Count Yorga, Vampire.

Review #2283: Count Yorga, Vampire.

Cast:

Robert Quarry (Count Yorga), Roger Perry (Dr. James "Jim" Hayes), Michael Murphy (Paul), Michael Macready (Michael "Mike" Thompson), Donna Anderson (Donna), Judy Lang (Erica Landers), Edward Walsh (Brudah), Julie Conners (Cleo), Paul Hansen (Peter), and Sybil Scotford (Judy) Written and Directed by Bob Kelljan.

Review: 

Admittedly, you really could make a vampire movie out of any half-baked idea if you have enough luck involved. Michael Macready was a producer that wanted to make a movie with Bob Kelljan on the cheap in softcore horror, tentatively calling their movie "The Loves of Count Iorga"; Kelljan had made his debut as a director with the skin flick Flesh of My Flesh (1969), which he starred and co-produced with Macready. They asked Robert Quarry about possibly doing their softcore movie. He had done a handful of features in either small or uncredited nature while in a small theater group that happened to include Macready. Quarry wanted to do a "straight horror movie", although they compromised and shot a few scenes that could be used as softcore if the film wasn't going well. His recollections of the film stated that there were just four crewmembers and a budget of just under $100,000 (he shot the film in the night while shooting a small part in WUSA [1970] in the day). The result, as distributed by American International Pictures (who made the suggestion to go with "Yorga" for easier pronunciation) was a hit. A sequel came up immediately with The Return of Count Yorga, which was directed and written by Kelljan. Quarry wanted to do a third film (apparently wanting to do one where he is broken and recovering in the sewers); The Deathmaster (1973) sometimes gets confused as related to Count Yorga due to its killer vampire (now a hippie), complete with AIP promoting the movie with similar beats to Yorga. As for Kelljan, he directed three further films (Scream Blacula Scream, Act of Vengeance, Black Oak Conspiracy) before going on to direct in television prior to his death in 1982; the rights for any Yorga film lapsed to Macready, who Quarry did not want to work with. 

While Quarry did not become a grand star of stature with AIP (who due to Yorga had him for a contract with ideas of succeeding Vincent Price as their guy) due to their fading status in horror, he was quite happy with his experiences making the Yorga films and recollected his experiences often prior to his death in 2009. You don't have that many vampire movies set in its current day for that era, unless you want to dig in for films such as The Return of the Vampire, The Return of Dracula or The Vampire. It does prove to be a slick little movie, one that benefits from its modern setting with the sinister elegance leading the way from Quarry. It isn't often you get to see a séance lead off a movie (after narration from George Macready, son of Michael), that much is for sure. Quarry plays off the title role as a mystic that glides from scene to scene for a movie that is sometimes offbeat and sometimes funny for 93 minutes. This works out for better or worse because of the fact that the rest of the actors are only mildly interesting to begin with, unless you count Walsh playing a murky-looking heavy. The folks get into the vampire belief schtick a bit early, which is somewhat amusing. Some of the time you can tell where the budget ends and where the soft stuff could play out (particularly with one bit involving two ladies), but at least it isn't too skimpy on the weird nature of vampire-people relations. The ending is at least interesting for where exactly it ends up even with the usual "sure, the threat is dead..." bit, mainly because it ends on a freeze-frame that actually seems earned for once. In general, it might be an average horror film by the usual merits one would approach the genre, but it is generally involving enough to win out with a suitable enough lead presence and some interesting moments of blood to make one at least be curious to inquire further with Quarry and company.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Redux: Batman Returns.

Redux #316: Batman Returns.

