You're a Big Boy Now.

Review #2560: You're a Big Boy Now.

Cast: 

Elizabeth Hartman (Barbara Darling), Peter Kastner (Bernard Chanticleer), Geraldine Page (Margery Chanticleer), Rip Torn (I.H. Chanticleer), Tony Bill (Raef del Grado), Julie Harris (Miss Nora Thing), Karen Black (Amy Partlett), Dolph Sweet (Patrolman Francis Graf), Michael Dunn (Richard Mudd), and Michael O'Sullivan (Kurt Doughty) Directed by Francis Ford Coppola (#592 - Dementia 13, #1139 - Supernova, #1460 - Apocalypse Now, #1469 - The Outsiders, #1502 - Bram Stoker's Dracula)

Review:

"You're a Big Boy Now is a flashy movie to some extent. I have since been more subtle than that. But flashy films do attract attention, and that was what I wanted to do when I was making my first film for a studio."

Maybe I haven't been fair to Francis Ford Coppola. The story goes that Coppola wrote a screenplay when working for Seven Arts that was a different take on the "coming of age" movie that was based on the David Benedictus novel You're a Big Boy Now. Coppola had the novel brought to his attention by Tony Bill (incidentally, he wanted to play the lead but also suggested Peter Kastner, because of what he saw in Nobody Waved Good-bye [1964]). He optioned the novel and changed the setting from London to New York City (going from shoe clerk to library assistant) while at the same time working with Gore Vidal on the screenplay for Is Paris Burning? [1966]. Seven Arts, asserting that Coppola's writing of the script on their time meant that they owned it, eventually came to a deal with him that would pay Coppola $8,000 to direct with a 29-day shooting schedule; he used the resulting movie as his thesis at UCLA for his Master of Fine Arts degree. Made on a budget that eventually rose to around $1 million around various locations in New York, the film was not a major success at the time, although it apparently broke even when it was sold to television.* Coppola worked with Warner Bros.-Seven Arts for his next two films with Finian's Rainbow (1968) and The Rain People (1969).

I could not help but think about The Gr-no, wait, not really. Actually, I couldn't get Dementia 13 out of my head when I thought about Coppola and the youthful energy of trying to make a go at filmmaking on a tight schedule and why it felt so much more interesting in that film than with this brash, messy, and altogether curious studio movie. And I then guess someone would compare it to The Graduate, which also was a coming-of-age movie with a young man and the alienation of his parents' generation that was released the following year*. And then I think about the lead character and wonder to myself: why do I hate this little bastard at times? Yes, there are a few hang-ups that actually do prove amusing, but there were almost as many times where I felt the strange desire to wish that Mr. Chanticleer took a nice smack upside on the head, funny as he might be. But you can at least say it is curious enough to free-form its way through an odyssey of someone learning to get a clue in the swinging era of what 1966 surely looked like (complete with peep shows, oddly placed signs*, and, well, pretzels). Amidst the consternation that one might have for some of these ridiculously repressed people, filled with frustrations at times, is an array of interesting performances. Sentimentally, Torn is the one I spring to first (much like oldie songs, I don't have many new favorites), and he actually is pretty funny here as a befuddled parent who thinks they know best in running their son basically like they were a business, complete with their varied responses to the women around them (staid wives, or messing around in a vault with odd books, you get the idea). The journey to get to the inevitable is fairly tolerable in seeing some of the hang-ups play out on screen, whether that involves a man-hating Hartman (to a point*) or the obvious cool loyalty in Black (making her screen debut) or Page in a role that probably could be defined as an amusing "shrew". At least it ends with a chase scene to help crash things down to some sort of reality (namely realizing what really matters between odd duck family and friends). You get a few interesting camera tricks, a few interesting moments looking at a New York movie with a worthy enough soundtrack involving the Lovin' Spoonful. As a whole, it is a strange little time capsule of an older time filled with a few interesting visuals, here-and-there jokes and a general vibe fit for hang-ups and hanger-ons that might be up your alley.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*I'll be honest, I haven't thought about The Graduate much since I saw it exactly one time...12 years ago. Strange that I didn't feel like strangling Dustin Hoffman's character nearly as much as the one presented here. 

