Vampire in Brooklyn.

Review #2455: Vampire in Brooklyn.

Cast: 

Eddie Murphy (Maximillian / Preacher Pauly / Guido), Angela Bassett (Detective Rita Veder), Allen Payne (Detective Justice), Kadeem Hardison (Julius Jones), John Witherspoon (Silas Green), Zakes Mokae (Dr. Zeko), Joanna Cassidy (Captain Dewey), W. Earl Brown (Police Officer), and Simbi Khali (Nikki) Directed by Wes Craven (#474 - A Nightmare on Elm Street, #558 - Scream, #633 - Red Eye, #939 - Swamp Thing, #1156 - Wes Craven's New Nightmare, #2135 - The Last House on the Left, #2306 - The Hills Have Eyes)

Review: 

"I don't think it's so unusual. Horror is very close to humor. The thing is I wanted the humor in `Vampire in Brooklyn' to come from the story - from the plot, not from Eddie. I wanted Eddie to be essentially a serious character. What I didn't want was just a black version of `Love at First Bite.' I didn't think `Love at First Bite' was very funny. I didn't want the comedy to be nearly that broad. Maybe my sense of humor is a little dry, or subtle, or whatever, but people seem to get it. I kept encouraging Eddie to play it straight.''

On October 27, 1995, a strange curiosity came into theaters: a Wes Craven movie with Eddie Murphy as the star. The story goes that Eddie Murphy was looking for something to just end his contract with Paramount Pictures and he apparently landed on a script that had been written by his brother Charlie alongside Vernon Lynch. Michael Lucker and Chris Parker were called to work on the script (ironically, they had written an Old West script that had intrigued Murphy but not Paramount). Hired to pitch it to Craven before pitching it to Paramount Pictures and then Murphy, they successfully got it greenlit in a matter of weeks. In an interview about the making of the film, Parker stated that the studio, in the first meeting about the movie, told them they wanted the movie to be funny but that Murphy didn't want to be funny and therefore they had to "trick him into being funny", while Lucker speculated that Craven had a tough time getting Murphy to be serious rather than falling back on doing jokes. The studio apparently cut the budget of the film during shooting to where they could not film the intended action scene for the climax. Amidst a production that its shares of troubles* (some from its star), the movie was only a mild success with audiences at the time, only just making double of its reported $14 million budget.* In 2011, Murphy (who at one point labeled the movie as a transitional one in his career) tried to lay blame on the sight of him with long-haired wig (as designed by makeup artist Toy Van Lierop) that was used in the film and reflected that he had to do something to get to do The Nutty Professor (1996). and later jokingly wondered if there was even an "Appreciation Club" for the film. For his part, Craven found it to be an "interesting experience" despite obvious difficulties and the limited potential that came from script/production challenges; Craven bounced back with his next film as a director with Scream (1996).

I will admit that Vampire in Brooklyn had been a longshot candidate for featuring in the past few years, but the chance to talk about a movie that is now three decades old did sound entertaining. And you know what? I liked this movie. Actually, I liked this misfit type of comedy-horror quite a bit, mainly because there is an odd frenzy to how the movie maneuvers itself that is off-putting yet always involving. Horror movies sometimes get a bum rap for being a bit too vicious and comedies sometimes get the "too low" rap, so it is a bit hard to really win with a horror comedy that has some chuckles to go along with vicious little moments that probably play to the cliches you see from certain vampire movies, which I should've seen coming from the name dropping of Blacula (1972). It starts out with a mysterious boat entering a port with seemingly nobody present, for one. The movie might seem confused for those who assume it will go straight horror or, well, comedy - a riff is fine by me (admittedly, it probably is a bit odd that one needs to get the girl before the full moon as a supposed last of his kind because I assumed you could just convert anyone to a vampire, although I guess maybe he's in the killing business instead anyway). It doesn't even take long for our title character to play puns with literally ripping a person's heart out because why not. The setup to eventually getting Murphy and Bassett in the same place just amuses me mostly because (intentionally or not), the vampire picked one of the worst folks to employ as a ghoul buddy, one who decides to resort to using a mannequin hand by the halfway point. I fail to see the problem with Murphy's hair. Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) was the far more egregious one, mainly because I still think about that stupid beehive thing from time to time. I just see a cone-shape of hair, focus back to Murphy and move on, to be honest. Besides, the vampire effects utilized from time to time are pretty fascinating to eventually see play out (after the movie shows the various vampire habits, ranging from the wolf thing in the intro to...renovating messy rooms). And then of course there is Murphy and Bassett, who each do pretty well with what they interpret the film to be. Murphy might have had a bit of trepidation of what he really wanted to do with this film, as evidenced by a movie that has him do an opening narration to go along with playing multiple characters (for separate gags). Love it or hate it, you basically get a compromise that has peaks and valleys of humor with some interest in playing a quality villain that I like just fine. 

