Fright Night (1985).

Review #2446: Fright Night.

Cast: 

Chris Sarandon (Jerry Dandrige), William Ragsdale (Charley Brewster), Roddy McDowall (Peter Vincent), Amanda Bearse (Amy Peterson), Stephen Geoffreys (Edward "Evil Ed" Thompson), Jonathan Stark (Billy Cole), Dorothy Fielding (Judy Brewster), Art Evans (Detective Lennox), Stewart Stern (Cook), Robert Corff (Jonathan), and Pamela Brown (Miss Nina) Written and Directed by Tom Holland (#614 - Thinner, #1003 - Child's Play)

Review: 

“The story of Fright Night was very specific. It’s about a teenage horror movie fan who becomes convinced the neighbor next door is a vampire. OK? That was me. And I was writing about the movies that I loved when I was 15, 16, 17, and they were the AIP and Hammer Horror films, which starred Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing, and Vincent Price... that’s how you get Peter Vincent, the horror movie host. And so I was writing about myself and my growing up. And I thought the story was so strong and had such human values, especially in the person of Peter Vincent, the Roddy McDowall character... the story was strong, and the vampires were right for that.”

Sure, let's feature a Tom Holland movie. As one might wonder, the Poughkeepsie native attended Northwestern University for theater before going to and later graduating from UCLA. He wasn't too keen on acting but took the time to train at the Actors Studio and appeared in a handful of guest roles on TV and film. Around that time, he became friends with Stewart Stern, who influenced him to try writing. He went back to UCLA to study law but found the itch from writing to be too much to bear. His first screenwriting credit was the TV film "The Initiation of Sarah" in 1978 before becoming a film writer with the adaptation of The Beast Within in 1982. Other scripts followed, such as the story for Class of 1984 (1982), which was then followed with being hired to write Psycho II (1983), and lastly was Cloak & Dagger (1984)*. The premise that became Fright Night arose during the writer of Cloak that became tempting to direct himself when he saw the results of Michael Winner's direction for his script Scream for Help (1984). Despite not having a completely wide release from Columbia Pictures in August 1985, the movie was a qualified success with audiences. In total, Holland directed five further movies as a director, although because he was busy with Child's Play (1988), he could not be involved with Fright Night Part 2 (1988), which had Ragsdale and McDowall return to their roles. A remake of Fright Night (which relocated it to Las Vegas with a stage magician that may be an expert on vampires) came around in 2011.

There was a sea of vampire movies in its era that ranged from The Hunger (1983) to Lifeforce (1985) to, well, The Lost Boys (1987), but Fright Night does manage to stick out for itself pretty well because of its enthusiasm. Sure, the slasher was making the rounds for what audiences were going with in its time, but it didn't mean you were going to be lacking at least one movie to cut straight from the heart in playing to familiar comforts. The playful rendition of "Boy Who Played Wolf", combined with some worthwhile effects, does make for a pretty good time for those in the mood for it. You get vampires that can deal in wolf form and/or mist to go with the general tone of menace in baring fangs but in the suburbs to go along with having a vampire killer that actually isn't just the usual authority on the matter. It takes time for Ragsdale to get comfortable in the role, but he does spring a few bits of humor in what comes from actually being right in what his eyes see rather than just cloying, although it helps to have chuckles when paired with Bearse or Geoffreys. It is interesting that the part played by McDowell was basically a homage to the great Vincent Price, mostly because I would assume there was tiny bit of influence in Boris Karloff (okay well the character is also named after Peter Cushing, the vampire hunter actor for all time), who actually did host a TV show about horror (specifically, Thriller back in 1960-62)*. But McDowall aimed to played it as if the character was an old ham actor rather than just being a pastiche of Price (who while approached for the role was winding down from taking horror roles). He basically becomes the heart of the movie with the humor that comes from playing it to the ego required of flipping the usual authority with engaging conviction. Sarandon does make for a solid adversary though, managing to draw the power necessary in icy charm that could swoop in and out from sight in a suburb without becoming a hammy threat to wash away. The sequence near the climax involving him, Ragsdale and Bearse has a special curiosity to it in just seeing how seriously Holland wants to make the plight of someone being correct about vampires being among people and being powerless in that moment. The effects (as led by the team that had just done Ghostbusters [1984]) benefit the film particularly well in reminding one of just how entertaining it can be to look at vampires out in the open. As a whole, the movie eventually finds its footing by the time its 106-minute runtime is over due to its various charms that come off as affectionate rather than just being a failed homage. To put it mildly, it has the vibes worth watching for the spooky season.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*Incidentally, Cloak and Dagger was inspired by the short story "The Boy Cried Murder", which had been adapted into a film a few times over.

*I wonder if there is a tiny bit of inspiration that was cribbed from Targets (1968), a movie where Karloff plays a disillusioned horror actor who actually gets confronted with real terror and, well, strikes it down.

