The Amityville Horror (1979).

Review #2609: The Amityville Horror (1979).

Cast: 

James Brolin (George Lutz), Margot Kidder (Kathleen 'Kathy' Lutz), Rod Steiger (Father Francis 'Frank' Delaney), Don Stroud (Father Bolen), Murray Hamilton (Father Ryan), John Larch (Father Nuncio), Natasha Ryan (Amy Lutz), K. C. Martel (Greg Lutz), Meeno Peluce (Matt Lutz), Michael Sacks (Jeff), Helen Shaver (Carolyn), Amy Wright (Jackie), Val Avery (Sergeant Gionfriddo), Elsa Raven (Mrs. Townsend), and Irene Dailey (Aunt Helena) Directed by Stuart Rosenberg.

Review: 

In 1974, there was a terrible murder in a house on 112 Ocean Avenue in a neighborhood in Amityville on the shoes of Long Island, New York. The man killed six family members and ultimately was convicted to life in prison, where he resided until the day he died. One year after the murders in the house, the Lutz family moved into the house with their children and dog. 28 days later, they fled the house, claiming that strange things of the paranormal spooked them enough to leave and never return. The Lutzes were introduced soon after to a man named Jay Anson, who they decided to send many hours of recollections of what they apparently saw and heard on tape, for which Anson wrote a book published in 1977. Samuel Z. Arkoff of American International Pictures fame quickly bought the rights to the book from Anson, who actually wrote a teleplay for what was originally envisioned for a TV film before Sandor Stern was hired to write the eventual screenplay. For probably obvious reasons, the authorities did not allow the filmmakers to film at the actual Amityville residence, so they settled with a place in Toms River, New Jersey for location shooting. Perhaps lost in the shuffle is director Stuart Rosenberg, who had done a string of "okay" to middling movies since Cool Hand Luke (1967). Both Brolin and Kidder were asked by the studio to do promotions for the movie that basically had them see the actual house and talk about the claims made by the Lutz family, for which they later doubted the actual claims. The movie was a considerable hit with audiences, and there has been a few people who have noted their appreciation of the movie, most notably with Stephen King, who eventually saw the film as an "enduring classic of its kind" that argued for it serving as a parable for financial anxieties. Anson died the year after the film was released. Two months after the release of the film, the attorney of the murderer claimed that he and Lutz made up the tales of the house being haunted over a series of drinks. Various people went on to look at the house, most notably with Ed and Lorraine Warren (a pair of so-called "demonologists"*) while Mr. Lutz registered the phrase of the book as a trademark and later stated that the film producers embellished events in the movie. Both the actual house and the Toms River house have seen renovations (with the former having its address changed) and the people of Amityville would rather see people shut up about the house. Unlike other franchises that came around because people wanted to make some sequels, Amityville took the cake for shamelessness. Dino De Laurentiis oversaw Amityville II: The Possession [1982] (for which the Lutzes sued to have no affiliation) while the road to the gutter went to 3-D the following year that was the last theatrical release until the 2005 remake. Amidst all of the subsequent indie and direct-to-video slop* (of which there are dozens, with the most recent being "Christmas Vacation" in 2022), discussions for a re-imagining have occurred for years.