Bassett holds her own with the clash that arises in oneself being challenged in who they really are beyond what the flesh shows that makes for compelling vulnerability beyond just having her be an object to be moved around. Her parts of the film are basically not too far off from what you might see in a gaslighting thriller, and she makes that count for something, arguably. Hardison and his rapid decay as the toadie fit for the streets is pretty funny in what you can show for a suck-up not too far off from old Renfield, and Witherspoon pops in occasionally to pair off for coarse amusement. Payne makes a fine ordinary performance. In general, I took the movie as just having fun playing with the audience about where it really wants to go in one trying to escape the fate of a doomed race vs having situations as ridiculous as impersonating an Italian to rob a place only to shoot down a cat. I don't even hate the climax, mainly because sure, let's end it in an apartment rather than going all out on a bridge or a church like seemingly any other vampire movie just to really curve things to an offbeat angle. I particularly like the ending, in which you can interpret as playfully saying that the more things change, the more they stay the same, even for creatures of the night. As a whole, Vampire in Brooklyn is a delightfully strange little movie, managing to evoke a sense of joy in its macabre aspects that I thought was a neat ride.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*Of sadder note is the loss of stuntwoman Sonja Davis, who suffered a horrific accident in November 1994 that saw her die from her injuries during a stunt.

*For reference, more people on opening weekend went to see Powder [1995], a movie made by an actual convicted child sex offender, than Vampire in Brooklyn. 

Not to editorialize, but the Ineligible List includes Jeepers Creepers 1-3 because a pedophile directed those movies.

Redux: A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984).

Redux #474: A Nightmare on Elm Street.

Cast: 

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

Review: 

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

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

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

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

The Hills Have Eyes (1977).

Review #2306: The Hills Have Eyes (1977).

Cast: 

Martin Speer (Doug Wood), Susan Lanier (Brenda Carter), Robert Houston (Bobby Carter), Brenda Marinoff (Baby Katy Wood), Virginia Vincent (Ethel Carter), Dee Wallace (Lynne Wood), Russ Grieve (Big Bob Carter), Cordy Clark (Mama), Janus Blythe (Ruby), Michael Berryman (Pluto), James Whitworth (Papa Jupiter), Lance Gordon (Mars), Peter Locke (Mercury), and John Steadman (Fred) Written and Directed by Wes Craven (#474 - A Nightmare on Elm Street, #558 - Scream, #633 - Red Eye, #939 - Swamp Thing, #1156 - Wes Craven's New Nightmare, #2135 - The Last House on the Left)

Review: 

"It soon became clear that I wasn't going to do anything else unless it was scary."

