Blue Thunder.

Review #2536: Blue Thunder.

Cast: 

Roy Scheider (LAPD Officer Frank Murphy), Warren Oates (LAPD Capt. Jack Braddock), Candy Clark (Kate), Daniel Stern (LAPD Officer Richard Lymangood), Malcolm McDowell (United States Army Colonel F.E. Cochrane), Paul Roebling (Icelan), David Sheiner (Fletcher), Joe Santos (Montoya), Jason Bernard (The Mayor), Robin Braxton (Councilwoman Diane McNeely), Ed Bernard (Sgt. Short James Murtaugh (Alf Hewitt), Jack Murdock (Kress), with Mario Machado (Himself), and Anthony James (Grundelius) Directed by John Badham (#088 - Short Circuit, #1293 - Dracula (1979), #1456 - Saturday Night Fever, #1610 - WarGames, #1805 - The Bingo Long Traveling All-Stars & Motor Kings)

Review: 

Okay, this one came about because it was on a movie-pack. Can you blame me? The impetus for the original script by Dan O'Bannon and Don Jakoby (an old friend of O'Bannon from film school*) apparently came from their experiences with low-flying police helicopters intruding on their surroundings in Los Angeles. The script was written in late 1978 with a deal by 1979. They envisioned a psychological thriller about the perils of a police state using surveillance such as helicopters for population control. For instance, Scheider's character was "truly mad" and ended up getting shot down. Eventually, it became what O'Bannon called "more of a fantasy cartoon". John Badham brought in Dean Riesner* to do a "couple of page one rewrite jobs" on the script (which namely saw the inclusion of Stern's character and a good deal of scenes involving Oates) but did not receive credit in favor of only O'Bannon and Jakoby (the two worked on a few more screenplays together with Lifeforce [1985] and Invaders from Mars [1986]). It was filmed in the summer of 1981 but not released until 1983. Produced by Rastar for Columbia Pictures for $22 million, the movie made almost two times its budget back with audiences. In 1984, ABC aired a television spinoff that featured James Farentino and Dana Carvey that ran for eleven episodes. On a probably unrelated note, Airwolf, a show with an "advanced prototype supersonic helicopter", premiered that same year on CBS that ran for four seasons.

You don't get too many movies going "The hardware, weaponry and surveillance systems depicted in this film are real and in use in the United States today." Admittedly, it is an offbeat kind of movie, relying on sheer adrenaline for its aerial action that provides a few delights to go along with a fairly game cast to ride the wave over a film that loves to seep into fantasy but doesn't become a big joke once you're done with its 109 minute runtime. So, what's the big thing for the film? A helicopter that basically is a flying fortress that can peer into conversations from a few miles away along with armor, guns, infrared scanners, a mode to fly silently and, well, you get the idea, it's the kind of thing that could be used to help curb discontent before the Summer Olympics in Los Angeles (1984...or 2028, you might ask). I'm not particularly sure the film is too prescient about actually saying something about the surveillance state, but at least it closes on a high note with what you probably want best: helicopter fighting and stumbling onto conspiracies without becoming a crackpot*. It helps that within the mix of air-action, composites and other various tricks (as seen here), you get a worthwhile looking experience for the time spent rather than feeling like it went for nothing.

Apparently, Scheider took the role because he wanted to make sure he couldn't be available for Jaws 3-D (1983). It isn't exactly a great role to really glom onto besides the usual "everyman" type with a few quirks (fiddling with a watch, namely), but he handles it with the usual gritted patience that you care for pretty early on without terming him as an old "wiseass". Being paired with Stern proves pretty vital for a couple of chuckles in seeing what goes on for work (at least when it isn't disrupted by say, a conspiracy or gawking at people). Or leisure time with Clark (at least this isn't a case of severe age difference between lovers, merely being, what 15 years?). McDowell may not have as much to do in say, bombastic menace, but he is capable enough to present a threat worth seeing getting to the end of the line (incidentally, McDowell has a fear of flying, so note the look on his face anytime he is in the air, although I will say that helicopters aren't exactly high on the list of favorable transport). This was the penultimate film appearance for Oates, who had passed away in April 1982 during post-production (his last film was released later with Tough Enough). He still has that edge of hard-lined humor that comes through with how he makes an impression on the viewer with a few good lines that get spread out (as a presence, his is surely missed then as now) for a delight. In general, the movie moves along with a comic book sensibility to throwing things onto the wall to see what sticks, whether that involves a test run of the helicopter to a group in a secluded place (whereupon the helicopter gets the terrorist dummy targets and also shoots a bunch of bystanders) or the climax where one gets to see a few tricks to avoid deadly heat-seeking missiles (emphasis on "heat"). As a whole, you get a bit of aerial jousting to go along with some residing charm to make for a solid enough movie to enjoy on a late night, preferably with no helicopters buzzing along in the sky.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

Game 1 of the 2026 Western Conference Finals is today. Go Spurs Go, vanquish the (blue) Thunder.