With all of that in mind, it gives me no pleasure to say that I loathed this utterly mediocre movie. It actually almost makes me irritated to see anyone try to hold it up as anything other than a mealy-mouthed, shambling, fraud of a film. Far from being one of the "scariest films ever", it will only inspire the viewer to bash their skull in the company of their own house because heaven forbid having to watch one more minute of a movie with no actual scares in it. Ahhhhh, the house we paid money for is turning into a money pit! Ahhhh, I'm having totally-real nightmares about a murder I never saw! Ahhhh, my phone keeps giving me static when the dopey priest is calling! Ahhhh, there's no real ending! I hope you get my perspective, because I'll be damned if I could understand Stephen King's perspective* or any perspective that doesn't call it a turgid, uninspired mess of fiction (besides, when having a fear of money troubles, my thoughts go to "get the calculator", not "how can I make this into a horror story?"). At least when The Blair Witch Project (1999) tried to play their horrors off with the mythology of being based in some sort of reality, there was the idea of an actual threat amidst all of the madness. Here, all the movie has is a few spooky images and the occasional Lalo Schifrin musical beat to carry a movie that is too irritating to take as either a joke or based in reality. Apparently, Brolin was approached about doing the movie, so he read the book with some pants over the door and somehow, when he was reading a "scary part" of the book, the pants fell off the floor that spooked him enough to laugh and also decide, yes, he had to do this film, one where he plays it with growing agitation and the appearance of a shaggy bum. He can only go so far in trying to lift this movie up with any semblance of terror and vulnerability as a patriarch that can only keep chopping wood. Kidder and Steiger basically took the film on for the same reason of wanting to accept any job offered (the latter in particular had been recovering from open-heart surgery). I think you can see the level of "commitment" on display from each person, with one basically giggling through the crap with Kidder (I sure wish I could laugh at this movie without checking how long it is to end the 118-minute runtime is) and the other trying their damndest to chew the entire screen with Steiger that actually borders on embarrassing after, what, the stigmata starts to show? It doesn't even matter if the movie had any sort of made-up explanation of why the house is what it is, what could possibly hold up such vaunted spooky things such as black ooze, exploding doors, malevolent sash windows, disappearing cash, and babysitters getting locked in closets while an imaginary being later revealed to be a pig is in the area. I could go on and on, but I think the best way to assess a horror movie is this: did I enjoy what I was watching? No, not really. Would I recommend it even with the acknowledgement that there have been just as many flawed movies involving spooky houses or the semblance of tension even with a lack of monster/explanation? No, because it personally annoyed me and didn't even have a payoff. Would I like to see just how the two subsequent "sequels" and remake turned things into an even bigger joke? Well, never say never. I think you get my point: The Amityville Horror is a dull, shambling mess that is mostly fit for those who know the fine line between doggerel and, well, dogshit.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day - a special one on the day of the World Series of Milwaukee Brewers and the Tampa Bay Rays: a song from Milwaukee's own Steve Miller - go Brewers!

*There is probably some perspective that offers a good reason to check out direct-to-video stuff or "on-demand" stuff. For me, it just sounds like the biggest waste of time imaginable - I'm here for stuff that made a theater, what's the point?

*Yes, yes, The Conjuring became a franchise with the loosest characterizations of the Warrens. It should be noted that aside from being frauds that have no credibility in any shape or form (I do not engage with "ghost hunters", I would rather see them get a real job), Ed was accused of having a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old. Lorraine personally wrote into the contract of the film series that her and Ed would not be portrayed as "engaging in crimes, including sex with minors, child pornography, prostitution or sexual assault. Neither the husband nor wife could be depicted as participating in an extramarital sexual relationship". At least the Warrens are both dead now.

*What, was King still snorting cocaine when coming up with that perspective? 

The Master of Disguise.

Review #1705: The Master of Disguise.

Cast: 

Dana Carvey (Pistachio Disguisey), Jennifer Esposito (Jennifer Baker), Harold Gould (Grandpa Disguisey), James Brolin (Fabbrizio Disguisey), Brent Spiner (Devlin Bowmna), Edie McClurg ("Mama" Disguisey), Michael Bailey Smith (Bald Henchman), Austin Wolff (Barney Baker), Kenan Thompson (Himself), Jay Johnston (Rex), and Maria Canals (Sophia) Directed by Perry Andelin Blake.

Review: 

You would be surprised to know that this was released on August 2, 2002 if you saw the film, because, well, it really seems to be the first film-void to ever exist. Just remember, this film was written by Dana Carvey. Well, actually he wrote the story and co-wrote the screenplay with Harris Goldberg, but the point is still true. Of course we all know that Carvey wasn't exactly a slouch for comedy. Born in Montana but raised in San Francisco, he had become interested in comedy after graduating with a degree in broadcast communications from San Francisco State University; he made a few appearances in film and television in supporting roles, but his break came with joining the cast of Saturday Night Live in 1986, and he would work on the show for seven years with a mix of original characters and impressions of various personalities of the day. Of course, not every SNL cast member went on to just be a major film star, but he did dabble in film with features such as Opportunity Knocks (1990) and Clean Slate (1994) alongside a short-lived variety project with The Dana Carvey Show (1996, which lasted eight episodes). This is the first and so far only film directed by Blake, who had gotten into film as a production designer in the 1990s after graduating from Harvard University in architecture. Incidentally, his first feature was Billy Madison (1995), and he continued his association with Adam Sandler as part of his film crew for years. The film managed to make back its $16 million budget twice over, but I suppose some things like directing aren't meant to be. This was produced by Happy Madison Productions, which Sandler had co-founded in 1999; Carvey was the third SNL collaborator that had worked with Sandler to have his own film with the company, which naturally included Rob Schneider and David Spade in illustrious works such as Joe Dirt (2001) that clearly got better in later years. At any rate, this is the last film that Carvey served as the star and the last feature he did for nearly a decade, which he stated was because he wanted to spend time with his family.

