The Company of Wolves.

Review #2613: The Company of Wolves.

Cast:

Sarah Patterson (Rosaleen), Angela Lansbury (Granny), David Warner (Father), Tusse Silberg (Mother), Micha Bergese (Huntsman), Brian Glover (Amorous Boy's father), Graham Crowden (Old Priest), Kathryn Pogson (Young Bride), Stephen Rea (Young Groom), Georgia Slowe (Alice, Girl Killed by Wolves), Susan Porrett (Amorous Boy's mother), Shane Johnstone (Amorous Boy), Dawn Archibald (Witch Woman), Richard Morant (Wealthy Groom), with Danielle Dax (Wolfgirl), Jim Carter (Second Husband), and Terence Stamp (The Devil) Directed by Neil Jordan.

Review: 

"In a normal film you have a story with different movements that program, develop, go a little bit off the trunk, come back, and end. In this film, the different movements of the plot are actually separate stories. You start with an introduction and then move into different stories that relate to the main theme, all building to the fairy tale that everybody knows. The opening element of the dreamer gave us the freedom to move from story to story."

I figured that with all of the ideas around for anthology horror movies, what about ones that happened to stray a different path? In 1979, there was a collection of short stories published called The Bloody Chamber that had been written by Angela Carter. Among the ten stories included "The Company of Wolves"'. These were stories in which Carter aimed to "extract the latent content from the traditional stories", as opposed to what others might call adult renditions of fairy tales (such as "Bluebeard", Beauty and the Beast, and in the case of Wolves, "Little Red Riding Hood". This was only the second movie for Neil Jordan, who had studied literature and history before becoming involved in student theatre and later television in his native Ireland. He met Carter at a writer's conference, and she wanted to do a screen version of one of her stories rather than, say, a 30-minute thing for a TV company. Jordan later stated that to him, the film is a "fairy tale" while challenging the notion that it had to belong to any category of horror, fantasy, or as a children's film. With shooting in England that dealt with heightened sense of reality in mind (per Jordan's ideas) from production designer Anton Furst to go against a limited budget, most of what was desired came across on screen, save for the ending, where they wanted akin to diving onto a floor rather than, well, what you get with wolves and screams. Chris Tucker (of The Elephant Man fame) was behind the effects behind the wolf transformation scenes (most of the wolves used were actually dyed dogs). Carter was involved in one further adaptation with The Magic Toyshop in 1987 for cinemas/television prior to her death in 1992 at the age of 51; both of her screenplays were included in the collection The Curious Room.

Oh sure, "fantasy-horror" is one thing, but having a structure akin to a Chinese box (one box fitting within the next) is fascinating enough here for at least one check within its 95 minute runtimee. So, what are those embedded stories? Well, they come around as someone dreams from their country house about being in an old village with a forest that revolve around a few tales of a young groom with a unibrow (yes, yes, "eyebrows that meet", granny could only know so much) that has a call of nature to see him go away for a time, another involves a unibrow man that encounters a dark-suited man in a car (with one neat cameo) with a potion to offer, another story offers a woman appearing at a wedding party to put wrong to right (devastating fun), and the last tale involves a she-wolf who gets shot and bandaged before going back into the night. And in the midst of that, you get to see some time with Lansbury playing a superstitious grandmother for a good chunk of time. It's a macabre tale that some will probably read with "Freud" on the mind (who among us sees wolves in a sensual matter? well, I don't say that, but...) while others like me have a chuckle at the tales provided in offbeat charm. Patterson accompanied a friend to an audition and wound up being cast. Her vulnerability in the face of development of growing up and looking at the world as one to actually be involved in beyond seeing things as either made of snips (and sails & puppy dog tails) or sugar (and spice & everything nice).  It isn't a movie for going along with the narrative in a straight line, but the horrors of growing up and seeing the world around you for what it really, madly, truly, deeply, looks like. You look at the movie and feel entrapped in a dream that is worth seeing all the way through for what comes in and out in reading the film besides the head-rolling, wolf-splashing time seen here. Horror, fantasy, fairy tale(s), it's a good time for the season.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*This is like when people discuss if Peeping Tom was actually a horror movie - stop lying to yourself! This is almost as annoying as those who don't like too much gore in their horror movies.

Interview with the Vampire.

Review #1141: Interview with the Vampire.

Cast: 
Tom Cruise (Lestat de Lioncourt), Brad Pitt (Louis de Pointe du Lac), Christian Slater (Daniel Molloy), Kirsten Dunst (Claudia), Antonio Banderas (Armand), Stephen Rea (Santiago), Domiziana Giordano (Madeleine), and Thandie Newton (Yvette) Directed by Neil Jordan.

Review: 
This film was adapted from the novel of the same name by Anne Rice, written in 1976 as her debut novel, which was a hit with audiences. Subsequently, this inspired more installments in what became known as The Vampire Chronicles (which would be used as this film's subtitle), of which is still being written by Rice. In any case, when it came time to make an adaptation of the book into a movie, Rice wrote the screenplay, although Jordan heavily re-wrote it (although Rice would be the only one who would receive credit for the film).

In any case, this is certainly a different kind of vampire film, one that likes to bask in Gothic horror but also bask in darkness and brooding characterizations in an attempt to stand out from the vampire films of yore - while having some violence and blood, naturally. While I can't quite hold this film up as any sort of great horror classic, I will say that it does have enough sense of entertainment and positive qualities to pass through some nagging elements. Undeniably, the cast is a key highlight. Cruise, who Rice had initially disliked for the lead role before viewing the film, manages to do a fine job with such a strange role. He shows a degree of animalism with such a compelling character without devolving into overbearing camp, although I did take amusement at his first big scene involving him carrying Pitt's character up in the air - which is quite the silly thing to describe. He's fun to be around with how weird he is whenever on screen. Pitt comes off alright with trying to balance both being the storyteller of his sad tale and being someone to follow with said tale. He broods along with the nature of being a vampire just fine, but I find that he words best when with Cruise than when it is just himself. There's just something about how they work well with each other that makes the first half a bit more interesting that the latter half. After all, this is a movie where all of the main characters in the tale told by Pitt are immortals who rely on blood to live, especially since Cruise and Pitt differ in the nature of how to get said blood. Dunst, appearing in only her fifth role in a film, is pretty adept at making such a strange role for a child actor to play work without wrecking the mood, especially since the role involves a 12-year old turned into a vampire. The family dynamic that the three share for a time does work alright for the most part, since the differences between how each treat the other stand out enough to work for drama. Slater does fine with what he's given, since he is only present for the interview parts in the beginning and end (with occasional bits in the middle) that doesn't distract at any part. Banderas shines for his time on screen, having a clear sense of charm. The other actors are okay for their time to shine. The movie certainly ends itself on a fair note to close out on, complete with a cover of "Sympathy for the Devil" by Guns N' Roses.

The film earns its pace of 122 minutes just enough, never having too many boring moments while having just enough high points of energy to carry itself amiably. It invites interest and keeps the audience satisfied just enough, whether with some blood or with some of its character moments. It generally has enough chilling moments that work over the ones that don't while never becoming too boring for comfort. The visual effects by Stan Winston and digital effects by Digital Domain are pretty well done, particularly with the vampire appearance, aided by stencilled blue veins by having the actors hang upside down for 30 minutes. Rice seemed to enjoy the film herself pretty well, noting her appreciation of numerous categories from its look to its acting performances, while citing minor quibbles (such as the fact the film was rated R rather than PG-13). For the most part, this is a movie that works just fine as entertainment in Gothic horror that is just compelling enough at the right points to make a solid little film for the night.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.