*Fun fact: O'Bannon co-wrote the original story of Alien with Ronald Shusett and actually had a problem with the inclusion of Ash into the film. Are you kidding me, dude?

*Reisner was an interesting person in film. He appeared in films as a kid such as The Pilgrim and then became a writer with work on Code of the Secret Service (1939) before he was 25 years old and directed a movie that won an Honorary Academy Award with Bill and Coo (1948), a movie where birds were costumed as humans acting on one of the smallest film sets ever. Oh, and then he was a writer on a handful of television shows and co-writer of movies such as Dirty Harry (1971). He died of natural causes in 2002 at the age of 83.

*I'm not sure I've mentioned this before, but my conspiracy theory is that the conspiracy about the JFK assassination was spread by people too embhassased about failing to protect the president so they spread the most insane stuff to muddy the waters over it being just one guy shooting someone for his own reasons. The Jack Ruby factor, well, I guess he was just an idiot (look, why kill the assassin of the president? For clout?). That, and also I think they keep the theories alive because they are jealous of LBJ. See, I told you it would sound like a crackpot.  

Tank Girl.

Review #2516: Tank Girl.

Cast: 

Lori Petty (Tank Girl), Ice-T (T-Saint), Naomi Watts (Jet Girl), Malcolm McDowell (Kesslee), Don Harvey (Sgt. Small), Jeff Kober (Booga), Reg E. Cathey (Deetee), Scott Coffey (Donner), Stacy Linn Ramsower (Sam), Ann Cusack (Sub Girl), Brian Wimmer (Richard), Iggy Pop (Rat Face), Ann Magnuson (The Madam), Dawn Robinson (Model), Billy L. Sullivan (Max), James Hong (Che'tsai), Charles Lucia (Capt. Derouche), with Harlan Clark (Additional Ripper), Doug Jones (Ripper), Ata Scanlan (Additional Ripper), Alvarez Wortham (Additional Ripper), and Roz Witt (Dr. Nikita) Directed by Rachel Talalay (#1144 - Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare)

Review: 

"It’s such an iconic image. I think all strong women react in the same way to this outspoken crazed female icon. I was such a punk warrior. When I went in to pitch it – I mean, all you had to do was show the image. And when we sent the script out, the cover page was a comic book page. Even now when I talk to people who design for video games they say that there’s never a pitch for a female character that doesn’t include an image from Tank Girl. She’s the tough, punk warrior woman. She’s the icon of that. And every tough, interesting woman I know wants to be her."

I will admit that I had vaguely heard of this movie for years but was just lazy to see it (I first heard of this movie from the Nostalgia Critic* many years ago). Apparently, Rachel Talalay was given a Tank Girl comic to read by her stepdaughter when shooting her first film with Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare (1991). Tank Girl first appeared in print in 1988 in Deadline (a British comic magazine) that was developed by Alan Martin and artist Jamie Hewlett; you might be interested to know that Hewlett, whose drawings were extracted for use in the title sequence of the film, later moved into a place with Blur's Damon Albarn that led to them being involved with the virtual band Gorillaz in 1998*. Talalay (the unpaid production assistant-turned-accountant-turned-producer-turned-director) got interested in doing a movie and found the Deadline publisher was already trying to find a studio. Eventually, MGM/United Artists became involved with doing the film (Talalay apparently rejected an offer from Disney, believing that they would not allow the amount of violence/sexual references required). Talalay then picked Catherine Hardwicke to be the production designer, while Tedi Sarafian wrote the screenplay. Made on a budget of $25 million in New Mexico and Arizona (mostly in an abandoned open-pit mine), there were considerable edits made by the studio that ranged from a "naked Ripper suit", edits to the torture scene, edits to one role in particular, and, naturally, the original ending where Tank Girl burps as it starts to rain. The animated sequences (as done by Mike Smith) were put in because they didn't have the money to do the action sequences (apparently the tank wasn't particularly fast). Martin and Hewlett did not like the finished product, believing in a subsequent interview that nobody could really make a successful movie of the character (as for Tank Girl, it went through a hiatus before returning for an on-and-off basis since 2007). Talalay and Petty were proud enough of the film that they did a live viewing party of the film in 2020.

