The Fog (1980).

Review #2312: The Fog (1980).

Cast: 

Adrienne Barbeau (Stevie Wayne), Tom Atkins (Nicholas "Nick" Castle), Jamie Lee Curtis (Elizabeth Solley), Hal Holbrook (Father Patrick Malone), Janet Leigh (Kathy Williams), Nancy Loomis (Sandy Fadel), Ty Mitchell (Andrew "Andy" Wayne), Charles Cyphers (Dan O'Bannon / Dan the Weather Man), James Canning (Dick Baxter), John F. Goff (Al Williams), George Buck Flower (Tommy Wallace), Regina Waldon (Mrs. Kobritz), Darwin Joston (Dr. Phibes), Rob Bottin (Blake), and John Houseman (Mr. Machen) 

Directed by John Carpenter (#068 - Halloween (1978), #634 - Escape from New York, #712 - The Thing (1982), #732 - Escape from L.A., #1221 - Dark Star, #1298 - They Live, #1479 - Big Trouble in Little China, #1605 - Starman, #1874 - Assault on Precinct 13, #2130 - Vampires)

Review: 

"I think the primary reason I'm making movies is to get a response from the audience, is to get the audience to go with me down on whatever path I'm trying to take them with, whether it's to make them laugh or make them jump."

Admittedly, it does feel nice to inquire further into the works of John Carpenter. The Fog was the fourth feature film of his after the broadcast of Someone's Watching Me! (1978) and Elvis (1979). Of course, the genesis for what became The Fog came a few years prior around the time of Assault on Precinct 13 (1976), which had featured Debra Hill as a script supervisor and assistant editor in her first collaboration with Carpenter (with whom he wrote Halloween [1978] with). Apparently, the inspiration came when the two were promoting Assault in England and saw Stonehenge in the mist. This would collide with inspirations such as Val Lewton's films such as Isle of the Dead or I Walked with a Zombie to go along with the 1958 film The Trollenberg Terror, the Tales from the Crypt books, and the wreck of a ship called the Frollic. The Fog was written by Carpenter and Hill, who produced the film as part of a two-movie deal with AVCO Embassy Pictures, which was then followed the following year with Escape from New York (1981). The manner in which Embassy did a deal with Carpenter and Hill irritated Irwin Yablans, who apparently had a verbal agreement to produce the film and did a lawsuit. The result of this was that Carpenter and Hill wound up on working with an eager Yablans for Halloween II (1981). Prior to release of The Fog, Carpenter oversaw reshoots of the film because the original version apparently didn't work in his eyes to go along with needing to compete with horror films that would be released around the same time (with their levels of gore). The prologue alongside certain moments of gore to go with tinkering with the nature of the climax (such as showing the top of the lighthouse) are the most significant things that were done in these re-shoots. The movie was made for roughly $1.1 million and was a relative success with audiences. A remake was directed by Rupert Wainwright in 2005 (with Carpenter and Hill being producers) to tremendous failure.

 

It's interesting that the movie starts with a quote from Edgar Allan Poe’s poem “A Dream Within a Dream" ("Is all that we see or seem/But a dream within a dream?"). The faceless horror that arises from a strange ghost story (well, aside from the climax that sort of feels like a zombie film when they try to board up the church), complete with Houseman being the perfect voice to sell the opening in gentlemanly fashion. A. & A. Special Effects (as operated by Dick Albain Jr) were behind the fog effects, which they did on soundstages with fog machines that combined with various uses of dry ice, fog juice and optical effects (in one instance, a miniature of rocks, black velvet and dry ice to combine later) for what you see here. Barbeau had considerable television experience (most notably on Maude) but this was her film debut, one in which her character doesn't even share a scene physically on-screen with anybody other than her on-screen son. She still manages to pull off a strong performance here, charming and strong enough to carry the tension for sights and sounds. Holbrook is the logical choice for sobering truth in such carefully curated time on screen, one wracked with unnerving energy at seeing cracks form in his faith at the hands of a terrifying discovery (namely coordinating death). Curtis and Atkins are as familiar to us as bread with their warm presences, but (to me, anyway) that is a fun thing to have when seeing people get wrapped in terror. You do get your moments of slashing every now and then, but it mostly is a film trying to roll along with atmosphere (such as an expected on-point music score from Carpenter) and a threat of fog that can in some ways work out for suspense, by the time it gets most of its characters in line for the climax. The 90-minute runtime does end a bit abruptly, but it is still strange but enduring horror experience in which one gets bit of shock and gore at the revenge-plot play out ("six must die", as one sees). As a whole, Carpenter's fourth effort as a filmmaker managed to make an old-fashioned ghost story work out with eerie enjoyment and a solid cast that makes for a pretty good time to see play out all the way to its end. A neat little gem that ranks firmly in the second tier of Carpenter films, you won't miss with this one when it comes to calmly-built terror. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Well, that is a wrap on Halloween: The Week After VI. We had plenty of fun going through a historic October (45 reviews, because I just had to look for as many "different" films as possible) to go along with some useful loose ends fulfilled for this first week of November. Anyway, here is the list of candidates that just missed out on the cut of October 1 - November 7:

