Phantom of the Paradise.

Review #2304: Phantom of the Paradise.

Cast: 

Paul Williams (Swan / singing voice of the Phantom), William Finley (Winslow Leach / the Phantom), George Memmoli (Arnold Philbin), Gerrit Graham (Beef; Raymond Louis Kennedy as singing voice), Jessica Harper (Phoenix), Mary Margaret Amato (Swan's groupie), Janis Eve Lynn (a groupie), Cheryl Smith (a groupie), with Archie Hahn, Jeffrey Comanor & Harold Oblong (the Juicy Fruits / the Beach Bums / the Undeads), and Rod Serling (the introductory voice) Written and Directed by Brian De Palma (#801 - Mission: Impossible, #1230 - Carrie, #1471 - Scarface, #2139 - Sisters)

Review: 

"I've always thought rock and horror were very close stylistically. I felt I had a solution in combining two separate audiences. Obviously, I didn't."

In 1974, when Halloween night became November morning, a movie came out with elements borrowed from a variety of literary sources from Gaston Leroux's The Phantom of the Opera to Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Gray to the famed Faust legend that was directed by Brian De Palma. You might remember that he had just scored a pretty decent hit with Sisters (1972), his sixth feature film but first with considerable attention. Interestingly, the root for making the film was De Palma hearing a Beatles song in an elevator played as "muzak" to go along with experiences trying to pitch material to indifferent executives and an idea from his friends (Mark Stone and John Weiser) about a "Phantom of the Fillmore"; De Palma wrote the film, although apparently Louisa Rose (his co-writer for the aforementioned Sisters film contributed, but the original screenplay just lists De Palma). Apparently, it was a chance meeting of De Palma with Williams at A&M Records while the former was trying to raise money for the film that led to the casting seen in the film because of his particular "look". This was the first major role for Paul Williams, who previously appeared in minor roles such as Battle for the Planet of the Apes (1973) while becoming a noted professional songwriter, most notably writing the lyrics to songs such as "We've Only Just Begun" to go along with being a regular on the TV circuit. The movie was independently financed (with funding from real estate guy Gustave Berne, who actually was a co-producer on Theatre of Blood), but it found a place at 20th Century Fox because of producer Edward Pressman, who sold the film to the one who happened to bid the highest. The movie was a flop at the time of release, even with such promising ideas from Fox to have costume parties held at its big-city premieres (it was apparently on Halloween night, after all; Pressman has stated that the promotions focused more on the music and specifically Williams were ineffective for the film and he later did his own promotion of the film as "horror phantasy"). However, viewers in Winnipeg (Manitoba, Canada), they apparently loved it enough for the movie to be screened for several weeks (okay, Paris apparently was cool with the film, but Movie Night loves the city of Winnipeg far more than the country of France; besides, one came up with "Phantompalooza"). Well, there was one considerable influence the film had: music duo Daft Punk apparently cited the film as their foundation point as a favorite of theirs. The next film for De Palma would be Obsession (1976), which would end up as a decent hit before he made some film about teenage revenge.

Musical, comedy, horror, it's a delight depending on what genre you're looking for (for those questioning its place in the latter category, call it the horrors of selling one's soul and get back to me). If you appreciate films like The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975; emphasis on "you", because I sure didn't), it surely will have an electrifying effect for its viewer in enjoyable glam-like rock and acid-tongue humor for a particular industry that happens to have a game cast. De Palma really believed even in 1969 (as per production note research) that rock and horror were merging with the growing success of the Rolling Stones and Alice Cooper and thus a film should be done in the rock world beyond concert films, and I think I see where he was going with that vision for a movie that is delirious and rapid in execution. It is a broad movie where you feel every beat and every style; one critic called it an "elaborate disaster", and I fail to see how that was meant to be criticism; it's a movie about people sealing deals in blood, what do you expect?. True to form, Williams really does pull off the standout performance as both composer and actor for this film, managing to be conniving in the great double-act that can be both soul-sucking and darkly amusing. Finlay makes for a worthwhile tragic figure, robbed of his soul and his livelihood to the point where he is figuratively bound to a person with devastating results. Graham provides great amusement in his interpretation of glam rock (he may not get to provide his own vocals, but he sure moved like he did them) in great theatricality to go along with support from Memmoli and a young Harper. The film is electrifying and actually pretty funny in its look on the music industry and the exploitative horrors that come with art that is prey to big business (note the changing band played by the same people that starts and close the film), and that includes the women that are seen exploited in certain ways (take note of the auditions) as well. It is a demented and worthwhile film that may very well become even more interesting to look upon in rewatches, which is quite the compliment for the true mix of horror-comedy-musical you would hope for anytime and anywhere.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Now then, we enter a tradition that I enjoy making up so November can start off well, with the last five Novembers seeing: Dracula [1979] (2019), Revenge of the Creature (Part II, 2020), Halloween Kills (Part 3, 2021) The Cat and the Canary (4.0, 2022), and Lifeforce (Year Five, 2023). 

