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).

Warrior of the Lost World.

Review #1929: Warrior of the Lost World.

Cast: 

Robert Ginty (The Rider), Persis Khambatta (Nastasia), Donald Pleasence (Prossor), Fred Williamson (Henchman), Harrison Muller Sr (McWayne), Philip Dallas (Elder), and Laura Nucci (Elder) Written and Directed by David Worth.

Review: 

Making a rip-off of Mad Max is bad enough but being a low rent knock-off is the true crime when it comes to boredom inducing schlock. You've got all the ingredients for boredom here: weirdo nomad mercenaries that have the acting chops of drywall, high-tech motorcycles that beep dialogue at you, and a totally evil government headlined by a bald evildoer. At director was David Worth, who got his start as a cinematographer in the 1970s that added directing to his output with films such as Poor Pretty Eddie (1975). In later years, the Los Angeles natie served as cinematographer to mainstream works such as Bronco Billy (1980) and Bloodsport (1988). although his most noted film as director is probably Kickboxer (1989). Although he is now over eighty years old, he apparently keeps busy in the movie business. So yes, what else is featured in the film: weird "Enlightened" supernatural beings that have a wall that people could just bump into like our main character that have a "New Way" as rebels. You've got a woman interest who gets guys into saving their dad by threatening to shoot the hero in the balls. Don't forget the real highlight: A Megaweapon truck that could beat the hell out of most armed forces...except one guy and his weirdo plan while weirdly sounded gunfire is in the background. The torture scenes aren't even something worth getting hysterical over. To top it all off, the movie even sequel baits itself at the end, made more amusing with an awkward kiss between our heroes. The philosophy of the movie is one you've heard from other movies, only now there are punks to join the cause, so that's interesting, I guess?

It is a bland B-movie, silly to make fun of in how much of a rip-off of better things it ultimately is, one that even has the balls to having an opening text crawl. The 92 minutes roll off with bland amusement, where seeing the talking motorcycle might be the most interesting sequence in the film. Ginty is a total non-entity in this film, somehow coming off as a bad impersonation of both Clint Eastwood and Kurt Russell. This offbeat attempt at a Mad Max-Western mixup proves pretty bad when you don't have an interesting lead actor to carry things. I guess Williamson would've been cooler if he was in the film for more than three little scenes. Muller looks like he wanted to play a stiff leader in the vein of something like a politician, but he only ends up as a stiff board. When it comes to performances, they all are pretty bad, but I respect Pleasence, dressed in a suit that might as well be Blofeld from You Only Live Twice, trying to keep things on a semi-solid level with his attempt at creeping villainy (at least what you might see from an actor in their mid 60s). However, since none of the other actors have anything remotely close to charisma, he ends up as the weird one to focus all your attention on. Hell, he outacts Khambatta, who might as well be confused with a broomstick. Things happen in the wasteland that might as well double for some random European dump that might mean that this would be extra primo material for someone to rip-off for their own silly movies, complete with making their own crappy gun effects. As a whole, the best way to enjoy this film is either as a riff or as a way to see better things mashed up together, which makes it an ideal day for a "turkey" spotlight.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: The Adventures of Pluto Nash.

THX 1138.

Review #1725: THX 1138.

Cast: 

Robert Duvall (THX 1138), Donald Pleasence (SEN 5241), Maggie McOmie (LUH 3417), Don Pedro Colley (SRT 5752), Ian Wolfe (PTO), Marshall Efron (TWA), Sid Haig (NCH), John Pearce (DWY), and James Wheaton (Voice of OMM 0000) Directed by George Lucas (#113 - Star Wars, #141 - American Graffiti, #142 - Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace, #143 - Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones, and #144 - Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith)

Review: 

