Kwaidan.

Review #1900: Kwaidan.

Cast: 

"The Black Hair" [Kurokami]: Michiyo Aratama (First Wife), Misako Watanabe (Second Wife), Rentarō Mikuni (Husband), Kenjiro Ishiyama (Father), and Ranko Akagi (Mother); "The Woman of the Snow" [Yuki-Onna]: Tatsuya Nakadai (Minokichi), Keiko Kishi (the Yuki-Onna), and Yūko Mochizuki (Minokichi's mother); "Hoichi the Earless" [Miminashi Hōichi no Hanashi]: Katsuo Nakamura (Hoichi), Tetsurō Tamba (Warrior), Takashi Shimura (Head priest), Yoichi Hayashi (Minamoto no Yoshitsune), Kazuo Kitamura (Taira no Tomomori), Yōsuke Kondō (Benkei); "In a Cup of Tea" [Chawan no naka]: Haruko Sugimura (Madame), Osamu Takizawa (Author / Narrator), Nakamura Ganjirō II (Publisher), Noboru Nakaya (Shikibu Heinai), Seiji Miyaguchi (Old man),Kei Satō (Ghost samurai) Directed by Masaki Kobayashi.

Review: 

"My main intention was to explore the juxtaposition between man's material nature and his spiritual nature, the realm of dream and aspiration. I wanted to create a drama which dealt directly with the spiritual importance of our lives. I also enjoyed conveying the sheer beauty of traditional Japan."

Admittedly, there aren't that many three-hour anthology films to go around. This seemed right just the right feature to do when it comes to talking about the 1960s and in talking about a new director as well. Masaki Kobayashi started his career a bit later than usual directors. He was 36 when he made his debut, having studied at Waseda University to study art before aspiring to work in film before being drafted by the Imperial Japanese Army in World War II. He returned from the war and worked as assistant director. His most noted features came because of his war experiences with The Human Condition trilogy (No Greater Love (1959), Road to Eternity (1959), A Soldier's Prayer (1961)). He directed twenty films in the span of 33 years before he died at the age of 80 in 1996. The book is based on Kwaidan: Stories and Studies of Strange Things, a 1904 book by Lafcadio Hearn that was a collection of several ghost stories that were based off either old Japanese texts or experiences lived by the author (of course, there also is a section to close out the book that includes insect study by the author, where he connects them to Chinese and Japanese beliefs). Hearn was born on a Greek island before he eventually was raised in Ireland through a series of parental abandonments; when living with his aunt as a teenager, he had an accident that gave him both poor vision and the loss of his eye. He moved to the United States at 19 (being told to have good luck with $5) and worked in the newspaper business in both Cincinnati and New Orleans before moving abroad to work as a correspondent in the French West Indies before he finally found a true home in Japan, where he lived out the last fourteen years of his life (his exploits as a writer led to a museum alongside preservation of his residence in Matsue). The film uses the same spelling of a term that is actually known as Kaidan, since the old term is actually an archaic spelling of the term. Incidentally, there were versions of the film release that cut down the film to either 160 minutes or two hours, notably by cutting "The Woman of the Snow" when it came to release it in America, although nowadays you can find releases with it intact. It was filmed in TohoScope by cinematographer Yoshio Miyajima, who had worked with Kobayashi on the aforementioned Condition trilogy among others, and Toru Takemitsu (a mostly self-taught composer with numerous noted works in his time) provides the musical score, which results in a soothing and eerie and atmospheric film.

Sure, Kobayashi may state that he made a drama, but this is a horror movie through and through, one that looks at how people approach spirituality where the dead seem more alive than the living. Sometimes, you have to understand folklore beyond just the literal meaning of the words The movie is quite colorful for one that is also pretty mournful in its telling of ghost stories that work out for varying quality of elegance. The first tale in "The Black Hair" (roughly 36 minutes) is a decent one to start things off with, albeit one that relies on its narrator a bit much when compared to the next two stories. "The Woman of the Snow" (32 minutes) might be the most diverting of the stories when it comes to refreshing climaxes.  It is the most soulful of the works, which all go at their own pace to dwell in the macabre without needing to be outright spooky. "Hoichi the Earless" (74 minutes long) is the longest of the stories and probably the most poetic to focus on with pictorial beauty when it shows a ballad of a battle. Sure, the title might give you a clue about the character to follow, but it still makes for a suitable story in haunting elegance, right down to its climax. "In a Cup of Tea" (25 minutes) is a riff on what happens if a ghost story is "unfinished", to varying results. It probably is the lesser of all the stories told, mostly because it tries to play it both ways with the climax along with being the shortest of the stories despite its interesting premise (drinking one's soul in tea) that will either fall as challengingly abrupt or just an okay story. As a whole, it is the handling of folklore with reverence by Kobayashi that makes it a fascinating movie for those who have the time to spend with it.

The actors, tasked with a movie that dwells in quiet patience, do pretty well for what is needed. The Yuki-Onna is a spirit with many interpretations over the years, and Kishi makes a valuable presence in the story with haunting grace. Mikuni makes a suitable cad to go against Aratama and Watanabe in the art of desperation. Nakamura does well in holding his ballad together as a blind seer with worthy calmness. There is plenty of key highlights to think about, whether that involves a quieting climax of despair for the end of the first and second stories (each with a key realization) or how the third story manages to stay together for so long in eerie mystery. Even the fourth story, one with a bit of awareness about itself in offbeat sensibility, is still interesting to see play out to the true conclusion reached in where the spirits can take a person. It is a soothing movie that makes time seem to run as a state of mind, where illusions and reality swirl on their own pattern until all that remains is oblivion. As a whole, it is a great curiosity piece for those who wish to seek something a bit different from the usual anthology, one with conviction in its spirituality that achieves most what it sets to do in storytelling that would make an intriguing pick for the horror season.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms.

