The Amityville Horror (1979).

Review #2609: The Amityville Horror (1979).

Cast: 

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

Review: 

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

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

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

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

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

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

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

Sisters (1972).

Review #2139: Sisters.

Cast: 

Margot Kidder (Danielle Breton / Dominique Blanchion), Jennifer Salt (Grace Collier), William Finley (Emil Breton), Charles Durning (Joseph Larch), Lisle Wilson (Phillip Woode), Barnard Hughes (Arthur McLennen), Mary Davenport (Mrs. Peyson Collier), and Dolph Sweet (Detective Kelly) Directed by Brian De Palma (#801 - Mission: Impossible, #1230 - Carrie, #1471 - Scarface)

Review: 

“I always said that film lies 24 times a second. That’s the antithesis of what Jean-Luc Godard said, that it’s truth 24 per second. That’s nonsense! Film lies all of the time.”

It's easy to say a director can come anywhere. Raised in a family that were in his words, “egotists who didn’t care what damage they were doing”, Brian De Palma was born in New Jersey but raised in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire. He had an interest in building computers before studying physics at Columbia University. However, he became more interested in film after seeing movies such as Citizen Kane and Vertigo. He finished his studies at Columbia to move on to study at Sarah Lawrence College in the theater department. A friendship with an actor in his aspiring days in Robert De Niro led to the shooting of De Palma's first feature with The Wedding Party, a film shot in 1963 but only released in 1969 (which meant that it served as his "third" film due to Murder a la Mod and Greetings being released in 1968). Get to Know Your Rabbit (1972) was his first venture with the Hollywood system and was a comedy like most of his previous five efforts, but it was not a major success. This film was shown first in late 1972 but did not have a full release until 1973. The screenplay was done by De Palma and Louisa Rose while De Palma did the story. Spearheaded by Edward R. Pressman as producer with a budget of $500,000 with distribution by American International Pictures, the film was a fair hit for its time and has managed to receive further attention with the resulting career that followed for De Palma that went from Phantom of the Paradise (1974) and Obsession (1976) to, well, Carrie (1976). Whether called a psychological thriller or horror film, screw it, this one counts for whatever category you want.

Incidentally, for a film that involves a good deal of voyeurism, De Palma has stated in later years that he would secretly follow his father around to record his adulterous habits when he was young. Of course, the actual inspiration came from his reading of an article in Life magazine in 1966 that detailed the lives of the Soviet conjoined twins Masha and Dasha Krivoshlyapova, specifically with their psychological makeup as they grew older (of course, since they were born in 1950, the Soviets did a variety of things in "the interests of science", which namely involved the scientists tricked their mother into believing the twins were dead to they could serve as research subjects). It is interesting to consider the elements that sound familiar to Alfred Hitchcock, whether that involves Rear Window (1954) or Psycho (1960), only with some use of split-screen composition that was used in a handful of films of the time (such as Carrie). This is the kind of "homage" that seems ripe for critics to love, I think, because it means they don't have to confront much in the way of gore and therefore they can't be labeled as just being anti-homage when they see something that harkens to the past when it comes to something with a bit more gore and call it "derivative". For me, this is basically Rosemary's Baby (1968) all over again, where it is more about reputation more than anything, at least when one considers the moments when the film actually gets to the point where I appreciate it best (of course, this is a 92-minute film). De Palma apparently gave the script as a "Christmas present" to Kidder, who at one time shared a house with Salt. The "French-Canadian" accent is a result of Kidder not being able to pull off a Swedish accent. It is an odd performance to say the least, mostly because we are viewing a double-sided coin of doubt and curiosity, which is touch and go once you get past that buildup sequence of her and Wilson. Besides her is the focus on Salt, the would-be digger of trying to figure out what the audience has already viewed (all she has to go on is seeing one little note of help). Her part works as an exasperatingly amusing view on the usual go-and-look type of mystery that you usually see in these films (only without that character usually being pestered about marriages by people like Davenport). Finlay makes up the mystery part of the film, which is most important for the climax because, well, hell, if you've read this far, you'll probably guess that someone has to play a part in lending some exposition to just how literal that film title is. When the film reaches that point where it has to lend a few pointers your way of just what is where and who is what is when the film has managed to reach its high point in delirium for actual tension, which is probably made funnier (or unsettling, take your pick) by that last exchange of words to go with the last view of a film all about the view and the person taking it. Call it a commentary about women or just a film that likes to dwell on watching, the general enjoyment of the film comes from how effective the homage to Hitchcock goes for you. I would say it is a good flick to view as an early example of what is to come for De Palma for sly filmmaking. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next: Spiral (1998). No, really.