A half century later, there are quite a few things to unpack with this particular movie. For one, it was the feature film debut for George Lucas. As one must remember, the California native grew up with an appreciation for comics and science fiction (take note of the clips shown in the opening of the film), and this would serve him quite well when he entered the University of Southern California and its school of Cinematic Arts; he cited educators Lester Novros and Slavko Vorkapich (chair of the school) as influences on Lucas, who made numerous short movies as a filmmaker that were fairly abstract (ranging from a minute to seven, with only one having a narrative). He graduated with a bachelor's degree in fine arts in 1967, but his time spent with USC did not end there, as he went back as a graduate student in film production, with one of his duties being to teach students of the United States Navy that were studying documentary cinematography and working under Verna Fields in editing movies for the United States Information Agency (Fields would later edit a number of features for fellow USC filmmakers as a pioneer in her own right). In total, Lucas made nine short features from 1965 to 1968; the one that matters most to this discussion is his sixth in Electronic Labyrinth: THX 1138 4EB, made in the course of 12 weeks in 1967. He had an idea for a future film with existing stuff utilized for said future, and he tasked his friend (and fellow USC student) Matthew Robbins to write a brief outline involving the THX character and a chase scene. He utilized the Navy connection to helpful effect, since Navy folks served as crew for the movie while helping him get access for various locations to shoot. The result was a movie that won 1st prize at the National Student Film Festival in the Dramatic category. Later on, Francis Ford Coppola (fresh off Finian's Rainbow) helped Lucas with a deal to make a feature film with Warner Bros.-Seven Arts (co-produced with American Zoetrope, which Coppola and Lucas founded in 1969), and Lucas made the feature over the course of five weeks in the fall of 1969. A year was then spent in the editing room by Lucas and Walter Murch (who each wrote the movie). If you can believe it, studio executives did not appreciate what they saw of the final workprint, and they requested an edit to be done within the studio, which took out four minutes from the final edit. Made on a budget of $777,777, the movie was a mild success on initial release (making its budget back plus $122K).

I'm sure you are aware of the story that comes from a movie dedicated to the illusions of safety and order within a closed-off society filled with restrictions and watchful eyes everywhere. In fact, I know you have, because there have been a handful of books and movies that have run on similar lines for decades, such as George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four or Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, for example. Of course, we are talking about a movie with Chapperell race cars modified to look like jet cars. We are also talking about a movie that seems quite curious to talk about when thinking about Lucas as a filmmaker given what would come later in the decade, and yet it is the key piece in trying to understand what he aspired to do as a maverick filmmaker in terms of visual storytelling (along with his intent to not have studios try to control the production of his movies). Perhaps it was fate that a bleak movie involving the pitfalls of consumerism and conformity took its own path to reaching audiences. It likely seems more fitting of its decade than with the next two films Lucas directed, that might be for sure, which might seem a bit off-putting for those who come in completely cold for this sci-fi movie. Of course this isn't quite a movie one watches for acting chops; in an interview, Colley noted that Lucas seemed to not be too comfortable around actors, treating the production as like one of his student films (perhaps ironically, an actor in one his future movies would say something fairly similar years later); certainly it is an interesting sight to see a group of shaved actors amidst a crowd of other voices, and Duvall certainly does fine a role that requires a bit of a blank slate sparked into breaking out of obedience into ordinariness. Pleasance, gripping in confined obedience that drips of pathetic ooze within certain pieces of dialogue, matches fine with what is required from someone dealing in the middle of a society without any choices, where fear of the unknown can be a powerful deterrent (and easily identifiable). McOmie (in her one and only film as star) is used for poignant moments with attempts at breaking free with a sense of emotion that can be construed as fear with a bit of warmth waiting to break free. Colley proves curious in those moments seen on screen within the prison sequence, one in the middle between comfort and curiosity in the angle of finding a way out. The movie relies on visual interest within a dystopia where prisons have no walls, kids have IV lines for economics in their veins, and people like to take substances to curb their emotions as they work under jobs that are terribly dangerous (factories even announce the death tolls of the period in an attempt to promote safety); when not working, people just buy things without much thought while watching odd holograms. The robot policeman are the only visual adversary one sees, since you never actually see just who is in control, knowing only that set budgets are set for the capture of anyone who tries to escape. It is mostly a visual movie, which is interesting to see when most of the stuff is white (clothing, bald hair, et cetera) but certainly not the easiest film to sit through in its versions; the movie was restored in 1977 with an 86 minute run-time that restored the four cut minutes on the original release that was later put out on VHS and LaserDisc, while a Director's Cut was supervised by Lucas in 2004 that restored the film on an audio/video level while adding a few bits of computer generated imagery (along with adding detail to certain sequences) that resulted in a run-time of 88 minutes (in fact, one can apparently watch it with just the sound effects and score present with no dialogue, if one is into that sort of thing). Perhaps the easiest parallel in terms of a student film being turned into a movie for effect is Dark Star (released three years later...by sheer coincidence, it was made by a USC alum and included a reference to this movie), where it might have reached better as just a student film; regardless, I thought this movie was interesting in the right parts to work in generating a curious bleak world in imagery that leaves more for thought rather than thrills. It isn't a great achievement in originality with its story, but it does prove diverting in visual nature with the right kind of curiosity to make it worthwhile to overcome its shortfalls and work out fine, one that certainly merits attention as a cult classic, one that is just odd enough and interesting enough to win out.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Great Escape.