Review #1899: The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms.

Cast: 

Paul Hubschmid (Professor Tom Nesbitt), Paula Raymond (Lee Hunter), Cecil Kellaway (Dr. Thurgood Elson), Kenneth Tobey (Colonel Jack Evans), Donald Woods (Captain Phil Jackson), Ross Elliott (George Ritchie), Steve Brodie (Sgt. Loomis), Jack Pennick (Jacob Bowman), Michael Fox (ER doctor), Lee Van Cleef (Corporal Jason Stone), and Frank Ferguson (Dr. Morton) Directed by Eugène Lourié.

Review: 

The creature feature is a fun one to think about in the Atomic Age, considering that you had films that ranged from ones attacking Tokyo to ones involving irradiated ants or octopuses. Sure, there were movies you might call "monster movies" beforehand such as The Lost World (1925) or King Kong (1933), but you have to consider how the dawn of nuclear paranoia with the 1950s made for a whole new element of creature terror, primarily as B-productions...and this one came in 1953, before Godzilla (1954) and others of its ilk.  The film is loosely based on the short story "The Fog Horn", written by Ray Bradbury (you may remember Bradbury as the writer of numerous short stories and novels such as Fahrenheit 451). That story involved a lighthouse with a horn that attracts the attention of a lone sea monster. The studio bought the rights to the story when the screenplay was in development, probably because of the lingering similarities between sea monster and creature from beneath the sea (besides, who wouldn't want to say they were based on a Bradbury work?). The screenplay was done by Fred Freiberger, Eugène Lourié, Louis Morheim, and Robert Smith. The career of its director is a bit fascinating. This was the debut of Lourie, who directed just three more films after this one: The Colossus of New York (1958), The Giant Behemoth (1959), and Gorgo (1961). The Russian-born Frenchman was first inspired by film when he saw his first cinema theater in 1911 as a six-year-old, and he even appeared as a bit player in films starting in 1919. By the 1930s, he would do work as an art director that spanned numerous directors such as Jean Renoir and Clint Eastwood. Of course, he noted later in life that he was typecast as a director of science fiction because of his work with this film (incidentally, he was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Visual Effects on Krakatoa, East of Java in 1969).

Incidentally, Bradbury was a long-time friend of Ray Harryhausen. The Los Angeles native had an interest in animation since seeing King Kong (1933) numerous times, and he would study at the School of Cinematic Arts at the University of Southern California to hone skills in arts and sculpture. He would get a chance to work with his mentor Willis O'Brien as a technician on effects with the Academy Award awardee Mighty Joe Young (1949). When it came time for Fathoms, Harryhausen would get his first chance to do a film with himself in charge that saw him pioneering "Dynamation". The process required split-screen, rear projection, multiple pieces of glass between camera and screen with paint to black out the part that are meant to be in front of the creature required to be seen before using one that blackens out the reverse of the first glass. This required less building of miniatures that were apparent for stop-motion that could have a bit more interaction between creatures and actors. In total, Harryhausen would use the process for fifteen films from 1953 to 1981 as one of the most distinct effects people of the last half-century.

For an 80-minute movie made for roughly $200,000 (as produced by former Monogram associates in Jack Dietz and Hal E. Chester that saw distribution by Warner Bros.), it was a clear-cut success with audiences. It is a fun movie in its construction that pulls off spectacle with careful patience that never sells out for simply being a mash movie with no substance to it. Any movie that takes a little bit of time to cover how a nuclear weapons test goes. Sure, the actors aren't exactly doing stand-out performances, but making sure to not look goofy in the face of what is meant to be refreshing entertainment is something to give credit to, particularly since a handful of the actors were part of other monster movies besides being usual veterans of the screen, such as Tobey or Elliott. Hubschmid makes a solid lead in trying to make others believe a monster lurks while Kellaway works his charm in the "let's capture it alive" type to go with a soothing Raymond. They keep the edges at a fairly rounded level to make the scenarios work, whether that involves sharpshooting isotopes or trying to make people believe a monster exists. The effects are dazzling and effective in the moments required in making a capable threat, one seen terrorizing streets and even a lighthouse and rollercoaster ride with believability. My favorite part is the idea that the people can shoot the creature, which works for them shooting a hole in it before they find that the blood coming out from it is getting people really sick. That's one interesting way to have a scary monster that moves on four legs, one that can snatch police officers and chomp them and also get you sick if someone tries shooting holes in it. With a smooth monster, it is no wonder how this movie worked so well with audiences, because it is a fair treat that fit its era like a glove, pulling off entertainment with resourceful craftmanship fit for everyone.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Cat People (1942).

Review #1898: Cat People.

