Redux: A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984).

Redux #474: A Nightmare on Elm Street.

Cast: 

Heather Langenkamp (Nancy Thompson), Robert Englund (Fred "Freddy" Krueger), Johnny Depp (Glen Lantz), Ronee Blakley (Marge Thompson), John Saxon (Lt. Donald "Don" Thompson), Amanda Wyss (Christina "Tina" Gray), Nick Corri (Rod Lane), Leslie Hoffman (Hall Guard), Joseph Whipp (Sgt. Parker), Charles Fleischer (Dr. King), and Lin Shaye (Teacher) Written and Directed by Wes Craven.

Review: 

Editor's note: while the original review was roughly on point for 257 words (as opposed to the usual "not great" reviews that I have slowly re-done over the past few years), it is obvious this one needed a re-doing anyway after eleven years. Enjoy.

In his life and career, Wes Craven made twenty feature films as a filmmaker, with all but one that belonged to the horror or thriller genre. The Cleveland native had been raised in a strict Baptist family while studying philosophy and writing at Johns Hopkins University before becoming a filmmaker rather than stay on as a teacher; he stated that seeing To Kill a Mockingbird (1962) was the film that "changed his life". His first major effort came up with The Last House on the Left (1972) that was wildly controversial and successful. The Hills Have Eyes (1977) was mildly successful while his first two features of the 1980s in Deadly Blessing (1981) and Swamp Thing (1982) were deemed fine. But it was this film (his fifth as a filmmaker) that really put him at the forefront. Craven had several inspirations for this film, such as the real-life stories covering "Sudden arrhythmic death syndrome", in which newspapers were covering the sudden death of Hmong refugees who had fled Laos (and other Asian countries) to America in the midst of war that saw them suffer nightmares and die in their sleep. Several studios rejected the screenplay except New Line Cinema (as operated by Robert Shaye), which at the time was mostly known as a distributor. As one already knows, the film (made on a budget of $1.8 million) became a franchise, even though Craven had really intended for it to end on a strange evocative note (apparently, the one they came up, involving a door with effects-use came about after brainstorming ideas with Robert Shaye that was quoted by Craven as having "amused us all so much, we couldn't not use it."). Craven rejected doing the 1985 sequel (which didn't even have a returning cast member besides Englund) but he did return to collaborate on the third film and Wes Craven's New Nightmare (1994). Craven died at the age of 76 in 2015. The series even went through the usual cycle of getting "remade" for modern audiences, although that 2010 remake (as directed by Samuel Bayer with Jackie Earle Haley as Freddy) is currently the last movie with the name to be released, even with the rights reverting back to the Craven estate.

It really is a movie all about facing reality, which actually works wonders at the hands of Craven for likely his best directing effort in terms of horror craftsmanship. It is funny, for all the times I've re-watched Halloween (1978) over the years, I forgot how good A Nightmare on Elm Street was in terms of its place among slasher movies, since it features a killer threat that isn't merely a lumbering presence (complete with having a cool supporting presence in an established actor). Sure, the bodycount and characterization of its lead threat would get further complicated in later films, but nothing touches the original in entertaining terror. Imagine being trapped in a dream that just won't end, one that seems very real and very much in one's conscious in terms of boogeymen. For his performance, Englund (cast because David Warner had scheduling conflicts after being cast originally) was inspired by Lon Chaney's monster performances alongside Klaus Kinski in Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979), which extends to the way he approached using his claw (in one interview, he stated a goal to "be mildly erotic", since we are talking about a dream invader). The strange thing is that the remake strived to have the makeup resemble third-degree burns (as based on photographs seen at the UCLA Medical Center) more closely and yet the first film probably did it best when it comes to terror, which features a few moments in shadows (alongside the other stuff, of course). It is tremendous how a performance can really work so well in making a capable villain, where he moves with theatricality to make a terrifying predator in ways that were not surpassed in the sequels to come. Saxon already was a presence in horror movies such as Black Christmas (1974) after years spent in Italian films and Westerns. Saxon has that familiarity factor where we just go with whatever he is playing, whether that involves authority figures or not (interestingly, he and Englund each wrote their own scripts for a third Nightmare film, which didn't come to pass); Blakely has the other side of the coin in fairly established presences (Nashville, for example) that actually does pretty well in conniving complicity (I roll with that final shot because, well, the hook was going to be weird regardless of how it went). Langenkamp had minimal film/TV experience but fit the bill of what Craven envisioned for basically an every-girl. It just clicks with her in terms of reactive timing and curiosity that is easy to roll with in confronting fear that stands starkly among most of the final folks in a slasher (her subsequent key appearances in the 3rd and 7th film were well deserved, one would say). The rest of the cast may be disposable lambs, but they at least are neat to go along with for a bit (Depp being a future star in the decade must've sure been a hell of a surprise, suffice to say). It manages to do so well with its budget through the execution of its crew and director in crafting an enjoyably spooky time in the play between fantasy and reality that isn't diminished by its subsequent franchising (for example, the gore went beyond blood out of a bed but probably doesn't have a fraction of the enduring power). Craven crafted a damn good classic that seemingly gets better upon re-watching for its craft on display, which is the mark of being one of the best slashers of its time that is a worthwhile statement to muse about four decades later.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest.

