The Return of the Living Dead.

Review #2410: The Return of the Living Dead.

Cast: 

Clu Gulager (Burt Wilson), James Karen (Frank Johnson), Don Calfa (Ernie Kaltenbrunner), Thom Mathew (Freddy Hanscom), Beverly Randolph (Tina), Miguel A. Núñez Jr ("Spider"), John Philbin (Chuck), Jewel Shepard (Casey), Brian Peck ("Scuz"), Linnea Quigley ("Trash"), Mark Venturini ("Suicide"), Jonathan Terry (Colonel Horace Glover), Cathleen Cordell (Ethel Glover, Colonel's Wife), Drew Deighan (Jerry, The Paramedic), and James Dalesandro (Tom, The Paramedic) Directed by Dan O'Bannon.

Review: 

Ever heard of a fork in the road for "Dead" movies? You might remember that Night of the Living Dead (1968) was co-written by John A. Russo and George A. Romero that had plenty of input from each side. The movie was, well, a hit, so naturally Romero and Russo would become involved with something totally interesting to follow it...well, not quite. There's Always Vanilla was directed by Romero while Russo was just a co-producer. They basically split after that and did their own things. Russo did a few horror novels (such as The Return of the Living Dead) and movies of his own. Apparently, in 1978, Russo and Romero did an agreement where Romero got to produce and distribute Dawn of the Dead while Russo got the right to do his Return of the Living Dead, as long as it was not promoted as a direct sequel to Night of the Living Dead. The story is credited to Rudy Ricci, John Russo (who, well, wanted to make a straight feature), and Russell Streiner, although it had had plenty of re-writes in the screenplay by Dan O'Bannon, who became the one to direct the movie when Tobe Hooper backed out to make the movie Lifeforce (1985). O'Bannon would direct just one other film with The Resurrected (1991) prior to his death in 2009 at the age of 63. Of sorts, the movie spawned a franchise, in that one could call a number of movies called Return of the Living Dead a franchise (1988, 1993, 2005, 2005) despite having little to no involvement from O'Bannon and company; Romero apparently was more annoyed that Russo didn't get his script made into a film. There are a few versions of the movie. The 2002 Special Edition DVD had music alterations because of copyright issues, while the 2007 release altered the basement zombie voice. A 2012 UK release had the original audio and soundtrack. Funny enough, even with "2K scan" and "4K scan" versions of the film for home media, the song "Dead Beat Dance" is hard to actually include. Even funnier, there was litigation over who had the rights to the intellectual property of the film as late as 2024. 

For whatever reason, the movie was first released abroad in April 1985 before hitting the States on August 16, 1985 (paradoxically being ahead and behind Romero's Day of the Dead, which was released in July 1985 in the States). I guess you could say it was a send-up of the Dead movies. But if that was the case, why call Night of the Living Dead as a movie based on actual events for this movie? Of course, this movie is the one that says zombies need brains, so there's that. For a person that rather liked Day of the Dead, it is a bit strange to call The Return of the Living Dead as merely a fine movie. Taking place in 1984 Kentucky (as one does when using the "based on a true story" trick), it certainly is a movie fit for a late night that would love to hear about a supposed cult classic and just roll with its action (91 minutes). It is a bit unwieldy in its humor, but it does have a killer look to its creatures and has some worthwhile mayhem with its death sequences because at a certain point, death spiraling can be gruesomely funny. The bumbling between Gulager and Karen and Calfa is amusing for a time, although one really does need more of a divide between them and the resulting punks, who really are just folks too bored and too cynical than punk, arguably; Quigley and her suggestive grace probably steals the show among the rest.  It does have a thin plot, as one does with a siege movie that has people eventually run and board things up before having a dour ending that probably had in mind to top Night even if it is a bit loopy. The zombies not just being easy to shoot or torch is interesting and probably served as an interesting jumping point for future films involving the dead, that's for sure. I like the effects for the zombies that have a good deal of muck (one is even chained up and others might be zombified animals), and the movie does have a general sense of mayhem for its entertainment. As a whole, it is a solid zombie flick with a few chuckles and gruesome fun that likely will be fit for a dark and stormy night that clearly has had staying power for four decades for good reason.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Last Picture Show.

Review #1000: The Last Picture Show.

Cast: 
Timothy Bottoms (Sonny Crawford), Jeff Bridges (Duane Jackson), Cybill Shepherd (Jacy Farrow), Ben Johnson (Sam the Lion), Cloris Leachman (Ruth Popper), Ellen Burstyn (Lois Farrow), Eileen Brennan (Genevieve), Clu Gulager (Abilene), Sam Bottoms (Billy), Randy Quaid (Lester Marlow), Gary Brockette (Bobby Sheen), Sharon Taggart (Charlene Duggs), Barc Doyle (Joe Bob Blanton), Bill Thurman (Coach Mr. Popper), Jessie Lee Fulton (Miss Mosey), Joe Heathcock (Town Sheriff), John Hillerman (English Teacher), and Frank Marshall (Tommy Logan) Directed by Peter Bogdanovich.