Superman IV: The Quest for Peace.

Review #787: Superman IV: The Quest for Peace.

Cast
Christopher Reeve (Superman / Clark Kent), Gene Hackman (Lex Luthor / voice of Nuclear Man)
Jackie Cooper (Perry White), Margot Kidder (Lois Lane), Jon Cryer (Lenny Luthor), Mark Pillow (Nuclear Man), Sam Wanamaker (David Warfield), Marc McClure (Jimmy Olsen), Mariel Hemingway (Lacy Warfield), and Damian McLawhorn (Jeremy) Directed by Sidney J. Furie.

Review
Simply put, this movie is terrible. Any which way you look at it, the movie fails at every level, from failing as a superhero movie to failing to make a plot or direction that works to failing be a movie of spectacle or excitement. To make a long review of this movie would be redundant, but a basic criticism will suffice for such a basic movie. The first (and easiest) flaw to notice is the opening credits, which are representative of both the cheapness of the production studio (Cannon Films) and the harbinger of a movie that goes downhill from there. As usual, Reeve (who contributed to the story for the film) does a fine job, and Hackman returns to make for an entertaining Luthor once again, but neither can save a movie bogged down by terrible, terrible film-making not just from directing, but from a (chopped-down) budget that can't support what the movie wanted to be. The effects are the ultimate final blow, with easily visible strings, a shot of Reeve "flying" towards the camera being repeated numerous times, and numerous other examples of futile attempts at penny pinching. At least Cooper, Kidder and McClure are back, though they don't really very interested in the movie, much like the rest of us. The less said about Cryer, the better. Nuclear Man is certainly a strange villain, looking like he was time-warped from the early 80's, especially with the silver nails, and the fact that he is voiced by Hackman is somewhat off-putting. The fights between him and Superman are downright laughable, and the solution to defeating him via moving the moon in front of the sun is the only perfect way to end such a silly climax.

What is interesting in all of this is the amount of footage that was cut from the movie. Originally, the movie was over 2 hours long, but due to a bad test screening, Furie cut over 30 minutes out of the movie, with a good portion of those scenes (but apparently not all of them) later resurfacing on DVD many years later. Almost all of them have a bit of degradation to them, and scenes meant to show special effects (such as one scene where Superman rescues a child from a tornado) are unfinished, and even the final intended scene, with Superman and Jeremy (a child who wrote him a letter wanting him to intervene in possible war) flying over the Earth isn't finished, with a red glow effect on them.

In the end, the movie has no hope, no substance, no luck, and most of all no budget, proving to be the death knell of the movie franchise for 19 years. I'd recommend the movie as a guide on what not to do with regards to budgeting, editing, and most importantly, presentation.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Superman III.

Review #786: Superman III.

Cast
Christopher Reeve (Clark Kent / Superman), Richard Pryor (Gus Gorman), Robert Vaughn (Ross Webster), Annette O'Toole (Lana Lang), Annie Ross (Vera Webster), Pamela Stephenson (Lorelei Ambrosia), Jackie Cooper (Perry White), Margot Kidder (Lois Lane), Marc McClure as (Jimmy Olsen), and Gavan O'Herlihy (Brad Wilson) Directed by Richard Lester (#541 - A Hard Day's Night, #594 - A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, and #785 - Superman II)