*I couldn't find a direct source, but Coppola stated that his film was definitely influenced by Richard Lester's A Hard Day's Night (1964), as opposed to The Knack... and How to Get It (1965), which was released a few months before Big Boy. Of course, I wish for a direct quote because Coppola also apparently said he hated the movie.

*One sign has the N-word in it that naturally the lead character reads out loud, and no the word is not naive.

*Also, this may come as a surprise, but the Hartman character is depicted as a man-hating narcissist that was shaped by their molestation as a youth that saw them get revenge in a way that totally makes sense: stealing his wooden leg!

Bram Stoker's Dracula.

Review #1502: Bram Stoker's Dracula.

Cast:
Gary Oldman (Count Dracula / Vlad the Impaler), Keanu Reeves (Jonathan Harker), Winona Ryder (Mina Harker/Elisabeta), Anthony Hopkins (Professor Abraham Van Helsing/Priest/Principal Narrator), Richard E. Grant (Dr. Jack Seward), Cary Elwes (Lord Arthur Holmwood), Billy Campbell (Quincey P. Morris), Sadie Frost (Lucy Westenra), Tom Waits (R. M. Renfield), Monica Bellucci (Dracula's Bride), Michaela Bercu (Dracula's Bride), Florina Kendrick (Dracula's Bride), and Jay Robinson (Mr. Hawkins) Directed by Francis Ford Coppola (#592 - Dementia 13, #1139 - Supernova, #1460 - Apocalypse Now, #1469 - The Outsiders)

Review:
"I used to be under the impression that in some kind of wanky, bullshit way, acting was like therapy: you get in and grapple with and exorcise all those demons inside of you. I don't believe that anymore. It's like a snow shaker. You shake the thing up, but it can't escape the glass. It can't get out. And it will settle until the next time you shake it up."

Not many directors can make a film worth pages of discussion in multiple decades with a variety of genres. And yet here we are, facing another Coppola film, with this following the end of the Godfather trilogy. It was Ryder who brought the script (done by James V. Hart) to his attention, as she was attracted to the emotional love story while Coppola had first read the book to kids as a teenager (while having seen Dracula movies with his brother as a youth) and was interested in some of the sensual aspects of the film. Oldman was attracted to the idea of doing a film with Coppola (whom he described as one of the great American directors), and this was in the midst of a developing career of versatility in the English-born actor.

It is entirely possible that Coppola really believed that his film would indeed be the definitive version of Dracula. After all, how many book adaptations have the author's name right there on the film title? Of course the main sticking point with that is the fact that the film reminds me as a more refined attempt at doing things others had done before, with mostly decent results more so on the visual level than anything. On one level, it is definitely better than the last high-profile Dracula adaptation by a major American studio in John Badham's cold-blooded flop from 1979 (which also had its own tinges of romance between Dracula and the lead, only much more ridiculous). On the other, it only just barely reaches levels that the Hammer adaptations did with less ridiculousness in refinement. There is such a strange mix of scenes that work with ones that come off as muddled, and it definitely doesn't reach as scary as it could have been. Perhaps it relies on first impressions, what with that opening involving Vlad the Impaler and that smooth red suit, which actually is a decent moment for the film...of course it also introduces the whole "lovers played by the same actress centuries apart" cliche, which believe it or not was actually already done before in a 1974 TV adaptation of the same name that also happened to share the Dracula / Vlad connection, which has been speculated by writers for decades.  That sure is one way to start your supposedly more-faithful book adaptation, make a ridiculous historical connection to a fictional character - why stop there, might as well make a film of The Mummy and have him be King Tut while you're at it. I did indeed crack a smile not long after that - the sight of seeing old man Dracula in a kimono and a long hairdo. It may not last long in the film, but it is highly amusing as the first little crack in the "let's take it seriously" approach.

