Star Wars: The Clone Wars.

Review #2540: Star Wars: The Clone Wars.

Cast: 

Matt Lanter (Anakin Skywalker), Ashley Eckstein (Ahsoka Tano), James Arnold Taylor (Obi-Wan Kenobi / 4A-7 / Medical Droid), Dee Bradley Baker (Captain Rex / Commander Cody), Tom Kane (Yoda / The Narrator / Admiral Yularen), Nika Futterman (Asajj Ventress / TC-70), Ian Abercrombie (Chancellor Palpatine / Darth Sidious), Corey Burton (Ziro the Hutt / General Loathsom / KRONOS-327), Catherine Taber (Padmé Amidala), Matthew Wood (Battle Droids), Kevin Michael Richardson (Jabba the Hutt), David Acord (Rotta the Huttlet), with Samuel L. Jackson (Mace Windu), Anthony Daniels (C-3PO), and Christopher Lee (Count Dooku) Directed by Dave Filoni.

Review: 

Imagine, it is the year 2008, for a moment. All you've got with Star Wars is six theatrical movies (and a bunch of television that, what, twelve people cared about?)...and a new film coming out, one that's animated. Then you ask what the hell is The Clone Wars? Well, your immersion has expired, but I might as well run it down anyway. Well, there are two shows under that title, with the first coming around in 2003 via animated shorts that was developed by Genndy Tartakovsky with digital 2D animation (and select cel-shaded 3D). Then you've got the 2008 animated series (now with "The" in there because, well, why not?) that came around because of George Lucas. Lucas had thought about doing this as early as 2002, once stating that Star Wars was "a sandbox I love to play in"; Lucasfilm Animation was created in 2005*. Dave Filoni was among the team of people (described by The New York Times as "young Star Wars-obsessed artists") hired by Lucas. The Mt. Lebanon native had studied animation at Edinboro University of Pennsylvania prior to serving as a storyboard artist/assistant director on a variety of television such as King of the Hill and also directed/wrote a number of the first season episodes of Avatar: The Last Airbender. The first season was pitched around to TV networks in 2007, but nobody initially went with it. Regardless of this, encouraged by the animation results he saw, Lucas decided to produce a theatrical Clone Wars movie, which only then got Warner Bros. interested in the show. Essentially, a couple of episodes were stitched into what you see for a 98-minute movie, with Henry Gilroy, Steven Melching, and Scott Murphy being credited as writers for this film. Released in August 2008 (the first and so far, only, Star Wars movie released in that month) with a reported budget of $8.5 million, the movie was a light success with audiences. Two months later, Star Wars: The Clone Wars aired on Cartoon Network and ran for five years (before returning for stints on Netflix and Disney+ because, well, why not?). 

It may actually be the most vacant Star Wars film of its ilk, managing to do the bare minimum in "space battles" and plot that probably does make one appreciate the live-action filmmaking of Attack of the Clones [2002] (especially when one realizes that the war is basically window dressing for one guy acquiring further power anyway). Things happen in a vacuum that probably are explored in televised form, but it all feels like the paint has rusted off a familiar format with little to really back it up. The animation was deliberately meant to be "a little bit of anime, a little bit of feature animation", one that basically was inspired by the Gerry Anderson Thunderbirds as opposed to say, Beowulf. With that understanding in mind, I can't stand the animation in the same way that I just couldn't stand Thunderbirds in all of its off-putting ways (but with no strings). There are moments when it looks like something you could create with a bunch of foam cups, honestly. The voice cast is in that odd spot where going from folks such as Hayden Christensen/Natalie Portman/Ewan McGregor can only go so far in a movie that doesn't really give them much to actually show off anything beyond the most perfunctory of things (this is a fetch quest movie to save a gassy aged soccer ball looking kid, after all, and I totally will never hear the phrase "Rotta the Hutt" ever again)...to contrast with the bit moments of Jackson and Lee (paycheck time). The banter between Lanter and Eckstein is, well, not exactly endearing, mainly because it feels like a workshopped encounter between siblings more than anything. I remember having basically one question about this film as a person who didn't see the show as either a teenager or an adult: what exactly is the point of Ahsoka Tano? Okay, sure, there were other questions (namely if the animation ever looked better), but really, what is the big fascination about this character that they have their own show nearly 20 years after this film? (going as someone who just watches the films, anyway, since this character never showed up physically in any of the movies, which suggests they were somehow important for the show, but not the main saga*). All I got from this film was a bunch of chuckles at the banter and that was about it. With such sluggish amusement all the way around, it only seems appropriate to call it a middle-of-road misfire, one that did not exceed my expectations in mediocrity.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*Incidentally, the only other feature film Lucasfilm Animation has been involved with came with Strange Magic seven years later.

*What the hell is The Mandalorian? Also, I fudged a bit, there is one Clone Wars "bit" I did see: "I am coming back from my ten minute ban.."

Death Line.

Review #2458: Death Line.

Cast: 

Donald Pleasence (Inspector Calhoun), Norman Rossington (Detective Sergeant Rogers), David Ladd (Alex Campbell), Sharon Gurney (Patricia Wilson), Hugh Armstrong (The Man"), June Turner ("The Woman"), Clive Swift (Inspector Richardson), James Cossins (James Manfred, OBE), Heather Stoney (W.P.C. Alice Marshall), Hugh Dickson (Dr. Bacon), Jack Woolgar (Platform Inspector), Ron Pember (Lift Operator), Colin McCormack (Police Constable), James Culliford (publican), Christopher Lee (Stratton-Villiers, MI5) Directed by Gary Sherman (#1199 - Poltergeist III)

Review: 

I did want to so this film last October but honestly didnt have time. Hey, what's another year when talking about a British-American effort. This was the feature film debut of Gary Sherman, who actually described himself as an artist in search of a medium from a young age. He studied at IIT's Institute of Design and one professor told him that instead of design, he was the type that should aim to be a photographer. One of the ways that he was working his way through schools was play in a band and they inquired about trying to record at Chess Records. Sherman's ability to read music helped him in getting to sing backing vocals and lurk around the place, which intersected with him finding an 16mm Arriflex camera at school when work wanted to assign someone to photograph people at work. He ended up becoming a filmmaker when it came to a chance decision to film a recording session involving Bo Diddley at the studio. The result was a 30-minute short called The Legend of Bo Diddley in 1966. He then was asked to do a "music performance film" for The Seeds (among other groups) and the result was that he was asked by an ad agency if he wanted to shoot ads and commercials for them; he moved to London by 1968 apparently due to his experiences at the 1968 DNC. Years later, when working in London, his producing partner Jonathan Demme kept telling him to make a movie. While writing essentially stuff for themselves, John Daly of Hemdale Film came up and suggested to write something somebody would want to make, which, well, why not horror? Sherman came up with the story while Ceri Jones wrote the screenplay for a production that was financed internationally between Paul Maslansky, Alan Ladd Jr and Jay Kanter. Apparently, American International Pictures bought the film out from the financiers in what was called "cross-collateralization" (or bullshit in Sherman's eyes) and they essentially hacked the film away for American release as "Raw Meat", complete with a lurid poster making it look like a zombie movie that Sherman hated completely. At any rate, while the AIP experience burned him out a bit, Sherman did eventually make a few more theatrical films when not doing work on commercials, most notably with Dead & Buried (1981).