Cast: 

Michael Keaton (Bruce Wayne / Batman), Danny DeVito (Oswald Cobblepot / The Penguin), Michelle Pfeiffer (Selina Kyle / Catwoman), Christopher Walken (Max Shreck), Michael Gough (Alfred Pennyworth), Pat Hingle (Commissioner James Gordon), Michael Murphy (The Mayor), Vincent Schiavelli (The Organ Grinder), Andrew Bryniarski (Charles "Chip" Shreck), Cristi Conaway (The Ice Princess), Rick Zumwalt (The Tattooed Strongman), Anna Katarina (The Poodle Lady), Paul Reubens (Tucker Cobblepot), and Diane Salinger (Esther Cobblepot) Directed by Tim Burton (#040 - Batman, #107 - Beetlejuice, #132 - Alice in Wonderland, #196 - Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, #262 - Corpse Bride)

Review: 

"I like Batman Returns better than the first one. There was this big backlash that it was too dark, but I found this movie much less dark."

Tim Burton did not originally intend to return for the sequel, if you can believe it. But he elected to return when Warner Bros. granted him more creative control along with the shuffling of Jon Peters and Peter Guber to executive producers (the same fate as the people they basically screwed over in Benjamin Melniker and Michael E. Uslan) while Burton became a co-producer. Beforehand, Sam Hamm was tasked to write the script once again, with his apparent first script having the villains of The Penguin and Catwoman looking for buried treasure involving a secret group of wealthy Gotham citizens, which apparently featured a climax reveal where the society was really behind the death of Batman's parents (one part does ring familiar in the Penguin trying to frame Batman). At the request of Burton, he was later replaced by Daniel Waters (writer of the dubious cult favorite Heathers in 1989). It should be noted that Waters helped create the character played by Walken, as opposed to possible ideas by Hamm to include the character of Two-Face. Perhaps it is strange irony that the idea of the Penguin running for Mayor actually had been seen before in the Adam West interpretation of Batman ("Hizzoner the Penguin"/"Dizzoner the Penguin", for those at home).Wesley Strick was tasked to flesh out the script during principal photography, specifically with devising a "master plan" for the climax (Warner Bros. apparently tried to go with either freezing or warming Gotham), which doesn't seem too far removed from the prodigal son angle seen through the film; I should note however that the character of Max Shreck was actually meant to be the younger brother of the Penguin before Strick excised it from the script (which also saw the character of Robin go by the wayside). However, the practices of the Writers Guild of America in dealing with scripts and principal photography meant that Strick didn't get credit as a writer. The design might have been under a different designer (Bo Welch) this time around, but it does continue to remind one of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920), which does manage to make one enchanted by what one could do in a time of sound stages and miniatures (the movie does used CG effects with a Batmobile shield and remote Batarang, of course). This is also true for the army commanded by the Penguin, which sees real penguins alongside actors in suits, puppets, and animation. Casting is sometimes a stroke of chance. Apparently, the first choice for the character played by Walken was David Bowie. He rejected it to do a part in Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me (1992) while Burton had to be convinced to cast Walken because he was apparently scared of him. Pfeiffer got her role because Annette Bening became pregnant, and DeVito was one of dozens of people considered for his role when Dustin Hoffman turned it down.