Review
There is nothing wrong with a bit of humor and/or slapstick. Some comic book movies even excel at moments of lightness in otherwise good films. Superman III is not one of those movies. It's a sad, desperate attempt of trying so hard to be both that it manages to fail at every turn. It's hard to tell when the first cracks appear, but it could be argued that it's either when Richard Pryor first appears, or when the title sequence is shamelessly put on the bottom of the screen so we can all see some slapstick immediately after Pryor shows up. Afterwards, the movie goes up and down from there. Reeve is the best part of the movie, carrying the movie even when you know it's already past the point of no return. He even gets to play a Superman who (briefly) becomes weakened by synthetic kryptonite (just go with it) and becomes...a Superman who fixes the Tower of Pisa and even drinks some alcohol (while flicking peanuts at beer bottles). It's a ridiculous aspect of the movie, but it gives Reeve something to do amidst the Pryor parts that really take up nearly 45% of the film. There's even a scene where the two "Supermans" fight each other, which while being ridiculous (especially in how it ends), is actually pretty interesting to watch.

The new villain this time around is played by Robert Vaughn, but he doesn't really stick out too much, coming off as a Lex Luthor stand-in. O'Toole is the new leading lady (by that I mean for only this film), and while she is relatively decent, she isn't given much to do, as compared to Kidder...who is essentially put on a bus early on. And then of course there's Richard Pryor. He's not inherently terrible, and he is somewhat funny, but he doesn't really feel like he should be in a Superman film. For most of the movie he is on the side of the villain(s), but the second that Superman is in actual danger, he switches sides, and it comes off as a dull surprise. The only thing that surprised me is the computer "robotizing" one of the characters near the end, but of course it's not permanent, so whatever (by the way, how does a computer who is supposed to know Superman's weaknesses not realize how a certain acid gets volatile under intense heat? Actually, forget it, the movie still stinks). The movie's biggest flaw is that there really is no spectacle to any of it. You never really care about anything that goes on, and nothing sticks out in this movie that you truly remember as a good thing. The main idea behind the movie isn't terrible, but the execution falls flat on its face.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Superman II.

Review #785: Superman II.

Cast
Christopher Reeve (Clark Kent / Superman), Gene Hackman (Lex Luthor), Margot Kidder (Lois Lane), Terence Stamp (General Zod), Jackie Cooper (Perry White), Sarah Douglas (Ursa), Jack O'Halloran (Non), Ned Beatty (Otis), Valerie Perrine (Eve Teschmacher), Marc McClure (Jimmy Olsen), Susannah York (Lara), Clifton James (Sheriff), and E.G. Marshall (The President) Directed by Richard Lester (#541 - A Hard Day's Night and #594 - A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum)

Review
If you're interested in the review, skip this paragraph, as it does not pertain to the review, merely serving as a little bit of background...

If you remember my review from two years ago of the original Superman movie (#547), I had said that it was a fine epic that succeeded in nearly every way possible, with the most important being that it was entertaining. Naturally, the movie was a success, and Superman II (which had been filmed simultaneously with the first film) would soon follow...but not with Richard Donner, who was "replaced" from the film by the Salkinds producers a few months after the first film's release. Richard Lester was tasked to finish the film. The dispute over what footage of the movie is Donner's and so on continued for years, with a "Richard Donner Cut" made in 2006 that tried to restore (as much as possible) footage that Donner had shot, though he was not involved with that cut.

With all that in mind, Superman II still manages to be a decent sequel. While it isn't up to the same craft as the first film, Superman II is as least entertaining enough to work. The movie has elements of humor that veer into slapstick (no doubt added by Lester), which admittedly gets in the way of enjoying my favorite part of the movie: The climatic fight with Superman and Zod, Ursa & Non. While it is a good fight that takes up the last 30 (or so) minutes of the movie, it is marred by random aspects. One example is Superman throwing his emblem shield at Non, which mystifies me on the level of practicality. Reeve and Kidder do have good chemistry together once again, and the romance is at least watchable, even despite the fact that Superman can just erase memories with a kiss (if he chooses to, I suppose), which makes for a peculiar (if not extremely inevitable) reset. The movie takes time to get going in the sense that it is more fun with Zod and the others around. The effects, while a bit peculiar at times, fit the movie well enough. Stamp certainly makes for a standout villain in the sense that there finally is a villain who can match to the physical strength of Superman, alongside the fact that Stamp is entertaining to watch, especially when asking someone to kneel. I wish that the idea of Superman taking his powers away in favor of being with Lois could have been more than just a five minute blip that just passes through and is nearly forgotten, right up to the end, anyway. I do find it interesting that at the end of the movie, Superman beats up a trucker (the one who had beaten him up while he was temporarily human), because...I guess Superman really felt that he needed to get some sort of retribution. Superman II is a sequel that has its bogging flaws, but it shines just enough with charm and a little bit of magic to work.