Sherman apparently was influenced by the classism he saw by the British (specifically in how apparently construction of certain tunnels saw mistreatment for the workers) alongside the legend of Sawney Bean. The legend apparently was about a person that was said to be the head of a Scottish clan in the 16th century that cannibalized over a thousand people in a span of 25 years. It was the kind of thing that could be found in the literature of the streets (you might recognize that The Hills Have Eyes [1977] took its own inspiration from the tale). So in essence you get two stories: the strange world of the outside world through class and the underworld toil for survival. Power matters, I suppose. Undeniably, the movie has one really entertaining presence: Donald Pleasance, who practically never seems to fail in the great art of scene-chewing with the confidence to back whatever needs to happen for the particular role. Its hard to toe the line of competent and odd for an authority figure, but he achieves that with such gusto that you can't help but smile at seeing him basically stumble into weird things beyond the usual fare. This basically covers for the fact that Ladd and Gurney are merely just okay, since they don't get much to really do when not engaged in banter (maybe there is something about the differences between Pleasance and Ladd in interrogation, but it doesnt really go anywhere). Apparently, Lee wanted to do the movie to be on the same set as Pleasance, even taking scale pay. Of course, Lee and Pleasance* have a bit of a height difference (eight inches), but its just as well to have him there for a moment not needing to bare fangs. Sherman wanted Armstrong for the cannibal right from the jump, even when the possibility of casting Marlon Brando (the first agent of Brando in Kanter approached him), but Brando had a family emergency so Sherman got Armstrong. He doesn't get to say much,  but his weary beaten-down nature makes for a relatively capable performance in evoking some pity for the lone creature of the dark. The movie rides on atmosphere and dwelling on what matters most for the supposed "British dignity" that is sometimes curious and yet sometimes feels a bit wanting, though it at least is paced fine at 87 minutes despite its puzzling ending. As a whole, Death Line is a solid first effort from Sherman and company that might inspire interest in what it ends up showing in its realm of having one solid performance carry things to the finish line in relatively quirky and sometimes involving horror for the season.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next: Halloween extravaganza.

*Famously, Christopher Lee was one of the people who rejected the role of Sam Loomis in Halloween (1978).

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. 

The Return of the Musketeers.

Review #2200: The Return of the Musketeers.

Cast: 

Michael York (d'Artagnan), Oliver Reed (Athos), Frank Finlay (Porthos), Richard Chamberlain (Aramis), C. Thomas Howell (Raoul), Geraldine Chaplin (Anne of Austria), Kim Cattrall (Justine de Winter), Philippe Noiret (Cardinal Mazarin), Christopher Lee (the Comte de Rochefort), Roy Kinnear (Planchet), Eusebio Lázaro (the Duke of Beaufort), Jean-Pierre Cassel (Cyrano de Bergerac), Alan Howard (Oliver Cromwell), David Birkin (Louis XIV), and Bill Paterson (Charles I) Directed by Richard Lester (#541 - A Hard Day's Night, #594 - A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, #785 - Superman II, #786 - Superman III, #972 - The Three Musketeers, #976 - The Four Musketeers, and #1939 - Help!)

Review: 

“I really won’t talk about The Return of the Musketeers, I never have and I won’t now. But I think you can draw your own conclusions.”

On April 19, 1989, The Return of the Musketeers was released into European theaters. Let us refresh ourselves by going back a few years. In 1844, the adventure novel The Three Musketeers [Les Trois Mousquetaires] was first serialized, as written by Alexandre Dumas and his collaborator Auguste Maquet, which was the first of three Musketeer novels between 1844 and 1847 (Twenty Years After and The Vicomte of Bragelonne: Ten Years Later); Dumas had been inspired by Gatien de Courtilz de Sandras and his memoirs of Charles de Batz de Castelmore d'Artagnan, an actual captain of the Musketeers of the Guard in the 1600s. Films have been done of the Musketeers since the early days of film, albeit mostly of the first book. At any rate, the Salkinds (Alexander and Ilya) had an initial idea of getting the Beatles to play the roles of the Musketeers for a film. Years went by (and, well, no Beatles to play the roles) before the Salkinds asked Richard Lester to do the film, who had not directed a film since The Bed Sitting Room (1969); noted novelist George MacDonald Fraser was hired to do the script. The Three Musketeers (1973) was filmed so heavily, that, well, clearly the Salkinds thought to pull a quick one and eventually tell the actors of the impending The Four Musketeers (1974) rather than having to strain hard to make one long film. So, now in 1989, was a return for Lester after his previous film had been Finders Keepers (1984). The Salkinds were not behind the production (in fact, they wouldn't let any old footage be used here), but Pierre Spengler, a producer involved with the previous two films, was there to produce this one; Fraser returned to do the script and a handful of cast members from the previous two films were there (even William Hobbs, who was behind the stage combat for the previous two films, returned). Lester has not been particularly keen on talking about the film too much in the 35 years since the release of this film, one that was both a trying production along with one that did not even get a proper American release (it was put on cable in 1991 for the States). Lester did one more project as a director with the 1991 concert film Get Back before essentially retiring (this was also the last screenplay written by Fraser).

The nature of Twenty Years Later basically entails that you won't really see all of the core of York, Reed, Finlay, and Chamberlain at once (the latter is credited as "special appearance by") all together at once. In fact, this was the last film to feature Kinnear, also returning from the previous two films (alongside Lee, Chaplin, and Cassel). On September 19, 1988, he suffered a horrific accident while on a horse that saw him fall off that saw him fracture his pelvis (while also having internal bleeding). The next day, he died from a heart attack while in the hospital. As such, seeing what a mix of him alongside stand-in shots (and a soundalike in parts) will probably be a bit jarring. The whole film is a jumble when it all comes down to assessment, but I would venture to say that a decent romp of yesteryear is more ideal to sit through once than not at all. They may be aged and may not be as big in star power as they were fifteen years ago, but it is hard to resist the qualities that come through most in York (if someone is compelled to do a voiceover, might as well be him) and Reed (when he is on, he is right there...), although at least Howell and Cattrall make for adequate newcomers to the smile game of adventure (one can't match Faye Dunaway exactly, but Cattrall at least seems to to be having fun trying). Finlay may be tired, but at least he has bits and pieces to contribute that go further than the "here is a scene there and here is one for the climax because I can" of Chamberlain or particularly Chaplin (you might say Lee is all too brief, but we* adore Lee being there at all). I particularly like the sequence involving a litany of traps within a rough-and-tumble fight that sees it go all the way to the foundation (literally). The clash of trying to play faithfulness to the source material goes to a point (for one thing, the threat was actually de Winter's illegitimate son, but even if this was a hit, would you have expected, say, another of these films where the Musketeers all die?), because there are moments where the strain of trying to keep up with its structure makes it nearly crash into pieces. As a whole, the 102-minute runtime makes for a fairly sustainable feature that deserved better than to be shuffled away as just a lower-release film or Lester's last hurrah, if only because there is something worth seeing with that spark of familiar wonder and chuckles. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*"we" being me, myself, and I

Scars of Dracula.

