Sisters (1972).

Review #2139: Sisters.

Cast: 

Margot Kidder (Danielle Breton / Dominique Blanchion), Jennifer Salt (Grace Collier), William Finley (Emil Breton), Charles Durning (Joseph Larch), Lisle Wilson (Phillip Woode), Barnard Hughes (Arthur McLennen), Mary Davenport (Mrs. Peyson Collier), and Dolph Sweet (Detective Kelly) Directed by Brian De Palma (#801 - Mission: Impossible, #1230 - Carrie, #1471 - Scarface)

Review: 

“I always said that film lies 24 times a second. That’s the antithesis of what Jean-Luc Godard said, that it’s truth 24 per second. That’s nonsense! Film lies all of the time.”

It's easy to say a director can come anywhere. Raised in a family that were in his words, “egotists who didn’t care what damage they were doing”, Brian De Palma was born in New Jersey but raised in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire. He had an interest in building computers before studying physics at Columbia University. However, he became more interested in film after seeing movies such as Citizen Kane and Vertigo. He finished his studies at Columbia to move on to study at Sarah Lawrence College in the theater department. A friendship with an actor in his aspiring days in Robert De Niro led to the shooting of De Palma's first feature with The Wedding Party, a film shot in 1963 but only released in 1969 (which meant that it served as his "third" film due to Murder a la Mod and Greetings being released in 1968). Get to Know Your Rabbit (1972) was his first venture with the Hollywood system and was a comedy like most of his previous five efforts, but it was not a major success. This film was shown first in late 1972 but did not have a full release until 1973. The screenplay was done by De Palma and Louisa Rose while De Palma did the story. Spearheaded by Edward R. Pressman as producer with a budget of $500,000 with distribution by American International Pictures, the film was a fair hit for its time and has managed to receive further attention with the resulting career that followed for De Palma that went from Phantom of the Paradise (1974) and Obsession (1976) to, well, Carrie (1976). Whether called a psychological thriller or horror film, screw it, this one counts for whatever category you want.

Incidentally, for a film that involves a good deal of voyeurism, De Palma has stated in later years that he would secretly follow his father around to record his adulterous habits when he was young. Of course, the actual inspiration came from his reading of an article in Life magazine in 1966 that detailed the lives of the Soviet conjoined twins Masha and Dasha Krivoshlyapova, specifically with their psychological makeup as they grew older (of course, since they were born in 1950, the Soviets did a variety of things in "the interests of science", which namely involved the scientists tricked their mother into believing the twins were dead to they could serve as research subjects). It is interesting to consider the elements that sound familiar to Alfred Hitchcock, whether that involves Rear Window (1954) or Psycho (1960), only with some use of split-screen composition that was used in a handful of films of the time (such as Carrie). This is the kind of "homage" that seems ripe for critics to love, I think, because it means they don't have to confront much in the way of gore and therefore they can't be labeled as just being anti-homage when they see something that harkens to the past when it comes to something with a bit more gore and call it "derivative". For me, this is basically Rosemary's Baby (1968) all over again, where it is more about reputation more than anything, at least when one considers the moments when the film actually gets to the point where I appreciate it best (of course, this is a 92-minute film). De Palma apparently gave the script as a "Christmas present" to Kidder, who at one time shared a house with Salt. The "French-Canadian" accent is a result of Kidder not being able to pull off a Swedish accent. It is an odd performance to say the least, mostly because we are viewing a double-sided coin of doubt and curiosity, which is touch and go once you get past that buildup sequence of her and Wilson. Besides her is the focus on Salt, the would-be digger of trying to figure out what the audience has already viewed (all she has to go on is seeing one little note of help). Her part works as an exasperatingly amusing view on the usual go-and-look type of mystery that you usually see in these films (only without that character usually being pestered about marriages by people like Davenport). Finlay makes up the mystery part of the film, which is most important for the climax because, well, hell, if you've read this far, you'll probably guess that someone has to play a part in lending some exposition to just how literal that film title is. When the film reaches that point where it has to lend a few pointers your way of just what is where and who is what is when the film has managed to reach its high point in delirium for actual tension, which is probably made funnier (or unsettling, take your pick) by that last exchange of words to go with the last view of a film all about the view and the person taking it. Call it a commentary about women or just a film that likes to dwell on watching, the general enjoyment of the film comes from how effective the homage to Hitchcock goes for you. I would say it is a good flick to view as an early example of what is to come for De Palma for sly filmmaking. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next: Spiral (1998). No, really.

Redux: Tron.

Redux #098: Tron.

Cast: 

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

Review: 

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

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

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

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Lost Boys.

Review #1745: The Lost Boys.