 
No, having a love story with Dracula isn't exactly what I call an interesting and fresh take. Some things really are best left untouched, and having a Dracula film that actually proves scary is one of them. As much as I would like to resist the urge to compare it with other Dracula adaptations, it is inevitable to talk about relentlessly overblown it looks when compared to the films of the past in really sticking its landing in executing genuine suspense. Excess does not always win the day, no matter how many effects you might throw at it if the other parts are simply not right to go with it. If anything hasn't really changed from the old hammy Dracula films of the past, its the somewhat uneven acting of its main stars. All revolves around how one feels about Oldman in this role, one that seems to exist in contradictions that try to spring fear and passion within madness that in lesser hands would've been red meat material for mockery (try being a romantic antihero and then having to wear wolfman/bat makeup). Oldman does just fine with the role, but it is quite clear that he can only be at most third-best in a turn as Dracula and nothing more (Christopher Lee and Bela Lugosi are the obvious choices for when one thinks of a vampire), one who certainly has some blood in his veins for terror while having to sift through effects-work and campy undertones.  Reeves (chosen after Christian Slater declined the role) is an easy target for ridicule when it comes to that British accent, and both Reeves and Coppola have commented about their regrets in casting (the former describing himself as too tired from a busy schedule and the latter stating that they wanted a matinee idol type for a not-great part). For me, the accent is indeed silly, and it certainly would pale when compared to class acts like Oldman or Hopkins. And yet, Ryder only just does better in matching the others, a bit too quiet to really sell this dark passion between her and Oldman (the parts with Frost and a wolf-man Oldman raping her isn't exactly better in comparison). It would take quite a bit of conviction to win me over to the vampire would-be romance, and they just can't quite make it seem that relentless in interest, particularly with the maddening last meeting for the climax (sure, why not have Mina do the final blow). Hopkins seems to be doing just fine in stoking some dignity to the fire while having multiple roles (for some reason). I do appreciate seeing Grant with Elwes and Campbell, but they somehow don't seem to really make as much impression as when compared to the campy stuff ahead of them (or when faced with even more cofounding casting choices, like singer Waits as the somewhat insane Renfield).

I admire Coppola for his attempts at keeping his intention to use traditional effects, since when he approached his visual effects team in what he wanted from the film, they told him it couldn't be done without computers. With that response, he fired them and just had his son Roman do the effects instead, which involve stuff such as double exposure to show mist coming out of a window or other various camera tricks. There are quite a few moments where it really can feel claustrophic, and credit certainly goes to some interesting design work in costumes and makeup. Then I remember the supposed love story and the scares that die with it, and the film dips back and forth again between looking scary and then flailing around trying to act like it is. It certainly takes inspiration from the Dracula films of the past (ranging as far back as Nosferatu), but it falls firmly in the middle of the pack with them rather than above it all. If you want to make a film about some sort of sensual repression and the nature of love through the centuries, find another vampire to do that crock of shit with. Dracula has been dragged around the woodshed for some good and not-so good films for over a century, and this is one that is just fine for what it is.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Outsiders.

Review #1469: The Outsiders.

Cast:
C. Thomas Howell (Ponyboy Curtis), Matt Dillon (Dallas "Dally" Winston), Ralph Macchio (Johnny Cade), Patrick Swayze (Darrel "Darry" Curtis), Rob Lowe (Sodapop Curtis), Emilio Estevez (Keith "Two-Bit" Matthews), Tom Cruise (Steve Randle), Glenn Withrow (Tim Shepard), Diane Lane (Sherri "Cherry" Valance), and Leif Garrett (Robert "Bob" Sheldon) Directed by Francis Ford Coppola (#592 - Dementia 13, #1139 - Supernova, and #1460 - Apocalypse Now)

Review: 
"I used to be a great camp counselor, and the idea of being with half a dozen kids in the country and making a movie seemed like being a camp counselor again. It would be a breath of fresh air. I'd forget my troubles and have some laughs again." 