Review #2106: Scars of Dracula.

Cast: 

Dennis Waterman (Simon Carlson), Christopher Lee (Count Dracula), Jenny Hanley (Sarah Framsen), Christopher Matthews (Paul Carlson), Patrick Troughton (Klove), Anouska Hempel (Tania), Michael Ripper (Landlord), and Michael Gwynn (The Priest) Directed by Roy Ward Baker (#1742 - The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires)

Review: 

The Hammer rendition of Dracula had a strange experiment of sorts in 1970. Consider the fact that it saw two films released involving Christopher Lee in the title role: Taste the Blood of Dracula was released in May while this film was released in November, complete with being released on the same day as The Horror of Frankenstein (1970). The film starts with, well, a sort-of resurrection sequence for Dracula, which involves a bat (on a string) throwing up blood onto him while he is around in a stone chamber totally closed off to all except, well, bats. The attempt by the villagers to strike upon the castle and take down Dracula only results in a burnt castle and the death of several people by vampire bats when the villagers arrive back to the churches to their loved ones. It takes about a third of the film (one that lasts 95 minutes) before one gets to hear Lee speak, which works out perhaps a bit better this time around when it comes to plot construction, or at least the idea of it. Lee was quite busy in the role of Dracula that year, since he also starred in Count Dracula (1970), the Jesus Franco production that somehow wasn't any better than the Hammer Dracula films, and Baker was busy with vampire films too with the release of The Vampire Lovers (1970). The script was written by Anthony Hinds, who actually was the son of William Hinds, the founder of Hammer Film Productions (it was Anthony who had suggested Hammer go after the screen rights to The Quartermass Experiment from the BBC). He had written for the previous four Dracula films (The Brides of Dracula, Dracula: Prince of Darkness, Dracula Has Risen from the Grave and Taste, respectively)

The series was already quite over-the-top if you think about it, considering that one of them saw the vampire get taken down by running water (or having three films in a row where the lead male presence besides Lee plays a character named Paul), so the idea of him going around using a knife on someone and then sucking their blood is about on point. The film does dwell a bit on the gore when it comes to the opening (vampire bat ravaging, anyone?), which probably is there to make up for a story that is paler than the previous renditions. It is evident where Hammer would get the idea to try and revitalize the series with "A.D. 1972", that is for sure, and it starts with thinking to do anything other than try another weak lead to counter the title character. Lee had grown tired of the role even before the release of his final film as Dracula (he often stated that the scripts seemed as if Dracula was added in later), but at least one can detect where he tried his best to capture what he felt was defined by Bram Stoker in the original novel when it comes to (in his words) "aloof majesty, ferocity of dignity, and of somber mystery". In short, there are no bad performances when it comes to Lee as Dracula. The bar for the films with him may have had their highs and lows, but at least Lee looks the part. Waterman was apparently more known for tough-guy roles, which probably explains why the role doesn't really have any bite present when it comes to playing off the mysteries of what one has seen before from folks encountering a spooky place where the villagers play pretend. The only notable supporting member might be Troughton, if only because, well, a sniveling helper to Dracula played by someone familiar to viewers of a certain British TV show is worth a chuckle. The climax is more amusing in the execution rather than as a way to end things on a useful note, since it sees Dracula grab a metal beam that had been thrust on him only to see the beam get struck by lightning that results in him being on fire to writhe around before falling out of the castle. As a whole, it definitely isn't one of the better efforts by Hammer, seemingly satisfying just the bare minimum for what you would hope to have from them that makes for a mediocre time. 

Now, as for the Frankenstein film that came with it...

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Mummy (1959).

Review #2096: The Mummy (1959).

Cast: 

Peter Cushing (John Banning), Christopher Lee (Kharis / The Mummy), Yvonne Furneaux (Isobel Banning / Princess Ananka), Eddie Byrne (Inspector Mulrooney), Felix Aylmer (Stephen Banning), Raymond Huntley (Joseph Whemple), George Pastell (Mehemet Bey), Michael Ripper (Poacher), George Woodbridge (P. C. Blake), and Harold Goodwin (Pat) Directed by Terence Fisher (#257 - The Curse of Frankenstein, #258 - Dracula (1958), #272 - The Hound of the Baskervilles (1959), #469 - The Revenge of Frankenstein, #833 - Spaceways, #857 - Frankenstein Created Woman, #858 - Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed, and #859 - Dracula: Prince of Darkness, #1280 - The Brides of Dracula)

Review: 

"I have always strenuously tried to avoid being blatant in my pictures. Instead, whenever possible, I have used the camera to show things - especially nasty things - happening by implication."

If you recall, Hammer was on a roll with horror films fit for the international tastes. The successes of The Curse of Frankenstein (1957) proved that Terence Fisher was the right and reliable pick for Hammer's big venture in horror, and his subsequent direction of Dracula (1958) started yet another franchise for Hammer. Who better to do a film involving another monster with familiar cast and crew involved? While the film one might think of it as a remake of The Mummy since it has the same time, it actually seems more in line with the three sequels since the last name of Banning and the name of Kharis came from those, while The Mummy's Ghost also involved a swamp for its climax (at any rate, instead of tana leaves, one sees a Scroll of Life). In general, Universal (releaser of those classic horror films) distributed the film under the "International" label for, well, international releases. The film was written by Jimmy Sangster, who had written several scripts for previous Hammer films. Evidently, the writer of the 1932 adaptation in Nina Wilcox Putnam thought it was "disgusting" and was displeased that it was done without her knowledge or consent (ironic, since the resulting film is considerably superior to the older film in most respects). Three further films were done by Hammer with mummies with The Curse of the Mummy's Tomb (1964), The Mummy's Shroud (1967), and Blood from the Mummy's Tomb (1971); of these, only Pastell returned to appear in any of the films from the original cast, and he only appeared in Tomb; perhaps not surprisingly, none of the films were as successful as the original.