Cast: 

Jason Patric (Michael Emerson), Corey Haim (Sam Emerson), Dianne Wiest (Lucy Emerson), Barnard Hughes (Grandpa), Edward Herrmann (Max), Kiefer Sutherland (David Powers), Jami Gertz (Star), Corey Feldman (Edgar Frog), Jamison Newlander (Alan Frog), Billy Wirth (Dwayne), Alex Winter (Marko), and Brooke McCarter (Paul) Directed by Joel Schumacher (#197 - Phone Booth, #217 - Batman Forever, and #218 - Batman & Robin)

Review: 

“Warner Bros. took a big chance with this movie, and with me, because they really didn’t know what the heck I was doing."

The 1980s must have been an interesting time for horror fans to see come out on the screen, particularly for folks who wanted to see a fresh rendition of the vampire. They certainly got their money's worth with this spectacle, one that definitely owes as much to MTV as it does to Peter Pan. There were a sea of movies with vampires in that era (and, of course, a great one with Nosferatu the Vampyre in 1979) such as The Hunger (1983), Fright Night (1985), Lifeforce (1985), and even The Monster Squad (1987). But when it comes down to lingering influence, one can't ignore the lasting endurance of The Lost Boys, which inspired filmmakers such as Joss Whedon. The original idea came from James Jermias, a grip at the time on studio lots that had read Anne Rice's 1976 novel Interview With the Vampire (which if you remember had its own adaptation in 1994), which led him to think about Peter Pan and the idea of vampires that could come out at night to fly without growing up (hence the title). He wrote the screenplay with Janice Fischer in 1984, but their idea involved pre-teens rather than adults (for example, the Frog brothers were written originally as eight year old Boy Scouts and the character of Star was a boy). The following year resulted in the script being sold for a fair sum with plans to have Richard Donner direct, albeit with a re-write. Jeffrey Boam was brought in to do a fresh draft, but Donner would not be around to direct, since Lethal Weapon soon was offered to him. Enter Schumacher. If you remember, he had gotten his start in Hollywood as a costume designer before dabbling into screenwriting with Car Wash (1976), with directing coming in The Incredible Shrinking Woman (1981) before having his first notable hit with St. Elmo's Fire (1985), which had been produced by Lauren Shuler, who recommended Schumacher for this film. If it wasn't for the fact that he developed ideas of his own upon seeing the script (which he described as "Goonies Go Vampire", complete with a cave), he would have turned it down...instead, he found inspiration involving teenaged vampires with motorcycles (for his part, he believed vampires to be a metaphor for oral sex), one that he tasked to make the "coolest vampire movie ever made" (in his words). At any rate, the film is generally considered one of Schumacher's most enduring works, which included a few more horror films in a three decade career before his death in 2020.

Honestly, it did take me a while to buy into this film, mostly because one has to remember that Schumacher really seems to have a fascination with getting pretty shots that might as well have been edited for a music video before getting on with creeping weirdness. But it always manages to keep you drawn in with the characters of the night with a curious charisma to go with wonderful design and effects that make for a fun time. Sure, it is a horror film, but that doesn't mean that there aren't a few tinges of humor to ride along with the experience in offbeat characters. Of course, one has to start with the lead in Patric, who actually had to be convinced repeatedly to do the film; he does a fine job here, one that has to balance calmness with eccentrics at every turn that either want to party or take him. Haim matches him just as well, probably best exemplified by the scene where one finds out the other is a vampire with a mirror and all one can say is that they are going to tell on 'em to mother. Wiest is the general straight-laced one of the main triangle that we are introduced to, and she makes it count with useful grace that is warm to follow on the side when not thinking too much about creeps at night. Undeniably, the highlight of the film is Sutherland, who has the most presence among the vampire cast-mates despite not having as many lines as the others; regardless of line count, he gives it his all in evocative charisma in a way that hadn't been seen in a vampiric lead in quite a bit of time, one that oozes along with carefree life befitting the requirements needed for a creeping film of wild living in the night. Feldman and Newlander make a worthy pair of offbeat hunters, selling it beat by beat in half-hearted chuckles. The same can be applied to Hughes, who actually might be my favorite presence in terms of his stubborn approach to everything that includes various traits such as "going out to the country" by turning on the ignition and doing nothing and acting stoic when it comes to the climax with vampires formerly around him. Others do well in smaller focus such as a hazy Gertz and a ruffled Herrmann, but one will find plenty to keep interest for 98 minutes. It moves with the mood of a glossy project with appropriate music trimmings (such as Tim Cappello performing "I Still Believe" in full detail and sax) and a worthy look that I think hits most of its marks with the right touch of effectiveness without becoming a cliché of the youth.