Sure, sometimes you just get pegged into a corner. Wes Craven was just looking to find a film to direct after the release of The Last House on the Left (1972), which generated controversy and shock from the people (read: a few losers among the bunch) you would expect. He tried writing scripts with Sean S. Cunningham (with decidedly non-horror tones), but they couldn't attract financial funding. Even trying to do a take on the "Hansel and Gretel" fairy tale didn't go for much. Craven took the advice of his friend Peter Locke to go out to the deserts in Nevada and just go make a film, particularly since Locke was interested to do an exploitation film. In trying to not just do another House of the Left, Craven took inspiration from the legend of Sawney Bean, who apparently was the head of a large clan in 16th century Scotland that murdered and ate over a thousand people in a quarter-century that eventually saw them captured and executed. Films such as The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (as directed by Tobe Hooper three years prior) and The Grapes of Wrath (1940) also have been stated to have played influence on this film (Craven once stated that his original script was to take place in the fall of 1984). After the film was released (to considerable success), Craven next went into television with Stranger in Our House (1978) before his next feature in Deadly Blessing (1981). In 1985, a sequel was made on the cheap with The Hills Have Eyes Part II by Craven (featuring Berryman and Blythe returning) that basically died in limited theaters that he later dis-owned. The 1995 HBO film Mind Ripper was apparently written originally with the idea to be a third Hills film (as co-written by Craven's son Jonathan) before that was changed prior to production, which was produced by the Cravens. A remake of the film was done in 2006 that saw Craven serve as a co-producer before it was followed by a sequel that saw it written by the Cravens.

Admittedly, the experience of the film probably does depend on when you see it. Craven also served as editor on this film (much like his previous film) and he clearly had an intent in mind with horror on the frontier. There is a rage that comes out in what you see from the two families in the film that aren't exactly as different as one might like to think about (one is a cannibal, but sure). Whitworth and Berryman (who actually was born with a condition where he has no sweat glands) probably stand out among the cannibals when it comes to unnerving presence that unsettles you from time to time, possibly because stumbling onto terror (one that can't be reasoned with in "normal timing") that could get you and just leave you there in the middle of nowhere is an unsettling one to consider. The effectiveness of the other side is in watching their degradation in terms of adjustment from the cheery family nature to abject terror (probably around the moment where one of them is crucified) in the 89-minute runtime is handled with commitment by the actors, mostly with Speer (incidentally, Wallace would be the one to get plenty more horror work in the next few years, while Houston became an Academy Award-winning documentarian). Consider Grieve in an early scene talking about his former job in such a "particular" way for a former cop about people. It is a fairly creepy movie that moves along with its abject creeping nature with worthwhile timing that hangs on every little weird note possible. The plight of survival is a horrific one when civilization isn't so easy to find out there and violence isn't just on the sidelines to hear about but instead is in your face. The ending (the true one, not the alternative one that ends with an epilogue of Ruby and the others) is a stark one worth highlighting when it comes to the final progression of revenge in savagery that lets it coat over the audience in its abruptness. As a whole, it is a smidge better than his first effort as a filmmaker in terms of execution with its visceral power for atmospheric entertainment. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars

Next up: The Curse of the Werewolf

The Last House on the Left (1972).

Review #2135: The Last House on the Left.

Cast: 

Sandra Peabody (Mari Collingwood), Lucy Grantham (Phyllis Stone), David A. Hess (Krug Stillo), Fred Lincoln (Fred 'Weasel' Podowski), Jeramie Rain (Sadie), Marc Sheffler (Junior Stillo), Eleanor Shaw (Estelle Collingwood), Richard Towers (Dr. John Collingwood), Marshall Anker (Sheriff), and Martin Kove (Deputy Harry) Written and Directed by Wes Craven (#474 - A Nightmare on Elm Street, #558 - Scream, #633 - Red Eye, #939 - Swamp Thing, #1156 - Wes Craven's New Nightmare)

Review: 

"We were seeing Buñuel and Fellini and Truffaut and all of these guys who were making these imaginative, wonderful films, and that’s where I fell in love with it. And it was just a matter of a certain point, my department chairman saying “Stop goofing around with cameras in student-film class. I want you to either get your Ph.D. or you’re fired.” And I quit on the spot. Finished out my term, but that’s when I started going to New York to get into films. And I was kind of clueless about that kind of horror film. I just fell in love with film itself. I think all that shows in the original Last House." - Wes Craven