It probably would surprise nobody that the film was a reliable success with how efficient it is with being a viscerally gripping feature that exceeds the original Mummy films with plenty to spare. It is a vibrant feature beyond just being in color, to put it mildly. It is familiar routine (lost loves and impending doom) but it is entertaining routine that does not waver from its goals with distracting relief or imbalances. One would like to not play favorites with film-watching when it comes to acting, but I always find myself smiling at the prospect of seeing Christopher Lee in a lead role, even if it involves him under plenty of makeup, which is exquisite. With a role that invites only dialogue for the flashback sequence (for obvious reasons), he makes for a quality threat that has a looming wandering quality of tragedy that makes a distinct monster than if one simply had a stuntman do it all because of the eyes that come out to play; incidentally, he suffered a handful of injuries on the film, such as separating his shoulder for a break-in sequence. This also applies to Cushing, who has the great dignity required to make his leading qualities all the more enterprising for someone to follow along, because heaven knows there is no man that can deliver exposition like he can. Furneaux is the lookalike that is really more of an alluring presence in the latter part of the film, which goes about as well as you would think in passive energy. The supporting cast is fine, although it is mostly headlined by Pastell and his fervent energy. There are a handful of scenes one could highlight, such as the first sight of the mummy rising, or perhaps the story of how the mummy came to be (exposition is great when delivered by Cushing and Lee being present), but the sequence where Cushing essentially taunts Pastell with regard to his beliefs just to stoke the flame a bit probably should be mentioned. At any rate, it is a gripping feature made in the perfect time for Hammer to stoke the flames of spooking its audience in consistent entertaining fashion with a game cast and director to accomplish everything required to make one of the most interesting films involving mummies of its time. For the Hammer fan at heart, this is one of the more entertaining efforts by the company.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Tomorrow: AIP double feature.

Count Dracula.

Review #1913: Count Dracula.

Cast: 

Christopher Lee (Count Dracula), Herbert Lom (Professor Abraham Van Helsing), Klaus Kinski (R.M. Renfield), Frederick Williams (Jonathan Harker), Maria Rohm (Mina Murray), Soledad Miranda (Lucy Westenra), Paul Muller (Dr. John "Jack" Seward), Jack Taylor (Quincey Morris), Jesús Puente (the Minister of Interior), and Franco Castellani (Renfield's Warden) Directed by Jesús Franco.

Review: 

Consider, for a moment, the state of Dracula movies in 1970. I think we can agree there are two actors you can think of when it comes to Count Dracula: Bela Lugosi and Christopher Lee. Lee first played the role for Hammer Film Productions in Dracula (1958), which also featured Peter Cushing as Van Helsing. Lee didn't return for The Brides of Dracula (1960), but he would return for the next couple of films with Dracula: Prince of Darkness (1966), and Dracula Has Risen from the Grave (1968). Now here we are in 1970...with Christopher Lee playing the role of the Count in three films (as star, not counting any guest appearances), two of them from Hammer. Taste the Blood of Dracula was released in May while Scars of Dracula was released in November. But we are here to talk about the odd man out: Count Dracula, released in April of 1970 as a production between Spain, Italy, West Germany, Liechtenstein, and the United Kingdom. An experimental film comprised from behind-the-scenes footage from the making of this film (which shows how the effects and sets were designed) was shot in high-contrast black-and-white that was called Cuadecuc, vampir (1971), which was directed by Pere Portabella. Lee would do a few more movies as Dracula, which even included a comedy with Dracula and Son (1976). Oh, but there is one more thing to consider: This was directed by Jesus Franco, a Spanish filmmaker proficient in many, many, many exploitation / B-grade movies (as done in Spain, France, West Germany, Switzerland, and Portugal) who directed from 1959 to 2014 that specialized in sex and sadism in his horror features (for which there are nearly 200 of them), which varied in budget depending on who was his producer. Harry Alan Towers, who he shot nine films for, was the producer on this film, which evidently was presented as a more faithful adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel (incidentally, Towers was behind the production of films that had Lee star as Fu Manchu). Well, at least as faithful as one can be, anyway, because not even the death sequence in the climax matches the book (as opposed to being stabbed with knives...here he dies in a fire). At least Lee's Dracula changes in age throughout the movie. There are a handful of writers: Erich Kröhnke did the story, while Augusto Finocchi and Jesus Franco did the screenplay, but there are others responsible depending on the language version: Harry Alan Towers did the English screenplay, while Dietmar Behnke did the German script and Milo G. Cuccia and Carlo Fadda did the Italian version.

So, when looking at the Dracula movies played by Lee (not counting the comedy), there is an undeniable appeal...it sure is a shame that it is not nearly as good as even the most average Hammer Dracula movie. Imagine being outclassed by Dracula movies that see an atheist-turned Christian lead hero. Well, the movie may be hampered by a low budget when it comes to failing to live to expectations, but the real problem is that the movie is just not exciting enough. It seems too static to go anywhere beyond what might have worked on television than a film experience. Granted, telling a book that is comprised of diaries for a film is hard, but there isn't an interesting perspective to really latch onto here. The 97-minute runtime moves with pale pacing that doesn't have a single striking element beyond just having Lee look slightly more interested to play the role with dialogue than usual. So yes, when viewing performances on a curve, his performances usually reflect the energy of the movie more than anything, which means he is the best part of a dull time despite not being his best portrayal of the character. Lom was apparently cast after Franco's first choice of Vincent Price fell through (my God, could you imagine how Price would have been? Oops, where were we?). Lom is technically a wise choice to counteract Lee as Van Helsing, mildly dignified in what is needed despite a silly script. He may not compare well to say, Peter Cushing (who went 12 years between portrayals), but he does fine in the exposition sequences, even if Lom and Lee don't share a scene on screen together (since heaven forbid both actors be on set at the same time). The core of Williams, Rohm, Miranda, and Muller are not particularly special, and this is a problem when Dracula isn't around for a good chunk of the feature (you know, the time after the Transylvania sequence). Kinski barely has anything to do besides a handful of "weird" moments involving flies and yep, it sure is a shame to be outclassed by Dwight Frye without saying a word. The silliest thing is not Dracula's death but instead a sequence where our characters are being stalked by deadly animals...that are stuffed. At least it makes one a bit complimentary to Francis Ford Coppola trying to do his own "faithful adaptation" of the book 22 years later. In short: Count Dracula may seem more like the book, but it doesn't come close to the exploitative fun that came from the Hammer movies, which means this movie is only worth watching if one is really into seeing Christopher Lee in movies or like cheesy horror movies. Don't take my word for it, Terence Fisher (who directed Lee in the first Dracula film twelve years prior) was quoted as saying “For the first ten minutes I thought, my God, it’s better than mine – and then I thought no it’s not!” I cannot recommend the movie as a good one, but if one really wants to see something with Lee or Franco, well, here is something to bite on if better movies aren't easier to find. A stinker is a stinker, but some stinkers are more fun to write about than others as opposed to actually sitting down and watching it.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Happy Halloween, everyone. I hope you have enjoyed the horror reviews in October and enjoy your holiday time....and stay tuned for November.

Airport '77.

Review #1720: Airport '77.

