years later, it served as the basis for the 2011 film The Wicker Tree, which was directed by Hardy with a cameo appearance by Lee. He attempted to make a third film but nothing came out of it prior to his death in 2016 at the age of 86.

You really do have to just go with the film with as little to know as possible, which is amusing to say for a film where the one big shot of the film is so hard to forget. The horror that comes out in a film like this is one of sacrifice where the clues really are just in sight for those who look beyond saying the obvious about man and their devotion to a power beyond themselves. The film is all about people who have a reverence for the music (yes, really) and the rituals of an old one that requires a love and fear relationship with nature and to appease it when the time is right in ways that simply clash when it comes to the reckoning of sacrifice. You know how much Christopher Lee loved doing this film? He actually did the film for free, complete with doing a publicity tour all about getting critics to see and talk about the film. Lee plays the game with all of the air required of an actor with commitment and pride required that demands he play it right to the bone of someone who you really believe could live among the animals. Leader and devotee, his charisma may be at its peak here. Woodward was cast because after the role was rejected by David Hemmings and Michael York. His commitment (and subsequent appreciation of the film) is quite apparent for a role that with a lesser actor would've been just played it completely for bland rigidness, but he manages to come off completely fascinating because of just what we see in his reaction to the place around him in matching dedicated belief, particularly with the sequence between him and Lee about the practices of the island and which gods are alive in the modern parlance. The rest of the cast does well in selling the devotion needed for a film that doesn't play anyone out as just a kook but instead lets it all out (some with more flesh than others). The ending is the perfect way to close it all out in the logical conclusion of trying to tie the community all the way together in faith, complete with one great last shot in the sun. It is a devilishly unnerving movie to see play out and while I'm not sure if it is my favorite Lee film, I sure can see why he was all in on making it all count where it mattered most in commitment, which matches well with the direction and writing for a solid thrilling folk tale.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.
Next up: with a week to Halloween, the slate of films before October 31 promises to be spectacular, ranging from Cat People (1982) all the way down the line. 

June 8, 2021

Pump Up the Volume.

Review #1686: Pump Up the Volume.

Cast: 
Christian Slater (Mark Hunter), Samantha Mathis (Nora Diniro), Mimi Kennedy (Marla Hunter), Scott Paulin (Brian Hunter), Cheryl Pollak (Paige Woodward), Annie Ross (Principal Loretta Creswood), Ahmet Zappa (Jaime), Billy Morrissette (Mazz Mazzilli), Seth Green (Joey), Robert Schenkkan (David Deaver), Ellen Greene (Jan Emerson), Andy Romano (Mr. Murdock), Anthony Lucero (Malcolm Kaiser), Lala Sloatman (Janie), and James Hampton (Arthur Watts) Written and Directed by Allan Moyle.

Review: 
“[Pump Up the Volume] is my favorite movie I’ve ever done. … It wasn’t a typical high school movie, and it really did get into some of the darker, more gruesome details of what it’s actually like to be a teenager in high school.” - Christian Slater
“I don’t know how to make a good movie, but I know how to make a bad movie, and that’s try to appeal to everybody.” — Allan Moyle

There are quite a few things one can be hard-pressed to admit when it comes to looking back on films like this from the era of the 1990s. Movies involving teenagers and angst or life seemed to take on a new phase that were different from ones made by John Hughes, even if there were a few outliers like Heathers (1988), which featured Christian Slater. Of course, the hard-pressed truth is that film is actually quite inferior in its teenage angst angle than this film, which actually manages to do better in every aspect from characterization (and actually sticking to it!) to music to gracing the ending (each move to the logical point one might see coming, but it seems more right with this). I kid you not, each film also would inspire a musical production. Each failed at the box office, but Heathers has had the cult following befitting an exploitation movie (at least the one it may or may not have ripped off) while Pump Up the Volume isn't even readily available on many release outlets (owing to music licensing). So be it. Besides, this film has the real angle of aiming for a message about free speech alongside its angle about finding one's voice as a teenager in a weird world that makes it an underrated gem. It is funny to consider that it came out from a director who had meant to stay retired. Allan Moyle was born in Shawinigan, Quebec, Canada. Moyle had a classmate in his high school that had an amateur printing press that would be used for offbeat papers to spread around school; the student took his own life, and it affected Moyle. In fact, the original script that Moyle wrote for what would be this film revolved around a pirate DJ saying that he will end it all with his final broadcast (...or will he?). Moyle had gotten into film writing with Montreal Main (1974) and directing with The Rubber Gun (1977). Times Square (1980) was his second effort, but the meddling of producer Robert Stigwood (who seemed to have aspirations for another film success like Saturday Night Fever) to the final cut meant that Moyle would swear off directing for a decade. Moyle wanted to only do writing, but it was the meeting with a producer in Sandy Stern that proved a key to directing again (he had grown up with radio shaping his teenage years). He saw the fairly green script by Moyle and brought himself to work on re-writing the script (mainly in that there wasn't an ending) for a year. At any rate, the film eventually found a production company with New Line Cinema, and the experience spent by Moyle and Stern was reportedly very cooperative (of course Moyle has often noted that he did not generally get to use his more experimental tendencies with his films).