Review #2205: Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest.

Cast: 

Johnny Depp (Captain Jack Sparrow), Orlando Bloom (Will Turner), Keira Knightley (Elizabeth Swann), Stellan Skarsgård (William "Bootstrap Bill" Turner), Bill Nighy (Davy Jones: Captain of the Flying Dutchman), Jack Davenport (James Norrington), Kevin McNally (Joshamee Gibbs), Jonathan Pryce (Governor Weatherby Swann), Lee Arenberg (Pintel), Mackenzie Crook (Ragetti), Tom Hollander (Lord Cutler Beckett), Naomie Harris (Tia Dalma), Alex Norton (Captain Bellamy), David Bailie (Cotton), Martin Klebba (Marty), David Schofield (Mercer), and John Boswall (Wyvern) Directed by Gore Verbinski (#140 - The Ring, #1557 - Rango, and #1724 - Pirates of  the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl)

Review: 

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003) was a hit so obvious that a plan to make back-to-back sequels was, well, a match made in pirate heaven, compete with retaining the services of its director Gore Verbinski to go with a screenplay done by Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio, who had been two of the credited writers behind the original (as one remembers, there had been re-writes on that film, but Elliott and Rossio would write all except the last one together). The first sequel would feature working ships (as opposed to shooting on just one location) that would lead to various action set pieces, such, as, well, a bone cage. Of course, it was Verbinski who wanted the members of the ship to be composed of physical (sea) creatures rather than ghosts that Rossio and Elliott had in mind, complete with most of said things being played through CG, with the exception of makeup (such as extensive prosthetics and motion capture that sees one actor wear dots that then has CG added) for two of them. Shot for over $200 million, the second part of the back-to-back production came out with Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (which shot its ending just a few days into shooting the second film because of the nature of filming in certain islands) the following year.

I suppose 150 minutes is not a surprise length for a film that is the middle film of a trilogy that basically arose from the deep (read: money). Obviously, it can't have as much magic as the original did when it comes to being a CG spectacle, but I think you can imagine the appeal that lies within a committed crew in the art of wanting to execute entertainment in the useful sweet spot of the mid 2000s. It is an oiled machine that believes itself to be well-oiled enough to throw around several threads that it can dangle for a later setup, whether that involves the importance of sand, British people being weird, or the finer points of sea dwelling that makes for a reasonably fine experience. Granted, it isn't as "pretty good" as the previous film, but it provides enough spark to latch a hook for at least one more go-around the wheel because of the various desires that you would see coming from a film title meaning to get the eye(s). It never wanders away from trying to deliver something interesting to hear or see on screen, which is semi-effective. Verbinski once described the challenges of balancing Depp with the others as him being the spice in a "garlic milkshake". That probably works best when describing the aura of Depp in a role of the scoundrel among a litany of straights and other various creatures that he plays with the right blend of conniving charm. He walks the fine line of adventure with a swagger that seems to enjoy the idea of yanking the chain of others around him, regardless of if they are friend or foe, if only to avoid the end of all the mythmaking. He plays it with no sense of tiredness to it, jumbling through chases with a certain gaze that seems to be looking past the sword. Bloom and Knightley are in their own different interactions with Depp (as shaped by making sure to not have them all together for a good while), which is generally worth viewing, as evidenced by the amusing fight that breaks out in the sands where Knightley is watching a fight with the temper that arises from the clash of egos in sand. Skarsgård and Nighy make for useful newcomers to the series that aren't completely lost in the (interesting) effects around them, with the former making a useful player in the shaky bond of father and son (with Bloom) and the latter being a compelling adversary (Nighy has stated that rather than an accent of Dutch, he favored a Scottish one) of cruel fun. There are no weak spots among the rest of the gang of rogues and other such things, whether that involves the consistent pro in McNally or seasoned ones such as a ravished Davenport or those providing levity such as Arenberg and Crook. The staging of the action works fairly well for what is necessary in swashbuckling in the fashion of interest that takes a giant wheel and has fun with that. As a whole, it is a solidly fine sequel that plays the middle ground for pirate action with just a bit leftover to bubble over for looking at the next installment with curious interest.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl.