Imagine: it's the year 2033 and all the water is gone. It's a freewheeling, bratty, odd little movie...and I can't help but like it. It's strange too, because a good chunk of the critiques of the film could just as easily be spun around for people (like me, only I probably won't go into detail about feminism, because, well, good luck with that*) that praise the film as a zany and free-spirited mess. There is a certain type of charm that appeals to me for most of its 104-minute runtime in its energy that is infectious. Apparently, the production team did not expect to get the services of Stan Winston but go figure, they were so enthusiastic that they cut their usual rates in half to meet the budget for the Rippers you see on screen: articulated ears and tails activated remotely and, well, no puppetry. Suffice to say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but hey, half man/kangaroo, I can roll with it for a movie that likes to lurk in a offbeat wasteland (your milage may vary over how it would've gone if the film had not been edited down to, uh, take out the prosthetic penis). Petty (cast after consideration to go with Emily Lloyd) is delightfully loony enough to make for an entertaining antihero, one who has their own kinks and interests that could turn anything to make a crack at. Far be it from a movie that asks about power or the circumstances of what a wasteland looks like, you just get an unruly movie that has time to have a music interlude of "Let's Do It". Evidently, McDowell had a few decent memories making the movie, and, yes, this seems right up his alley to play a villain that loves water so much that he stabs people with a device that sucks the water right out of their body. How could one not enjoy him here? The rest of the cast roll along with causal engagement with a movie that moves to its own beat, for better or worse. As a whole, Tank Girl is the kind of movie that clicked enough for me to have fun with, although I can understand where it didn't exactly rock the world back in 1995. Offbeat and anarchic in ways that can be off-putting to those with less patience

 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*For a time, the Critic was my jam alongside Cinemassacre. And The Cinema Snob, eventually. 

*I used to know someone in college who dug them. The friendship didn't last at all, but at least Gorillaz is pretty decent.

*There was a discussion in a book, once, about talking about what cult films were "feminist" that called this film a "real feminist cult film" while labeling films by Kathryn Bigelow and Catherine Hardwicke as "too masculine", which honestly sounds like sour grapes more than anything.

Evidently, there was a mockumentary for the film, if you love it that much: Tank Girl Documentary 1995

Cat People (1982).

Review #2290: Cat People (1982). 

Cast: 

Nastassja Kinski (Irena Gallier), Malcolm McDowell (Paul Gallier), John Heard (Oliver Yates), Annette O'Toole (Alice Perrin), Ruby Dee (Female), Ed Begley Jr (Joe Creigh), Scott Paulin (Bill Searle), Frankie Faison (Detective Brandt; dubbed by Albert Hall), Lynn Lowry (Ruthie), and John Larroquette (Bronte Judson) Directed by Paul Schrader.

Review: 

"Cat People wasn’t successful. It really fell between two stools: it was an attempt to have things both ways, which is to have a classy film and a horror film. Well, the horror audience went and said, ‘Hey, this doesn’t look like a horror film, it’s not for us’, and the sophisticated audience went and said, ‘Hey, this is just a horror film.’ So it wasn’t really satisfying to the audience."

Sure, give a few decades and you can just remake a movie right then and there. The 1942 Cat People had been a team effort that had DeWitt Bodeen write the screenplay as based in collaboration with producer Val Lewton, director Jacques Tourneur, and editor Mark Robson. The process of remaking the film was first brought up by Milton Subotsky before Universal Pictures eventually got the rights and made their own push that took several years of the 1970s (Robert Vadim was interested to direct at one point). You might recognize the screenwriter in Alan Ormsby, the co-director and writer of Deranged (1974) and a variety of other writing projects. Universal tapped Paul Schrader (who once labeled the 1942 rendition as one that he didn't find very good) to direct the film, with most knowing him for his work on scripts such as Taxi Driver (1976) before becoming a director with Blue Collar (1978); he claimed that he had contributed to the writing of the film in terms of its prologue and the ending to make it more distinct from the original, although Ormsby claims otherwise. The movie was a mild success with audiences at the time, or at the very least managed to accomplish the goal of not inspiring a filmmaker to try and do their own remake of a remake four decades later. Schrader has been quoted as saying that in his attempts to do a genre film as a "very salutary exercise" in not being about himself, he ended up making a movie that ranked up there as among his most personal.