As for the sequel...next time.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Black Christmas (1974).

Review #679: Black Christmas.

Cast
Olivia Hussey (Jess), Keir Dullea (Peter), Margot Kidder (Barb), John Saxon (Lt. Fuller), Marian Waldman (Mrs. Mac), Andrea Martin (Phyllis), James Edmond (Mr. Harrison), Doug McGrath (Sergeant Nash), Art Hindle (Chris), and Lynne Griffin (Clare) Directed by Bob Clark (#020 - A Christmas Story)

Review
Yes, the same Bob Clark who directed A Christmas Story (a movie that admittedly has its own weirdness to it) directed a movie called one of the first slasher films, Black Christmas. And hey, it's a "Christmas film" along with being a Canadian film as well. I guess surprises come in threes. But is the movie any good? Yea, I suppose so. This is a chilly little film that uses perspective from the killer and some pretty odd phone calls to make for a spooky little slasher film. The highlight for me though is Margot Kidder, who certainly seems like she's having a good time even if half of the time she is...inebriated. What is unique is the fact that the killer isn't revealed, not even at the end, as the movie ends ambiguously, all in part because Bob Clark decided to. The killer isn't really shown, but by using perspective and a voice (or two, probably), it makes for a creative way of delivering scares without having to adhere to the cliches too much. And hey, it's another movie with John Saxon, who as always is a rough but watchable authority figure. It's been 40 years since this film has been released, and it has had a remake but even now this film has a cult following and I can understand why. What we have here is a stellar movie that even inspired Halloween and Friday the 13th, which is like a sign of respect, I believe. Watch the movie, and then make sure to check the caller ID on your phone.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Superman (1978).

Review #547: Superman.

Cast
Marlon Brando (Jor-El), Gene Hackman (Lex Luthor), Christopher Reeve (Clark Kent/Superman), Margot Kidder (Lois Lane), Ned Beatty (Otis), Jackie Cooper (Perry White), Glenn Ford (Jonathan Kent), Valerie Perrine (Eve Teschmacher), Phyllis Thaxter (Martha Kent), Trevor Howard (First Elder), Maria Schell (Vond-Ah), and Terence Stamp (General Zod) Directed by Richard Donner (#075 - Scrooged, #355 - Lethal Weapon, and #356 - Lethal Weapon 2)

Review
Of all the comic book movies I've done on this...show, I suppose, the one glaring omission has been the Superman franchise. Superman was the first major superhero feature movie made (Side note here: There had been three serials made before this movie, such as Superman (1948), Atom Man vs. Superman (1950), and Superman and the Mole Men (1951), along with animated shorts made by Fleischer Studios, a radio and television series), and the movie's success would lead to more superhero films. But anyway, how is the film itself? Let's start with the actors. Brando does well for the small amount of time he has, and his speech to his newborn son is effective, but also powerful. Hackman is a decent villain, he does pair well with Beatty, who isn't half bad in a supporting role. Christopher Reeve is just perfect in both roles, managing to act well enough to make these two personalities stand out effectively. Kidder is good, she pairs off well with Reeve, and the scene where Superman takes Lane on a flight is a really good scene that only shows the emotion the movie has. The movie has excellent effects and manages to tell a good story with only a few bumps along the way. The ending either makes Superman's character fully defined...or a cop out that is actually more confusing in how it works then infuriating. I think it's more of both, it defines that Clark/Superman is here for a reason, a point mentioned by Kent's adoptive father, in contrast to Jor-El's warning about changing history. Superman finds his destiny, and it does make sense, though the time traveling part boggles my mind. Endings aside, the movie is a fine epic that succeeds in nearly everyway possible.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.