The 1980s were an interesting time for coming-of-age dramas along with Francis Ford Coppola. It was the busiest decade of his career, if not the most difficult. Having reached a peak with Apocalypse Now (1979), he tried to further innovation in films with the music fantasy One from the Heart (1982), which proved a failure with audiences and wrecked his finances with Zoetrope Studio (now known as American Zoetrope). He would ultimately direct six further films in this decade (including a segment for New York Stories in 1989) while trying to get out of his debts, and two of his films were uniquely released in the same year that were adaptations of S.E. Hinton novels in Rumble Fish and this film (based on the 1967 novel of the same name). The inspiration for the film came from an interesting source: a petition on the behalf of middle school students of Lone Star Elementary School in Fresno, California by school librarian Jo Ellen Misakian, since the students felt that Coppola would be a great director to make a film out of such a key book of reading from the famed author in Hinton (who wrote it as a teenager inspired by rival gangs in her high school in Oklahoma, where the film would be shot). She was very involved with the making of the film, having numerous moments of enjoyment spent with the actors of the film. One can only imagine how much interest can be generated from a film with so many young and aspiring actors present in one film: Cruise (in the first of four key roles in a breakthrough year), Swayze (a talented dancer in his second film role), Dillon (a teen idol that starred in two other Hinton adaptations in Tex and Rumble Fish), Lane (making her transition into older roles after debuting in theater at age six and film at 14), Macchio, Lowe and Estevez (with this being a breakthrough for the latter three).

There exists two different versions of the film: The original version of the film ran for 91 minutes after Coppola edited it down from 133 minutes of shooting because of studio fears of it being too long. In 2005, he decided to do a new version of the film, inspired to do a version that restored the film to be more faithful to the book that his granddaughter could watch. The newest edition of the film, called "The Complete Novel" release, runs at 114 minutes, since Coppola re-incorporated 22 minutes of deleted footage while also taking out footage from before while also replacing most of Carmine Coppola's musical score with comtemporary 1960s music. Regardless of how one sees the film, there is a fine sense of craftsmanship in making a captivating coming-of-age story with touches of realism and style that reach most of what it desires to say about the nature of teenagers when it comes to class and adapting to the way one was raised by a family (whether the traditional one or not). Nothing comes easy in life, particularly when it comes to trying to belong in society - that applied in the 1960s and it applies just as much now more than ever, as trying to find a place to belong with others doesn't change the struggle within us no matter the supposed evolution of community over the years. With a young and hungry ensemble like this, there is plenty to generate interest in making things come alive. As our focus for a primary amount of time, Howell proves himself worthy of our attention, a complicated kid on the crossroads that we can buy into fairly well. It is Dillon who commands attention with an irresistible and irascible hardened spirit. Macchio follows along with well-done conviction to follow along with Howell, with a sequence involving the sunset being a key highlight for each in idealism that will inevitably clash with reality. Swayze (the oldest of an teenaged/twentysomething ensemble at 31) is a weary but worthwhile presence to see help lead his family of brothers and outsider brothers. The others in Lowe, Estevez, and Cruise make their own interesting impressions (the best likely being a short scene of Estevez waiting for a conversation to end with Howell and someone else by cracking wise), while Lane proves a steady counterpart of the other side of town, bright in conviction.

In the end, The Outsiders still manages to reach an audience today because of what it can say about youth on the fringes. By the time it reaches its rumble for the end, one can find themselves swept over whose actually fighting who, as if the lines of conflict can muddle between what really matters, as signified by its true ending (or at least in its burning sequence), poignant in hardened reality without drowning its viewer in what really matters - to belong. In that sense, I would say Coppola certainly made a film worth belonging to, which all came together from kids that wanted to see the folks try to "stay gold" on screen.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Apocalypse Now.

