The Funhouse.

Review #2606: The Funhouse.

Cast: 

Elizabeth Berridge (Amy Harper), Cooper Huckabee (Buzz), Largo Woodruff (Liz Duncan), Miles Chapin (Richie), Kevin Conway (Freak Show Barker / Strip Show Barker / Conrad Straker, The Funhouse Barker), Wayne Doba (Gunther Twibunt, The Monster), Sylvia Miles (Madame Zena), William Finley (Marco The Magnificent), Shawn Carson (Joey Harper), Rebuka Hoye (Strip Show Dancer), Jack McDermott (Mr. Paul Harper), and Jeanne Austin (Mrs. Ellen Harper) Directed by Tobe Hooper (#348 - Poltergeist, #1297 - The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, #1909 - The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, #2134 - Lifeforce, #2281 - Eaten Alive)

Review:

It has been a while since Tobe Hooper had made a movie for theaters, if you remember. The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) was followed up by Eaten Alive (1976). Then there was the miniseries adaptation of Salem's Lot that came out on CBS in 1979 (of course, internationally there was an alternate, much shorter cut). At any rate, Larry Block had a script about a carnival and teenagers, and Hooper was surely interested in doing something that would remind him of one of his favorite movies with Nightmare Alley (1947), so it was basically a match made in heaven. Independently financed and shot in Miami (the setting was Iowa, but who is noticing), the film was subsequently acquired by Universal Studios for distribution. that saw a select group of rides and attractions from a defunct carnival while the oddball animals and actual carnies came from, well, travelling carnivals. Rick Baker was responsible for the effects of the monster that basically looks like an albino, complete with a mime playing the character. It was a mild success with audiences, and Hooper was soon approached by producer Steven Spielberg to direct Poltergeist (1982), which was an even bigger hit*. As noted by Hooper in a making-of video in later years, he was quite proud of the final result with The Funhouse (if you've read Quentin Tarantino's Cinema Speculation, he also comes to that conclusion)*.

I suppose there is something unnerving that can come from the carnival or stock show. Sure, I wouldn't be the first to say it, mainly because I generally didn't have that many spooky moments looking at the rides or people operating it. At any rate. I can say that this was a pretty fun movie anyway because of the style and tension that is played here for a slowly-developed slasher (when the body count is over three, yea, that sounds about right). For about half of the 96-minute runtime, one is focused on the atmosphere that slowly envelops our main group of four (with one stowaway) before the mayhem starts, but I can see where the likability of the film hinges a bit on how much you can take from such rascal behavior (with exactly one person playing a teen that actually was in their teens with Berridge); this is the type of movie that freely cribs from both Psycho [1960] and Halloween [1978] in its intro scene for the sake of doing so (Hooper was quoted as saying it was there to let people know quickly they were watching a "genre picture" and make the film "a little safe"). But the real showstopper is the "funhouse" itself with how intimidating it all ends up feeling with its wide spaces and traps that doesn't have to border completely on reality because of the delight in playing in illusions (complete with some stellar timing with a crane). Berridge has plenty to try and carry with such an ordinary role that goes through basically a different world with the carnies as opposed to the tense "real world" with her parents (with a brother that thinks shower terrorizing is funny) and a would-be lover and his dumbass friends* (to say nothing of the goofy youth that basically is in the movie to suggest some sort of lesson of being a sneaky dweeb, at least I suppose so when all he does is just get caught and released). I'd say she does about as well as possible with vulnerability as the old-masked killer, wearing a Frankenstein mask, gives way to the dysfunctional horror of man and his deformed would-be "man" of the present.  Additionally, as basically the ringleader of the rascals, Chapin makes for a worthy enough person to get snatched by the claws of "easiest mark to get killed in a slasher", while Conway and his numerous roles of the seedy barkers does end up being compelling to roll things along in gawking at animals, women, whatever seems nasty enough for a movie like this to show. It stalks terror in being stuck in a place rather than, say, excess amount of gore. Average or not, it is a pretty entertaining movie to actually experience in the sights and sounds of slowly being enclosed in a space one shouldn't step in and being left at the hands of one's own ingenuity and in some ways, luck to maybe leave with some of their mental state or body intact. In that sense, Hooper made a delightfully nasty little movie worth a look into.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*Totally no controversies at all about it, no invented stories about it or people still perpetuating stupid conspiracies cough cough Joseph Khan is a hack, cough cough.

*Oddly enough, Hooper liked the subsequent Dean Koontz novelization of the movie that was quite substantial in its plot.

*When I used to have consistent friends and went to the stockshow one time, I can say we never thought about messing with the workers or trying to snatch the funds, so there's that.  