Cast: 

Jack Lemmon (Capt. Don Gallagher), Lee Grant (Karen Wallace), Brenda Vaccaro (Eve Clayton), Joseph Cotten (Nicholas St. Downs III), Olivia de Havilland (Emily Livingston), James Stewart (Philip Stevens), George Kennedy (Joseph "Joe" Patroni), Darren McGavin (Stan Buchek), Christopher Lee (Martin Wallace), Robert Foxworth (Chambers), Robert Hooks (Eddie), and M. Emmet Walsh (Dr. Williams) Directed by Jerry Jameson (#1195 - Raise the Titanic)

Review: 

See, one knows they are dealing with a product movie, because what other movie have the year titled on it? Of course, by this point, the Airport films (1970, 1975) have now evolved past even having an airport involved in the actual plot, since now it deals with the Navy helping to find a fancy plane that crashed near the Bermuda Triangle. The true star is Albert J. Whitlock, who provides the special effects within matte paintings, which is probably the most interesting part of the film (besides having scenes shot in a water tank in Florida, I suppose). By this point, the Airport series has managed to ditch the attempt at thrills, really. You know what you are getting into if you've decided to pick the third film of a series dedicated to making planes and flying as boring as humanely possible. Exposition is the true terror of the sky when it comes to stuff like this, and it is probably not surprising that four writers (Michael Scheff, David Spector, H. A. L. Craig, Charles Kuenstle) were hired to do the film. Jameson may have been more of a TV director than a feature film man, but at least he fitted the occasion of helming disaster-fare (such as TV movies involving hurricanes and elevators in trouble). Even The Poseidon Adventure (1972) managed to evoke some sort of interest within trouble in the waters with a sinking ship, mostly because there is more gusto given by the actors along with better time spent in the water.

Apparently, Lemmon took the role because of he thought it would be fun to do a "blatantly commercial cartoon" (of course, he also was coming off a failure with Alex & the Gypsy and apparently told his agent to accept the next high-paying offer, so...). Eh, he is technically better as a pilot in the acting scale than Heston or Martin, in that he isn't beholden to hammy overtones like the others were - him and Vacarro at least look like they want to be there and act together with believability. Of course, Lee accepted his supporting role because he wanted to work with Lemmon. They do get to share a scene together at least, so one can at least consider the contrast of tastes for certain acting presences over others (i.e. I am always curious to see a movie with Lee in it). This is mostly apparent because he shares most of his segmented time paired with Grant, who gets to play the jealous spouse that also gets to panic the most when disaster strikes - yeah, I don't get it either (apparently, the television version adds more of her, so there's that). At least you get to see her get hysterical and be punched out after trying to open a hatch? Why exactly was Kennedy in this movie? He spends about two minutes in the movie, and he also is the only actor to actually spend any screen-time with Stewart, who might as well have filmed his stages in a box. One can't quite tell which actor is phoning it in more, but I imagine Stewart was quite comfortable with making a movie where he didn't have to speak much and could make a check worthy for his grandchildren to enjoy - this was his fifth-to-last role on film, after all. Cotten and de Havilland are okay, but one isn't really here to see traditional actors if McGavin is jawing exposition right in front of you, right? Honestly, although the film doesn't have as much to generate in weirdo character stuff, at least one can appreciate the small role done by Walsh, who actually had been appearing in a handful of films in bit parts for almost a decade (with this being right before better stuff such as Blood Simple).

At least you can say the Navy wouldn't be embarrassed by participating in this film. The credits even list that the rescue operations are actually utilized by the Navy in similar emergencies, so one can at least appreciate seeing the USS Cayuga being used for something that isn't a waste of time (granted, scenes filmed in water isn't exactly the most interesting thing to watch but your mileage may vary). Look, the movie is no better and no worse than the previous two features in terms of mediocrity. Sure, there are probably a few more things to make fun of here, but it is the same kind of blah movie from before that made money in a time where people were ripe for seeing these kind of movies (making over $90 million on a $6 million dollar budget). Naturally, Airport had to continue with The Concorde ... Airport '79 (1979), so one can only wonder where the adventure of mediocrity can go from there.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Stupids.

Review #1718: The Stupids.

Cast: 

Tom Arnold (Stanley Stupid), Jessica Lundy (Joan Stupid), Alex McKenna (Petunia Stupid), Bug Hall (Buster Stupid), Mark Metcalf (Colonel Neidermeyer), Bob Keeshan (Charles Sender), Christopher Lee (Evil Mr. Sender), Matt Keeslar (Lieutenant Neal), and Frankie Faison (Lloyd) Directed by John Landis (#328 - Trading Places, #410 - Coming to America, #513 - Spies Like Us, #1114 - Animal House, #1462 - The Blues Brothers, #1465 - An American Werewolf in London, and #1699 - Blues Brothers 2000)

Review: 

"I'm happy to say it's very successful on television, and extremely successful on video because people buy it for their kids. It's meant for ten-year-olds. That really went under the radar. But I really like that picture."

Honestly, I have been looking to the best time to finally cover this movie. I first heard of it last year when it came time to cover the month of August with films of the 1990s. Of course, my reasoning for not picking it was because I would have to have countered it with Dumb and Dumber (1994) because I thought they sounded similar. Of course, the other reason is that one can only pick so many movies from John Landis at a time. I don't think anybody had such a curious third decade in directing like he did, with this being the fourth of six works in that decade, and each one did not fare well with audiences (or critics, but that's another story). It isn't the best of his movies, but Landis certainly made an interesting effort. The movie was made for a company called Savoy Pictures, but the company decided to cut back on their interest in the movie business (going instead to being a TV station holding company), which occurred during post-production. This was one of the fourteen films in the Savoy roster that was shipped out to potential buyers, and New Line Cinema ended up buying six - this was one of them; somehow, the studio thought it was some sort of raunchy product as opposed to a children's movie (as evident by the surprise noted by the studio chief at a screening with Landis there). A budget of $25 million resulted in a $2.5 million return. Look, we are talking about a movie that starts with two characters that wake up from bed having slept on the foot-end of the bed. Actually, it perhaps should be noted that The Stupids is an adaptation of a series of children's books of the same name, which were written by Harry Allard and James Marshall, who wrote four books from 1974 to 1989. I imagine the books also happened to depict a family that looks like All-American apple pie with dull wit to spare (apparently, in one of the books, they think they died...instead they had experienced a blackout), so is it surprising that this is a movie that segues from missing garbage stumbles into a plot with military weapon-dealing, aliens, and a plethora of cameos? I don't think there are that many oblivious family movies out there, particularly ones that seem to hone to winners of the Darwin Award.