You know, it is a funny thing to consider the legacy of the movie after 30 years since its release on June 19, 1992. It wasn't as big of a success as the original 1989 film, with one major thing about it being the fact that it was apparently too dark. To me, I think this is a ridiculous assessment, as if one couldn't accept the idea of a Tim Burton movie that sees him not shackled by producers or studios who are starting to think about making products that could be riper for toys. I for one welcome movies that feature folks with dark saliva or brief shots of someone putting a bird in their mouth. Besides, it wasn't like Batman didn't lead anybody to their downfall in the 1989 movie, so trying to go with that argument is even worse. In fact, I will state with no doubt in my mind that this movie is superior to the 1989 movie, because it elevates the eerie atmosphere of cynicism and style with even further burrowing into the psyche of people struck with forms of duality that make a capable dark fairy tale. Granted, the overall story is probably not as cohesive as it could be, but it most definitely has better sticking points than what was seen in the 1989 movie when it comes to duality that isn't just a show for one villain and not much else. Keaton continues his timing from the first portrayal that seems him deal with more threats of people who look to match him in looney double sides that will either see him try to not show his scars to one while the other just thinks he is jealous that he's a genuine freak that doesn't have to wear a mask. He doesn't say too much here, since he felt that that the suit would do most of the talking (requesting as such in trimming lines from the script). Burgess Meredith did do a fine job in the 1960s interpretation of the Penguin that I can still hear in my mind when it comes to dubious gentlemen of eloquence. Burton, seemingly inspired by Lon Chaney and his performances such as The Phantom of the Opera, has decided to go with a portrayal of the Penguin with trauma and deformed lunatic for DeVito to play. Some might not care much for the creeping oddball in a movie that starts a bleak streak with showing a child being left to die. But I actually appreciate his antisocial interpretation of someone with the mindset of a sewer that makes a properly decadent villain. Several people played the Catwoman in the 1960s, most notably with Julie Newmar. Pfeiffer makes a quality portrayal in her own double-edged sword that grows in confidence with wicked fierceness that does make a quality pairing with Keaton in captivating torment. The scene where she arises from death to smash her place while spray painting things black is probably the best highlight, although seeing her descent of revenge meet its logical conclusion works as well. Undeniably, Walken is the ideal choice to stand well amongst costumed freaks because of his useful timing when it comes to essentially playing a robber baron, having a decadence of craven ooze that seems reminiscent of Vincent Price in all the right ways. Gough and Hingle do what they need to do while Schiavelli makes an interesting side face of terror. The movie does have some of the offbeat plot motivations from before that make it another example of style and substance clashing together. I'm fine with the general story, all things considered.

It is interesting to see the differing paths that came out in the next couple of years. Warner Bros. decided to make another Batman movie without Burton as director, with him being utilized as a producer for what became Batman Forever (1995) because they clearly desired making more money rather than see what Burton might have had in mind or keep a darker sensibility. The portrayal of Catwoman attracted attention enough to make plans for a spinoff with Pfeiffer that had a script from Waters (which apparently involved her turning up in a resort run by superheroes that poked fun at the mythos) and ideas in mind to have Burton to direct; a script was turned in to Warner Bros the same day that Forever came out, but the movie would languish in development hell until one finally saw Catwoman on screen again in 2004, albeit with Halle Berry. In 2021, a comic book series called Batman '89 was released by DC Comics that served as a continuation of the two movies with Sam Hamm as the main writer. I appreciate the guiding vision laid out by Burton in dark sensibility with shades of the grotesque that is in my mind the best Batman movie of the series released by Warner Bros in the 20th century. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Year of Living Dangerously.

Review #960: The Year of Living Dangerously.

Cast: 
Mel Gibson (Guy Hamilton), Sigourney Weaver (Jill Bryant), Bill Kerr (Colonel Henderson), Michael Murphy (Pete Curtis), Linda Hunt (Billy Kwan), Noel Ferrier (Wally O'Sullivan), Bembol Roco (Kumar), and Paul Sonkkila (Kevin Condon) Directed by Peter Weir.

Review: 
It's interesting that a movie involving a love story caught in the middle of a revolution manages to make itself seem more more upon a closer look. This is a movie that is rich in atmosphere and mood that is is fairly engaging while having a good deal of tension and passion. Hunt pulls off a tremendous performance that is essentially the heart of the movie, giving the movie a degree of humanity and care; she pulls off such a great unforgettable performance that always seems sincere with a sense of mystery and charm, particularly by the film's climax; she was the first person to win an Oscar for playing a character of the opposite sex, winning for Best Supporting Actress that year. The film is not without its romance, and Gibson and Weaver do a fine job in expressing that passion that goes along fairly with the film and its pace, with the two doing relatively fine jobs on their own scenes. If you like seeing the two, then this is your only chance to watch both of them (along with Hunt) in the same film. The rest of the cast also do fine jobs, doing well to contribute to the movie's tense nature, with Murphy standing out with his greed. The film is set in Indonesia, though it was shot in both Australia and the Philippines, with four languages spoken through the film: English, Tagalog, Filipino, and Indonesian. It is often labeled as the first co-production of Australia and a Hollywood studio (MGM), with the latter providing the money needed to fund the movie's production. By the time the movie gets to its end, it already has felt like an experience worth having, having rounds of emotion that work out well. In any case, this is an excellent film that manages to enthrall you with a fine touch of atmosphere, mood, and excellent performances to drive this movie to success.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Nashville.