Phantom of the Paradise.

Review #2304: Phantom of the Paradise.

Cast: 

Paul Williams (Swan / singing voice of the Phantom), William Finley (Winslow Leach / the Phantom), George Memmoli (Arnold Philbin), Gerrit Graham (Beef; Raymond Louis Kennedy as singing voice), Jessica Harper (Phoenix), Mary Margaret Amato (Swan's groupie), Janis Eve Lynn (a groupie), Cheryl Smith (a groupie), with Archie Hahn, Jeffrey Comanor & Harold Oblong (the Juicy Fruits / the Beach Bums / the Undeads), and Rod Serling (the introductory voice) Written and Directed by Brian De Palma (#801 - Mission: Impossible, #1230 - Carrie, #1471 - Scarface, #2139 - Sisters)

Review: 

"I've always thought rock and horror were very close stylistically. I felt I had a solution in combining two separate audiences. Obviously, I didn't."

In 1974, when Halloween night became November morning, a movie came out with elements borrowed from a variety of literary sources from Gaston Leroux's The Phantom of the Opera to Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Gray to the famed Faust legend that was directed by Brian De Palma. You might remember that he had just scored a pretty decent hit with Sisters (1972), his sixth feature film but first with considerable attention. Interestingly, the root for making the film was De Palma hearing a Beatles song in an elevator played as "muzak" to go along with experiences trying to pitch material to indifferent executives and an idea from his friends (Mark Stone and John Weiser) about a "Phantom of the Fillmore"; De Palma wrote the film, although apparently Louisa Rose (his co-writer for the aforementioned Sisters film contributed, but the original screenplay just lists De Palma). Apparently, it was a chance meeting of De Palma with Williams at A&M Records while the former was trying to raise money for the film that led to the casting seen in the film because of his particular "look". This was the first major role for Paul Williams, who previously appeared in minor roles such as Battle for the Planet of the Apes (1973) while becoming a noted professional songwriter, most notably writing the lyrics to songs such as "We've Only Just Begun" to go along with being a regular on the TV circuit. The movie was independently financed (with funding from real estate guy Gustave Berne, who actually was a co-producer on Theatre of Blood), but it found a place at 20th Century Fox because of producer Edward Pressman, who sold the film to the one who happened to bid the highest. The movie was a flop at the time of release, even with such promising ideas from Fox to have costume parties held at its big-city premieres (it was apparently on Halloween night, after all; Pressman has stated that the promotions focused more on the music and specifically Williams were ineffective for the film and he later did his own promotion of the film as "horror phantasy"). However, viewers in Winnipeg (Manitoba, Canada), they apparently loved it enough for the movie to be screened for several weeks (okay, Paris apparently was cool with the film, but Movie Night loves the city of Winnipeg far more than the country of France; besides, one came up with "Phantompalooza"). Well, there was one considerable influence the film had: music duo Daft Punk apparently cited the film as their foundation point as a favorite of theirs. The next film for De Palma would be Obsession (1976), which would end up as a decent hit before he made some film about teenage revenge.

Musical, comedy, horror, it's a delight depending on what genre you're looking for (for those questioning its place in the latter category, call it the horrors of selling one's soul and get back to me). If you appreciate films like The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975; emphasis on "you", because I sure didn't), it surely will have an electrifying effect for its viewer in enjoyable glam-like rock and acid-tongue humor for a particular industry that happens to have a game cast. De Palma really believed even in 1969 (as per production note research) that rock and horror were merging with the growing success of the Rolling Stones and Alice Cooper and thus a film should be done in the rock world beyond concert films, and I think I see where he was going with that vision for a movie that is delirious and rapid in execution. It is a broad movie where you feel every beat and every style; one critic called it an "elaborate disaster", and I fail to see how that was meant to be criticism; it's a movie about people sealing deals in blood, what do you expect?. True to form, Williams really does pull off the standout performance as both composer and actor for this film, managing to be conniving in the great double-act that can be both soul-sucking and darkly amusing. Finlay makes for a worthwhile tragic figure, robbed of his soul and his livelihood to the point where he is figuratively bound to a person with devastating results. Graham provides great amusement in his interpretation of glam rock (he may not get to provide his own vocals, but he sure moved like he did them) in great theatricality to go along with support from Memmoli and a young Harper. The film is electrifying and actually pretty funny in its look on the music industry and the exploitative horrors that come with art that is prey to big business (note the changing band played by the same people that starts and close the film), and that includes the women that are seen exploited in certain ways (take note of the auditions) as well. It is a demented and worthwhile film that may very well become even more interesting to look upon in rewatches, which is quite the compliment for the true mix of horror-comedy-musical you would hope for anytime and anywhere.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Now then, we enter a tradition that I enjoy making up so November can start off well, with the last five Novembers seeing: Dracula [1979] (2019), Revenge of the Creature (Part II, 2020), Halloween Kills (Part 3, 2021) The Cat and the Canary (4.0, 2022), and Lifeforce (Year Five, 2023). 