The funny thing about the films is that it accomplishes one thing in particular: it sure is distinct on its own merit from the original that you won't mistake it as a copy because of its erotic elements within the perils of flesh. You might remember that the original dealt with a woman (played by Simone Simon) who thought they were descended from a tribe of, well, cat people that may or may not turn into black panthers when aroused (it basically had elements of the noir); the lady in that movie went the whole road to marriage without getting kissed. Here we have a woman who must confront the peril of really having a family tradition of were-cats that must kill in order to turn back. It just so happens to involve a few bits of skin and the mix of effects and cats in a movie best described as lurid curiosity for 118 minutes. If you asked me which movie called Cat People is the better among the two, I think I would throw my hands in the air and shrug at it basically being a dead heat because each are from accomplished filmmakers that represent their era quite well in overall enjoyment vs. rewarding the patience of those who are into what it is selling. Kinski practically lifts the film almost entirely to the realm of curious because of how she acts in the film without really even acting that much to begin with (apparently, she seemed to felt manipulated when it came to her assessment of the resulting film). Her grace really does have the instincts of a cat in frenzied timing that sells the plight of flesh. Whether you compare the two films or not, she sure exceeds Simon when it comes to worthwhile lead performances by a handy margin. McDowell may not be in the movie too long, but he sure is loopy enough to belong in weirdo enjoyment that he sells from the word "go", but I say that as someone who went with the film's peddling of ideas right then and there (you really should just see it right then and there rather than skimming the plot). Heard and O'Toole are fine, albeit on a smaller scale that only works some of the time in trying to do a would-be love triangle that only works for those who like the actors enough in the first place; Heard just happens to be the ideal guy to chase a girl like Kinski in strange pursuer/pursued, as opposed to the mild other. Besides, it is quite the curiosity to see Heard having to engage with the climax in a cathouse blues type of way that really will make or break the film for you when it comes to stupendous suspension of disbelief; I dont know if I would call the film "classy", but even "dedicated" is a better way to put it than,  say, "not fun horror". It is a movie that looks and sounds exactly on point of mystical curiosity, never turning itself off even when not going all-out for effects work (you get some blood anyway). As a whole, it is a strange sensual kind of sensationalism that one will either take right in for scintillating enjoyment or baffled disappointment. It feels good to be on the side of the former but have it your way among the creatures of the night.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

if....

Review #2087: If....

Cast: 

Malcolm McDowell (Michael Arnold "Mick" Travis), Richard Warwick (Wallace), Christine Noonan (The Girl), David Wood (Johnny Knightly), Rupert Webster (Bobby Philips), Robert Swann (Rowntree), Peter Jeffrey (Headmaster), Arthur Lowe (Mr. Kemp, Housemaster), Mona Washbourne (Matron), Ben Aris (John Thomas, Undermaster), Robin Askwith (Keating), Robin Davies (Machin), and Hugh Thomas (Denson) Directed by Lindsay Anderson (#1792 - This Sporting Life)

Review: 

Five years after The Sporting Life (1963), Lindsay Anderson followed up his feature debut (after a decade of documentary film work) with if...(1968). Well, actually, there was one other film in between with The White Bus (1967), a collaboration with playwright Shelagh Delaney that was meant to be part of a three-segment anthology film called "Red, White and Zero", but only Anderson's film had received release. At any rate, the film came about after years of development, since David Sherwin wrote the story with John Howlett by the early 1960s as shaped by their experiences at Tonbridge School in Kent. They had tried to approach filmmakers such as Seth Holt and Nicholas Ray to direct, but this did not come to pass; Anderson (a fellow with his own memories of boarding schools such as Cheltenham College) was introduced to Sherwin by Holt and the rest is history. Anderson has acknowledged Jean Vigo's French classic Zéro de conduite (1933) as an influence on the film, particularly with the climax. Malcolm McDowell made his debut as an actor in film with this one, but only because he was deleted from the final cut of Ken Loach's Poor Cow (1967). It just so happened that a couple of months into filming in 1968, Paris had a series of demonstrations from youths that led to civil unrest for a month. Anderson, McDowell, and Sherwin would do two further films together in a triad of films with "Mick Travis" in O Lucky Man! (1973, involving a coffee salesman-turned-star) and Britannia Hospital (1982, involving a critique of the National Health Service), although they aren't "sequels" in any sort of sense.