Review #1412: The Great Escape.

Cast: 
Steve McQueen (Captain Virgil Hilts), James Garner (Flight Lieutenant Robert Hendley), Richard Attenborough (Squadron Leader Roger Bartlett), Charles Bronson (Flight Lieutenant Danny Velinski), James Donald (Group Captain Ramsey), Donald Pleasence (Flight Lieutenant Colin Blythe), James Coburn (Flying Officer Louis Sedgwick), Hannes Messemer (Oberst von Luger), David McCallum (Lieutenant-Commander Eric Ashley-Pitt), Gordon Jackson (Flight Lieutenant Andrew MacDonald), John Leyton (Flight Lieutenant William "Willie" Dickes), Angus Lennie (Flying Officer Archibald "Archie" Ives), Nigel Stock (Flight Lieutenant Dennis Cavendish), Robert Graf (Werner), and Jud Taylor (Second Lieutenant Goff) Directed by John Sturges (#427 - The Magnificent Seven and #1395 - Gunfight at the O.K. Corral)

Review: 
"He had great faith in the actor. He would storyboard everything. He never talked to me about character or about anything. What was in the script was what was shot; what was on the storyboard was the way it was shot."

You can't get much bigger in escapism in entertainment with war dramas like The Great Escape. It has certainly left a mark on popular culture with all of the homages that have been done in the near six decades since the film's release. It was loosely based on the 1944 mass escape of POWs from the German prison camp Stalag Luft III, which Paul Brickhill (who was in the camp but not allowed to be part of the escape due to claustrophobia) wrote an account of in 1950. NBC subsequently adapted it into a live drama episode of The Philco Television Playhouse the following year. Sturges had been interested in the book immediately after reading it, describing it as "the perfect embodiment of why our side won", a presentation of people from different countries with their own makeup that found a way to defeat the Germans with their own organization. It took a few years for Sturges to find producers interested in doing the film (with his attempts at selling it to MGM failing due to a lack of interest in material that would have a downbeat ending), but eventually he found interest with The Mirisch Company (comprised of three brothers in Walter, Marvin, Harold), who produced numerous hits in the late 1950s and 1960s such as Some Like It Hot (1959) and The Magnificent Seven (1960).

The film started production without a fully completed script. Obviously there are differences between the real-life account of the escape and the film, with requests to omit details about help from home countries of ex-prisoners of war about tools in gift packages being a noted example, with another being in making composites based on real people for the characters of the film (the number of escapees however is the same as the events in 1944 with three, which also includes the details of how they successfully made it home). Although James Clavell and W.R. Burnett are credited with writing the screenplay, numerous revisions were made throughout production (with Walter Newman asking to not have his name credited due to disputes with Sturges, which also occurred a few years prior with The Magnificent Seven). Even showing the daily rushes after a few weeks of filming didn't help much, since McQueen (who had made a request accepted by Sturges to feature him in an extended motorcycle chase) felt his character was underdeveloped. It mattered especially for McQueen, who had made a name for himself over the past few years after starting his career in 1953 that gradually led to starring roles like The Blob (1958) and Wanted Dead or Alive (1958–1961), and this sealed his reputation as a "King of Cool". Interestingly, he wanted his character to be the hero without doing anything overtly heroic that contradicted his detached demeanor.

The movie runs at 172 minutes with gradual pacing that builds its group of capable characters with fair precision that builds and builds towards its escape without becoming suffocated in any sort of way. There is plenty of starpower to see here, particularly since over half of them had at least some war experience (such as Bronson, who was also claustrophobic as his character, owing to working in coal mines as a child) and some even had experiences in a POW camp, such as Pleasance, who even produced and acted in plays for the entertainment of his fellow captives. Each of the main group excels in their own way, drawing presence and charm that inspires tension for what goes on. McQueen, whose screen-time increases as the film goes on, proves tremendous as a sardonic and charming presence, highlighted by the film's most celebrated sequence - a motorcycle chase over the countryside and one quick jump over a fence (done by McQueen's friend Bud Ekins) that is dazzling. At helm for the buildup to the escape is a talented collection of international presences such as TV star-turned star Garner and his honest resourcefulness or British star-director Attenborough and his steely commanding resolve or Bronson's resolved ambiguity or Pleasance's well-mannered dignity. Accompanying them with their own concentrated time is a reasoned Donald, a charming Coburn, and a resourceful Messemer and McCallum. There are plenty of interesting moments to highlight, such as a sequence involving homemade moonshine on the 4th of July (complete with drums), or its riveting sequence in the countryside with a view on various escapees trying to pull through by train, motorcycle and even planes that make its ultimate ending just as resounding. All of this makes for a capable entertaining film that invites one into adventure with plenty of interesting presences and intricate designs that stand as a classic to see at least once.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Dracula (1979).