Sometimes I think people are just a bit ridiculous when it comes to reacting to violence shown on screen. But hey, what do I know, I've never been influenced by a film when it comes to committing violence, so here we are. It's weird to consider this film as a starting point for two horror film people. Sean S. Cunningham had been born in New York City but raised in Connecticut before working in theater and documentary companies before being a director. He had actually started his directorial career with The Art of Marriage (1970), an "educational" type of nudie film. The money he made from that led to the sex mockumentary with Marilyn Chambers as star in Together (1971), which attracted the interest of Wes Craven. Born in Cleveland to a strict Baptist family, he had made his first short films after studying in college for philosophy and psychology (he even was a professor for a brief time). Apparently, he was involved in the X-rated world of filmmaking. At any rate, he was hired by Cunningham to serve as assistant editor while helping with the dailies from the reshoots on this film. The resulting success led to an offer to do another film to the company if they wrote them a check, which led to this. Craven would serve as writer, editor, and director while Cunningham would produce (his wife did the costume design). Craven based his film (made for roughly $90,000) on Ingmar Bergman's The Virgin Spring (1960) while expecting it to only have appeal for the group of theater owners in Boston that the film was sold for, which apparently went from ideas of being a "hardcore" film to something more in horror. A mix of "guerrilla-style" shots came with stuff shot in New York City, Long Island, and Westport, Connecticut alongside effects that had to be done with condoms and sand. There were a handful of titles thought of before the one they went with: "Sex Crime of the Century", "Night of Vengeance", "Grim Company", and "Krug and Company". Somehow, the one they used seems better. There was never a sequel made despite ideas to, but a handful of castmates such as Peabody and Lincoln returned with Cunningham for the sexploitation comedy Case of the Full Moon Murders (1973). In 2009, Craven and Cunnigham served as producers on a remake of The Last House on the Left.

There were various edits made to the point that a separate editing room had to be set up by Craven and company to repair prints that were cut out by people. Craven had to wait five years to direct his next feature with The Hills Have Eyes (1977) while stating that there was a feeling over the years of "a definite progression or arc from feeling guilty about what I had done" with this one. Peabody dominates our focus for a time as the lead in a way not generally seen when you consider her last scene. She did not have a positive time making the film, probably because in addition to a lack of confidence, one of the killer characters was being played a method actor, and at one point to help with getting the right sort of "level of desperation", an actor put her right by a cliff and suggested to her face to throw her off if she messed up the take. Needless to say, her fear is one shared by the person watching it, because I can picture that fear of being in the wrong place for the worst time all over her face. Hess plays the lead killer role along with contributing to the music (with some singing also done by Steve Chapin) that is a mix of folk rock and bluegrass. I actually think the music works to the film's advantage in terms of strange unsettlement, since we are talking about a movie that doesn't go the usual way in spooky scares. He also proves a good reason for why he would be present in a handful adversarial roles over the years as a chilling threat. The semi-attempt at documentary feel can only go so far, because the attempts at playing with us by having scenes shot with comic relief (such as say, two cops that try to make their way at one point by getting on a van with an overload of chickens) only work to the cheapest of imitations. Maybe that's the point, only the violent scenes carry some sort of attention to us, particularly when the climax operates on the idea that even the most normal standing of folks will go to extremes when pushed. I especially find the sequence of the killer group finding their way to the parents' place while presenting as salesman and lounging around the bed of the woman they just killed as particularly unsettling. Lincoln and his writhing display gets the best result possible: being told to follow orders even when it means death. Shaw and Towers make a suitbalr parential duo going from staid to horrific in a flash (if someone tells you to tie them up and unzip, well, it doesn't leave much to the imagination of how this might have started as a skin flick first). Of course, the scene where a victim is told to pee themselves is also infused in terror, but again, your milage will vary on how effective the film is regardless of its crude filming and execution for 84 minutes. As a whole, this is the kind of film that will prove one's mettle in viewing horror films for what they are when it comes to violence because, well, some people respond to this film for what it is better than others. I'm inclined to call it horrifically good.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Halloween The Week After, Year Five continues with The Blob 1988 remake.

Wes Craven's New Nightmare.

Review #1156: Wes Craven's New Nightmare.