It never kills for a good satire about the education system, particularly ones of places filled with just boys and people that call themselves men. When taken literally beyond the mix of color and black-and-white images, it is easy to see how the film could have generated some controversy, particularly since it was given an X certificate by the British Board of Film Classification. Well, that and the idea that the only pure acts may very well involve "violence and revolution", which results in a fairly incendiary feature that relies on reputation more so than a definitive piece of great entertainment. It may be violent, but, well, only in its own time when not busy looking upon the differences that come with the terrors of hierarchies in boarding schools (no, not exactly Lord of the Flies, despite what impulse might think first). One supposes that life is a bit cloudy to see in the facets of color when it comes to viewing the absurdities that comes among the age groups with "school tradition" (well, actually the color changes related to the lighting of the school chapel before Anderson liked how it gave texture, but I think you get my inference). The distance between student and teacher seems pretty apparent when it comes to understanding who they are talking to in a changing environment of ravenous energy. It seems more of a casual stink bomb lobbed at the establishment rather than something with great fiery depth that just happens to be carried by an entertaining performance by its lead actor. McDowell has a conniving charisma to him that just draws one in, a figure of devilish delight. Incidentally, the performance done by McDowell led to Stanley Kubrick to cast him in A Clockwork Orange (1971), but the performance that he delivered in that ensuing film was helped by a phone call with Anderson that talked about an "ironic smile" he gave in the earlier film. He handles the crash of amusement that comes in a cast that handles carefully-cut satire with some ease, although for the life of the me the scene that best sticks in my head is probably, well, the climax involving the idea of terror that gets that one perceived blow of chaos through the illusion of order. As a whole, I wish I really liked the film for what it is rather than just considering what it meant at the time of filming, because really it is a pretty good second feature for Anderson, who seems to have loved and loathed British society all in one, which compares fairly (but not mostly) to his previous This Sporting Life. But, as a showing of the potential of its lead man in McDowell, it is one you can't really miss.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Halloween II (2009).

Review #1751: Halloween II (2009)

Cast: 

Scout Taylor-Compton (Laurie Strode), Malcolm McDowell (Samuel Loomis), Tyler Mane (Michael Myers; with Chase Wright Vanek as Younger version), Sheri Moon Zombie (Deborah Myers), Brad Dourif (Sheriff Lee Brackett), Danielle Harris (Annie Brackett), Brea Grant (Mya Rockwell), Howard Hesseman (Uncle Meat), Angela Trimbur (Harley David), Mary Birdsong (Nancy McDonald), Daniel Roebuck (Big Lou), Jeff Daniel Phillips (Howard Boggs and Seymour Coffins), Sylvia Jefferies (Misty Dawn), Bill Fagerbakke (Deputy Webb), Richard Brake (Gary Scott), Dayton Callie (Coroner Hooks), and Margot Kidder (Barbara Collier) Directed by Rob Zombie (#743 - Halloween (2007) and #1590 - House of 1000 Corpses)

Review: 

I'm sure you remember a film like this. After all, it isn't like there are numerous timelines to consider for a series involving the exploits of a masked killer slowly going around and mowing folks from a little town called Haddonfield (which may or may not involve more than one sibling of the Myers family). Well, sort of. Not only was this the last Halloween film for nine years, it was also the second and final feature in Rob Zombie's interpretation of Michael Myers with his offbeat style of filmmaking, which is covered in plenty of gritty violence (and shots) alongside certain narrative and casting choices (and yes, Weird Al). Honestly, it has probably been too long since I watched Zombie's original attempt at re-inventing the series (six years), but the one point that stuck with me is in how sloppy it ended up being with actually being a meaningful different step from what had been done in the past eight Halloween films in trying to make the character scary again (the cynical answer would have been to not make one for like ten or twenty years in order to make folks forget). Its interpretation of Myers in origins is still ridiculous to ponder, if only because I am reminded that it was essentially an extended segue of what had happened before (which took less than fifteen minutes) that took away the mystique of what was merely just a force of nature, with John Carpenter even saying as much when asked about it years later. Of course, I do wonder if it felt so ridiculously built in overt "edginess" like its sequel ends up being, what with the whole "Charlie Manson on someone's wall" thing. Hell, would it surprise you that each film had an unrated Director's Cut - given the offbeat track record of Dimension Films, who can blame him? 

Zombie apparently wanted to kill everybody off in this film, as if to seal the idea of no third movie (the second movie made $39 million back on a $15 million budget, but an attempt at a "3D" film came and went), with producer Malek Akkad giving Zombie his blessing to try and not follow the rules that he had put for the previous film; in that sense, only Myers in the main trio seems to not be affected in terms of Zombie wanting to go...Zombie (sure, hallucinating seems different, but...no).  Of course, there is one thing to consider: the original Halloween II (1981) wasn't very good (of course, the family angle, thought of by Carpenter and Hill, was later called "foolish" by Carpenter himself), so what do you expect from this film? The movie differs considerably depending on what you see: the Theatrical Cut is 105 minutes long while the Unrated Cut is 119 minutes, which includes alternative footage to go with re-cuts, with the most notable difference being that the Laurie character spirals downward right from the jump (as opposed to being less off the bend in the Theatrical version, which had the setting as one year later as opposed to two)...and of course the ending is altered. You know you are not on a good track when you start with a dream sequence. Regardless if it is there to add suspense, gore, or whatever, it is the easiest moment to generate eyerolls in preposterous-ness. If the first film managed to have plenty of brutality while perhaps being at the cost of suspense, you sure won't see much change here. Being an uncompromising film only works if I actually care about what is going on. The strangest thing is this: it somehow manages to be more interesting than the original remake...but it also is easier to make fun of, one for folks who want to see how much a director can go up their own...you get the idea. If Zombie wanted to make a trashy movie with weird aspects completely different from what was, he surely accomplished it with an assortment of aspects that I'm sure you will all "appreciate", such as weirdos talking about adventures with corpses, Margot Kidder playing a psychiatrist, music at a concert that will make you appreciate listening to Zombie's stuff instead, the aforementioned white horse, and a movie where the only folks to like are either because of camp value (McDowell) or in small amounts (Dourif and Harris). This is the kind of movie that is perfect bait for even the smug to pick at, particularly ones who don't care to look into the psyche of every main focus. The problem is that I fit into the latter category, but I do fit into the category of making fun of terrible movies, so there is that. Besides, the last interesting idea that this series ever had was the climax of Halloween 4...which was two decades ago.