For Halloween: The Week After VI, let's go with Madhouse tomorrow night.

Eaten Alive.

Review #2281: Eaten Alive.

Cast: 

Neville Brand (Judd), Mel Ferrer (Harvey Wood), Carolyn Jones (Miss Hattie), Marilyn Burns (Faye), William Finley (Roy), Stuart Whitman (Sheriff Martin), Roberta Collins (Clara Wood), Kyle Richards (Angie), Robert Englund (Buck), Janus Blythe (Lynette), and Crystin Sinclaire (Libby Wood) Directed by Tobe Hooper (#348 - Poltergeist, #1297 - The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, #1909 - The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, #2134 - Lifeforce)

Review: 

"I like the unknown and strange, bizarre things. It's really weird because I've had people ask me about making these films. Do they scare you when you're making them? No, it's not at all scary. When you shoot these things and you see that they work, you're laughing, and it becomes a comedy to you."

It sure is weird to get a runaway classic on your second try as a director. In 1974, Tobe Hooper and Kim Henkel wrote the screenplay to The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, which you already know would be Hooper's crowning achievement. However, less people might know of his next effort with this film, one that was written by Henkel, this time co-writing it with Alvin L. Fast and Mardi Rustam. The movie apparently took inspiration from the serial killer Joe Ball, who killed at least two people in the 1930s and had an alligator pit (he apparently didn't throw people in there, but "Alligator Man" was one nickname applied to him anyway) in his place in Texas. The film apparently has had several alternate titles (probably because Mars Productions didn't exactly make a killing on original release), such as "Death Trap", "Horror Hotel", and "Starlight Slaughter". Incidentally, Hooper grew up to a family that operated their own theater. Hooper had a few disagreements with producers (supposedly leaving the production before it finished), with the money that had come to do the film apparently only coming with the stipulation that he would do the film, which had a bit of handwringing in writing. However, he would keep busy in the next couple of years, directing a TV miniseries of Salem's Lot in 1979 before he got his first prominent studio film with The Funhouse (1981).

It's funny, if you make a hokey little movie with some commitment to gore or at least one energetic performance, you have my attention. Of course, this is a movie that decides to start itself off with a hooker rejecting the advances of a man trying to get behind for his services, so one has a feel that this is going to be a weird one. With a film filled with a key eccentric performance and a few sticking points of would-be and known names to go along with one strange set piece, you have the stage for a curious bit of low budget sleaze hokum. I actually kind of like this ridiculous movie. The whole film was shot on a sound stage at Raleigh Studios in Hollywood, complete with a large pool that doubled for the swamp. Hooper aimed for a "surrealistic, twilight world" with the hotel in terms of lighting, which is amusing to see play out for such a delightful exploitative film that would be right at home for people who liked, say, Two Thousand Maniacs! (1964), complete with little to really say about the characters beyond mayhem. Brand went through the gamut of acting as a heavy (Western or otherwise), tough-guy roles and the occasional lead for film and plenty of TV. Here he clearly was given the light to just go nuts and have fun, complete with getting to use a scythe at one point. He makes for a capable unstable monster worth following along with, a terror in his own square of squalor that seems to like his space and his gator. The movie isn't really that big on showing the alligator, showing it only for scenes involving, well, the body count, but I don't mind too much (others might be weirded out by one pet death, but, well....). You have your mix of actors of varying experience of familiarity like Burns (returning to work with Hooper in probably her second most known film role), Jones (in her penultimate film role), Ferrer (a career vet on the mend), and Englund and Richards (in the horror film before each became more well known, although Englund did work with Hooper twice more with Night Terrors [1993] and The Mangler [1995]). Burns probably comes out the best when it comes to reacting to terror, although there is something amusing about seeing Englund play a sleazeball with ease (Jones is more a cameo than anything). The 91-minute runtime might not be the easiest sit for everybody when it comes to weird and alluring sleaze, but there is something curious about the whole affair that keeps me going even when it just looks like a vehicle for death, mostly because that hotel set really is quite striking to get stuck looking into. As a whole, Hooper was a curious director that used his fascination with the strange and murky things to make a film that works for a specific kind of interested horror fan that goes in knowing Hooper was more than just a one-trick pony. In that sense, it might be for you.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

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.