For me, the surprise is the fact that I actually didn't hate the movie. It might run at a predictable pace of 94 minutes, but it grew on me quite quickly. It has a fun quality of obliviousness that I appreciate, one that rolls in stride with dim-witted sensibility without smugness. I admire its incoherency that is headlined by Arnold, who certainly tried to dabble in being the star of silly comedies rather than just a supporting piece (this was the same year as Big Bully and Carpool, after all). I'm sure plenty of folks can find reason to resist its "kid at heart" charm, but I thought it was silly enough to work without wasting my time (in other words, this is the kind of dumb movie to enjoy rather than stuff like Kung Pow! Enter the Fist (2002), for example). Picking at the flaws of plot is like trying to fix your cat's bad habits - sometimes you just have to let it go. I imagine that Arnold must have had a weird time trying to play funny angles for a movie that requires a great deal of earnest honesty without playing to all of the obvious bits that could be done with a different kind of dopey stiffs. Lundy doesn't have as many little moments of neat honesty, but she fares well with keeping things at a fair pace alongside McKenna & Hall in moving forward with what needs to happen without looking confused (the kids play right to the audience, of course). Undeniably, the supporting presences prove just as curious. Metcalf and Keeslar are dry enough to contrast with the main quartet handily enough that usefully seem plucked from a low-rent thriller. You may be interested to know that this was the first and only film appearance for Keeshan, who was most known for his work in television, such as Captain Kangaroo (1955-1984) which he created and starred in; here, he is playing a kindly warm guy mistaken by the oblivious ones as a figure of evil, which in that sense makes for a good chuckle. Of course, Faison, playing an attendant at a museum mistaken for God, is warm enough to resonate in his interaction with Arnold & McKenna. Technically, the best cameo comes from David Cronenberg, because of how low key the cameo is when compared to other faces seen (although it is amusing to name-drop the name Atom Egoyan and link it Jenny McCarthy, amusing for probably the only time ever); of course, like any true horror fan, the appearance of Lee is worth a watch and a half, as he chews on this momentary bit of evil amusement the way you would expect. Of course, not everything is consistent. One is curious who went with all of the clay-mation designs, since it has an off-putting feel when you see pets and aliens all of a sudden in a style that doesn't quite click with the usual look of the movie, which almost goes a bit too all over the place for its climax. As a whole, it might be easy to see why this wasn't appreciated 25 years ago, but there is an earnest fun quality here that manages to persist over all odds for a likable winner. It might irritate folks who don't have the patience for the one joke the movie has, but others will surely get a huge kick out of its silly enjoyment, where being a stupid campy experience is kind of the point. I don't usually go against the boat, but I can't see why this movie was treated so poorly back then. Maybe it was a bit behind the curve when it came to oblivious silly humor, but honestly, I find this to be a curious little gem of a movie, one made by a competent director that obviously is having fun with silly material and a cast that is fairly game for where it needs to go in silliness without becoming obnoxious about it. In that sense, you might be fine with checking it out.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Dracula A.D. 1972.

Review #1587: Dracula A.D. 1972.

Cast:

Christopher Lee (Count Dracula), Peter Cushing (Lorrimer Van Helsing / Lawrence Van Helsing), Stephanie Beacham (Jessica Van Helsing), Christopher Neame (Johnny Alucard / Follower of Dracula - 1872), Marsha Hunt (Gaynor Keating), Caroline Munro (Laura Bellows), Michael Coles (Inspector Murray), Janet Key (Anna Bryant), Michael Kitchen (Greg), and Lally Bowers (Matron Party Hostess) Directed by Alan Gibson (#477 - The Satanic Rites of Dracula)

Review:

Well, here we are again, with another Dracula film. One can always look upon the last one of the Hammer films they see and just make up their own continuity about how there is yet another appearance of the famed icon in elegant-ish horror from the British. One of the films involved death by running water, another involved a test of faith to take down the vampire, and another involved a plague across the world spread by Dracula. This is the seventh of nine overall Dracula film made by Hammer Film Productions, which had started with Dracula (#258) in 1958. The previous film was the 1970 film Scars of Dracula (one of two I have not covered, with the other being the The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires (1974), the true end of the series). Technically one can't finalize a best/worst of the sequels to the original (which I last watched eight years ago with engagement) without having seen all nine films, but one can definitely pull an opinion of the choices to pull Dracula into the 20th century setting with this film - Dracula A.D. 1972 is most definitely a lesser sequel, one that cannot justify itself or its premise even with the promise of having Peter Cushing back into the fray for the first time in a Hammer Dracula film in twelve years (with this being his third of five appearances).

Supposedly the film took inspiration from an actual media case involving supposed vampires that occurred in London in the late 1960s that involved graveyard desecration and supposed mysterious figures being sighted (which naturally involved "vampire hunters" that occurred in Highgate Cemetery. Sure, "vampire hunters" and figures seen in the dark near the graves seem like an apt inspiration when it comes to Dracula, but it doesn't do any favors in the eyeroll of the skeptic with horror, that much is true (one detail of the Highgate sensation involved hunters that were also supposed to have a "magic duel" with each other, I kid you not). The film was written by Don Houghton, who you might recognize from his work on television programs such as Doctor Who (which he wrote two serials from 1970-71), and he would also write the following two films of the Dracula series. Again, the continuity is up to the viewer to pick and poke with, since there are only occasionally dates referred to in these films anyway (the original Dracula was apparently set in 1885, while this film depicts a final fight between Van Helsing and Dracula in 1872, and if you go by Dracula Has Risen from the Grave (1968, #860), that was set in the early 20th century - oh, and Van Helsing's first name in the original was- never mind, I give up). So yes, the main setting is indeed with swinging hippies in 1972 (i.e. padding) to wash away a charming little start with Cushing and Lee before Cushing is back again at minute 20 (Lee comes back 15 minutes after that). Oh, right, I forgot, there's a bunch of swinging 70s characters, which I guess is supposed to be more fresh than having the usual 19th century British folks, no doubt inspired by the success of earlier 70s vampire films like Count Yorga, Vampire (1970). Is there any more semblance of "plot" than before? Nope, and it only goes to show that just having Lee and Cushing back can't override the sense of boredom that comes from hippies and a Dracula that only comes around to lurk a few feet, never really experiencing the swinging locale besides having people being brought in to scream. Jeez, the blood being poured into the chalice (with ashes from 1872) can't even bring the fright level up. All that is happening is padding but with "hip" stuff, and Lee and Cushing literally only show up together again with five minutes left of a 96 minute feature. They are both at their usual level of curiosity, but they clearly have had better scripts to go along with (after all, they starred in a far better film with Horror Express the same year as this one). Beacham is okay in trying to draw new blood on the catacombs of familiarity, which works to a point in some tension while being quite bland in other respects. Neame is quite silly here, a laughable stooge of dark arts that is at his most bewildering in the fight between him and Cushing - fear the might that comes from a rising sun and "moveable mirrors" to go with water to end it all - oh the horror (there is even a scene that does the whole Alucard = Dracula bit...older fans might recognize this as a familiar bit from Son of Dracula (1943), of all things). At least Munro gets to have a scream scene to note. As a whole, it's a bland movie, reminding me of the "How do you do, fellow kids?" meme that shows the age of the Hammer films even with attempts to move from Victorian era making to 1970s stuff that shows plaque on the fangs of Dracula more than anything. To be fair, there are supporters of the film, with Tim Burton even once calling it one of his favorite films. If one finds something to like or found it to be one of the blocks that built scares as a kid, all power to you. It's a jumbled mess, but it is likely one you could find some amusement with just along the line of the other Dracula films from Hammer - for better or worse.