Review #1724: Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl.

Cast: 

Johnny Depp (Captain Jack Sparrow), Geoffrey Rush (Barbossa), Orlando Bloom (Will Turner), Keira Knightley (Elizabeth Swann), Jack Davenport (Norrington), Jonathan Pryce (Governor Weatherby Swann), Kevin McNally (Joshamee Gibbs), Lee Arenberg (Pintel), Mackenzie Crook (Ragetti), Zoe Saldana (Anamaria), David Bailie (Cotton), and Greg Ellis (Officer) Directed by Gore Verbinski (#140 - The Ring (2002) and #1557 - Rango)

Review: 

The movie is based on the theme park ride of the same name (which had originated at the original Disneyland in Anaheim in 1967). It was the second theatrical movie to be made by Disney based on one of their rides, which they started with Mission to Mars (2000) that was followed by films such as The Country Bears (2002); of course, while Pirates is the only one of these theme parks to have more than one feature, Disney has continued to mine the depths for further attempts, judging by the release of Jungle Cruise this year. Perhaps it seems strange that folks in the film industry thought this would be a flop on release. Pirate movies were not exactly high in demand at the time, since there had not been a wildly successful pirate film since the 1950s, and not even Disney was entirely confident in having Depp as its star, because one supposes that his reputation was more suited for cult favorites (which amuses me greatly); incidentally, Depp's desire to work with Disney was actually because he wanted to star in one of their animated features. At any rate, Disney at one point in time had to convince themselves to not simply make the film as a direct-to-video product (imagine the title pirate being played by Christopher Walken...or Cary Elwes!). However, producer Jerry Bruckheimer (known for various blockbuster films such as Top Gun) stayed firm with making a big budget movie that could compete with all of those other blockbusters (well, this was 2003), and it was his persistence to keep on with keeping the concept art going that convinced Michael Eisner (the CEO of the Walt Disney Company at the time) to not cancel the project after seeing said designs; he was grousing about the idea of spending so much money (to which Bruckheimer stated that his competitors were spending $150 million), although Eisner did have one other point in trying to eliminate more ties to the park-ride. Of course, there were plenty of casting ideas. Can one really imagine Robert De Niro as the lead? The original story idea came from three executives at the company (Brigham Taylor, Michael Haynes and Josh Harmon); Jay Wolpert was brought in to write a script based on the ride in 2001, while Stuart Beattie would be brought in the following year for the piracy angle in re-writes (to add on to the lead discussion, Beattie wrote the script with Hugh Jackman in mind). Bringing in Jerry Bruckheimer to produce the movie certainly helped, because he did not want a straight pirate movie. Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio (best known for their contributions to film scripts such as Aladdin (1992) and Shrek (2001)) were brought in to provide re-writes, since they had an interest in providing a supernatural angle to a pirate film; Wolpert, Beattie, Elliott, and Rossio each received a story credit, with the latter two receiving credit for the screenplay. 