Taylor-Compton does what she can with material that surely must be interesting to consider depending on which version you see: one where she eventually goes nuts, or one that is pretty much nuts from the drop. It just so happens that it isn't as interesting as the movie thinks it is in actually latching on to her perspective, which mostly involves screaming. Strangely enough, Halloween (2018) would try its own angle in the eyes of trauma with Laurie, which I imagine has inspired its own curiosity and detractors. Oh look, a Rob Zombie movie with Sheri Moon Zombie, who would have ever guessed? Hell, she randomly shows up time to time as a hallucination (which when paired with "hobo Michael" is quite the contrast) that results in bemusement more than anything. True, one probably can't imitate Donald Pleasance and his character of Dr. Loomis for very long without seeming pale. So, why not have McDowell play him like he was Dr. Phil? It is amusing in a cynical way, if only because McDowell seems exactly the type to play an odd role in a movie teetering on the edge of mismatched-ness, but his scene-chewing in the name of ego is far more interesting than hearing a plethora of one certain curse word to go along with boring folks in edgy stuff (of course, his turn in the climax is probably a bit too late). What I mean about "edgy" is that there are certain times when the movie seems to be trying to make a point about how an attack affects everyone around them...it just ends up with the resonance of a "uh huh, that's nice dear." Dourif and Harris are experienced enough with these kind of movies, and that is likely why they probably resonate better than most of the folks present here, in that they actually rate well to the generic stuff present without being crushed by it. Well, of course, there is Mane to consider in whatever he is meant to be doing with the whole derelict composure thing with Michael, which is more amusing than anything (in a series full of offbeat scenes with the character to begin with). As a whole, Halloween II is a mess, one made by Zombie with the intent of saying...something...about the dynamic that comes from a killer and his target that seem more alike than at first glance while looking on the shift of all involved since that one terrible night on Halloween. Of course, Halloween (1978) succeeded best not because it tried to explain anything, but because it executed shock in a way that had not been seen by audiences of the time. Halloween II (2009) only accomplishes the notion that having an offbeat flawed interpretation of its main character is still a flawed interpretation, regardless how much curiosity one has for a "different" follow-up when compared to the other features past and present.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars. 

Happy Halloween. I'm sure you folks are having a wonderful time in the holiday season, and I hope you enjoyed seeing 23 reviews in 31 days. Of course, we're not quite done yet with horror, so sit back for Halloween: The Week After Part 3, which will cover horror films as it says on the tin (until November 7th). Who knows what should come up...

Next Time: Halloween Kills.

A Clockwork Orange.

Review #1440: A Clockwork Orange.

Cast: 
Malcolm McDowell (Alex DeLarge), Patrick Magee (Mr Frank Alexander), Michael Bates (Chief Guard Barnes), Warren Clarke (Dim), John Clive (Stage Actor), Adrienne Corri (Mrs Mary Alexander), Carl Duering (Dr Brodsky), Paul Farrell (Tramp), Clive Francis (Joe the Lodger), Michael Gover (Prison Governor), Miriam Karlin (Catlady), James Marcus (Georgie), Aubrey Morris (P. R. Deltoid), Godfrey Quigley (Prison Chaplain), Sheila Raynor (Mum), Madge Ryan (Dr Branom), Anthony Sharp (Frederick, Minister of the Interior), and Philip Stone (Dad) Produced and Directed by Stanley Kubrick (#044 - Full Metal Jacket, #065 - The Shining, #093 - 2001: A Space Odyssey, #1046 - Barry Lyndon, and #1301 - Dr. Strangelove)

Review: 
"I have always enjoyed dealing with a slightly surrealistic situation and presenting it in a realistic manner. I've always liked fairy tales and myths, magical stories. I think they are somehow closer to the sense of reality one feels today than the equally stylized "realistic" story in which a great deal of selectivity and omission has to occur in order to preserve its "realist" style."