For Halloween: The Week After VI, let's go with Madhouse tomorrow night.

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.

Scarface (1983)

Review #1471: Scarface.

Cast: 
Al Pacino (Tony Montana), Steven Bauer (Manny Ray), Michelle Pfeiffer (Elvira), Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio (Gina), Robert Loggia (Frank Lopez), Miriam Colon (Mama Montana), F. Murray Abraham (Omar), Paul Shenar (Alejandro Sosa), Harris Yulin (Bernstein), and Angel Salazar (Chi Chi) Directed by Brian De Palma (#801 - Mission: Impossible and #1230 - Carrie)

Review:
"I have a reputation as an action director because I know how to kill, how to shoot people, how to spill blood."

For such a popular film of its era, there are two things that stick out really particularly well about it to note. The first is the fact that the inspiration for the film came from the desire of Al Pacino to want to do a remake of the original Scarface (1932), which Pacino loved as a "model for all gangster pictures." He approached his manager and producer Martin Bregman to do a film and had asked Oliver Stone (who had just won an Academy Award for his screenplay in Midnight Express in 1978) to do the screenplay, although he initially rejected doing it (noting his dislike of the original). An eventual shift from doing a period piece to one set in the present day led to Sidney Lumet being brought in as director. It was he would suggested that it would be set in Miami, with the region having seen a mass emigration of Cubans just three years prior (referred to as the Mariel boatlift). Stone found this premise intriguing enough to sign on to write the film, although Lumet would soon bow out due to creative differences. The director brought in to take on the film was Brian De Palma, a director associated as a figure of the New Hollywood movement of the previous decade that had gone from being inspired to do films in college to doing his own modest works in the late 1960s to his first prime hit in Carrie (1976). Influenced by directors such as Alfred Hitchcock, De Palma is known for his highly stylized films that typically fall within the suspense and crime genres.

What's the second fact you might ask? This was actually not well-liked upon original release. It proved a lightning rod for critics of those who found it excessive in violence and language (you don't say?) or too stereotypical (it isn't like there was a disclaimer at the end about the "dedication, vitality, and enterprise" of Cuban Americans - oops, never mind), and there was a considerable fight over the rating (which was deemed to be X by the MPAA before eventually being rated R). To that I say: what the hell did you expect, a walk in the park with gangsters who deal in cocaine? Loud, provocative, and unrelenting in what it wants to be in content, it deserves its reputation of respect as a film for that era of weird excess with no problem as an imperfect show for its makers. It is a film that intimidates you with excess to the limit because it knows exactly what it is doing about its tale of the dark side of the American Dream that attracted a great deal of people that liked what they saw play out on screen (such as with hip hop and countless references and imitations of quotes from the film). It shouldn't prove surprising that I found the film pretty well done as a film of excess that looks upon the abyss of what it means to rise to the top and the pitfalls that come in trying to stay there. De Palma makes the best of his cast and scope of 170 minutes in delivering entertainment that shocks its viewer with a tremendous burst of energy. Pacino shines with energy, raw and focused in his pursuits and appetites like a lion that make a captivating watch, with plenty of scenes one could highlight, such as the dinner sequence about "saying goodnight to the bad guy" or the tense would-be assassination scene, or the climax (involving that often repeated line involving a "little friend") and so on. Bauer follows along with just as well as a figure along for the ride of mayhem with charm, while Pfeiffer (in a breakthrough part) proves just as alluring in curiosity in her presence. The rest prove just as well in presence, such as a dedicated Mastrantonio and Colon or a smarmy Loggia and refined sleaze in Shenar. Regardless of how much one knows about the film or its lines, one will find themselves in for quite a ride with this film, a stroke of excess and sleaze to make a interesting crime film for its age that lands most of its punches and earns its reputation with stature.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Carrie (1976).

Review #1230: Carrie.