Honestly, I am curious to what would have happened if the idea of the film had come around a decade later. Heck, if this was 2021, we might see a lead character that probably does a podcast in a shed. Teenagers not being taken seriously isn't exactly a new one, but Moyle has made a movie where self-awareness is a curse for the young or old when not being taken seriously. Of course, any soundtrack that has Leonard Cohen is on the money. Sure, folks might be more interested in hearing Sonic Youth or Beastie Boys, but there is generally a song for everyone when it comes to something that resonates with the beat of the film without feeling pre-packaged. So basically, it is a movie with plenty of chutzpah that is backed up by the presences of its actors. Slater is the easiest standout, because he is basically playing two sides of the coin of a performer in the persona that reflects against the one behind said voice. The rebel voice on the radio might not seem like a hard job to do, but eventually finds it to not just be a bit for easy crude jokes, because it gets balanced with the quieter man in the daylight (i.e. soft-spoken) that hits right at home for the supposed Generation X crowd (after all, how many movies are there existing to admire the 60s when compared to ones that tell the 60s to go stuff it?). In other words, it proves quite fit for the crowd at large without alienation or pap detected in those monologues. When it comes to that exchange involving someone troubled about how serious they are about a life-or-death decision, it still strikes a chord, one that is relevant to our day in its striking tone. Following along is Mathis, making her film debut (she had dabbled in television for two years). There is a certain kind of spark to her performance that is inviting in curiosity that goes quite well with Slater in interesting passion (of course it also can read as an offshoot of the figure/fan dynamic). Pollak and Morrissette stand out well among the teen-folk, whether that means in a preppie that lets it all it out or a punk kid having fun away from school. Kennedy and Paulin make for worthy parental figures for what is needed - well meaning without being caricatures, while Ross plays the adversarial adult figure with worthy patronizing charm; incidentally, the other standout figure is Hampton, who has a brief role in the end as an FCC man under siege by teenagers that is quite amusing. As a whole, the ending is probably the one thing that keeps it from really being a great movie (really what can one do when having kids on the run from the FCC?), but in a changing tide of teen movies, it sure packed a fun wallop. It is the kind of movie that would sneer at you for calling it ripe for the teenage vision of a new era, but there is something to enjoy for everyone in an experience that is generally aware of what it wants to say for 105 minutes with a cast and crew that seem ripe at home for a worthy gem of the era.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

March 24, 2016

Superman III.


Review #786: Superman III.

Cast
Christopher Reeve (Clark Kent / Superman), Richard Pryor (Gus Gorman), Robert Vaughn (Ross Webster), Annette O'Toole (Lana Lang), Annie Ross (Vera Webster), Pamela Stephenson (Lorelei Ambrosia), Jackie Cooper (Perry White), Margot Kidder (Lois Lane), Marc McClure as (Jimmy Olsen), and Gavan O'Herlihy (Brad Wilson) Directed by Richard Lester (#541 - A Hard Day's Night, #594 - A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, and #785 - Superman II)

Review
There is nothing wrong with a bit of humor and/or slapstick. Some comic book movies even excel at moments of lightness in otherwise good films. Superman III is not one of those movies. It's a sad, desperate attempt of trying so hard to be both that it manages to fail at every turn. It's hard to tell when the first cracks appear, but it could be argued that it's either when Richard Pryor first appears, or when the title sequence is shamelessly put on the bottom of the screen so we can all see some slapstick immediately after Pryor shows up. Afterwards, the movie goes up and down from there. Reeve is the best part of the movie, carrying the movie even when you know it's already past the point of no return. He even gets to play a Superman who (briefly) becomes weakened by synthetic kryptonite (just go with it) and becomes...a Superman who fixes the Tower of Pisa and even drinks some alcohol (while flicking peanuts at beer bottles). It's a ridiculous aspect of the movie, but it gives Reeve something to do amidst the Pryor parts that really take up nearly 45% of the film. There's even a scene where the two "Supermans" fight each other, which while being ridiculous (especially in how it ends), is actually pretty interesting to watch.

The new villain this time around is played by Robert Vaughn, but he doesn't really stick out too much, coming off as a Lex Luthor stand-in. O'Toole is the new leading lady (by that I mean for only this film), and while she is relatively decent, she isn't given much to do, as compared to Kidder...who is essentially put on a bus early on. And then of course there's Richard Pryor. He's not inherently terrible, and he is somewhat funny, but he doesn't really feel like he should be in a Superman film. For most of the movie he is on the side of the villain(s), but the second that Superman is in actual danger, he switches sides, and it comes off as a dull surprise. The only thing that surprised me is the computer "robotizing" one of the characters near the end, but of course it's not permanent, so whatever (by the way, how does a computer who is supposed to know Superman's weaknesses not realize how a certain acid gets volatile under intense heat? Actually, forget it, the movie still stinks). The movie's biggest flaw is that there really is no spectacle to any of it. You never really care about anything that goes on, and nothing sticks out in this movie that you truly remember as a good thing. The main idea behind the movie isn't terrible, but the execution falls flat on its face.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.