Stanley Kubrick made thirteen feature films in his career, and it is interesting to note the numerous distinct genres that they all fall into, whether that meant anti-war (such as Paths of Glory), or film noir (The Killing), or period drama (Spartacus) or comedy-drama (Lolita), all the while having a touch and patience of a chess player in creating such tremendous interesting films to view. Kubrick had an interest in photography and film from a young age, and he was hired by Look magazine after he graduated high school. He would later develop interest in making his own films, which he started with Day of the Fight (1951), a short documentary that survives among two others Kubrick did before making his feature debut with Fear and Desire (1953). Over the next 46 years, Kubrick would develop numerous films that received attention and tremendous praise, and it should prove no surprise that this film is a masterpiece - one with discipline with madness and a great lead performance from Malcolm McDowell. Kubrick was inspired to cast McDowell in the film after seeing him in Lindsay Anderson's influential if... (1968), and he stated that if he could not have hired McDowell that he wouldn't have done the film at all.

If one needs to think of the context for comparing a film that is nearly a half century old to the films that purvey our screens, just remember that this was actually released by a major studio - Warner Brothers of all ones. Of all the provocative films that rocked a decade of grime and paranoia, A Clockwork Orange certainly stands out as one for its age. It was adapted from the novel of the same name by composer/writer/linguist/critic Anthony Burgess, who had written it in 1962 with a good deal of it written with a unique jargon named "Nadsat", which was Russian-influenced English to depict a subculture of young people in a dystopian society focused on extreme violence and the exploits of Alex from ultraviolence to reformation. There exists two versions of the novel: The original British novel with 21 chapters that ended with Alex deciding on his own free will to give up a life of senseless crime and violence. When brought to American publishers, they felt that the last chapter needed to be taken out as audiences would not go for this decision, so it was omitted (which proved the case for the next two decades of publication for American audiences). Burgess described that version and the film as like a fable while describing his original book as a novel with a "quality of genuine fiction". Kubrick described it as an extra chapter that he hadn't read until after he had written the screenplay, stating that it was "unconvincing and inconsistent with the style and intent of the book." Burgess had mixed feelings for the resulting adaptation (which was actually the second one done, after Andy Warhol's Vinyl six years earlier), particularly with the way it dealt with glorifying violence, stating it as making it easy for book readers to misunderstand what it was all about.

One wonders how a film like this ever got made, one with such creeping power that other films can only dare to try and defy in the following years. Others may have more blood or more frightening imagery, but there is just something about this one particular film that grips your attention as if it was some sort of disturbing hypnosis that can make you wince or laugh at its black comedy roots. It isn't all ultraviolence nor all funny but a film with a madman point of view that is handled with discipline and tremendous style. One is pulled in immediately with McDowell to observe and hear in each and every scene that shows his bold depravity that we cannot but keep thinking about now more than ever. Whether through singing "Singin' in the Rain" through a rape scene or trying to repress his violent urges, McDowell excels in conviction as someone we can't help but observe in showing what it means to have their free will challenged. Magee and Bates both do well on the sides of dogmatic reactionaries to our main focus, with the former proving a cynical foil while the latter provides blustery bluster that keeps our attention. Others have brief moments that they utilize quite well for us to observe when interacting with McDowell, whether that involves ultraviolence or not.

There is a reasonable pace of 136 minutes, carefully weaving its way through dark moments (if one can get through the opening 25 minutes, you can get through anything) with irony. We are talking about a movie that has someone killed by a phallus statue that cuts to a painting at the key moment, after all. Granted, one could have discomfort over its violent nature, because what seems like just a movie for John Q. Public isn't exactly going to provoke intelligent thought from someone who only sees the violence and nothing else (which can also prove the case with a number of satires). It's up to the viewer to assess how much it works on the satiric level about free will or violence. The argument over whether violence in film and television can have an effect on the viewer to do said violence is still something we talk about five decades later (as if violence begets more violence), particularly for a film that was pulled from release in Britain (which linked the film as an impetus for a spring of copycat crimes) just two years after release upon request of Kubrick. The US release was originally rated X, but a few subsequent small cuts by Kubrick led to an R rating, although it should be noted that current releases contain the original version (ironically enough with an R-rating). Regardless of how one thinks of the violence, it cannot be denied that this is an intensely great film, one free to do madness at its own choice that excels because of Kubrick and McDowell, a magnificently uncomfortable experience with strokes of genius in satire and dystopia that will linger with its audience long after they find themselves observing it.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Halloween (2007).

Review #743: Halloween.