Cast: 

Simone Simon (Irena Dubrovna), Kent Smith (Oliver Reed), Tom Conway (Dr. Louis Judd), Jane Randolph (Alice Moore), Jack Holt ('Commodore' C. R. Cooper), Steve Soldi (The Organ Grinder), and Alan Napier ('Doc' Carver) Directed by Jacques Tourneur (#998 - I Walked with a Zombie)

Review: 

Oh yes, there was plenty of horror schlock to go around in the 1930s and 1940s, but one cannot forget about the ones besides the studio fare of the era. In 1942, an era of B-movie horror at RKO Radio Pictures began reaching theaters, with Val Lewton being tasked to do features for the studio; he had been hired after previously serving as story editor on films for David O. Selznick. Granted, they were not the cheapest type of horror film of their time, because even the Poverty Row studios like Producers Releasing Corporation made horror films too, but Lewton's run of producing horror B-movies made a distinct mark on horror cinema. It all started with this film, with Lewton picking both the director (Jacques Tourneur) and writer (DeWitt Bodeen), and each contributed to the script treatment, which had cat-related literature as research, with wither Tourneur or Lewton responsible for the modern setting as opposed to a period piece. One other part of the film crew was Mark Robson, who served as editor before cultivating a career of directing films in his own right. The film, reusing sets from films such as The Magnificent Ambersons (1942), was made for roughly $141,000. The film was a fair success for RKO despite mild reviews, which led to a semi-sequel with The Curse of the Cat People (1944) that saw three of the main four actors from the previous film return while Lewton served as producer and contributed script details (attempts by him to not use that particular title failed), and it happened to be the debut feature for a future famous name in Robert Wise. A remake was done in 1982. Lewton would produce eleven films for RKO from 1942 to 1946 before the death of Charles Koerner (executive vice president who supported Lewton while also being known as the guy who fired Orson Welles from RKO) along with Lewton's ailing health led to him not having employment with RKO. Lewton did produce a few features afterwards, but he died in 1951 at the age of 46. Among the notable horror films that he did were the aforementioned Cat film alongside I Walked with a Zombie (1943) and Isle of the Dead (1945). Tourneur had started his directing career with films in his native France in 1931, but it was these films that rose him into eventual status at RKO in the 1940s before he added freelance work to his output that saw a variety of genres to go with horror, most notably with Night of the Demon (1957).

Eight decades have been kinder to the film, which was a moderate success with audiences while having a decent if not spectacular reaction from others (i.e. not as hyperbolic as Freaks). In fact, the reputation of the film has perhaps been a bit overstated depending on the perspective of who is evaluating it, which either rests on being a sophisticated classic or just a good B-movie. I think it is merely pretty good, not exactly outclassing the creature features such as with Universal of the time but instead going for something a bit different in creativity. At any rate, the power of imagination is what matters most for the output of the RKO run with Lewton and company. Tournier himself described the film as "very poor" (in terms of the script and story progression) and "very childish" while also not being happy with Simon's acting. At any rate, it is the examination of "the Other" that matters most, where it is not only a movie about someone who may or may not be a cat but also a tragedy of how one loses their bearings in mind and with people. Superstitions and legends matter most to those who have the words to back it up, basically, whether that involves panthers or something else. It is a 73-minute movie with the most careful of touches that lives and dies on how you treat the road to seeing if someone is a cat-person or not, one that treats it seriously without veering into ridicule territory (RKO tried to push for more shots of, well, take a guess, but the filmmakers did play it carefully in shooting). Oh sure, you could save yourself the time by peeking to see whether the title is going to be what the title is, but sometimes it is the imagination of where the truth lies that is more useful to consider. With that in mind, Simon is serviceable up to a point: one can see the vulnerabilities present in a withering role like this and give her credit while also thinking that she pulls it off a majority of the time in shaky grace rather than an absolute one. Smith, tasked with being the ordinary fellow in a movie with the most careful of all tensions, does exactly what is required, one with striking causality towards how he treats Simon and Randolph when paired with either that makes for the tension needed. Conway is harder to peg down, mostly because he isn't exactly just the doctor character playing exposition nor one who has as much time to corral against Simon, but his last sequence does show exactly what would hope to see from a moderate actor. One of the most striking things to linger from the film is a moment that lasts for less than a minute: the first jump scare. Imagine if you will, a quiet little scene with growing tension, one that has you curious in your seat, things move carefully, and then bam, a loud noise strikes out of nowhere, with this one being the sound of an incoming bus. The jump scare became more of a thing in the 1970s with slashers, but it's always interesting to see where horror tricks can come from, especially when done right. As a whole, I think it is a pretty good movie, maybe not exactly the kind of movie that is great in any one area, but it would prove just right for a night out with the proper mindset of patience.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Freaks (1932).

Review #1897: Freaks.

Cast: 

Wallace Ford (Phroso), Leila Hyams (Venus), Olga Baclanova (Cleopatra), Rosco Ates (Roscoe), Henry Victor (Hercules), Harry Earles (Hans), Daisy Earles (Frieda), Rose Dione (Madame Tetrallini), Daisy and Violet Hilton (The Siamese twins), Schlitzie (Himself), Josephine Joseph (Half Woman-Half Man), Johnny Eck (Half-Boy), Frances O'Connor (Armless girl), Peter Robinson (Human skeleton), Olga Roderick (Bearded lady), and Koo Koo (Herself) Directed by Tod Browning (#031 - Dracula, #470 - Mark of the Vampire, and #516 - The Unknown)

Review: 