Review #1460: Apocalypse Now.

Cast: 
Marlon Brando (Colonel Walter E. Kurtz), Martin Sheen (Captain Benjamin L. Willard), Robert Duvall (Lieutenant Colonel Bill Kilgore), Frederic Forrest (Jay 'Chef' Hicks), Sam Bottoms (Lance B. Johnson), Laurence Fishburne (Tyrone 'Clean' Miller), Albert Hall (Chief Phillips), Harrison Ford (Colonel Lucas), Dennis Hopper (Photojournalist), G.D. Spradlin (General R. Corman), Jerry Ziesmer (Jerry, Civilian), and Scott Glenn (Lieutenant Richard M. Colby) Directed by Francis Ford Coppola (#592 - Dementia 13 and #1139 - Supernova)

Review: 
"We were in the jungle, there were too many of us, we had access to too much money, too much equipment, and little by little we went insane"

The 1970s were a tremendous decade for Francis Ford Coppola, so it only makes sense to cover the last film of that era, one characterized by the highs and lows of the "New Hollywood" movement.
He had a hand in six films for the decade: Patton (1970, co-wrote the screenplay), The Godfather (1972, director and co-writer), The Conversation (1974, as writer, producer, and director), The Great Gatsby (1974, screenplay), and The Godfather Part II (1974, co-writer, director, producer), and this film. Coppola was born in Detroit but raised in Queens, New York as the son of music composer Carmine Coppola (who would work with his son on a couple of his films). He graduated from both Hofstra University and the UCLA Film School (the former in theater arts and the latter in film), with one notable influence on Coppola being Dorothy Arzner, a former film director who was on the staff at the time. Coppola's career in film started in 1962 with three films: The Bellboy and the Playgirls, Tonight for Sure, and Battle Beyond the Sun (the first and latter were English edits), with his next feature being the cult classic Dementia 13 (1963). He spent the next few years doing a few scripts and further directorial efforts (such as the hit You're a Big Boy Now) before the aforementioned luck in the 1970s, where he won a total of five Academy Awards on fourteen nominations.

This was inspired by Joseph Conrad's novella Heart of Darkness, written in 1899 under the inspiration of his travels on a river steamer sailing up the Congo River (both focus on a character named Kurtz). The screenplay was written by John Milius and Coppola, with narration by Michael Herr (a war correspondent most known for his book Dispatches that detailed his experiences in Vietnam). The initial director in mind to do the film was George Lucas. He worked for years with Milius to develop the project while busy with other scripts, and he had wanted to do it after THX 1138 (1971) with the intent to shoot in both California and South Vietnam on a modest budget of $2 million with 16mm cameras and real soldiers, although this did not come to pass. Coppola was eventually drawn to the script and initially aimed to produce the film before eventually pressing on to do it himself, which he had described as a "comedy and a terrifying psychological horror story". It would take years to ultimately plan and shoot the film, since it was originally set to be a four month shoot in the Philippines for release in 1977. There were of course a few obstacles that made this impossible. The original choice for the Willard character was Harvey Keitel (since others like Steve McQueen did not want to leave America for a significant amount of time), but Coppola soon found that Keitel was not quite right for the role, which led to Sheen being brought in. Describing the amount of production quirks almost sounds like a routine of dark humor. A typhoon wrecked a majority of the sets not long after production started. Sheen had a heart attack that took him off filming for a month (with his brother Joe filling in as a double and voice over at times). Brando showed up to the set severely overweight and hadn't read the script or the book. The film premiered in May 1979 at the Cannes Film Festival while not fully finished at three hours (where Coppola famously stated that his film was not about Vietnam but rather was Vietnam). Nowadays there are multiple editions to possibly view, such as the original 153 minute version, Apocalypse Now Redux (2001, which re-inserted deleted footage that runs at 196 minutes), and Apocalypse Now Final Cut (2017, which was trimmed to 183 minutes).