Cast: 
Sissy Spacek (Carrie White), Piper Laurie (Margaret White), Amy Irving (Sue Snell), William Katt (Tommy Ross), Betty Buckley (Miss Collins), Nancy Allen (Chris Hargensen), John Travolta (Billy Nolan), P. J. Soles (Norma Watson), Sydney Lassick (Mr. Fromm), Stefan Gierasch (Principal Morton), Priscilla Pointer (Eleanor Snell), and Edie McClurg (Helen Shyres) Directed by Brian De Palma (#801 - Mission: Impossible)

Review: 
When it comes to making films from novels, Stephen King books sure do make for interesting material to cull from. Prior to the publication of his first novel, he had been a English teacher at Hampden Academy in Maine; he had contributed and written numerous short stories for years while trying to work on ideas for novels. Early in the writing process for the novel that would become Carrie, King threw out the first few pages of the work he had typed out (involving the shower scene), which his wife Tabitha saved. She encouraged him to finish the story, As he later described after the book's success: "I persisted because I was dry and had no better ideas… my considered opinion was that I had written the world's all-time loser." As it turned out, Carrie (released in 1974) became a hit, with King soon selling off the film rights to the book (for $2,500) - director Brian De Palma, a reader of the book soon got interested in doing the film, with Lawrence D. Cohen being brought in as screenwriter. The budget for the film would prove to be $1.8 million, which was pretty small compared to other horror films of its time, but in any case the film managed to turn out pretty well for itself, raking in over $30 million upon release. It isn't hard to see why its success inspired others to try and make further adaptations, including a 1988 Broadway musical, a 1999 sequel, and remakes in 2002 and 2013. The film itself is a fine piece of horror entertainment, being fairly engaging with terror and tension that manages to endure well after its release four decades ago. It works best with key moments such as its opening or its prom climax, where its tragic elements play well within a high school setting like this, and a fairly game cast makes that click in most of the right places. It does fine with a pace of 98 minutes, building its reversion of the Cinderella tale to life with a few good direction and camera tricks from De Palma and cinematographer Mario Tosi.

Spacek plays the role with vulnerability and angst that slowly morphs itself into some readiness to make for a rounded out performance fitting for a film like this. Laurie chews a bit of scenery with a brimstone touch, but it all feels worth it in part because she doesn't lose your attention whenever she shows up on screen. Irving and Katt turn out okay for their parts, both having a bit of plain charm to them. Buckley plays her part (named Desjardin in the novel) just fine, probably being the easiest person to follow along with besides Carrie at times. Allen, Travolta, and Soles (all in the early parts of their respective film careers), make for a capable group of bullies, the kind of people that could fit right in with the right crowds for the time without having to reveal themselves too much. In any case, it is the prom sequence where the film gets itself into final gear, where it builds up the tension for its memorable moment slowly but surely until it hits like a bucket of blood. The split-screen usage here is a bit interesting here for its time, at least, and the lighting sure can make for a tense watch. It lets loose with terror for a good bit and makes a fine climax upon return back home. There is a scene after that (different from the novel), but it's probably best to let a first-time viewer watch the whole thing without getting too spoiled - but it sure makes for a good punch to leave the viewers home with a bit of a chill. On the whole, this is a well-done tragic horror film that pulls some punches close to home with a good reflexive sense behind it and some memorable terror to along with it to make this a fine film to recommend for the horror circuit.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Mission: Impossible.

Review #801: Mission: Impossible.

Cast
Tom Cruise (Ethan Hunt), Jon Voight (Jim Phelps), Emmanuelle Béart (Claire Phelps), Henry Czerny (Eugene Kittridge), Jean Reno (Franz Krieger), Ving Rhames (Luther Stickell), Vanessa Redgrave (Max), Kristin Scott Thomas (Sarah Davies), and Emilio Estevez (Jack Harmon) Directed by Brian De Palma.

Review
Today is the 20th anniversary of the release of this film, and I decided to honor that by reviewing it, since it has been a while since I actually watched one of the five films (#128 - Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol). While I will admit I have never watched the television series Mission: Impossible, I went into the movie with the expectation of watching something that would at least be entertaining, not necessarily going into it expecting a completely loyal version of the show. As it turned out, that was probably the right idea, because the original cast did not exactly have a positive reaction to the movie, and Peter Graves (the original Jim Phelps) rejected the offer to play the role again. With all that in mind, the movie was still pretty good for me. Cruise does an excellent job, seeming very comfortable in the role, with his action scenes (and stunt-work) being enjoyable to watch. Voight, while not exactly up to Cruise's strength, is at least a capable villain, with at least some sort of motivation (honestly though I think I would probably take up a hobby instead of well, doing an elaborate ruse). Béart doesn't get much to do, but she is at least decent. My favorites are Rhames and Redgrave, with the former being cool to watch who works well with Cruise, and the latter being an interesting character who's not necessarily a villain, just a middle-man in all of this. The action is well done, being entertaining along with feeling real enough. The movie's story seems destined to try and twist itself almost too much, but it manages to come off as serviceable, with enough spy elements to make for what is at least a fine experience that has spawned four sequels in the 20 years that have passed since this movie's release

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.