Admittedly, a horror movie can take time to appreciate, particularly ones that were given the shaft like this one was. After all, the director associated with a film involving "Freaks" seemed exactly the one to direct it. Tod Browning left high school before graduation in order to join the circus. After years of carnivals and vaudeville, he became an actor in 1909, primarily in slapstick shorts, although he was hired in 1913 by D. W. Griffith near the twilight of his time at Biograph Studios. A 1915 accident involving him being drunk while at the wheel of an automobile led to injuries that kept him in bed for a considerable amount of time, which gave him inspiration to write (he had already done a few couple of short films as a director). He returned to work in film after time away, serving as an assistant director on Griffith's Intolerance (1916), and Jim Bludso (1917) was his first feature film. Browning's best work is associated with the star in Lon Chaney, who he did ten features with from 1919 to 1928 (Dracula, Browning's one key success in the sound genre with audiences, was meant to star Chaney before he fell ill). When the sound era dawned, Browning did nine feature films before retiring in 1939. The film is loosely based on the short story "Spurs" by Tod Robbins, and the screenplay was done by Willis Goldbeck and Leon Gordon, while Browning also served as producer. Test screenings of the film for Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) proved a tough pill to swallow. Apparently, people ran out of the theater halfway through the movie - I guess a horror film just can't be too scary, and MGM cut the movie from an original run-time of 90 minutes to an hour. The climax was cut down, worse yet. The film did not have the "happy" ending in the original cut, instead going further into just what happened with the character of Cleopatra beyond a scream (because the original had her get trapped under a tree struck by lightning). So yes, the fate of one of the characters is kept the same, but with a twist: their companion is present this time around, albeit as a soprano because of castration.  Maybe it seemed strange for MGM to be the production company. They did do a couple of features beforehand in the 1920s, most notably with Browning's London After Midnight and The Unknown, but I think you will agree that having Irving Thalberg in your corner could be a double-edged sword. Once the film came and went with the box office as a failure, Browning's career never recovered, and he retired after his 46th feature in Miracles for Sale (1939), and he died in 1962 at the age of 82. Hell, in the era of trying to remake movies that were pretty good already, why not try to cover features that were given the shaft like this one? You wouldn't even have to change much of the actual script (one that does the simple art of presenting people as they are), since the only thing necessary would be to just show things as originally intended in the ides of retribution in what it means to go against the collective.

From the contemporary reaction by certain critics, you would think Freaks showed people getting chopped in half. One review actually said that people should put in the hospital pathological ward if the viewer considered it to be entertainment. I think we can safely say that they were clearly wrong. Hell, it didn't even take that many decades for people to carefully recognize that the audience was wrong, because counterculture audiences in Europe found a liking for it in the 1960s, and it became a midnight movie to enjoy in later years. Yes, you could consider it as a melodrama with an ounce of horror for the climax, but that is what makes it all the more interesting and useful to consider in the place of 1930s horror (besides, one grows tired of people deeming movies as just melodramas rather than being, you know, horror, which could also go for so-called psychological thrillers"). It was disrespected in its time by audiences that just wouldn't accept the idea of presenting circus people as anything other than what people thought they were, and the fact that the 90-minute version does not survive is a straight tragedy. The horror is not the people of the circus that happen to have no arms or are conjoined twins, the horror is the people who treat them like crap. What does it mean to be normal is the question provided here, which is done in a thoughtful and entertaining way that was ahead of its time when it comes to "pretty" people being punished by others that get away with it. So yes, there is a mix of established actors (Ford, Hyams, Baclanova, and Victor) mixing with performers such as the Earles, Schlitzie, and the Hilton twins (there were plans to have bigger names cast against the circus people such as Myrna Loy and Victor McLaglen, but this fell through). Granted, the acting is a bit on the okay side, and I do wonder exactly how one came to the decision to cast siblings in the Earles as characters meant to have feelings for each other. Baclanova (once nicknamed "The Russian Tigress") is the key to the film when you boil it down to basics, the embodiment of the horror of man in the cruelty that can be shown to others not like them. Sure, Ford and Hyams are mild counters to that idea, but they are barely important in the long run when you want to see just where mistreatment of people can get you (it should be noted that they were actually vaudevillians before becoming involved in film). Far from exploitation, the circus performers are just shown being themselves, whether that involves a man being able to light a cigarette with no arms or legs or conjoined twins having distinct lives of love.

Oh sure, the climax is the highlight, but consider the gooble-gabble scene a couple of scenes beforehand. Here one is trying to welcome someone into the community despite their misgivings, and all they do is react in disgust at the idea that they are at your level. That would be a pretty sad thing to hear, so it works quite well with what is needed here. And then the climax happens in a flash: a dark night with rain and people that lurk in the background ready to strike. The ending shot should've just been the shot involving the final fate of one of the characters rather than just being a "happy" ending, if only because it is more fun to show the logical conclusion of doing a morality tale rather than just trying to suck up to audiences who think happy endings need to happen in horror too. As a whole, Freaks was ahead of its time, and a little more credit is given for this film for its quibbles (a cut pace and decent if not quite professional cast) because of how it was treated in getting to theaters as opposed to later films with misunderstandings. Had the original cut survived the way it was intended, we would think it was even better and give Browning even more credit as a director, one who specialized in the exotic, the bizarre or just the mystery that comes with life that shows just who the real freak is, which makes it a horror film worth investing all of your time in as opposed to just cutting to the end for the big highlight.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Hands of Orlac.

Review #1896: The Hands of Orlac.