For a film that runs at a significant length and with such production quirks, it is amazing how well the film works as a look upon the dark parts of a man's soul when it comes to the horrors of war with such tenacity and depth to make for one of the most seminal films of its era and for epic war films as a whole. It is an experience like no other in ways that other films could only dream to do in terms of haunting timelessness, because it is something that can linger in our mind now more than ever. For a man who had his quarrels with Coppola and takes his time to show up in full detail, Brando generates a tremendous performance of stature, a poet warrior's voice from the dark that is intently fascinating to view in those moments for the clear-minded-but-darkened-soul that doesn't have to say much (Coppola edited down a rambling monologue by Brando to only a few minutes) to generate awe. Sheen follows along with great ambiguity, a passive presence that we have absolutely no trouble in following along with in a path of weariness as a changed man of war, right from the very first scene where he punches a mirror with his bare hand. Duvall makes for quite a fanatical presence in such a quick amount of time, a man that we can smell the napalm with in clear detail. The others in the cast prove worthy to travel along with, including a young Fishburne and a dazed Bottoms to go with the eccentrically on-point Hopper and bit highlights for Spradlin and Ziesmer. This is not a film that tests one's patience as much as it is one that probes into your patience, filled with a tremendous look by Vittorio Storaro in cinematography that makes a devastating classic worth checking out as a portrait of what can drive a man to certain actions in war under the guise of morality that leaves its audience fully stunned and ultimately satisfied for having watched it.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Supernova (2000).

Review #1139: Supernova.

Cast: 
James Spader (Nick Vanzant), Angela Bassett (Dr. Kaela Evers), Robert Forster (A.J. Marley), Lou Diamond Phillips (Yerzy Penalosa), Peter Facinelli (Karl Larson), Robin Tunney (Danika Lund), Wilson Cruz (Benjamin Sotomejor), Eddy Rice Jr (Flyboy), Knox Grantham White (Troy Larson), and Vanessa Marshall (Sweetie) Directed by Thomas Lee (Walter Hill (#1072 - 48 Hrs and #1091 - Last Man Standing), Jack Sholder (#476 - A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge) and Francis Ford Coppola (#592 - Dementia 13))

Review: 
Surprise, it's a late-night second review to begin October! Welcome to Spooktober. This month will have numerous reviews of things related in some way to horror, and I hope to write and post ten reviews before the month ends on the 31st. This film, of which belongs to the sci-fi/horror genre, has a bit of an...interesting history that helps give context to the final released product. The review of the film itself begins in the second paragraph.

The idea for the film originally was developed by William Malone as "Dead Star'', which involved a space expedition finding alien artifacts and brings them back to Earth with consequences, and it was first pitched to studios in 1990 as "Dead Calm in outer space". Painter and noted set designer H. R. Giger was asked to make some concept sketches to help promote the film. Gradually the story (done by Malone and Daniel Chuba with screenplay by David C. Wilson) changed to one about a medical ship answering a distress signal that finds a vessel near a black hole and rescues the only survivor of the ship who is carrying a mysterious object with him. Geoffrey Wright (director of films such as Romper Stomper) was originally hired as director for production, which was set to begin in April 1998. However, he left just prior to production beginning, having creative differences with the producers. Hill was brought in with only a few weeks to spare before the start of filming, and he wanted to make changes to the script, but his vision was different from what the studio had wanted. The budget was apparently cut in half during production, with the final budget for the film (a USA-Switzerland co-production) being around $90 million. The effects were done by Digital Domain, but with less effects than planned. MGM had a partnership with them that would provide effects for the film below usual rates for effects, but the partnership fell through, meaning it would cost more to put it, resulting in the effects-work being cut in half. Upon completing principal photography a few months later, Hill assembled his cut of the film, but without all the effects added into it, due to them not all being finished. When MGM wanted to show his cut without the effects to test audiences, Hill was opposed, stating that the film would not have good reception without the effects added in, which proved correct. Further arguments led to his departure from the film. Shoulder was enlisted to do re-edits and re-shoots to try and salvage the film. His version streamlined things a bit more, and although the results were a bit better in screenings, the results weren't up to what the studio wanted, and they shelved the film until 1999. Coppola, a board member for MGM and famed director of such films like The Godfather trilogy, was enlisted to help try and give the film another set of editing, most notably by adding a romance scene between Spader and Bassett's characters - by re-editing out-takes from a romance scene involving two other people and digitally editing their features and skin color. In any case, this is a movie that couldn't even have a decently cut trailer for its January release, utilizing deleted, extended, or alternate footage not seen in the film.