Review #1293: Dracula.

Cast: 

Frank Langella (Count Dracula), Laurence Olivier (Professor Abraham Van Helsing), Donald Pleasence (Dr. Jack Seward), Kate Nelligan (Lucy Seward), Trevor Eve (Jonathan Harker), Jan Francis (Mina Van Helsing), Sylvester McCoy (Walter Myrtle), Janine Duvitski (Annie), Tony Haygarth (Milo Renfield), and Teddy Turner (Swales) Directed by John Badham (#086 - Short Circuit)

Review: 

1979 was an interesting time for films with Dracula. There were at least three major releases involving a variation of the character released that year: Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979) and Love at First Bite, with two minor films also being released that year named Nocturna and Dracula Blows His Cool. It shouldn't prove surprising, considering that the 1970s had already had numerous Dracula films, with a good deal of featuring Christopher Lee - who was featured in eight films as the title role, which ranged from the Hammer films to comedies. Dracula even had its own blaxpoitation film (another time, another year), so why not another Univeral Dracula film? Much like the 1931 film, it is based on both the 1924 play of the same name by Hamilton Deane and John L. Balderston and the 1897 novel by Bram Stoker. The screenplay was done by W. D. Richter, who you may remember as the writer of Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978), so there does seem to have a bit of promise. Langella, like Lugosi before him, had starred in the Broadway production of Dracula, with macabre illustrator Edward Gorey behind the sets and costumes that mostly consisted of black-and-white with red accents. The original book had a title character that is animalistic, while the play revised it to being more suave and polite that doesn't loom in the background as much. In that sense, one wonders how a stylish and slightly more polished Dracula proves to be. For me, I find myself in the middle, where I can applaud the attempt at trying to make something interesting with this character, but it can't quite work as a love story nor as a horror film, managing to be as average as the Hammer films that did less with the character before it. It definitely ranks below the aforementioned Nosferatu film in trying to depict a lonesome Dracula, this much is for sure. One can only feel underwhelmed when it comes to the excitement levels of this movie, where disappointment and quiet acceptance run the same street with this film, and it starts with Dracula himself. Langella does fine with the suave nature of such an alluring one to follow, particularly with the way he stares at others on screen. But I feel that he doesn't really come off as a threat in the scenes where the film needs it the most, right down to the lack of fangs (same with Lugosi, but with a different result) and a bizzare love sequence involving a blood red tunnel. Everything else seems so dry in comparison, where camp really sometimes does need to be king. Olivier seems ready to be in some other production for a different time while being a bit too quiet in comparison to the smaller featured Pleasence (who accepted the role of Seward over Van Helsing due to it seeming similar to his role that he played in Halloween the previous year), who also is just okay. Nelligan can't quite make this a riveting quartet for her side as well, where I never really seem to care all too much in this romantic angle. This is a film that needs panache for flavor, and instead one gets expired refreshments. The Hammer films may have varied in quality when it came to the title character (especially in their escalation of ways to kill him), but at least I felt that there was some sort of terror that lurked beyond that cape, where I actually want to see what could happen to the disposable- I mean the supporting characters. The climax is swift, but it's attempt to bait with its last shot is a bit too silly to make it really matter - at least try to be definitive if you only have one shot. The film has certainly an interesting history on how to be found. The original version of the film had warm colors, differing from Badham's desire to film in black-and-white. For future releases, the color timing was altered to de-saturate the look of the film, and a release of the original print has only just begun to be released onto markets. Honestly, one can hope their brightness level is where they want, or be curious over how it looked back in 1979, a time for Dracula like no other. Ultimately, this is an average film, just not having enough in its blood besides style to really deliver passion or scares meaningfully to win out. It could prove a curiosity if one wants to see another rendition of the most famous fictional vampire, for better or worse.

Next Review: The Blair Witch Project.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Fantastic Voyage.

Review #881: Fantastic Voyage.