Cast: 

Conrad Veidt (Paul Orlac), Alexandra Sorina (Yvonne Orlac), Fritz Kortner (Nera), Carmen Cartellieri (Regine), Hans Homma (Dr. Serra), Fritz Strassny (Paul's father), and Paul Askonas (Servant) Directed by Robert Wiene (#261 - The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari)

Review: 

If you remember, Robert Wiene directed one of the most notable expressionist movies of its time. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920), with Conrad Veidt as one of the stars, is also one of the most notable horror features in the pre-1930 era, when horror was in loose definition for films. The German-born Wiene got into acting in the early 20th century before directing and writing by 1913, with Fear [Furcht] (1917) also serving as an early horror feature to go along with Genuine (1920). Wiene continued to make films on a regular basis until 1933, when Nazis took power in Germany. He made one further film in exile before dying of cancer in 1938 at the age of 65. This film (originally released as Orlacs Hände) was released as a production from Austria as an adaptation of Les Mains d'Orlac, a 1920 French novel by Maurice Renard. Two further films were adapted from the book: Mad Love (1935) and The Hands of Orlac (1960), although there have been a number of unofficial adaptations that cribbed elements from the book such as Hands of a Stranger (1962) and Body Parts (1991).

If one is thinking they are going to get a strange and eerie horror feature involving a man wondering what to make of his newly transplanted hands...you will get something, but one should temper their expectations. It is more of a psychological feature with the barest of horror elements (while not being an Expressionist work either), moving at a pace that will see just how one's patience goes on the strength of one good actor and well-enough cinematography for 90 minutes. Veidt is the best part of the film because of how he elevates what would be a bland character in lesser hands and makes it one with tortured patience and vulnerability that keeps you invested in seeing where the pain lies with him. He may seem a bit overwrought when it comes to looking at silent performances, but it works with what needs to be shown here. Kortner makes a sinister showing to make the buildup more than just a glacier-pace, because there isn't exactly much to really describe about the movie about "killer" hands besides a grouchy parent, since we know that our lead isn't exactly a killer (but Kortner doesn't have too much time anyway). This kind of overshadows the others such as a withering Sorina or Strassny being an old nut, but at least the movie is respectably done from start to finish. The train wreck that is in the beginning of the film is handled in sprawling detail I do think the second half works a bit better than the first when it comes to getting down to business, but its attempts at a tidy conclusion does seem a bit too convenient (strangely, Berlin had one quibble in its censorship authority: not the idea of a guy going nuts due to having "killer" hands, but a sequence talking about making molds of fingerprints from wax). So yes, the movie is a psych-out scare rather than a body count movie, and that will work out for others better than others when it comes to imagination and patience, and I think it ends up doing just fine in that regard. It may not be as particularly creeping as its title might suggest, but you could still have a decent time regardless.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Okay, here's a blueprint of the month to guess on: the decades of the 1910s to the 2010s gets one film featured to review before the cycle repeats itself again (of course, the 1910s may be hard to repeat...)

So yes, a film from the 1920s gets followed by one from the 1930s, so enjoy the guessing.

The Avenging Conscience.

Review #1895: The Avenging Conscience.

Cast:

Henry B. Walthall (The Nephew), Blanche Sweet (His Sweetheart), Spottiswoode Aitken (The Uncle), George Siegmann (The Italian), Ralph Lewis (The Detective), and Mae Marsh (The Maid) Written, Produced, and Directed by D. W. Griffith (#415 - America, #695 - Broken Blossoms, and #1317 - Way Down East)

Review: 

You have to remember that film is an old medium, one that had to evolve beyond shorts and productions made in humble little studios. This is how it works out for horror, which has been there in some shape and form from the beginning, although we are here to talk about features because of their depth, regardless of the notability that came with early ones such as The House of the Devil (1896) or Frankenstein (1910). One of the people at the forefront of doing films that became more than what they were was D. W. Griffith, who went from failed attempts at script-writing to acting in 1908 only to become a director of shorts in that same year for Biograph Company, and it was he who became one of the first directors of films produced in the States alongside one of the first feature-length movies in Judith of Bethulia (1914). His disputes with the company over wanting to make features along with budgets and cast listing made him leave the company in 1914, taking his troupe of actors with him. Six months after the release of this film (the ninth he did in this year, keep that in mind) came The Birth of a Nation (1915) ...and you get the idea about Griffith being a name not long forgotten among cinema. The movie is based on two works by Edgar Allan Poe: the 1843 short story "The Tell-Tale Heart" and the 1849 poem "Annabel Lee". If one is curious about the film, it is widely available in the public domain for all to check out, and an alternate title is presented in the opening as The Avenging Conscience: or 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'.

You may remember that the Heart story was about a man killing someone and then being tormented by the thumping he hears from somewhere that sees his sanity unravel over where the body is. As for the poem, it was a lament for a departed woman that left someone, and certain lines from the poem are shown as intertitles in the film. So yes, this is how Griffith tries to make a bit of material rise out of loose story elements for 78 minutes of staging, complete with a lead character that is depicted as having a liking for Poe (right down to showing a picture of him). It results in a film that seems a bit corny now but surely must have been quite the interesting one for diverting time in 1914. Walthall makes a quality focus, conveying the spooked desires and regrets required in the role to make tension without overextending himself. He fidgets and makes you think about fidgeting without giggling. Sweet plays the role of affections and all that jazz, while Aitken makes a quality target foil for someone meant to exist as both a grump, alive or dead. The effect to show the ghost of the dead soul isn't anything spectacular, but it gets the basic job done in trying to set some sort of unease in a film that also shows a spider catching a fly and visions of Death and demons (and, perhaps not surprisingly, religious overtones). As hammy it is in actually setting up the story you are here to see, there is something curious in getting to the road of desire and tortured regret that Griffith makes work in enough ways to offset the actual ending. If you think "it was all a dream" seems a bit cliche now, imagine how it must have sounded 108 years ago, one that is both cheap for narrative purposes and the Poe story as a whole (but hey, if you are doing a story "inspired by Poe" where a Poe devotee happens to get in a situation similar to a story, who is the real winner here). As a whole, it might not exactly rank highly as a great horror feature, but as a curiosity for where the steps to get to seeing further chills for the audience in the pre-1930 era, it makes a good start.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Barbarian (2022).