Knowing the details of a production as troubled as this one was doesn't make the film any more palatable to sit through, but it at least gives some sort of context for why this is such a sloppy movie. Whether as science fiction or horror, it manages to be a complete failure, having little to none of the standards needed to succeed on any level, being neither scary nor interesting to look at. They managed to make a film that feels like it was created from the scraps of other films and their ideas, with Alien (1979) being one I can think about off the top of my head. At least that film didn't have some magic MacGuffin with a bunch of science mumbo-jumbo to go with it, including one bit about the orb being "nine-dimensional" - but that is just one of several things to pick at with this film. The characters in this dreck are all fairly stale and not too particularly interesting to go along with, with the actors only being able to drag these paper people they play as far as they can. Spader and Bassett come out of it with the least lost, and while they can't save the film, they are at least watchable in some way, presenting some sort of charm - even if they don't have too much chemistry with each other. Forster clearly suffered in terms of screen-time from the edits, since he's in the film for not even twenty minutes, so there isn't much for him (or for the viewer) to grab onto. Phillips does okay with not being too one-note for a character such as this. Facinelli plays the villain of this sorry film, and he can't quite make this character come off as anything other than mildly annoying. I especially like the fact that the climax was re-edited in order to take out a big effects sequence involving his character changing form because the studio "couldn't see the actor" - yep, because that was the only issue. Tunney doesn't do much to generate interest with her character, which also can apply to the other people in this limited cast.

By the time the film wants to start a body count, there isn't really many people that it can use to even make a body count, and the people that it does take out are pretty much taken out in a span of about ten minutes. The look of the film certainly doesn't help make this fun, since a good chunk of the film has some sort of shade of blue dominate the screen, which can make the effects (which already feel like a cut-scene) seem a bit murky. By the time the movie throws its shamble of a climax at the audience, you will be left wondering how they managed to pass such a weird junky product in only 90 minutes, complete with a laughable reveal. On the whole, this is a laughable misfire of a movie that is best left to the dumpsters of obscurity for horror and sci-fi fans, worth only for the cheapest thrill of seeing how such a dumb product can possibly be made.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Dementia 13.

Review #592: Dementia 13.

Cast
William Campbell (Richard Haloran), Luana Anders (Louise Haloran), Patrick Magee (Dr. Justin Caleb), Bart Patton (Billy Haloran), Mary Mitchell (Kane), Eithne Dunne (Lady Haloran), and Peter Read (John Haloran) Directed by Francis Ford Coppola.

Review
This was the first mainstream film made by Francis Ford Coppola, and this was made only because Roger Corman had leftover money after making one of his numerous films (The Young Racers, which had some of the cast in this film), and Coppola made the story outline in about a day, with the production in Ireland. Corman did not like how the movie was after Coppola showed him the finished product, and so Corman demanded an additional death scene along with a prologue to be added, though the version I watched lacks the prologue. The movie has an eerie Gothic feel, with the castle being the backdrop. The plot is paper thin at times and sometimes odd, but in the end it all comes together to make a pretty well made movie. Coppola knows what he's doing and the cast does a fine job with the material. There aren't many murders, but at least the movie still enjoyable, even if the identity of the killer could be figured out by the halfway point. Take this for what it's worth, especially on this day, Friday the...13th. Yeah...Countdown to 600: 10, 9, 8...

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.