Cast:
Stephen Boyd (Charles Grant), Raquel Welch (Cora Peterson), Edmond O'Brien (General Carter), Donald Pleasence (Dr. Michaels), Arthur O'Connell (Colonel Donald Reid), William Redfield (Captain Bill Owens), Arthur Kennedy (Dr. Peter Duval), and Jean Del Val (Dr. Jan Benes) Directed by Richard Fleischer (#453 - Soylent Green, #460 - Doctor Dolittle, #624 - Conan the Destroyer, #829 - Red Sonja, and #870 - The Narrow Margin)

Review:
Fantastic Voyage is an entertaining movie that manages to have enough spectacle moments and a fine amount of atmosphere to overcome some structural faults. The film moves at a relatively adequate pace, trying to set up its plot with some form of legitimacy and pace, not taking too long to get to the body effects. Boyd is fairly decent as this every-man kind of role, not being too strong or dull in any one direction. Welch is interesting, though she isn't given too much screen time. Pleasence is engaging as always, giving off the right sense of clout. The effects are the showcase for the movie, and they are quite interesting for the time (1966) it was made, especially when you first see the body, giving off a sense of wonder. There are some fairly good moments, such as when they have to go through the ear drum, with silence required throughout the operating room in normal size. It takes its time while building up tension, with a fairly good culminating noise and ensuing action. The plot-holes that enter the surface around the climax derail some of the momentum, such as the fact the ship is left in the body at the end (Isaac Asimov fixed this in his novelization of the movie, which managed to be released months before the film). The saboteur revealed at the end is a bit strange, in that there really isn't too much motivation given for it besides "working for the other side". However, the film is entertaining enough that this can be somewhat forgiven. If the film wasn't as interesting, it wouldn't be easy to forgive.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night Redux: Halloween (1978)

Review #068 - REDUX: Halloween.

Cast
Donald Pleasence (Dr. Sam Loomis), Jamie Lee Curtis (Laurie Strode), Nancy Kyes (Annie Brackett), P.J. Soles (Lynda van der Klok), Charles Cyphers (Sheriff Leigh Brackett), Kyle Richards (Lindsey Wallace), Brian Andrews (Tommy Doyle), John Michael Graham (Bob Simms), Nick Castle (The Shape), and Nancy Stephens (Marion Chambers) Directed by John Carpenter.

Review
I originally reviewed this movie on October 30, 2011, watching it on television. I remember it being entertaining to watch back then, for me movies are entertaining when you can just sit back and talk about how the movie works. Two years later, I decided to revisit this movie, which had been appearing on TV once again. Out of all the movies in the Halloween franchise, this is the best of them all, it also could be considered one of the best horror films of all time. The movie isn't perfect by any means; the beginning has a few choppy dialogue scenes where it feels really cliche, especially from P.J. Soles, who just keeps saying "totally". But the movie overcomes it with some really chilling music that makes the boring scenes more interesting. I especially love when the characters are talking and Myers suddenly appears out of nowhere, while the music adds a layer of depth. Of course it helps that the movie is also frightening with its death scene, showing little blood but using lighting and perspective to make for a truly chilling movie. My favorite scene is after one of the deaths as Myers looks at the body and tilts his head. It really is a perfect scene.

Donald Pleasence does a wonderful job as Loomis, explaining the motives (or there lack of) for Myers but also saying his lines in a tone of voice that fits the movie's tone, which is fright. Curtis is a really good screamer and a good actress here as well, she's the most interesting character to watch. Special mention goes to Nick Castle, who is the one most famous for playing Michael Myers (The Shape), though he wasn't the only one who played him, there were several others who did stunt work, but Castle is the most notable, and he would later become a movie director in his own right, with films such as The Last Starfighter and Major Payne. The movie takes its time, letting you get interested into what happens next, and it has one of the best endings that leaves you waiting for more. This is an essential movie for October, or for any month when you're looking for a scare.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Escape from New York.

Review #634: Escape from New York.

Cast
Kurt Russell (Snake Plissken), Lee Van Cleef (Bob Hauk), Ernest Borgnine (Cabbie), Donald Pleasence (President), Isaac Hayes (The Duke), Harry Dean Stanton (Harold "Brain" Hellman), Adrienne Barbeau (Maggie), and Tom Atkins (Rehme) Directed by John Carpenter (#068 - Halloween)

Review
Some movies are just born to be awesome (the inverse is also true as well), and this is one of them. This is a dark movie, an unrelenting movie that never lets up on its dystopian outlook, with Plissken (played excellently by Kurt Russell) being the essential anti-hero for a movie such as this. The characters are jaded, but they still manage to be entertaining, such as Borgnine, he has a quirky charm in this movie, which contrasts well with Russell. The wire frame effect is in the movie for a few moments, but it does look impressive, and it is one of the highlights of the movie. That, and the fight between Russell and Ox Baker, or the car chase at the end, take your pick. This is at heart a thrill of a movie, it's an action movie that has fun in its own way, with a rouge gallery of characters and a good deal of sense. Now if you excuse me, I have some work to do. See you all soon.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Tomorrow Never Comes.