Dog Day Afternoon.

Review #1450: Dog Day Afternoon.

Cast: 
Al Pacino (Sonny Wortzik), John Cazale (Salvatore "Sal" Naturale), Charles Durning (Sergeant Eugene Moretti), James Broderick (Agent Sheldon), Lance Henriksen (Agent Murphy), Chris Sarandon (Leon Shermer), Penelope Allen (Sylvia), Sully Boyar (Mulvaney), Susan Peretz (Angela Wortzik), and Carol Kane (Jenny) Directed by Sidney Lumet (#035 - 12 Angry Men, #036 - Network, #404 - The Anderson Tapes, #1065 - Deathtrap, and #1446 - Murder on the Orient Express)

Review: 
"I don't think of myself as anything but an actor struggling to find the next role and when I do get the role to try and see if I can find any way into it."

"While the goal of all movies is to entertain, the kind of film is which I believe goes one step further. It compels the spectator to examine one facet or another of his own conscience. It stimulates thought and sets the mental juices flowing."

How can one talk about esteemed method actors and not think about Al Pacino? Although Pacino had ambitions of baseball as a teenager, he soon shifted focus to acting, for which he would have to take modest-paying jobs to help finance study, with one job being a mailroom employee for the magazine Commentary. He acted in small plays in New York, but he wasn't accepted into the Actors Studio when applying as a teen (he would attend the HB Studio for four years until being accepted into the Actors Studio). He cited Lee Strasberg and the Studio as a key effect on his future career in putting all of his focus into acting, and the two would even appear in films together in later years (most notably with The Godfather Part II). He soon shifted to stage work (which he has continued to make on-and-off star appearances), performing for the first time in 1967, with his debut in Broadway coming two years later. That same year, he also made his first appearance in film with Me, Natalie. The 1970s proved to be a tremendous decade for Pacino, starting with notice in The Panic in Needle Park (1971), and it helped him get attention for his next role: The Godfather (1972), for which he was picked over prominent other choices. One of the eight films in the decade Pacino did was Serpico (1973), which he did with Lumet to tremendous success (including an Academy Award nomination, which he received four other times in the decade). Lumet was known for his distinct prolific work over a lengthy career in films (over 40 in a half century starting with 12 Angry Men) and television (primarily doing work in television in the fifties), noted for their social realism and naturalism while mostly set in New York (where he grew up after being born in Philadelphia) that served him well as someone labeled an "actor's director".

The film is very loosely based on real-life events that occurred on August 22, 1972, where failed bank robbers John Wojtowicz and Salvatore Naturale held nine bank employees hostage for 14 hours in attempts to take money for an sex change operation for the former's lover, which resulted in one death and 20 years for Wojtowicz. The exploits of the robbery were covered in an article ("The Boys in the Bank" by P. F. Kluge) for Life magazine, and while writer Frank Pierson wanted to interview Wojtowicz personally in prison, an agreement couldn't be reached about how much to pay for the story. Wojtowicz would later state that only 30% of the film was accurate, although he did find that Pacino and Sarandon were captured accurately (the actual amount robbed was over 37 thousand in cash and over 175 thousand in traveler's checks, and this doesn't even count the allegations from anonymous sources that it was actually organized by a Mafia family). For an biographical film (of sorts), it is interesting to note the improvisations done through the dialogue at times (which keep with the structure of Pierson's screenplay), since Lumet encouraged the actors to show spontaneity when it came to rehearsals (a hallmark of his when it came to establishing trust with his actors) that would help in making lines come out naturally (the famed Attica! line was improvised, for example).

One always seems to feel on the edge when it comes to a film like this, where you can feel every little moment of tension and furor that is headlined by a tremendous performance from Pacino. He molds himself into a frantic pace in a tour-de-force achievement of wired hysteria that we cannot take our eyes of, where our view of him through the film and the people that see him through their television or right in front of their eyes seem to muddle each other into something worth pondering about. The 1970s were certainly a divergent time for America, particularly in light of what people saw on their television screens or in the streets, and seeing someone holding a bank hostage isn't too different. Even now the film proves relevant because of the nature of fame (or infamy) in the eyes of a curious audience looking for some sort of person to relate to or stand with (regardless of how one feels about glorifying/boosting certain actions) in social media. The others prove just as well in following along on a natural tense pace, such as Cazale (who did over a decade of work in the theater before making his first of five film appearances in The Godfather) and his well-placed subtlety as the lead man to a situation that gets worse and worse by the minute. Durning proves resilient with growing tension through some bluster that takes a good chunk of the first half more so than the second for effect. Broderick and Henriksen fill the screen nicely, while Sarandon delivers well in evoking curiosity and humanity for the second half of the film, particularly through the phone call sequence with Pacino. When the film opens itself up in tension and details, we care to see where it all may lea to without too much judgement or impatience. On the whole, while it may prove a bit too much to hold for all of its 125 minute run-time, this is a film worth checking out to see the raw spirit of the times play out in fascinating detail from Pacino, who makes for a frantic yet always interesting presence worth viewing to the bitter end.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Child's Play (1988).