The Monster, The Man Who Changed His Mind, The Collector, The Gorgon, The Last Broadcast, Torture Garden, The Wolfman (2010), Quatermass 2, The Bride, The Thing That Wouldn't Die, Vampire in Brooklyn, Amazing Mr. X, Underworld 2, Friday the 13th Part 3, Frankenstein 1970, Alraune, The Plague of Florence, The Student of Prague (1926), The Bat, One Exciting Night, Wizard of Gore, Mary Reilly, Color out of Space, The Invasion, I Know What You Did Last Summer, Final Destination 3, The People Under the Stairs,  The Fly II, Van Helsing, Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh, Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II, It's Alive, Martin, Monkey Shines, I Vampiri, The Abominable Snowman, The Aztec Mummy, From Hell It Came, The House on Sorority Row, Vampire in Venice, Blood for Dracula, Scream Blacula Scream, Planet of the Vampires, Ravenous, The Grudge, Hellraiser II, 

Death Line, Squirm,...

...As for what might be next, well, I do have one surprise up my sleeve.

Halloween H20: 20 Years Later.

Review #1148: Halloween H20: 20 Years Later.

Cast: 
Jamie Lee Curtis (Laurie Strode / Keri Tate), Chris Durand (Michael Myers), Michelle Williams (Molly Cartwell), Josh Hartnett (John Tate), Adam Arkin (Will Brennan), Jodi Lyn O'Keefe (Sarah Wainthrope), LL Cool J (Ronald "Ronny" Jones), Adam Hann-Byrd (Charlie Deveraux), Janet Leigh (Norma Watson), Nancy Stephens (Marion Chambers-Whittington), and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Jimmy Howell) Directed by Steve Miner (#761 - Friday the 13th Part 2)

Review: 
Hmm, a Halloween film review? Must be that time of season again - or perhaps there is a new Halloween film out, complete with ignoring continuity of the previous few films and having it star Jamie Lee Curtis being stalked by Michael Myers yet again. Obviously I wanted to be a bit thorough with this review and some of its background, so I hope you enjoy the final result.

There is something to be said about doing another Halloween film, as this is the seventh film of this franchise that reached its highest point of suspense and terror with its original installment in 1978. Although I do find some enjoyment from some of the sequels that followed (whether for a few cheap scares or laughs), it is weird to see an attempt to try and capture the magic in the bottle once again after seeing how the franchise had progressed in the previous three installments, which reached the bottom of the barrel in scares. The fact that this film washes away the continuity of those films should mean that there is some hope for a good horror film that doesn't delve into a cheap shadow of what had made the original (and to a somewhat lesser extent, the sequel) so effective. Having Curtis back also pulls a point in that hopeful direction, since she had expressed in bringing back people from the original, such as John Carpenter. However, he expressed a demand for a starting fee of $10 million that was rejected, which led to him not directing. The film was based on a story by Kevin Williamson (writer of Scream who is credited as one of the executive producers for the film) that would develop into a screenplay written by Robert Zappia and Matt Greenberg, although Williamson would do un-credited re-writes for certain parts such as character dialogue, and it was his idea to come up with the story-line involving the paramedics that would be followed up in the sequel that was filmed after shooting had ended. The working title for the film was "Halloween 7: The Revenge of Laurie Strode", and there was a version of the script in which the events of 4-6 were actually acknowledged at one point, but somewhere along the way it was decided to go with a title that is actually more ridiculous to say out loud than reading it on a screen. But I suppose the idea for titles in this series were running low, owing to the films that followed - alongside the idea to release it in August, clearly the month one thinks of for horror films.