Cast
Malcolm McDowell (Dr. Samuel Loomis), Tyler Mane (Michael Myers), Scout Taylor-Compton (Laurie Strode), Brad Dourif (Sheriff Lee Brackett), Daeg Faerch (Michael Myers, age 10), Sheri Moon Zombie (Deborah Myers), Danielle Harris (Annie Brackett), William Forsythe (Ronnie White), Richard Lynch (Principal Chambers), Udo Kier (Morgan Walker), Clint Howard (Doctor Koplenson), and Danny Trejo (Ismael Cruz) Directed by Rob Zombie.

Review
I knew I would have to deal with this eventually. I've already stated before my thoughts on John Carpenter's Halloween, which I still say is the best of the franchise and is still one of my favorite horror films. But of course, it had to have a remake, and who better than musician/director Rob Zombie to make his own version? (And release it in August, no less. That's a good way to annoy a film fan right off the bat, release a horror movie not in late September or October, but in August, a month known for nothing, especially in this day and age...okay, rant over) The first half of the movie gives Michael a back story, and it is about as uninteresting as you'd expect. Honestly I stopped really caring about his troubled home life after a while, probably because all of this is unnecessary when you get down to it. Do we really need to know about his treatment of animals? The monotony of the unlikable characters combined with the deaths make for a first half that doesn't really get you in the mood for a movie that then proceeds to take scenes from the original. The acting certainly fits with the twisted style of the movie, with McDowell being the one I like the most, probably because he's the most likable. Don't get me wrong, not all movies need to have likable characters...but then again not all remakes need to explain why the villain became the villain they are. The original movie's characters certainly rooted themselves better, especially Loomis and Strode. With this one, I felt empty with regards to caring about any of these characters.  The death scenes are bloody, mainly because of Michael's (arguably) sloppy method with respect to his victims, who don't die with one blow. The gritty tone can work depending on the audience watching, but I mainly didn't care for it too much. The fact that this was a remake (or "re-imagining") only means this will have to be compared to the original, and this falls way, way too short. If you like this...congrats to you. Me? I'll probably forget all about this film later anyway. Blergh.

Countdown to 750 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7...

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Star Trek Generations.

Review #246: Star Trek Generations.

Cast
Patrick Stewart (Captain Jean-Luc Picard), Jonathan Frakes (William T. Riker), Brent Spiner (Data), William Shatner (James T. Kirk), Malcolm McDowell (Soran), LeVar Burton (Geordi La Forge), Michael Dorn (Worf), Gates McFadden (Beverly Crusher), Marina Sirtis (Deanna Troi), Alan Ruck (John Harriman), James Doohan (Montgomery Scott), and Walter Koenig (Pavel Chekov) Directed by David Carson.

Review
The last time I reviewed a Star Trek film was a month ago (#226 - Star Trek VI - The Undiscovered Country) I talked about this film for a sentence in that review: "This would be the last film for the Original Series cast (Except for Shatner, Doohan, and Koenig, who would return in Star Trek: Generations) A new generation of films would soon follow." That generation would begin with...a baton handed from one side to the other side. But does it work out well? Well...Kinda. To begin with, the baton holding isn't much holding as it is just "here ya go" The cast does an alright job, but Soren isn't a very threatening villain. His plan amounts to "Fire a rocket at Nexus and see if works", which isn't much of a evil thing when you think about it. The film uses the oddest way to kill a character by just "dropping a bridge on him" Data is...irritating? annoying? I don't know what to say. While its effects are good (including the ship crash), the film simply mishandles its opportunity of Picard and Kirk for...I don't know exactly. But oh well. Countdown to 250: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4...

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Easy A.

Review #050: Easy A.

Cast
Emma Stone (Olive Penderghast), Penn Badgley ("Woodchuck" Todd), Amanda Bynes (Marianne Bryant), Dan Byrd (Brandon), Thomas Haden Church (Mr. Griffith), Patricia Clarkson (Rosemary Penderghast), Cam Gigandet (Micah), Lisa Kudrow (Mrs. Griffith), Malcolm McDowell (Principal Gibbons), Aly Michalka (Rhiannon Abernathy), and Stanley Tucci (Dill Penderghast) Directed by Will Gluck.

Review
Welcome to the 50th Review of Movie Night. This film tries to be the different in comedies by...Well being different. It's funny for the most part as it exploits the high school cliches that happens...All the time actually. Emma Stone does a great job, showing she is blossoming into a (eventual) top actress (as she would show even more in The Help) The script is solid, and the movie is fun to watch with alright acting from the rest of the cast, making this a good film to watch. Thank you for observing 50 reviews here on Movie Night. There is more to come.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.