Honestly, their was a sliver of cynical guessing that this was meant to be some sort of joke on the audience, as if Carvey was trying to take your curiosity and your mood at the same time, which only makes sense if you realize that this really isn't an 80 minute movie either (owing to minutes of credits that filler a movie with no soul). One scene has him ripping a dude's nose off before spitting it back onto his face...so that's one way to do it. Heck, go even farther, you might as well have shown him go for more than 20 impressions, you could have him try to impersonate the other actors and make it an offbeat one-man show. Carvey tries to coast on mimicry and can't quite get there, as if one is watching a premature rendition of MacGruber (2010) but without the "cult audience". By the time one gets to him trying to "disguise" himself as a turtle, one has already checked out, as if being irritated is too much effort; one instead turns to indifference and hope it doesn't turn to pity over an attempt at boyish charm for a near 50-year old actor. Esposito evokes a small smile in that she doesn't become overwhelmed by the void of boredom that arises from no chemistry between her and Carvey. One has seen Gould in far better material, particularly since he spends a good part of his time playing insult man to Carvey. It is strange to see Brolin here, if only because the makeup here makes him look like he has morphed into Burt Reynolds, one that is bemused in standing around and occasionally doing a gag from time to time (hence the cameos, because they basically do the same one three times with the guest star going around and stealing an item before the mask comes off for Brolin). When asked about his favorite film that wasn't liked by critics, Spiner once responded with this film...that is probably the nicest thing I can say about a performance that has in a loop, one that sees him cackle before he farts. I don't need to pile on, do I? Perhaps it was a coincidence that Austin Powers in Goldmember (2002) was released just a week before this feature. Think about it: that was also a movie where the lead actor (in this case, a SNL cast-mate with Mike Myers) played a bunch of roles, and it also featured a strange amount of cameos (although this feature's best idea of a cameo is Bo Derek). I guess the quality of the impression goes on how much one doesn't think of Peter Sellers when it comes to assuming the persona of a role. Of course, I say this because Sellers had a variety of classics to go along with quite a handful of missteps when it comes to impressions with the rhythm of humor (in other words, there is a reason one thinks of Being There rather than The Fiendish Plot of Dr. Fu Manchu as the last hurrah for Sellers). You see where I am going with the impressions, do you? You can do a whole bunch of impressions, but if it comes in a movie that has the bare minimum when it comes to timing or gags besides "look, he went from a faux-Italian accent to makeup", the biggest loser is the sucker who has to watch it, and they sure do get to look at the background a bit after a while. As a whole, the movie is blah, filled with rote gags that only a bored juvenile person might appreciate. Actually, watching a film develop into a void could make for a terrible curiosity for those who really, really, really want to see cheap gags and nothing else.

Overall, I give it 2 out of 10 stars.

Next batter up.

Catch Me If You Can.

Review #1305: Catch Me If You Can.

Cast: 
Leonardo DiCaprio (Frank Abagnale Jr.), Tom Hanks (Carl Hanratty), Christopher Walken (Frank Abagnale Sr.), Nathalie Baye (Paula Abagnale), Amy Adams (Brenda Strong), Martin Sheen (Roger Strong), James Brolin (Jack Barnes), and Nancy Lenehan (Carol Strong) Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168 - Raiders of the Lost Ark, #169 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, #170 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, #302 - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, #351 - Schindler's List, #480 - Jaws, #563 - The Sugarland Express, #573 - E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, #642 - Jurassic Park, #958 - Always, and #1068 - Ready Player One)

Review: 
We all have a collection of lies in our lives, with some having more fabrications than others. We tell it to ourselves, our children, our loved ones, our friends and even random strangers if necessary. They can range from white lies to the outrageous. In this case, this is a film inspired by the real life story of Frank Abagnale Jr, a case of con-man forger turned consultant that wrote about his exploits as a teenager in 1980 with Stan Redding. Attempts to produce an adaptation had persisted for years with several directors attached before Spielberg (who had co-founded of Dreamworks Pictures and initially signed on as producer) ultimately became the one to direct. In any case, Catch Me If You Can is a wonderful crook tale headlined by a wonderful tandem performance from DiCaprio and Hanks that rolls for 141 minutes in consistent stylish entertainment. It takes the expected route to fact and fiction blending, but let it be said that the exploits of Abagnale are still a bit fuzzy even after several decades. Granted, there are significant differences, which range from minor stuff like a consolidated time-line to changing the name of the pursuing FBI agent to his family life (i.e. no siblings). It is a compromise kind of film, where the scenes with DiCaprio and Walken after he runs away from home are warm while being a product of movie-magic, which can be forgiven for a clever film like this one.