With all of this, how does the actual product pan out? On the one hand, it doesn't go as low as Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers in terms of execution, but there isn't anything here besides the climax that is particularly interesting, and it doesn't approach the levels of either the original, Halloween II, or even the fourth one, which was really more of a cheap thrill made ten years after the original. Ten years after that, and they still can't make a Halloween installment that actually has some sort of real scares or interesting side characters. Oddly enough, the easiest sticking point I have with this film involves Myers. For the second film (which the film doesn't ignore), he had burnt to a cinder, while having his eyes shot out. With this one, you see too much of him and his eyes (particularly when trying to fake out the audience), which only cheapens his presence for actual moments to try and spook the audience. This is made especially weird by the fact that there is a scene involving Myers in a CGI mask meant to cover up the original mask used for the scene. It's just weird in general that there were numerous masks used for the film in general, as if it was really hard to pick one and just stick with it. By the time the fourth or fifth jump scare happens, the film seems to glue itself into mediocrity. I suppose the best trick this movie has up its sleeve is to try and have jump scares and comic relief bits (such as LL Cool J talking to his off-screen wife about some ambitions to write romance novels) as if they will make up for the already stacked cliches that seem to date this film more than the original. Perhaps they wanted to out-do the original in cheesy dialogue. I can understand what they were trying to do with the focus on Laurie and her trauma and how it affects her after twenty years, especially with her son. However, the writing doesn't make this go anywhere besides cursory moments. However, the climax makes it nearly worth it in a ridiculous yet weirdly satisfying way, a venting out of frustration by Curtis' character that leads to an action that would have perfectly encapsulated the end of this franchise...but of course, that is not quite the case. At least its somewhat tolerable at 86 minutes.

Curtis, in her third go at the role, is the best part of the film. You can see her effort to try and give this role some sort of growth in the time elapsed since the original two films that make her someone worth following. It's easy to see why she wanted to be back for another one of these films (later expressing her love of the film despite calling it a payday movie), and she is easily the best part of the final showdown, taking control of how this film uses its one effective trick. The other actors aren't terrible, but most of them are fairly wooden, with the teenagers not being at all interesting to be with, especially with Hartnett. I suppose they thought it would be really clever to have Leigh (mother of Curtis) be in the film for a few scenes - complete with the same car used by her in Psycho (1960). At least we get to see Stephens (present in the first two films) in the opening sequence, the first in a few ways to invoke memories from the past - for better or worse. By the time Myers starts terrorizing this group, you don't really care who survives or not, and the deaths seem pretty hollow this time around. Maybe its the fact that there is no character in the vein of Dr. Loomis (played by Donald Pleasence until his death in 1995) besides a reference in the opening scene that makes this film feel hollow with its pursuits. Ultimately, this is a Halloween product that only serves as a pale shadow of the original two films that should have served as the end for this series.

But of course, that's not the case, is it...?

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Manchurian Candidate (1962).

Review #985: The Manchurian Candidate.

Cast:
Frank Sinatra (Maj. Bennett Marco), Laurence Harvey (Raymond Shaw), Angela Lansbury (Mrs. Iselin), Janet Leigh (Eugenie Rose Chaney), Henry Silva (Chunjin), James Gregory (Sen. John Yerkes Iselin), Leslie Parrish (Jocelyn Jordan), John McGiver (Sen. Thomas Jordan), Khigh Dheigh (Dr. Yen Lo), and James Edwards (Cpl. Allen Melvin) Directed by John Frankenheimer (#559 - Grand Prix)