What can I say that hasn't been said? It is a blockbuster, one that is wrapped to the gills in adventure and interest that proved to be the big ship movie for its year and ultimately its era (with apologies to Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, which is a better overall movie, but each are pretty good to spend time with). Who better to see a 18th century pirate and think the best parallel to said figure is a rock star? The movie has its edges of camp with eventful performances without becoming a silly parody or one that loses the plot, making a fine homage to the classic adventure flicks of the past while managing to stay relevant in the art of not seeming like an overt bland copy (albeit with the modern habits of trying to stuff oneself with fights on fights, or at least it seems like the modern choice for it, if you know what I mean). It is Depp that dominates the movie in curiosity, as one has already guessed. He has a daring spirit that coasts through the film with tremendous timing and swagger that certainly seems to have all the charisma the film needs (amusingly, Eisner actually thought upon seeing rushes that he was drunk); there just wasn't a pirate like the one that Depp brought onto the screen. Rush delivers well as the other piratical presence, broad and fun with needs to happen in those moments spent playing against either Knightley or Depp, having it what it takes to make a worthy adversarial presence that keeps attention without bluster. Bloom and Knightley aren't lost in the proceedings, however. For one thing, Bloom has what it takes to play the pent-up angle without looking lost (i.e. channeling a tiny bit of the Errol Flynn spirit), and this of course includes the time spent with a sword, naturally. Knightley partakes in the curiosity with spry athleticism and worthy enough timing to keep up that proves for a worthy result. Davenport and Pryce play the straight angle (wigs and all), and for the most part that works out for a few little moments of dry interest, which works fine when it comes to scenes spent either on wood or other things. There are quite a few worthy character presences here that keep the film light on its toes for useful interest, mostly in the case of McNally. As a whole, it proves interesting in its attempts to make a by-the-blows adventure ride of a film, which work out well for the most part.  Of course, it does prove a bit packed at 143 minutes (which is somehow longer than the aforementioned Master film), but one can at least see where all the adventure can lead to, whether that ranges from CG undead pirates to various other moments. It doesn't raise the bar for adventure movies or even CGI spectacles, but it at least serves its purpose well, and it does indeed make the curiosity grow for just where one can go with a curious lead actor and a hodgepodge of folks to engage in piratical spectacle.

 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Edward Scissorhands.

Review #1615: Edward Scissorhands.

Cast:
Johnny Depp (Edward Scissorhands), Winona Ryder (Kim Boggs), Dianne Wiest (Peg Boggs), Anthony Michael Hall (Jim), Kathy Baker (Joyce), Robert Oliveri (Kevin Boggs), Conchata Ferrell (Helen), Caroline Aaron (Marge), Dick Anthony Williams (Officer Allen), O-Lan Jones (Esmeralda), Vincent Price (The Inventor), and Alan Arkin (Bill Boggs) Directed by Tim Burton (#040 - Batman, #107 - Beetlejuice, #132 - Alice in Wonderland, #196 - Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, #262 - Corpse Bride, #316 - Batman Returns, #969 - Planet of the Apes (2001), #1257 - Pee-wee's Big Adventure, and #1295 - Sleepy Hollow)

Review:
"I think if you've ever had that feeling of loneliness, of being an outsider, it never quite leaves you. You can be happy or successful or whatever, but that thing still stays within you."

Distinct is such an easy word to use when talking about a movie or the director behind it, but it is definitely a word that can be used to go with the career of Tim Burton, who has directed 19 films in 35 years of feature filmmaking. A native of Burbank, California, he had an creative ambition from a young age (inspired by the works of writers like Roald Dahl and Dr. Seuss), whether that involved making his own films or doing stop motion animation, with his first short being made with The Island of Doctor Agor (1971) at the age of 13. He described himself as an average student, but his passion for drawing served well enough for his studies of character animation at California Institute of the Arts (a place known for cultivating talent in animation). His short Stalk of the Celery Monster (1979) attracted attention from Disney, who brought him in for an apprenticeship. His time with the studio was mixed in output, in that while he served as an animator alongside various other spots like concept artist on a few films (such as The Fox and the Hound), the management style of Disney did not fully gel with what they wanted from Burton. He did, however, have time to do two animated shorts with them with Vincent (1982) and Frankenweenie (1984), the first being important in its tribute to Vincent Price (who narrated the film) while the latter (which Disney fired him for making a film too dark) helped inspire Paul Reubens to want to hire him as director for Pee-Wee's Big Adventure (1985). This led to...well, I think you know the rest of that story, but it never hurts to reiterate the respect he had when it came time for his fourth feature film here, one that is clearly not wary to studio interference or muddled tone. It matters to mention the upbringing of Burton, since the title character started as a drawing that Burton did as a teenager that reflected his isolated feelings when growing up in the suburbs. Burton (who has called the film his most personal and favorite) approached novelist Caroline Thompson to write a script based on that drawing (which an inspiration being a dog that she adored) that came together in three weeks. As a fable, it takes inspiration from a variety of media, whether that involved fairy tales like Beauty and the Beast or classic horror like The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923). Some casting choices were done quite quickly in the case of Wiest, Ryder, and Price, while casting consideration for the lead proved interesting, since 20th Century Fox desired Tom Cruise (he desired a happier ending alongside asking too many questions about the character) and Gary Oldman rejected the role, but it eventually went to Depp (Burton's first choice), who at the time was known for his starring role on 21 Jump Street (1987-90). It would be the first of numerous collaborations between Depp and Burton over the next two decades.