DiCaprio drives things along with such suave nature, a charming wunderkind of fabrication that never seems inauthentic to watch, where he doesn't seem too old to be playing a teenager-turned-criminal. Hanks is just as entertaining as the other side of the coin, where he doesn't become privy to the old traditions of the FBI pursuer of gritted teeth or Lt. Gerald style obsession - one trying to do their job without much of a family life (very much like the person pursued) but with a sense of commitment one would see from a composite (loosely based on real FBI Agent Joseph Shea). Walken plays things smooth, where one likes to see him talk to his on-screen son with caring warmth, and Baye does just as fine to portray this on-screen family before things go awry, a picture of a family that you might think was just fine. Illusions aren't limited to cons, you might say. Adams does pretty well with a lively performance to round out the edges of the caper filings. On the whole, the film does best in its look at the pursuit through technical lenses, such as the cinematography by Janusz Kamiński and a jazzy score from John Williams that each give the film plenty of surrounding atmosphere to go around. The film works best when seeing how DiCaprio and Hanks are when in their surrounding environments, or when they speak to each other (it should be noted that the real life Abagnale and Shea did have a long-standing friendship as well) that help the film be more than procedure. You aren't rooting for our lead to be caught, but instead are captivated by what goes on next with someone who goes from plucky kid to pilot passenger. We live in such a different world now compared to the late 1960s that the film presents, but that doesn't mean the con of assuming a different identity is a thing of the past - some just happen to be better than others. This is a case of someone who did it with embellishment, with a film that seems as appropriate for entertainment that is easy to expect from Spielberg but always interesting to see in how it actually plays out.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Westworld.

Review #988: Westworld.

Cast: 
Yul Brynner (The Gunslinger), Richard Benjamin (Peter Martin), James Brolin (John Blane), Norman Bartold (the Medieval Knight), Alan Oppenheimer (the Chief Supervisor), Victoria Shaw (the Medieval Queen), Dick Van Patten (the Banker), Linda Scott (Arlette), Steve Franken (Technician), Michael Mikler (Black Knight), Terry Wilson (Sheriff), and Majel Barrett (Miss Carrie) Directed by Michael Crichton.

Review: 
Westworld is certainly an interesting film, in part because of how clever it feels in terms of its construction of plot and style. It's interesting how it can be classified as a "science fiction Western thriller", but it is even more interesting that this was the directorial debut of Michael Crichton, a novelist who prior to this film had four of his novels adapted into films (most notably The Andromeda Strain), while also directing a television film (Pursuit) and writing for another film (Extreme Close-Up). In any case, this is a fun movie that establishes an interesting premise and atmosphere while not bogging itself down with its characters. It's easy to immerse in the fantasies that the character go through in part because of how familiar they seem (namely the shoot-out in the saloon or the sword fight in the hall), but they are being played out in a world all about reenacting things like the Old West or medieval Europe or even Rome. The film is not merely "robots gone amok", feeling like a fable about the danger of corporate greed, but in any case the film still feels pretty relevant today.

Benjamin and Brolin are certainly an interesting pair of protagonists, partly because of how much charisma they give off despite not much being revealed about their characters (aside from one brief conversation); one of my favorite scenes is them being involved in a brawl, in part because you can see the amount of fun they seem to have (even at something like fighting), prior to the climax. Oddly, one other favorite scene of mine doesn't involve the main cast; it is the opening scene, advertising the park (named Delos), complete with a showcase of satisfied customers. Perhaps it's their enthusiasm over what they experienced from the world they visited, but it certainly helps establish the film's credibility without needless exposition. Brynner does a fine job that serves as the highlight of the film, certainly making for a good foe for both the world he inhibits along with in the climax (especially with those piercing eyes), with the look of the Gunslinger being similar to the character that he played in The Magnificent Seven (#427). It was the first film to use digital image processing, done so in order to simulate the Gunslinger's point of view, which was done by pixellated photography by John Whitney, Jr, and Gary Demos at Information International, Inc). I think the view ages pretty well for what it is used for, and the effects with the robots are also certainly quite effective. It's interesting to note how the run-time is 88 minutes, because the film certainly never feels lacking in any kind of quality. A follow up called Futureworld would be released three years later, and there have been two television shows broadcast (Beyond Westworld and Westworld, with the latter premiering in 2016). This is an enjoyable film that certainly lends itself to enjoyment even after over four decades since its release.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.