Review #608: Tomorrow Never Comes.

Cast
Oliver Reed (Jim Wilson), Susan George (Janie), Raymond Burr (Burke), John Ireland (Captain), Stephen McHattie (Frank), Donald Pleasence (Dr. Todd), Paul Koslo (Willy), John Osborne (Robert L. Lyne), Cec Linder (Milton), and Richard Donat (Ray) Directed by Peter Collinson.

Review
One of my favorite scenes from this movie is when Oliver Reed's character randomly asks for a table and some beer in the middle of a hostage situation, and at one point, he's just sitting in the shade, taking his time as tourists watch him. I don't know why, but it's just hilarious, maybe it's the random nature of the scene, or the fact that Reed's just sitting there outside as a hostage situation goes on. Anyway, this is the second part of the Canadian double feature, and this was a Canadian-UK production, with a few Canadian actors (Burr, Ireland, McHattie) and a few British actors (Reed, George, Pleasence), in the cast, along with a rare acting appearance by playwright John Osborne. The movie was at filmed in Quebec, with the majority of the movie taking place in a hotel, or near a hotel for that matter. The movie has its moments of tension and actual suspense, and the real fun is wondering what will happen next, or who'll appear next. I was actually surprised Pleasence was in this movie, but he is, briefly and he is at least entertaining. Reed is fun to watch, he looks like a kid who didn't get a toy he wanted 40 years ago and just remembered the event, especially with those glasses (but I'm the last person who should make jokes about wearing glasses). He is enjoyable though, and the rest of the cast (save for Paul Koslo, who comes off as a thrill-seeking dunce) work well, especially McHattie, who is good at delivering tension. The movie is well made, and surprisingly dark especially at the end, but it is overall a good movie that is recommended for a day like this. 

Happy Canada Day, northern neighbor.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

original image: 

Movie Night: Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers.

Review #478: Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers.

Cast
Donald Pleasence (Dr. Sam Loomis), Paul Rudd (Tommy Doyle), Marianne Hagan (Kara Strode), Devin Gardner (Danny Strode), J.C. Brandy (Jamie Lloyd), Mitchell Ryan (Dr. Wynn), Kim Darby (Debra Strode), Bradford English (John Strode), and George P. Wilbur (Michael Myers) Directed by Joe Chappelle.

Review
In honor of Halloween, I've decided to close out the second phase of the Halloween franchise with...this film. Six years after the lame cliffhanger that Halloween 5 delivered, a sequel was made, taking a cliche name for a horror film (Or a Pink Panther film), and...not adding a number to the film, presumably to not make the idea of a 6th film in an already stretched beyond belief franchise sound even more ridiculous (However that title of silliness goes to Friday the 13th) then it already is. The first notable aspect is the replacement of Danielle Harris with J.C. Brandy, who while not being a bad replacement, isn't as good, though it is kind of disappointing that Jamie, a character we've rooted for the last two films, dies in the beginning, without much struggle. The film had gone through 6 years of legal rights issues, and then there was one more thing: The extensive re-editing. The original cut of the film (Which is uniquely, but strangely called The Producer's Cut) was massively re-edited, apparently due to negative reaction to the original ending. And I'm not gonna lie, I've at least seen the original ending. Spoiler alert, but...it's a lame one. You wanna know what it is?

So the way to stop Myers in the producer's cut is...put a bunch of stones in a circle, which stops him indefinitely, only the reveal that Myers was actually Dr. Wynn, with Myers as Wynn. And Loomis is selected to be the new cult leader.

Due to middling reaction and Pleasence's death, new scenes would be filmed, which apparently cuts much of the plot line, replacing it with more horror scenes. The film drudges along, introducing characters, later killing most of them off, basically just setting up people to die, which is strange (I know it isn't, but let's pretend), but oh well. Pleasence is back one final time, doing as well as he's done before, this sadly being his final film and all. Paul Rudd (yes, that Paul Rudd) is...okay, even if his performance seems to be to just have one "creepy" look and monotone voice. The film seems to try to connect to the first film, what with Tommy Doyle, Dr. Wynn (You know, that guy with one scene in the first film..Hell, I almost forgot who he was), and...the Myers house. So the Strodes (who adopted Laurie, who was Michael's sister), are now living in the Myers house, all those years later. Why live in a house where death and terror happened to your adopted daughter and numerous others is beyond me. I guess the Strodes got the house at a cheap price, the prices were essentially slashed, an awful pun. Loomis is sadly not much in the final 30 minutes, as the ending of this film seems to imply that Michael can be beat by a lead pipe and corrosive. That and...Loomis screams for what reason after pulling off his mask? This is a film plagued by an extensive behind the scenes editing, mediocre-to-lame acting, story lines like Danny Strode's voices in his head going nowhere, and this...is an awful way to continue the franchise. The scares and blood are okay, but that's not enough to save the film. I'd stick to better films, anything else would probably be better, but oh well. Happy Halloween.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers.