Review: 
Here it is. The big one. I hope to satisfy you folks with the review of this film, which I had been longing to do for quite some time, so what better way than now? It also happens to be a film set and shot in my home state of Texas. Enjoy the show.

It sometimes feels hard to explain the benefits or the highlights of the town you live in, especially if you live in a small city. What does it have that another city doesn't have? Is there much to having civic pride? Based on the 1966 novel of the same name by Larry McMurtry, The Last Picture Show is an interesting look into what makes up a dying little town such as this, and the characters that live in it. Bottoms and Bridges are a fairly effective duo, each having an interesting quality to them that stands out, such as Bottoms' eyes and Bridges' charm, and they both do tremendous jobs that stick out in a cavalcade of stand-out performances. Shepherd (in her debut role) does a spirited job, managing to be interesting along with alluring. Near the halfway point of the film, Johnson's character reminisces about the time spent in a prairie, and the way that he talks about old memories seem like something you could hear from someone in your neck of the woods if you gave a listen. He doesn't have too many lines (in fact he is in the film for nine minutes), but it is the way that he expresses them that makes him an enduring figure in the film, as if he was the soul of the town. Leachman also pulls a capable job, particularly during the climax. The rest of the cast stick out in their own little ways. This film was nominated for six Academy Awards, with Johnson and Leachman winning for supporting roles. These are characters worth watching because these are characters that we can see with fair honesty. They don't suddenly become comic characters for no reason, nor do they become melodramatic, and that serves to be a key highlight and something worth striving for in film today. Is it a bleak film? At times it is, but it also manages to be moving along with enduring, and Bogdanovich is the one responsible for making a movie as put together and complete as this one is.

The city's flatness and empty nature is perfectly captured by the cinematography by Robert Surtees, in part because of how he arranges the shots; the fact that it is shot in black-and-white (decided by Bogdanovich through a conversation with Orson Welles) also helps in showing this town (and its people) with a certain aesthetic that proves fitting for the movie. Everything from the music (with songs from artists such as Hank Williams) to even the clip of the "last picture show" (from the ending of Red River) is planned out in an effective manner. The film proved to be a success upon release, and a Special Edition Director's cut was released in 1992 that added seven minutes to the run-time (making it 127 minutes) that adds a bit to the film's stature. It's a coming-of-age film, but it also is an honest movie that never seems to break its mood nor its intentions. This is a movie worth watching in part because of how it captures the essence of the time it portrays along with its town that seem fresh even after over 40 years since its release.

I just wanted to give a word of thanks to any and all viewers of Movie Night over the past one thousand reviews. It has been a pleasure doing so many reviews in nearly seven years, and I will be the first to say that they have improved in quality over time - but having at least a few people read them (and share appreciation on occasion) feels nice. I do not know what is in store for the next batch of reviews, but I hope that you will enjoy them. Thank you. 

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Attached is a compilation of various celebratory landmarks over the past few years, from the 50th all the way to now. Enjoy:

Movie Night: A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge.

Review #476: A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge.

Cast
Mark Patton (Jesse Walsh), Kim Myers (Lisa Webber), Robert Englund (Freddy Krueger), Robert Rusler (Ron Grady), Clu Gulager (Ken Walsh), Hope Lange (Cheryl Walsh), Christie Clark (Angela Walsh), and Marshall Bell (Coach Schneider) Directed by Jack Sholder.

Review
My first gripe is with the title. Who exactly does Freddy get "revenge" on? None of the original cast is in the film (save for Freddy), just a bunch of clueless teens and a family who apparently liked the cheap price on the Thompson house, despite the stuff that happened at the house, but as the father says, it was a cheap price, so naturally, he bought it. So barely a year after the first film, a sequel was released. And...it's lame, its scares are barely coherent, and the whole premise is just weird. So...the main character gets nightmares about Freddy, and Freddy wants Walsh's body...I guess not being a burned body makes it easier to do crime? Apparently it works, since Walsh turns into Freddy or something like that, it's hard to focus on the plot when you're wondering what the purpose of making a sequel to this was other then money. The actors are okay, but I feel like they should've had Kim Myers as the main protagonist, she seems more interesting and would probably scream better than Patton, who..sounds weird. It sounds like a high pitched squeal that works more in a comedy film then a horror film. At least Englund is interesting to listen to, though not even he could save the movie. It's a mismatch of random ideas that spring into a less than mediocre horror film. I'd say to skip this film, and stick the first film. But oh well.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.