There are numerous ways one could describe the film, and the easiest one I can say is to call it my new favorite Burton film. Someday, I will have caught up to each and every Burton film, but it will be hard to find ones that are more effective in its soothing effectiveness in making a great fable about what it means to feel or be an outsider. Simply put, I would argue it is a gem worth a watch, preferably during the winter season. It is a triumph of imagination, one that shows the best qualities of Burton in delivering tender efficiency when it matters most, handling style with drama equally as well in delicacy that stirs fascination as well as other certain emotions, and it all comes from a romantic drama with a fair touch of humor that comes from placing a man with a special quality to him in a weird place (as described by Burton) like suburbia life with pastel delicacy. Belonging in one place is hard enough, so trying to find one's touch in society as a whole is another task of difficulty and alienation, which works just as well for a teenager as well as an adult. Depp has the most interesting task, one where he has less than 200 words to say through the whole film while in a leather suit and makeup (credit Stan Winston for those wonderful hands) in Tampa, Florida. It is a great performance, one that delicately handles the struggle of outsider individuality that is tender with innocence like one might see with an old pet but one that resonates with us so easily in the expressions that Depp brings to the role, no doubt inspired by the silent film era. Ryder does well in wide-eyed simmering charm that rolls differently from what one had seen from her before (namely highlights like Beetlejuice or...other works like Heathers), and her scenes with Depp really do bring the film together in soulful mercy, particularly with the ice sculpture scene (or ice dance, if you prefer). Wiest does just as well, having a well-meaning charm and grace to carry the film for those moments where Depp doesn't say much, which goes with Arkin and his momentary time spent together with Wiest. Hall (a few years removed from those John Hughes films) does what is needed from a jock in being a fair mark in jock spirit with menace that sets the alienation on the heels quickly. Baker lends well to dazzled humor and curiosity when paired with Depp to headline the suburb group of actors when it gets to where it needs to go by the time the 105 minutes are up without needing an easy out for resolution. Obviously the last one to highlight is the man making his last appearance in a motion picture with Price (who died of lung cancer three years later), who still has the right track on elegance within that clear expression, and it is the death scene that seals the deal for just how soulfully effective the film is as a whole, because of how he weaves that scene with Depp. And then of course there is that musical score by Danny Elfman, no stranger to memorable collaborations with Burton. It proves quite haunting, one that will stick in your mind after it stops (I know that for a fact, because I inadvertently have had one cue from this film in my head for years as it has been used in a small selection of trailers). Thirty years have passed since its release, but it certainly has a place within the works of Tim Burton when it comes to his distinct storytelling and style and the actors that have taken part in his films for decades that have lent to such memorable experiences and moments, whether involving an ice dance or something much more bittersweet in a classic.

I know there was a review already done at midnight, but I was most definitely looking forward to making sure that this was a special day as it has been for December 20th in each of the last ten years (since there has been a review for each one). Besides, this is a momentous occasion for the numbers - Tim Burton is only the seventh director to have ten of his films covered on Movie Night, and that is a most interesting distinction to have for a place that desires to cover as much as they can of directors that interest them (new voices count under that too, obviously). However, it works out for 2021, I am thankful to have created a haven for me to write about films that have interested me from the director to the star to the premise as a whole and any suggestions for something to cover or look into (such as a re-visit or two...) is greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Rango.

Review #1557: Rango.

Cast: 
Johnny Depp (Rango), Isla Fisher (Beans), Abigail Breslin (Priscilla), Ned Beatty (Tortoise John), Alfred Molina (Roadkill), Bill Nighy (Rattlesnake Jake), Harry Dean Stanton (Balthazar), Ray Winstone (Bad Bill), Timothy Olyphant (The Spirit of the West), Stephen Root (Doc / Mr. Merrimack), Maile Flanagan (Lucky), Alanna Ubach (Boo Cletus / Fresca / Miss Daisy), Ian Abercrombie (Ambrose), Gil Birmingham (Wounded Bird), and James Ward Byrkit (Waffles) Directed by Gore Verbinski (#140 - The Ring)

Review: 
“I always wanted to do an animated movie. I find it to be incredibly liberating as a way of telling a story. It lends itself to more surreal concepts because you’re limited by expectations of total reality and I just think you can have a conversation with a peanut butter sandwich or Miyazaki turns the parents into pigs. You’re limited from the conventions of live action.”