Next Time: Day of the Dead.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Hugo.

Review #1559: Hugo.

Cast: 

Asa Butterfield (Hugo Cabret), Chloë Grace Moretz (Isabelle), Ben Kingsley (Georges Méliès / Papa Georges), Sacha Baron Cohen (Inspector Gustave Dasté), Ray Winstone (Claude Cabret), Emily Mortimer (Lisette), Jude Law (Mr. Cabret), Helen McCrory (Jehanne D'Alcy / Mama Jeanne), Michael Stuhlbarg (René Tabard), Christopher Lee (Monsieur Labisse), Frances de la Tour (Madame Emile), and Richard Griffiths (Monsieur Frick) Directed by Martin Scorsese (#990 - Taxi Driver, #992 - The King of Comedy, #1276 - Mean Streets, #1463 - Raging Bull, #1496 - Goodfellas, #1544 - The Departed)

Review: 

"And in my film, the cinema itself is the connection--the automaton, the machine itself becomes the emotional connection between the boy, his father, Méliès, and his family. It's about how it all comes together, how people express themselves using the technology emotionally and psychologically. It's the connection between the people, and the thing that's missing--how it supplies what's missing." - Martin Scorsese

"Every second the actor playing different scenes ten times has to remember, while the film is rolling, exactly what he did at the same point in the preceding scenes and the exact place where he was on the stage." - Georges Méliès

Yes, this is a film by Martin Scorsese, but as is the case with his films, there is certainly more than meets the eye with that statement. In this case, one can start with a legendary director that lived over a century before this film existed with Georges Méliès. He has been long overdue for a spotlight with his films (or at the very least more than one sentence), as he did a large amount of films (most of them falling under the category of "short", but this was late 19th/early 20th century filmmaking). He was inspired to create from a young age, whether that meant drawing all over his books or with puppet-making. As one might see from the film, he developed an interest in stage magic, which led to him having his own theatre to do said performances; he did indeed find inspiration with a showing of the Lumière brothers' cinematograph in 1895 (attempts to buy it were unsuccessful, but by 1896 he had found a projector to use and modify as a camera for his films). He made over 500 films in his lifetime (although less than half survive), with the most obvious highlight being A Trip to the Moon (1902), displaying the first iconic shot ever put to film that is shown a century later with this feature. Melies declined by the end of the 1910s due to a variety of factors ranging from World War I to finances, though he did find a living working a candy/toy stand in the Gare Montparnasse, while having a rediscovery from journalists prior to his death in 1938, which included the Chevalier de la Légion d'honneur alongside a variety of future influences.

The film is adapted from 2007 novel The Invention of Hugo Cabret by Brian Selznick, with John Logan serving as screenplay writer. One can hope that they do not grow tired of seeing a director's vision come out on screen with such interest and efficient, regardless if it is a great director or not. It is interesting in that sense to see a film from Scorsese aimed differently from his usual audience - basically, one can watch the film with their children or by themselves and have a good time. It is a film with a deep respect for its audience alongside cinema that makes for a fairly fabulous achievement (one filmed in 3D, although obviously I can't recreate the experience of said 3D). The film runs at a generally enjoyable pace at 126 minutes that unfolds itself and its surroundings with careful planning that makes a worthy adventure with plenty of visual appeal while also drawing upon the past with a well-touched stroke of the pen. The film is tasked with needing two worthwhile child actors to bridge key gaps in the film, and Butterfield and Moretz do fairly well with generating the presence needed to capture the wonder and curiosity needed from each that should be expected from films like this. Kingsley is capably up to task with inviting mystery and interest in those moments he is around, particularly when explaining who he was as compared to now. Cohen is up to task in some bumbling amusement without preening distraction, proving a useful foil and occasional focus. Others have smaller focus but do just fine with those little moments, whether that means a dutiful Stuhlbarg or Lee (who can make a few lines seem fun even after over 200 appearances, the most appropriate person for a love letter to cinema). It drives an interesting mystery well enough to useful conclusions that run the expected gamut of emotion with a nice atmosphere and understanding from Scorsese and his crew that lands for those who desire something with a mostly consistent balance of first and second half to go with a game cast for a worthwhile feature for its crowd of cinema and beyond.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Gremlins 2: The New Batch.

Review #1494: Gremlins 2: The New Batch.

Cast:
Zach Galligan (Billy Peltzer), Phoebe Cates (Kate Beringer), John Glover (Daniel Clamp), Robert Prosky (Grandpa Fred), Robert Picardo (Forster, chief of security), Christopher Lee (Doctor Cushing Catheter), Haviland Morris (Marla Bloodstone), Dick Miller (Murray Futterman), Jackie Joseph (Sheila Futterman), Gedde Watanabe (Mr. Katsuji), and Keye Luke (Mr. Wing), with Howie Mandel (Gizmo), Tony Randall (Brain Gremlin), and Frank Welker (Mohawk, Other Gremlins) Directed by Joe Dante (#007 - Looney Tunes: Back in Action, #096 - Gremlins, and #097 - Small Soldiers)

Review:
"It's the one time someone came to me and said: 'We want this movie and we don't care what it is. Do whatever you want, just give it to us by this date."

When it comes to underappreciated directors, Joe Dante certainly deserves consideration. He grew up with an interest in cartoons alongside watching matinee films as a youth. While a graduate of the Philadelphia College of Art, it was Roger Corman who Dante honed his craft into becoming a filmmaker, initially starting out in the trailer-cutting department at New World Pictures. He made his debut with Hollywood Boulevard (1976), co-directing with Allan Arkush along with editing the film. His first minor triumph was Piranha (1978), and The Howling (1981) helped get his foot in the door with Warner Bros. to make Gremlins (1984). The original film is a triumph of comedy and horror, dark and entertaining that had attracted attention for their effects (and of course, complaints from folks who managed to be fooled by the Christmas setting and critics of violence that don't know any better and are rightfully made fun of here) along with being a key force in the creation of the PG-13 rating. It is entirely possible that this is a sequel that was just a little too late to the party. It took six years for a sequel to Gremlins to arrive into theaters and its director Joe Dante had to be convinced to even do another film in the first place, and he was granted creative control and a bigger budget. Charlie Haas would take over in writing duty (the original had been done by Chris Columbus), who moved the action to New York City with satirical elements all throughout the film, such as the advent of cable television (most notably with Ted Turner) and sequels in general that was more cartoonish than dark, with Dante describing it as one of his most personal films.