Review:
This film is often billed as a neo-noir along with being called a suspense thriller, and while I'd argue the latter label applies more than the other, I can't deny the quality of the film, which is tremendous. It manages to be a cohesive thriller due to how it utilizes its cast. Each of the main cast members shine in the roles that they play, from Sinatra and his capable heroism to Lansbury and her cold calculative nature. Leigh isn't as big of a standout, but she does certainly contrast with the weirdness of the characters that form the story. Dheigh doesn't have much screen-time, but he does a fine job in an adversarial role. But it is Harvey and how he portrays this complex character that truly stands out. His scenes about how "unlovable" he is particularly a good standout in understanding the nature of his character, where he isn't merely an unlikable dupe. His moments in the film with Parrish and McGiver aren't too long, but they contrast perfectly in comparison with his scenes opposite Lansbury and Gregory, and those scenes certainly do lend to an emotional payoff, for better or for worse. Speaking of which, Lansbury and Gregory are also finely cast, with one of my favorite scenes being their exchange over the latter needing a more memorable number to use in his speeches. There are numerous parts of the film that serve as fine highlights (such as Harvey jumping into a lake with Sinatra watching), but I think the scene with Harvey and his men is a particular good one in how it executes itself with a fine sense of cleverness even with a premise as odd as brainwashing (or the motives) seems. This is a film that manages to lure you in with suspense without being too obvious about it along with taking its time, with a riveting climax to boot. On the whole, this is a fine feature that has enough from its cast and its style of telling its story with thrills.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Psycho (1960).

Review #447: Psycho.

Cast
Anthony Perkins (Norman Bates), Janet Leigh (Marion Crane), Vera Miles (Lila Crane), John Gavin (Sam Loomis), Martin Balsam (Milton Arbogast), John McIntire (Al Chambers), Virginia Gregg (Norma Bates), and Simon Oakland (Fred Richmond) Directed by Alfred Hitchcock (#219 - Rope, #223 - North by Northwest, and #446 - Spellbound)

Review
First off, I'd like to say happy Labor Day to all who I'm sure are enjoying this day off. 

The film doesn't take too long to be impressive, as its titles by Saul Bass certainly do leave an impression, and in a way foretells the rest of the film. Janet Leigh does a fine job and all, but Perkins certainly steals the show, maybe it's the demeanor, or that creepy smile, but he leaves you wanting more, and makes for an interesting character, which drives the film. The film has its moments of suspense, especially at the end. And then there's the shower scene (Which if I didn't mention, I'd regret later), which is certainly the most effective scene of the film. You could say the scene might be spoiled already, but when you watch the film, it's given a proper context, and that certainly helps. I won't spoil it, you'll probably (if not definitely) find it on YouTube, or when you watch the film, whichever comes first. Hitchcock does a fine job directing, and this for a film produced by him and made on a tight budget, very quickly and very successful, spawning three sequels and a TV series. There was a "remake", but...there's a reason I put that it quotations. Nevertheless, this is an impressive, chilling, and interesting film. 

Countdown to 450 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3...

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Angels in the Outfield (1951).

Review #433: Angels in the Outfield.

Cast

Paul Douglas (Guffy McGovern), Janet Leigh (Jennifer Paige), Keenan Wynn (Fred Bayles), Donna Corcoran (Bridget White), Lewis Stone (Arnold P. Hapgood), Bruce Bennett (Saul Hellman), and James Whitmore. Directed by Clarence Brown (#423 - A Woman of Affiars)

Review

Baseball films have been shown prominently (mostly), such as Cobb, The Jackie Robinson Story, 42, The Natural, The Babe, Major League, ...and The Babe Ruth Story. After I saw the heinously overly sweet "The Babe Ruth Story", I needed something, anything to watch to get it out of my head. And so I decided to watch Angels in the Outfield, and as the film kept going, I realized that while this film wasn't exactly jumping out of the cliche monsters that sometimes plague sports films, this has enjoyment written all over it. It's a kids film at heart yes, but the baseball action is fine, with the players not swinging awfully as Bendix, and this film does have its moments, such as when Douglas' character meets Leigh's, where Douglas gives a reply on a note card with "Boo!" after Leigh criticises his team. I don't know why, but that's what gets to me, and it's a unknown sort of spirit that makes this a passable film. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.