There can be quite a dual nature to the art of finding a way into filmmaking, which is equally appropriate for Gore Verbinski. His first profession was in music, participating in a variety of rock band in Los Angeles as a guitarist. He sold his guitar for a film camera and found himself taking direction for music videos and eventually commercials (you may or may not recognize one of his ads involving frogs for Budweiser). He made his directorial debut with Mouse Hunt (1997) and has continued on with a variety of genres and general use of visual effects, whether that involves horror with The Ring (2002) and A Cure for Wellness (2016) or adventure epic with the first three Pirates of the Caribbean films (2003, 2006, 2007). There are a variety of films that this film took some inspiration from, ranging from films from Chinatown (1974) to El Topo (1970) to The Shakiest Gun in the West (1968). This was the first animation effort from Industrial Light & Magic, who you will have recognized from several films over the years (such as the Pirates of the Caribbean films), with Hal Hickel as animation director. The interesting thing is that Verbinski wanted to capture something "kinetic" with the performances, which involved having the actors perform with costumes and sets to have them feel like they are part of the Wild West, with the audio being lifted for the film, which he aspired to do as a "small" film when compared to his previous features.

A group of Westerns in the era after its golden age of the past try in some way to borrow some of the characteristics from before with their own spin on what the frontier of the Old West means. In this sense, we have a film of identity that draws upon quite a few Westerns in some sensibility that generally works itself out handily in entertainment with some finely-tuned animation and a cast worth following along with in this tale of critters in the desert. It has a strange touch that will appeal fairly equally for adults and children (more so older than younger) without becoming tacked and tacky in execution and charm. Depp is precisely the voice one could want for such an intriguing title character - amusing, wonderful and quite adept at following along in growing confidence as the unlikely sly lizard of the moment that gives a good push without seeming like an eccentric bit for the sake of it. Fisher follows along with capable drive and a zippy rapport with Depp for some moments, while Breslin adds some familiar curiosity in parts. Beatty proves quite enjoyable with a familiar kind of schemer with a folksy voice suited for what is needed to hear on screen. Others prove just as useful, such as Molina or Nighy, while Stanton and Olyphant bring a worthwhile chuckle. On the whole, it generally works out with its humor without seeming too much for whatever particular audience it aims for, finding its stride in a search for identity with interesting animation and a game cast to make a 107 minute adventure that I can recommend without hesitation for some fun.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Sleepy Hollow.

Review #1295: Sleepy Hollow.

Cast: 
Johnny Depp (Ichabod Crane), Christina Ricci (Katrina Van Tassel), Miranda Richardson (Lady Mary Van Tassel and The Crone Witch), Michael Gambon (Baltus Van Tassel), Casper Van Dien (Brom Van Brunt), Jeffrey Jones (Reverend Steenwyck), Christopher Lee (The Burgomaster), Richard Griffiths (Magistrate Samuel Philipse), Ian McDiarmid (Dr. Thomas Lancaster), Michael Gough (Notary James Hardenbrook), Marc Pickering (Young Masbath), and Christopher Walken and Ray Park (The Headless Horseman) Directed by Tim Burton (#040 - Batman, #107 - Beetlejuice, #132 - Alice in Wonderland, #196 - Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, #262 - Corpse Bride, #316 - Batman Returns, #969 - Planet of the Apes (2001), and #1257 - Pee-wee's Big Adventure)