Review #473: Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers.

Cast
Donald Pleasence (Dr. Samuel Loomis), Danielle Harris (Jamie Lloyd), Beau Starr (Sheriff Ben Meeker), Wendy Kaplan (Tina Williams), Tamara Glynn (Samantha Thomas), Ellie Cornell (Rachel Carruthers), Jeffrey Landman (Billy Hill), Jonathan Chapin (Mikey), Matthew Walker (Spitz), Betty Carvalho (Nurse Patsey), and Don Shanks (Michael Myers/Man In Black) Directed by Dominique Othenin-Girard.

Review
Quite literally, you could use this quote (said by the producer, Mousatapha Akkad) to describe this film: "Drunk off the success of Halloween 4, we began production on Halloween 5." Barely a year apart from the previous film, this film didn't even have a complete script. Danielle Harris' character was meant to be more serious, as evidenced in the fourth film's ending, which wasn't even followed up in the next. It might've worked well, as evidenced by Harris' enthusiasm: "The way Halloween 4 ended, I thought I was going to be the killer. I thought it would have been fun to come back as the killer, or Michael's sidekick. Scary, but fun." Instead of a unique twist, we get...lousy side characters who "scare" each other, a mostly mute Harris, and...a fairly decent Pleasence performance.

The side characters even ruin any chances of actual scares, like when Myers is apparently chasing a girl in a haystack...only to reveal it's not Myers, and it's laughed off like nothing. I don't know why, but the idea of Michael driving is more amusing then it is scary, but at least he isn't riding a bicycle or a pogo stick. Pleasence seems tired, though I attribute that to his characterization in the film, or maybe he's tired of the script, I don't know. Harris is mute for a good portion of the film, which is sad, because I actually did like Harris' performance in the previous film, but now I'm seeming picky. The scares are mediocre, though the side characters' attempts at scaring each other ruin the chances. And yes, the Myers house is shown for the first time since the original...looking nothing like it, but I suppose it was a stylistic choice. That or a ton of redecorating, because it is a giant house with many windows. Their is a scene involving Michael and Jamie in which...Michael sheds a tear and a barely visible shot of his face...which isn't burned, even though he was burned in the second film, which is evident in his hands, but not the face. The ending seems all fine and dandy, except...it's not. It ends on a cliffhanger, and a pretty lame one. It could've worked as a way to explain his return in the next film...which took 6 years to be released. All in all, this is a rushed production with barely there scares, okay performances, and a lackluster continuation of the series. But at least, I can rest from this franchise, and focus on something different, like this film with all but the letter A scratched out...

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers.

Review #471: Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers.

Cast
Donald Pleasence (Dr. Samuel Loomis), Ellie Cornell (Rachel Carruthers), Danielle Harris (Jamie Lloyd), George P. Wilbur (Michael Myers), Michael Pataki (Dr. Hoffman), Beau Starr (Sheriff Ben Meeker), Sasha Jenson (Brady), Kathleen Kinmont (Kelly Meeker), Gene Ross (Earl), and Carmen Filpi (Jackson P. Sayer) Directed by Dwight H. Little.

Review
I've reviewed Halloween films in the past, the first three in a connected trilogy (#068, #268, and #275), with John Carpenter being involved in all three films, directing and writing the first film, and producing the second and third films. Halloween III was a mediocre attempt at trying something new with a sad attempt to make a sensible plot, which audiences seemed to hate because of the lack of Michael. So, after 6 years, Halloween 4 was made to bring Myers back. And literally on the 25th Anniversary of this film., I've decided to watch to continue my saga with Halloween.