Cast: 
Heather Langenkamp (Herself / Nancy Thompson), Robert Englund (Himself / Freddy Krueger), Miko Hughes (Dylan Porter), John Saxon (Himself / Lt. Donald Thompson), Tracy Middendorf (Julie), David Newsom (Chase Porter), Fran Bennett (Dr. Christine Heffner), Wes Craven (Himself), and Robert Shaye (Himself) Directed by Wes Craven (#474 - A Nightmare on Elm Street, #558 - Scream, #633 - Red Eye, and #939 - Swamp Thing)

Review: 
With A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984), the blurring of the lines between reality and dreams by director Wes Craven made for a great slasher film, but he had never intended for it to develop into a franchise. However, he contributed to the screenplay for the third film three years later along with Bruce Wagner, although it would have later re-writes by Frank Darabont and Chuck Russell. Craven's original concept for the film was to have Krueger come into the real word, haunting actors making a new sequel to the franchise. However, it was rejected by New Line Cinema at the time. Three years after the sixth (and worst) film was released, Craven was enlisted to write and direct a new film for the franchise, although it is not part of the continuity, since Krueger is portrayed as a fictional movie villain invading the real world with the intent for a more darker look for the character, signified with the coat and the glove, which I think looks pretty good. I found that the film's attempts to blur the lines between dreams and reality to be quite interesting, seeing the effect that making horror has on the people that helped make it. Langenkamp proves pretty interesting to follow along with again, adapting well to the gradual build of terror and creepy stuff with a good amount of charm to her - one particular favorite scene of mine is where she is on a talk show with a weird interviewer that ends with a nice little surprise - Freddy appearing and charming the audience. Englund does pretty well with the main force of terror once again without feeling tired or overdone that manages to make him feel a bit more powerful as a villain, and it is nice to see him playing himself (who comes off as a pretty nice guy) as well. 

Hughes does alright, invoking occasional bits of creepiness, although other times he comes off a bit silly - but what can you expect from a kid actor? It is nice to see Saxon and his warm presence once again for the parts he is on screen. The others in the cast are alright, with one interesting highlight being Craven himself, dumping some exposition in one scene onto the audience that feels rolled off right from a script, done pretty handily, actually. The use of footage from the first film is a bit clever, particularly since it has its own gradual payoff.  Aside from its opening sequence (which is pretty neat), the film gradually builds itself up with scares, not playing its hand until it wants to for its climax - with most of the cast helping to make the time worth it, with this being more than just a reunion film or being a "Greatest hits" kind of movie. At 112 minutes (which is still the longest run-time for a film in this franchise), it mostly justifies its length without having many unnecessary moments. The effects are done pretty well, with the climax saving the best for last in terms of creepy imagery that makes for quite the highlight. Another highlight is the sequence where Freddy dangles someone along a freeway, and the earthquake parts are also handled fine. The film works in invoking some scares while proving to be well-done entertainment that justifies its existence through some fine handiwork of terror that stands out from the other films with its own style.

I hope you folks enjoyed Halloween and the reviews that came for this month of October. There will be a few more horror films that will creep into November (yes, there managed to be a few films and reviews that couldn't be watched or written in time for a month with 19 reviews) which I hope you will enjoy as well. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Swamp Thing.

Review #939: Swamp Thing.

Cast:
Ray Wise (Alec Holland), Adrienne Barbeau (Alice Cable), Louis Jourdan (Anton Arcane), Dick Durock (Swamp Thing), David Hess (Ferret), Nicholas Worth (Bruno), Don Knight (Harry Ritter), Al Ruban (Charlie), Ben Bates (Arcane Monster), Nannette Brown (Dr. Linda Holland), Reggie Batts (Jude), and Mimi Craven (Arcane's Secretary) Directed by Wes Craven (#474 - A Nightmare on Elm Street, #558 - Scream, and #633 - Red Eye)