Review: 
Sometimes you really need something eccentric when it comes to horror and old folktales. It should only prove fitting that Tim Burton served as director for a film like this, which started out originally intended to be directed by Kevin Yagher (known primarily for his special efforts work such as the Crypt Keeper for Tales from the Crypt) from a script by Andrew Kevin Walker (writer of Seven) that would be a low-budget slasher based off the short story "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow" by Washington Irving. There had been a few adaptations of the story done before, such as The Headless Horseman (1922) and The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad (1949, narrated by Bing Crosby), but this is certainly the most lavish attempt involving the story. The film takes plenty of liberties with the original story, ranging from the occupation of its main character to its climax, while having plenty of heads rolling around in a film that has plenty of style and a bit of humor that blend fairly well as its own thing. It pulls off a few frights together (particularly when combined with all the present fog), holding ground for most of its 105 minute run-time, with stand-out makeup and a fairly dynamic drive that feels reminiscent of Hammer horror films. The vibrant blood shots certainly help in that department, with well-executed gore and an interesting monster to boot. Depp seeps right into his part with tight conviction that would fit just fine in the traditional horror films of yesteryear without being lost in having a good time with such a squeamish yet compelling role. Ricci proves fine for a storybook type of role while having a bit of chemistry with Depp. Richardson proves to have a wicked time, playing two parts that come together just right. There certainly is an interesting cadre of supporting actors, ranging from Gambon and some fair theatrics to Hammer veterans Lee and Gough (who each get a scene each that plays out fine), and there really isn't a bad performer in the bunch to deter from the tense atmosphere the film wants to pull off. Walken may not say an actual word when it comes to the Horseman, but he sure has the chops to make it compelling to watch each and every snarl. The cinematography by Emmanuel Lubezki is exquisite, where the color only serves to help make its fantasy/horror trappings stand out more than the usual expectation, particularly when the Headless Horseman lurks around (the music from Danny Elfman is helpful as well with that intent). The climax does tend to feel a bit convenient when it comes to having to close off its telling of the legend (namely when its big bad tells someone the nature of their scheme that involves the horseman as well), but at least it can fall back on spectacle (exploding windmills? Why not?) to make it all seem worth it without having to beat you over the head with ridiculousness. On the whole, this proves to be an alluring experience, inviting you in with an interesting atmosphere and some capable acting that makes a different mark on a classic folklore without becoming lost in clichés or being anything other than a nice fright for the horror folks.

Next Review: The Evil Dead.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Platoon.

Review #1090: Platoon.

Cast: 
Charlie Sheen (Chris), Tom Berenger (Sgt. Barnes), Keith David (King), Willem Dafoe (Sgt. Elias), Forest Whitaker (Big Harold), Francesco Quinn (Rhah), Kevin Dillon (Bunny), John C. McGinley (Sgt. O'Neill), Mark Moses (Lt. Wolfe), Corey Glover (Francis), Johnny Depp (Lerner), and Chris Pedersen (Crawford) Directed by Oliver Stone (#095 - Wall Street)

Review: 
Platoon is a movie that is clear in what it wants to portray and show without feeling inauthentic in its depiction of battle, showing war as only a veteran like Stone would do. After serving a tour of duty in Vietnam in 1967-68, he had written a screenplay that had elements based on his experiences in the war (which he referred to as Break). Although the screenplay ended up not being produced, it served the basis for what became this film. Prior to directing this movie, he had served as screenwriter for films such as Midnight Express (1978) and Conan the Barbarian (1982), winning an Oscar for the former work while also directing films such as Salvador (1986). In any case, this movie was made in the Philippines on a budget of $6.5 million, with the main crew going through a two week basic training under Dale Dye, who served as military adviser for the production. It is evident from the first twenty minutes that this type of dedication helped in making for an authentic experience, with the actors showing signs of burn out and weariness that aligns perfectly with Stone's intent.

Even when Platoon has narration parts with Sheen, there isn't a time when the movie seems like it is using cliche parts just to make an everyday war movie, having a tone and pace that feels consistent in its two hour length. This is a harrowing film to watch, and it is the performances from its main cast that elevates the material, particularly from Berenger and Dafoe. Berenger shows a raw intensity to his portrayal that has a ruthlessness is relentlessly compelling, right down to the major face scar. Dafoe does a fine job with lending this character some compassion and straight edged nature that makes him easy to follow through with in his time on screen. Nearly lost in the shuffle is Sheen, who delivers a decent performance that serves as our face to watch act in an environment as frenzied as this without becoming just a face in the crowd. The other actors do fine jobs in the time they are on screen, such as David and his level-headed nature, Whitaker and his big-hearted but fitting essence, or McGinley and his weariness. The cinematography by Robert Richardson is also a fine standout, looking right for the film with its depiction of battle without being needlessly bright or dark. The film has a share of music it uses for good effect, such as Jefferson Airplane's "White Rabbit", but also most notably Samuel Barber's "Adagio for Strings", which is used to great effect anytime it is heard on screen, such as during the iconic death sequence with the raised hands, which one can even see on DVD covers for the movie. There is a certain kind of nightmare quality to it that this film evokes that makes it captivating to watch in seeing the depiction of war through the prism of what Stone showcases that seems to burn into one's memory every minute it is on screen. The movie was winner of four Academy Awards, winning for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Film Editing and Best Sound, and it isn't hard to see why that is the case, as this is a fine piece of work that has an honest hard edge to what it depicts without any shred of cliche nature.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Corpse Bride.

Review #262: Corpse Bride.