Review #1894: Barbarian.

Cast: 

Georgina Campbell (Tess Marshall), Bill Skarsgård (Keith Toshko), Justin Long (AJ Gilbride), Matthew Patrick Davis (The Mother), Richard Brake (Frank), and Kurt Braunohler (Doug) Written and Directed by Zach Cregger.

Review: 

"As long as I have no long plan, then no one could know what’s coming.”

Well, there is always time to do horror movies, modern era or not. This is the second feature film for Cregger, who directed exactly one other mainstream feature film in Miss March (2009); he was one of the founding members of the comedy troupe The Whitest Kids U' Know. Truly I suppose this is the time for people known for comedies trying to play their hand in horror in the same way you would see comedians attempt to play serious roles. Cregger had his inspiration when he read the book The Gift of Fear, as written by Gavin de Becker. Specifically, he was inspired by the chapter giving advice to women to pay attention to the little red flags men can give off in day-to-day situations (such as doing a favor when you didn't ask for it). It spiraled from writing a scene with all of these little red flags that somehow spiraled into a film, complete with a rule that if he was surprising himself, then he would have to surprise the audience. So yes, that is how one gets a movie where a double-booked Airbnb (in Detroit, the gate place for some scary thoughts) leads to a variety of events, all that come from a director who went from turning a scene into a horror movie that has gotten some appreciation from audiences.

Maybe the movie is an elaborate joke on critics who think it is really, really good for being "unpredictable" and something about the nature of gender politics in ways that reminded me of the overrated The Invisible Man (2020) or debatably average films such as Hereditary (2018). Oh sure, I thought it was decent as a mild take on the "person goes to the dark basement and finds something down there", but to call it some sort of new kind of twisted classic is just begging for mockery (Pearl, a movie made for a 1/4th of Barbarian's $4 million budget, is better in every single way). The thought that was going down in my head when watching it was the idea that this seemed more apt for a television movie rather than a whole feature. One can only keep the surprise for so long in a 107-minute movie, particularly when one of its lead characters doesn't appear until forty minutes have passed and you could basically separate the film into three parts: the Airbnb parts where something is totally not right about things (because hey, awkward dialogue is fun to hear for 20 minutes), the parts that see Long step into the fray and finds the thing best not spoiled here....and the endgame result that comes from a horror film. Go figure that the best part of the movie for me is the last of these segments. I'm here to watch a weird and grisly time that may or may not have interesting characters in it. Campbell is at the very least interesting enough to hold the film together in patience and composure, rolling with what the (potential) dangers that come with seeing fresh faces and handling it well. Skarsgård is meant to play a nice guy for what is meant to be drained out of a "hey, look at how weird it can be with little red flags", which, okay, sure (you can play story-time for your first half, just don't make one want to twiddle their thumbs). Your time will be spent better with Long, who manages to make a suitable semi-heel caricature (his character may or may not be a pervert, get it?) when he finally shows up when compared to all of the other things of the film, so take that for what it is worth when contributing mild humor to a movie that rides the dark humor trail for fair results. Brake comes in by the hour and is there to do exactly one or two quiet scenes. The handling of the creature is far more interesting in the grotesque, and this is done without much lighting to show much of it (hey, a horror trope worth going for) until the climax that actually does have a few chuckles to it in execution. The final shot does sell itself pretty well, for what it is worth, fitting in trying to throw the audience for one more loop without treating them like complete idiots. As a whole, when it is actually on the game of horror with grimy patience rather than sneering belief that it is ahead of things, it makes for a fine movie. The simplest things are sometimes the best, and that means that while it is at least a semi-useful way to spend one's time for the horror season...however many horror films one ends up seeing. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

SURPRISE! A double-header to start off a new October of Horror enjoyment. Enjoy the show, folks.

Pearl (2022).

Review #1893: Pearl.

Cast: 

Mia Goth (Pearl), David Corenswet (The Projectionist), Tandi Wright (Ruth), Matthew Sunderland (Pearl's Father), Emma Jenkins-Purro (Mitsy), and Alistair Sewell (Howard) Directed by Ti West.

Review: 

“If ‘X’ is about the way this auteurist era of independent filmmaking is affecting people, ‘Pearl’ is sort of about the old Hollywood way that affected people. The way in which they enrich each other is all a part of the craft of the filmmaking. I wanted to do something where all of the crafts of the movie were their very apparent charms.”

I'm sure you are familiar with X (2022). Well, if you are not, that is okay, because that was one of the films that slipped by my radar. It was a slasher film directed, written, co-produced, and co-edited by Ti West that apparently had homages to slasher films of the 1970s such as The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974), with Mia Goth as the star. After the production had wrapped, West started work on utilizing the script idea he and Goth had developed together, with the inspiration coming from his eagerness to direct movies during the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, with A24 being the production company for both ventures; had A24 not been interested in the idea as it was in terms of being made right after X (such as with budget), it would have been done in black-and-white, so one gets a movie with a color scheme meant to evoke Technicolor. Pearl takes inspiration from the works of Douglas Sirk while being shot as if was Mary Poppins meeting Texas Chain Saw Massacre. This is the ninth film from West, who started doing his own films in 2005, for which he has written all of them alongside serving as editor and producer on most of them.