Review:
With all of the superhero/comic book movies that have come out in the past decade (and the ones that will come in the next few years), it is a bit refreshing if not interesting to see one from a different time and what better than an 80s flick? Based off the DC Comics character of the same name, Swamp Thing is a more grounded kind of hero movie, feeling like a mix of monster and horror movies that make for a serviceable kind of film. Wise does well in the time he has on screen, making his character fairly relatable prior to his transformation. Barbeau is the one we see more of throughout the film (the eponymous hero takes a while to show up, naturally), and she pulls off a fine performance; her scenes with Swamp Thing are also enjoyable (one of the best parts is him answering her question if he is hurt: "Only when I laugh", with him soon laughing). Jourdan is a fair villain, being a bit overblown in his genius without being an over-the-top foe. His henchmen aren't too noteworthy, though Worth has an amusing scene with the two main leads after they all escape. Batts (in his only film role to date) does a capable job in a comic relief role. The film does have its moments of amusement, but it never veers towards outright slapstick, managing to keep a good balance while not being overtly campy. Craven does a fine job directing, handling the horror and sci-fi pretty well. The action scenes are enjoyable, and the suit for Swamp Thing looks pretty decent. The film also has a nice look to it as well (filmed in South Carolina); the swamp is fairly good to look at, mainly because the movie doesn't have a blurred effect to it (in other words, the special effects and the sets don't blur into each other). Though the movie lasts just 91 minutes, it certainly runs at an efficient pace, keeping itself going quite well. It isn't a great superhero flick, but it is a capable kind of movie worth considering.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Red Eye.

Review #633: Red Eye.

Cast
Rachel McAdams (Lisa Reisert), Cillian Murphy (Jackson Rippner), Brian Cox (Joe Reisert), Jayma Mays (Cynthia), and Jack Scalia (Charles Keefe) Directed by Wes Craven (#474 - A Nightmare on Elm Street and #558 - Scream)

Review
What we have here is a simple premise with a simple setting with a limited amount of cast members that manages to be a pretty good thriller. Murphy makes for a cold but effective villain, he looks the part and he certainly does a good job in being the villain without overacting it up too much, he's calm, but he is at least imposing and that helps, and his interactions with McAdams start nicely but slowly get more chilling. Speaking of that, the small cast do interact fine with each other, it's always nice to see Brian Cox, even in a supporting role, he doesn't have much to do, but still. The movie runs pretty short (85 minutes), which I guess makes it easily accessible to watch, the movie goes pretty quickly, but it is at least entertaining, and the action is passable. The movie relies on suspense and while it may not be a great thriller, it at least a competent one, and it's a good way to spend a hour and a half, and you take my word for it. Probably.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Scream.

Review #558: Scream.

Cast

Neve Campbell (Sidney Prescott), David Arquette (Dewey Riley), Courteney Cox (Gale Weathers), Matthew Lillard (Stuart), Skeet Ulrich (Billy), Rose McGowan (Tatum), Jamie Kennedy (Randy), Henry Winkler (Himbry), Roger Jackson (Phone Voice), and Drew Barrymore (Casey Becker) Directed by Wes Craven (#474 - A Nightmare on Elm Street)

Review

Scream essentially gave new life to the horror genre, with a self aware nature and much success that would lead to three sequels. But enough about the history, let's get to the film itself. The actors are all fun to watch (my favorite to watch is Henry Winkler, who while having only a small cameo, manages to make me laugh. There's a scene where Winkler's character is playing with a Ghostface mask he confiscated, acting like the killer, silly faces and all, which is pretty amusing to me), and Neve Campbell certainly does a great job, especially at the end. Drew Barrymore (who I know for co-hosting TCM's The Essentials, which she does a good job co-hosting, BTW.) may be just an extended cameo, but her scene (the opening scene, rather) is a really memorable scene because it's more than just the intro to a horror film. I like how the movie ends, it's kind of clever and I like how the motive isn't precisely revealed, it leaves you guessing (Or you could just go onto IMDb forums and find answers for yourself, but that's another story), and Craven does an excellent job directing (Especially the horror, which is pretty good, not overblown in blood, a bit subtle), this is a good movie to watch.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.