Cast
Johnny Depp (Victor Van Dort), Helena Bonham Carter (Emily), Emily Watson (Victoria Everglot), Tracey Ullman (Nell Van Dort/Hildegarde), Paul Whitehouse (William Van Dort/Mayhew), Joanna Lumley (Maudeline Everglot), Albert Finney (Lord Finis Everglot), Richard E. Grant (Lord Barkis Bittern), Christopher Lee (Gallswells) and Michael Gough (Elder Gutknecht) Directed by Tim Burton (#40 - Batman, #107 - Beetlejuice, #132 - Alice in Wonderland, and #196 - Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) and Mike Johnson.

Review
Once again I'm reviewing a Tim Burton film, and it is filled with familiar faces (This is the 3rd review with Johnny Depp, the 8th with Helena Bonham Carter, and the 7th with Christopher Lee.) So how is this film? It's...Good. Not great, but good. The animation is stellar, and it does have a well developed story. The acting is stellar, Depp and Carter do a fine a job along with the rest of the supporting cast (One standout being Richard E. Grant portraying an excellent villain) It has some good moments combined with good animation and acting to make a good film. A good success in all in all. The month is nearly over, but October is still going well.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005).

Review #196: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

Cast
Johnny Depp (Willa Wonka), Freddie Highmore (Charlie Bucket), David Kelly (Grandpa Joe), Jordan Fry (Mike Teavee), Julia Winter (Veruca Salt), AnnaSophia Robb (Violet Beauregarde), Philip Wiegratz (Augustus Gloop), Deep Roy (Oompa-Loompas), Geoffrey Holder (Narrator), and Christopher Lee (Wilbur Wonka) Directed by Tim Burton (#040 - Batman, #107 - Beetlejuice, and #132 - Alice in Wonderland)

Review
Yes I realized the irony of it being a Sunday when updating this review from two years ago. The review is fixed up to make it more sensible and less disjointed. Enjoy, and see the original film first. It's odd that I'm reviewing this on a day like this. You think that at least one network would show a Friday the 13th marathon, but no. 

Anyway, this is the second adaptation of the 1964 novel by Roald Dahl (It's a really good book, you should check it out, BTW). The first was already covered here (#131 - Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory). This version follows the book more closely, but is it better? Well...that's a tough thing to say. The acting by Depp is...what's that word? Creepy, but I digress. The rest of the cast do a decent job and all, but even if they are better actors, it doesn't meant we identify more with them, they just feel so distant, so we don't really care all too much when they leave. The original may not have followed the book much, but it made up for it with charm, while the more faithful movie to the book just feels like a cold stone. Wilder managed to have a good deal of fun and mystery to the role. Depp manages to remind me of Michael Jackson more than a candy developer, though not as good a dancer. The movie may be alright, but it barely holds its own when compared to the original film, though if you want a more faithful adaptation of the book, this is for you. Countdown to 200: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4...

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Alice in Wonderland (2010)

Review #132: Alice in Wonderland.

Cast
Mia Wasikowska (Alice Kingsley), Johnny Depp (The Hatter), Helena Bonham Carter (Red Queen), Anne Hathaway (White Queen), Crispin Glover (Knave of Hearts), Michael Sheen (The White Rabbit), Matt Lucas (Tweedledee and Tweedledum), Stephen Fry (Chesire Cat), Alan Rickman (Absolem the Caterpillar), Barbara Windsor (Mallymkun the Dormouse), Timothy Spall (Bayard the Bloodhound), Michael Gough (Uilleam the Dodo), and Christopher Lee (Jabberwocky) Directed by Tim Burton.

Review
Tim Burton is known for his dark films (Batman - #040), Edward Scissorhands, Corpse Bride, Beetlejuice - #107, Ed Wood, etc), and this is no different. It feels like a tale of fun with many things along the way. Granted, they may be CGI, but they at least do look like they were meant to be in Wonderland. Wasikowska does a good job as Alice, making you feel for her and her struggles. Depp does a good job as well, making you interested in the film. The rest of the cast (Carter, Hathaway, Sheen, Rickman, Fry) do good jobs as well. But the two that while not having lines that stand out are Lee and Gough. Lee feels like the Jabberwocky, with that still deep voice. Gough does a decent job in his final film role, doing his best. This film tries to be great, and it works until you realize that it feels like it runs into the same thing over and over again as we get a fight that doesn't feel special given all we have seen. I have not seen the other film adaptions or even the book, but this is at least a good flick.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.