It's a shame that this wasn't too successful on release, because I enjoyed it just as much as the original Gremlins. The quality is just about even here, replacing its dark sentiment for cartoonish anarchy that manage to resonate just as much in amusement. It touches upon elements of the original without being smothered by expectations or becoming too much of an effects show, and it does so without becoming dated. It does what one could want for someone with a clear interest in having a good time at the movies in a similar vein to someone like William Castle or even in cartoons with Chuck Jones (who provided the animation for the opening/closing titles). Galligan returns alongside Cates, and each prove just fine in providing continuity and some small moments of levity among themselves and some sort of Mogwai mayhem. Of course the real focus is on Glover, wrapped in spry curiosity that is very much in his element with a bit of camp enjoyment. Prosky, imitating Al Lewis' portryal of another famous horror Grandpa that hosted a horror TV segment, does just fine with mixing camp and care that does lend itself to some quick smiles. Picardo does fine with smarmy chuckles, but the true curiosity ineviably turns to Lee, with that solumn voice going just right with the cliches required for some momentary smiles. Miller and Joseph also return for a quick turn around with the creatures, while Morris and the Mogwai voices round out the cast just fine. Like before, there are quite a handful of cameos lurking around, most notably with Leonard Maltin being dragged away by unsatisfied viewer gremlins. The effects are always lurking in one's mind, and Rick Baker does a tremendous job with delivering some distinct creatures (with a mix of puppetry like before and also mechanical work and stop motion) that get to do a bit more madcap action, such as a bat gremlin for example. The plot threads verge a bit familar at times with its structure, but it makes up for it with some interesting tricks of offbeat humor (such as having the film be stopped and then re-started) that goes in the right direction to make a fun time worthy of further inspection as a quality sequel and an interesting film to highlight for the start of the 1990s.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

And now, the schedule for this month, a mix of familiar and new faces on and behind the camera as one approaches the end of the millennium. 

Dr. Terror's House of Horrors.

Review #1419: Dr. Terror's House of Horrors.

Cast: 
Peter Cushing (Dr. Schreck)

"Werewolf" segment": Neil McCallum (Jim Dawson, Ursula Howells (Mrs. Deirdre Biddulph), Peter Madden (Caleb), Katy Wild (Valda), and Edward Underdown (Tod) 

"Creeping Vine" segment: Ann Bell (Ann Rogers), Bernard Lee (Hopkins), Alan Freeman (Bill Rogers), Jeremy Kemp (Jerry Drake), and Sarah Nicholls (Carol Rogers)

"Voodoo" segment: Roy Castle (Biff Bailey), Kenny Lynch (Sammy Coin), Harold Lang (Roy Shine), Christopher Carlos (Vrim), and Thomas Baptiste (Dambala)

"Disembodied Hand" segment: Christopher Lee (Franklyn Marsh), Michael Gough (Eric Landor), Isla Blair (Pretty girl), Judy Cornwell (Nurse), and Hedger Wallace (Surgeon)

"Vampire" segment: Donald Sutherland (Dr. Bob Carroll), Max Adrian (Dr. Blake), Jennifer Jayne (Nicolle Carroll), and Al Mulock (Detective)

Directed by Freddie Francis (#854 - They Came from Beyond Space, #856 - The Evil of Frankenstein, #860 - Dracula Has Risen from the Grave, #1145 - Tales from the Crypt)

Review: 
"As far back as I can ever remember, without really knowing it I wanted to be an actor. I was always dressing up, you know, playing pretend, putting on mothers hats and things. I'm sure Freud would have something to say about that. It was very much in my blood."

"Making films has never just been a job to me, it is my life. I have some interests outside of acting - I sing and I've written books, for instance - but acting is what keeps me going, it's what I do, it gives life purpose."

Horror, particularly horror in a decade of expanding tastes like the 1960s, can come in any kind of package. Anthology is a particular interesting manner in telling stories revolving around something creepy that can be linked together by either a theme, a character or a framing device. There have been plenty of anthology films in numerous genres, but one key anthology film that helped inspire this was Dead of Night (1945), a British production that producer Milton Subotsky liked enough to feel inspired to do his own multi-story film. He had started his work in television, but soon moved to films such as Rock, Rock, Rock (1956) and The City of the Dead (1960), which he produced with Max Rosenberg. In 1962, they would form Amicus Productions, a British company led by the American producers and writer that lasted until 1977. They specialized primarily in horror over the years that would have a share of name actors alongside young and old actors in the cast, particularly when it came to their anthologies. This was the first of seven anthology films they would do over a span of nine years, with those including Torture Garden (1967), The House That Dripped Blood (1970), Asylum (1972), Tales from the Crypt (1972), The Vault of Horror (1973) and From Beyond the Grave (1974). This was filmed in a span of less than three months from Freddie Francis, who had a career of over four decades in both directing and cinematographer that was known for his work on British horror films while winning two Academy Awards for the latter.

Honestly, the parts that are really interesting are the scenes inside the train with Cushing and the main five, since he tries on a beard and an German accent that stand out from the curious others. This isn't surprising to me at this point, because he had a perfectionist and dignified attitude that served him well in six decades of film, stage, television and radio, treating every role with seriousness that he felt his audience would like. One can have a soft spot for British horror when it is done right and Cushing always seems to end up fitting in to most of the right ones. Accompanying him is fellow British actor and friend Lee, who had a career just as versatile and long (nearly seven decades! This includes a singing career before turning 90!) with a distinctive voice that for a change is not playing someone villainous but merely just pompous, which he breezes by without trouble. McCallum and Freeman aren't exactly as well-known in presence (the former being an actor of stage and television and the latter being a disc jockey and radio personality), but they are least serviceable to starting the film with decent leads in their respective stories. Castle, a dancer/singer/comedian comes off with the lesser of the five stories and suffers for it. Sutherland, a Canadian actor doing British roles in film and TV before hitting it big later in this decade, makes for a composed turn in his third career role, fresh in looking for more beyond horror fare.

The segments each have a focus on something you've likely seen in a horror film before, whether that means a supernatural beast or a killer plant/hand or voodoo, and they generally range from average to slightly above average. In this sense, the Lee story involving a hand that follows him around is my personal favorite of the bunch, since it also features Gough for a time (making fun of an art critic, no less) in a segment that has a silly looking effect but enjoyment value regardless. I would say that the werewolf story is a notch below that, having a bit of interest in its coffin hidden in a fake wall that leads to a somewhat played out ending. The vine story also has a silly-looking effect, particularly since it doesn't have much of an ending (regardless of the resolution for the film, which is just as odd), although at least it is nice to see Bernard Lee play his type of authority role and utilize a pipe for safety. The vampire tale is fair, although it probably suffers from having a small time to build a story from the most, complete with the final twist in the knife with its last line (as is the case with the wolf and hand story). The voodoo is the lesser of all the tales (although none are actually terrible), mostly because of how hokey it is in generating actual suspense (copying a tune and getting followed for it, what a twist), but at least none of these tales manage to bore the senses or hold for too long. In the long run, this is a fair package of horror that utilizes its familiar trappings of its genre and stars to useful effect, and it is a serviceable film for its era to pick up on a day for curiosity.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.