I really dug this film, which is interesting consider the fact that this is a "prequel" to a film released in the same year. It makes me want to look at what X did with how film affects certain people in certain ways, and it makes me wonder how the film teased at the end (titled MaXXXine) will go, because now I have great interest in what West and company want to do. It isn't often that one sees a movie that has both an enthusiasm about making a horror feature and the proper execution to actually go where it wants to go without relying on becoming a mockery or copy in nostalgia. It manages to be unnerving and charming at the same time with its musings on what desires and wants can do to a person. The unraveling of one's grip on reality becomes part of the horror itself, you might say (since there isn't that many speaking parts in the film, one expects a good balance there, which is proven correct). It has its sympathies for the devil without dwelling on cheap tricks; hell, don't take my word for it, Martin Scorsese thought it was quite disturbing. 

Goth had gotten her start in films with Nymphomaniac (2013), but X was her first starring role. She pulls off such a wonderful performance, one that any actor would love to invest their time with. This is a role that requires someone to put all of their emotion into it, one where you can see the heart on their sleeve in sensitivity, one that we are firmly invested in their journey regardless of how much you know about X or whatever you think you know about the endgame. She can make antics with a scarecrow completely believable and fitting to what is needed in that particular scene just as well as when she delivers a monologue near the ending about her fractured self-identity, which she handles like a champ. Awards season (led by neutered folks, no doubt) probably won't give Goth consideration for recognition, but viewers of quality horror certainly will, and I think that might be just enough to make this a really useful recommendation. The other actors do just fine with what is required in their presentation of reality as seen by our focus that is either on crushing parental guidance or others. Wright was actually the intimacy coordinator on X, and she does well in dream-crushing steeliness while Sunderland doesn't have any audible words and has to succeed on expression. The self-absorbed outsiders that round out the cast also do well in matching with Goth with what is needed in self-expression, such as trying to show a dirty movie or trying to make nice after a failed audition. As a whole, the 102 minutes go off without many hitches, building its cheery macabre nature with the right touch of execution and a wonderful performance by Goth that makes a solid origin story of a crack-turned-chasm killer that could make a case as one of the best times to spend watching a horror movie this year. It might not be perfect, but it may be perfect for re-watch nights over the next couple of years, so that might be just enough for some.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

SURPRISE! A double-header to start off a new October of Horror enjoyment. You will see plenty of features throughout the month that go from the 1910s to the 2020s from October 1 to November 7 (yes, another Halloween - The Week After is coming). Enjoy the show, folks.

Cowboy Bebop: The Movie.

Review #1892: Cowboy Bebop: The Movie.

Cast: 

Kōichi Yamadera (Spike Spiegel), Unshō Ishizuka (Jet Black), Megumi Hayashibara (Faye Valentine), Aoi Tada (Edward Wong), Tsutomu Isobe (Vincent Volaju), Ai Kobayashi (Elektra Ovilo), Mickey Curtis (Rashid), and Yūji Ueda (Lee Sampson) Directed by Shinichirō Watanabe. 

Review: 

"If you want to create animation, it's important to watch a lot of things that aren't anime. If you don't, it'll all be the same as what became before and originality won't be easy. Originality is very important, and I get a lot of my inspiration from live action movies and music." - Shinichirō Watanabe

Oh hell yes, I was anticipating doing this film. You may or may not recognize Cowboy Bebop within the history of anime, but I will admit that this was my first foray into anime beyond seeing a bunch of anime films (now, the second attempt at watching anime series in Neon Genesis Evangelion and its own feature...that will be for another time). The series was created by the production team at Sunrise: director Shinichirō Watanabe, screenwriter Keiko Nobumoto, character designer Toshihiro Kawamoto, mechanical designer Kimitoshi Yamane, and composer Yoko Kanno. Billed as "a new genre unto itself", Watanabe got his start in the industry in the mid 1980s that went from production staff to director in a number of years, starting with Macross Plus in 1994. With this being his first solo effort, he treated each episode as if it was like a mini-movie, complete with having the ending of the 26-episode series early on; the show actually first started with Bandai offering to sponsor a show as long as it had a spaceship so they could sell it, but their disapproval of early footage led to limbo before Bandai Visual became the new sponsor. The series aired in an irregular way: It first aired on April 3, 1998 but with a first run of only five episodes due to its 6PM timeslot on its network in Japan. Then, on a satellite network, the entire run of 26 episodes (referred as "sessions") ran from October 24 to April 24, 1999 on the satellite network Wowow. Two years later, it aired in the United States on Adult Swim (the late-night block for Cartoon Network started in 2001). In addition to anime, two manga works were released for serialization in Asuka Fantasy DX; Shooting Star ran had a brief run from 1997 to 1998 while the second one ran from 1998 to 2000. Nobumoto, who had served as the writer for numerous episodes of the series (sessions 1, 3, 6, 12, 13, 15, 22, 23, 25, and 26), wrote the film, which was announced in September 1999 that started production in July of 2000. The show did have a clear end point, because Watanabe, convinced it would be a hit, didn't want to it to be something that would possibly tie him to making the show for years and years like Star Trek, but a film was constructed that is set in-between the series that retained the core four voice actors of the series with Yamadera, Ishizuka, Hayashibara, and Tada (I would mention the English dub and the fact that it retained the same four used for the show, but loose purists like me stick with the original actors to begin with, but your milage may vary. There also is a remake that came out years later, but this is no time for fairy tales).