Review #1003: Child's Play.

Cast: 
Alex Vincent (Andy Barclay), Catherine Hicks (Karen Barclay), Chris Sarandon (Detective Mike Norris), Brad Dourif (Charles Lee Ray/voice of Chucky), Dinah Manoff (Maggie Peterson), Tommy Swerdlow (Jack Santos), Jack Colvin (Dr. Ardmore), Raymond Oliver (John Bishop), and Neil Giuntoli (Eddie Caputo) Directed by Tom Holland (#614 - Thinner)

Review: 
I will admit, it took longer to finally cover one of these films than I thought it would, especially since Chucky is a character that is still appearing in films (with the seventh installment coming out just this month), and it is interesting to watch a horror film about a killer doll, though whether this is actually a scary slasher film is up to you. For me, I thought it was a decent movie, with Dourif (along with the animatronics used for Chucky) being the key highlight. Vincent does an decent job (for a child actor), and Hicks is fairly acceptable as well, but my level of entertainment were with Chucky. It's not so much that he is terrifying as it is that it's an interesting villain for a slasher film because of how clever the doll seems (my question though: would there have been any effect on Chucky if they had put batteries in the doll?). The film takes its time before letting Chucky "reveal himself", and whether that comes off as tedious or somewhat clever is up to you, although it really shouldn't be surprising to current viewers, anyway. The voodoo parts are what they are: stuff to explain the story, and I suppose they work well enough.

If I had to compare this to anything, I'd probably compare it to The Twilight Zone episode "Living Doll" (1963) which had a sentient doll, although that one was a bit more suspenseful though this is a fairly capable thriller. The film works best in its second half with Dourif being fairly entertaining and quite resourceful (for a doll, anyway). His voice just fits well (especially considering the actual voice of the doll) with this role. At 87 minutes, this is fairly decent horror fare, and if you find yourself into the concept and wanting more there are more than enough follow-up films for your taste.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Nightmare Before Christmas.

Review #391: The Nightmare Before Christmas.

Cast
Chris Sarandon (Jack Skellington), Danny Elfman (Barrel, and the singing voice of Jack Skellington), Catherine O'Hara (Sally, Shock), William Hickey (Doctor Finklestein), Glenn Shadix (Mayor of Halloween Town), Ken Page (Oogie Boogie), Ed Ivory (Santa Claus), and Paul Reubens (Lock) Directed by Henry Selick (#189 - Coraline)

Review
It's a Tim Burton film without Tim Burton, and yet it manages to be a Halloween and a a Christmas film, along with creating a imaginative world that is also a good enough musical. It is original enough to overcome any "doubts" over a film such as this. Sarandon and Elfman do good, and after a while, the actor and singer combine to just be one single character, and it is excellent. O'Hara does good as well acting, and she is a good pair with Sarandon, which makes for a stronger film. The songs work well, and it helps that animation is top notch, which makes a dynamic film. That, and Oogie Boogie is a good, if not...awesome character. Delectably evil, and yet still with a aura of coolness, which contributes to the dark, but somewhat cheerful tone. It's a film that knows what it wants to do, and it fulfills it to the easiest extent, brilliantly and effectively. Countdown to 400 Reviews: 10, 9...

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Princess Bride.

Review #232: The Princess Bride.

Cast
Cary Elwes (Westly), Robin Wright (Princess Buttercup), Mandy Patinkin (Inigo Montoya), Chris Sarandon (Prince Humperdinck), André the Giant (Fezzik), Christopher Guest (Count Tyrone Rugen), Peter Falk (The Grandfather/Narrator), Fred Savage (The Grandson), Wallace Shawn (Vizzini), Billy Crystal (Miracle Max), Carol Kane (Valerie), and Peter Cook (The Impressive Clergyman) Directed by Rob Reiner (This Is Spinal Tap - #108)

Review
To begin with, I'd like to say a few words: My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die. The whole cast and their characters (even the short ones) are memorable to the very end. It's been said before by others, and I'll say it here, this film is funny. But it isn't one of those films that simply just have good funny lines and just that, it is a combination of adventure, romance, and comedy which works out well for everyone. It is fitting that the person who wrote the screenplay also wrote the book that this is adapted from, which keeps the films roots close together (Kind of like what happened with Holes) 25 years after this film's original release it still leaves an impressive mark that will last forever. But of course that might be inconceivable for some. As you wish, everyone.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.