Review #900: Nashville.

Cast:
David Arkin (Norman), Barbara Baxley (Lady Pearl), Ned Beatty (Delbert Reese), Karen Black (Connie White), Ronee Blakley (Barbara Jean), Timothy Brown (Tommy Brown), Keith Carradine (Tom Frank), Geraldine Chaplin (Opal), Robert DoQui (Wade), Shelley Duvall (L. A. Joan), Allen Garfield (Barnett), Henry Gibson (Haven Hamilton), Scott Glenn (Pfc. Glenn Kelly), Jeff Goldblum (Tricycle Man), Barbara Harris (Albuquerque), David Hayward (Kenny Frasier), Michael Murphy (John Triplette), Allan F. Nicholls (Bill), Dave Peel (Bud Hamilton), Cristina Raines (Mary), Bert Remsen (Star), Lily Tomlin (Linnea Reese), Gwen Welles (Sueleen Gay), Keenan Wynn (Mr. Green), and Thomas Hal Phillips (Hal Phillip Walker) Directed by Robert Altman

Review:
Nashville is quite an experience, that much is for sure. It takes place over the course of five days, and yet it still manages to have one of the biggest assemblages of cast that work together to make for such an interesting movie of expression. There is no real main character, nor is there ever a moment where the film loses balance over what it wants to be: a film with people as diverse in nature and as interesting as the city it sets itself in. Even some of the settings (such as the Grand Ole Opry and the Parthenon in Nashville that is used for the climax) seem to reach out as their own character, with their own kind of blemishes just like these characters. For me, my favorites in the film were not so much because of likable they were, but because of how interesting they managed to be, with Beatty, Blakley, Chaplin, Gibson, and Tomlin being the big standouts who really have their own noticeable traits and flaws that one can see in themselves or others. The scene where Tomlin and Beatty are with their (deaf) children is especially telling in making these characters significant with a good degree of subtlety. The characters don't veer too much into cliches in part because they seem so real and seem so authentic to the vision of the film.

Even minor characters (like Welles or Black) are ones that we can still relate to, even if they aren't as high up on the success trail. Goldblum (in a voiceless but constant role) is also pretty memorable, in part because of the tricycle he rides throughout the film. DoQui and Welles certainly make a good pair together in the time they share together on screen. Phillips (and the dialogue that his voice is heard from for a good part of the film) is good in conveying the reach of his character without having to show him. There are so many scenes with their own range of emotion and feeling, where even a scene where Chaplin is talking poetic about buses in a junkyard is great. The film has a great deal of quality music (all done live, and by the actors themselves), all of the songs working intricately with the scene it goes with, such as with "I'm Easy"a key standout, sung by Keith Carradine, who carries the song with the right sense of tension and emotion (fun fact: this song won the Oscar for Best Original Song that year). The film doesn't try to resolve the plot threads in a concise manner, letting it up to the viewer to see where the path of these characters go from there, especially with a climax that is great in its surprise and its final beat with the last song ("It Don't Worry Me"). Nashville is a movie that does not try to bait and switch the realities of the time it was made in, and its impact can still be felt and related to over four decades after its release.

I hope you enjoyed this review, the 900th review done since this show began 2,234 days (over six years) ago. It is obvious (to me anyway) that Movie Night has progressed significantly in terms of quality and the kind of film that gets a shot at being covered. Though the show has gone on its own kind of pace, I hope that Movie Night continues to evolve in a positive way and that you all continue to enjoy this, even if in a small way. This is still a good hobby of mine, but it is also an excellent hobby to do every so often. Thank you all.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.