 

The film was a fair hit on release, making back its $8.5 million budget three times over while being a considerable video hit. There were ideas of doing another Lost Boys film with Schumacher involved (with his suggestions being one set during the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake and a "Lost Girls" film), but they never came to pass; instead, two direct-to-video sequels came with Lost Boys: The Tribe (2008) and Lost Boys: The Thirst (2010), which each featured just Feldman and Newlander returning to their roles. Sure, The Lost Boys might be an acquired taste for folks that have their own preferences for vampire horror (with or without tinges of humor), but when it comes to glossy roaring chaos, no one is better suited for such material than Schumacher, and he milks it all for what is needed in curious entertainment. In a decade with a handful of re-inventions, one can't go wrong with The Lost Boys for a fresh take on the desires that comes with eternal youth and bloodlust in all of its weird trappings.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Candyman (1992).

Midnight Cowboy.

Review #1431: Midnight Cowboy.

Cast: 
Jon Voight (Joe Buck), Dustin Hoffman (Enrico Salvatore "Ratso" Rizzo), Sylvia Miles (Cass), John McGiver (Mr. O'Daniel), Brenda Vaccaro (Shirley), Barnard Hughes (Towny), Ruth White (Sally Buck), Jennifer Salt (Annie), and Gilman Rankin (Woodsy Niles) Directed by John Schlesinger.

Review: 
"I like making films that have question marks in them and are not all tied up beautifully with a pink ribbon, even though that's what the audience seems to want, and if you give it to them there's more assurance of commercial success, perhaps. But that's never the way I've seen life or reflected life in what I want to put on the screen."

If there was ever a time for a film to come out with a sense of grimy honesty and capable performances to make a tale of New York City from its lower edges come alive, Midnight Cowboy is definitely the film to do it. The changing of the times in what content could be touched upon or shown in films led at last to an film rating system by the Motion Picture Association of America in 1968, which had found initial ratings in G (General), M (Mature), R (Restricted), and X (no admissions under 16, adults-only). This film is known as the first and only X-rated film to have won an Academy Award for Best Picture, although it should be noted that it was later reclassified under the R-rating with no edits done. With that said, it should be no surprise to see such a provocative film come from British actor-turned-director (both feature and short films) John Schlesinger, who made his mark with urban dramas such as A Kind of Loving (1962), Billy Liar (1963), and Darling (1965). Accompanying him is Jon Voight, who had just two film credits before taking on this film and the effort to play a Texan (with the native New Yorker studying tapes of Texans incessantly) and Dustin Hoffman, a method actor that became part of a new generation of actors with versatile performances of varying vulnerability (he convinced the filmmakers to do the film by going out in a dirty coat and blending in with the surroundings). This was an adaptation of the 1965 novel of the same name from James Leo Herlihy. Responsible for the adaptation to film was Waldo Salt, who found a way to shift focus from the first half to the second half of the novel through flash-present sequences that would show the past of the main character through the eyes of a present scene as memories (shown either in color or in black-in-white). Despite anxiety over what people would think of it before release, Schlesinger ultimately felt that he made a film that while it couldn't be made today, captured a "mixture of desperation and humor which I found all along Forty-Second Street." Accordingly, both Salt and Schlesinger would win Academy Awards for their work on this film.

It is clear to see how one made such an interesting film that lurks in the cesspool with such tremendous acting from its main stars with a lasting power of sorts in detailing the underbelly of a city with misfits that make try to forge their way in the big city. There is a tender story worth viewing with Voight and Hoffman that reaches out to the loner in us, the person who yearns for more than what we see in the mirror or what we see in our soul. Hoffman achieves a grand scuzzy quality to his role, one that seeps into the underside without seeming comprised of any frills or distractions to make us believe anything other that we hear and see of him. He is the man perpetually on the outside of even marginal living, selling a character that you might bat an eye at if he was just "walkin' here". Voight matches in line with a curiosity and dandy nature as a would-be hustler that makes for a stirring performance in his pursuit to find somewhere (or someone) to belong with, and the scenes with Hoffman are the most dynamically compelling in interest, particularly when the film starts rolling down to the end of its 113 minute run-time. They may snipe at each other and they may both have plenty of trouble with a city like no other, but there is still a level of warmth beneath all the cold, which is still something to look back upon. A group of eccentrics make for an interesting supporting cast, each of whom get their own little scene with Voight, for which McGiver does the quirkiest and most interesting one as a gay religious fanatic. The film clicks more often than not as a gritty piece of work that breaks innocence of a dream into several little pieces to dissect. It is a tender and somber film to its fateful end, hustling about with no compromises but hard-life choices to make that leave its viewer with something to think about as a key piece of its time and a highlight for its stars that make it a daring and welcome film for those are mature enough for it.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.