So...how do they revive Michael Myers after his near death in the 2nd film? A hand wave. Quite literally, they say he nearly burned to death, and that the doctors have kept him alive for 10 years, which is either the most bizarre way to explain his persistent living or the most contrived. At least Loomis is back, though even those burns on his face can't make me forget he survived an fiery explosion, without even being in a coma. There are scenes in which people don't believe that Michael's back, which is odd given it's only been 10 years since Myers terrorized the town. It's a tired tradition in horror films, where people don't believe that the monster has returned, I suppose. Sometimes the film can have good chills, like when Jamie tries to run from Michael in the school, but then there's unintentionally funny scenes, when Loomis is thrown through a window...by a blonde haired Michael Myers. (This being due to a previous mask being used before the decision to change it) The new build of Myers is a bit odd, he's more shaped like Jason Voorhees and has a new mask, which is either not as threatening as the previous mask or just plain silly. The actors are alright, and Pleasence is probably the best actor in the film. The film isn't as frightening as Halloween or even Halloween II, and while it feels unnecessary, it's still an okay slasher film.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: You Only Live Twice.

Review #354: You Only Live Twice.

Cast
Sean Connery (James Bond), Akiko Wakabayashi (Aki), Mie Hama (Kissy Suzuki), Donald Pleasence (Ernst Stavro Blofeld), Tetsurō Tamba (Tiger Tanaka), Teru Shimada (Mr. Osato), Karin Dor (Helga Brandt), Bernard Lee (M), Charles Gray (Dikko Henderson), Burt Kwouk (Spectre 3), Lois Maxwell (Miss Moneypenny), Desmond Llewelyn (Q), and Ronald Rich (Hans) Directed by Lewis Gilbert (#292 - The Spy Who Loved Me and #338 - Moonraker)

Review
This was the fifth James Bond film, two years after Thunderball, and Sean Connery's first "retirement" from the role. I already talked about Diamonds Are Forever and how it failed to give Connery a proper swan song. But is this film any better nonetheless? Sort of. Connery is improved from Thunderball, and the action and setting do indeed work compared to the last one, especially the scenery. The plot is strange-ish, I don't know what it is, maybe it's the rockets that get swallowed or something. It baffles me if that makes any sense. Then there's our leading ladies, which...are all right. Wakabayashi does a fine job, being memorable enough. Hama is okay; she's not a bad Bond girl, but she's also not entirely memorable. It is admirable that the film has some culture, with the setting being good for a Bond film. Then there's Donald Pleasence as Blofeld, a villain that had been built up in the previous films, where we see his face. And...it is creepy, but I don't know how you could've revealed him without someone being disappointed. He doesn't get much to do, but I suppose it makes sense, its about Bond, not the villain. Pleasence does okay, but I find myself to prefer Telly Savalas' portrayal in the next film. The film does have its merits, though it sets the beginnings for the silly aspects of the next few films (thankfully not with OHMSS), which may or may not be a good thing. This probably would've been a good end for Connery's Bond, but oh no, it wasn't. But oh well.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Halloween II.

Review #268: Halloween II.

Cast
Jamie Lee Curtis (Laurie Strode), Donald Pleasence (Dr. Sam Loomis), Lance Guest (Jimmy Lloyd), Tawny Moyer (Jill Franco), Ana Alicia (Janet Marshall), Ford Rainey (Frederick Mixter), Gloria Gifford (Virginia Alves), Leo Rossi (Budd Scarlotti), Hunter von Leer (Gary Hunt), Cliff Emmich (Berand Garrett), Nancy Stephens (Marion Chambers), Charles Cyphers (Leigh Brackett), and Dick Warlock (The Shape) Directed by Rick Rosenthal.

Review
It is near the time of Halloween (six days in fact. Ooh, the number 6 is spooky? Not really), so I'm reviewing a film called...Hallowen. Wait, I already did that (#68. The original, not the remake thank goodness.) This is the sequel to that film, continuing the events of the first film. In fact, I'll continue from the last line of that review: "It does the scares slowly but steady, building up to a conclusion that mystifies you." Indeed those words stand up 200 reviews later. Woah. It's been 200 reviews since I reviewed the last one. That's probably the largest gap between reviewing a sequel I've done, which astounds me. I'm getting off track here the question here is this sequel as good as the first? Yes...and no. Pleasence and Curtis do a good job while the supporting cast' acting is relatively decent. It has some good moments at times, but it has one flaw that doesn't make it as good as the first: Its violence. You might think that's a bit odd, given the film, but it feels a bit too excessive for my taste, where as the first film did a better job of conveying it (Examples are when Michael slashes some throats in close up, dunks a person's head in hot water or even when he uses a needle to stab someone.) While the film continues the cliffhanger from the first film with some class, it doesn't rise up to the occasion as the first did. It does have a great way of ending the film and it could have ended the story perfectly. Could have being the main word here.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.