I love the show, let me get that out of the way. The blend of numerous genres such as the Western or pulp fiction made for one of the most fascinating things I have ever seen, one that started and ended with a bang in ways that made it a great decision to see all the way through. Style over substance? Well...duh? The film (referred to with the subtitle "Knockin' on Heaven's Door" in Japan as opposed to just "The Movie") is definitely more rewarding for those who have seen the show than someone going in fresh (one that is quite episodic but worth the ride), but I think it works exactly to what made the show so great in the first place. It is a vibrant movie that cultivates a web of conspiracy into general thrills and warmth that comes from watching these sublime characters and voices come together with nice visuals and a general atmosphere that stands apart from the usual number of animated films. You can see the main four in simple terms in how they proved so endearing: the calm and collected ass-kicker, the jack-of-all-trade father figure, the conniving tease with unpredictability, and the energetic free spirit. The dysfunctional family of bounty hunters is endearing to those who enjoy these folks and the banter they share, regardless of whatever presence lurks (in this case, a villain with some sort of meaning not usually seen in the series). 

Consider the opening sequence with Yamadera and Ishizuka being involved in stopping a robbery (bounty job that is four targets rather than three) that lasts just four minutes but tells all you need to know (or already know) about these two characters with the right touch of action and charm. The touches of noir are present here with aesthetic that involves Arabic elements (namely because there's a place in the film seen to help tell certain elements of the story). 115 minutes is a considerable amount to ask, but it does do a careful job in cracking its own story down to the eventual endgame while still having time for engaging character moments that come across here within the question that comes in if one is living in the real world. Isobe may not be the most conniving threat seen in this particular anime lore, but he does resonate well in making a quality match with invoking the futility of trying to run from the fear of death. Kobayashi acts as the diminished mirror of him in terms of humanity (i.e. being a one-time ally for us to watch in the same way you would see from other one-time characters seen in the anime). Yamadera and his self-assured confidence carries the film quite well as a look upon people trying to circle away from their past but never quite escaping it - an antihero if there ever was one, but a quality antihero worth watching. Given that the film splits its time with the characters usually apart, Hayashibara fares pretty well in managing the enigmas present in the character and the plot without being lost in it. It is fairly inevitable where the film will go at some point, but it is the ride that matters most in getting there, and it is a generally involving one that doesn't meander or talk down to its audience, instead letting things breathe before getting back on the trail. As a whole, it proves rewarding for fans of the anime and diverting for newcomers, which is probably the best of both worlds when it comes to its enduring legacy after two decades. Generous or not (because hey, this is my rating system), I thought it was a pretty fun feature and one that should be worth one's time to see.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

This closes out September. Be ready for a whole month of horror movies, as you would expect. There will be a variety of decades covered in horror, but a special twist will start out the month.

Spectre.

Review #1891: Spectre.

Cast: 

Daniel Craig (James Bond), Christoph Waltz (Ernst Stavro Blofeld), Léa Seydoux (Madeleine Swann), Ben Whishaw (Q), Naomie Harris (Eve Moneypenny), Dave Bautista (Mr Hinx), Andrew Scott (Max Denbigh [C]), Rory Kinnear (Bill Tanner), Jesper Christensen (Mr White), Monica Bellucci (Lucia Sciarra), Ralph Fiennes (M), Stephanie Sigman (Estrella), and Alessandro Cremona (Marco Sciarra) Directed by Sam Mendes (#572 - Skyfall and #1585 - 1917)

Review: 

Go figure that this ended up being split into multiple paragraphs. Actually, this is the first Bond film I saw after deciding to start getting into the James Bond novels, you know, the ones that inspired the movies. So yes, Casino Royale was a pretty neat book, and I am curious for the other books done by Fleming and maybe I will look at the movies a bit differently by the time I finish them.

It is interesting to consider how people try to spin the wheel of continuing the James Bond franchise (as produced by Eon Productions) into another decade. The Daniel Craig era started in 2006 with Casino Royale, probably the best Bond film since either Goldeneye (1995) or Licence to Kill (1989), depending on your tastes. It did so with its attempt to inject a bit grittier realism into the series while keeping the entertainment level high. One never knows what to expect from a series created out of a character intended to be boring, as devised by Ian Fleming. Quantum of Solace (2008) was so much of a nonentity that I can barely remember watching it, but Skyfall (2012) certainly resounded better for all of its strange little quirks that came with attempts at emotional depth. The beauty of covering a film I took a pass on doing because it seemed too mild to watch in a theater seven years ago is that there isn't exactly much to spoil for those who do films. Of course, if you like surprises, go ahead with whatever you want to do. Besides, the Bond series would continue with Craig for No Time to Die (2021) after a number of years in development that retained certain actors from before. There were four writers: John Logan, Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and Jez Butterworth. Mendes and Logan apparently came up with the main concept of the plot together before lingering dissatisfaction in script from key groups led to asking Purvis and Wade to step in for re-writes (Butterworth ended up stepping in for the screenplay), and you may remember that Logan & Purvis had served as writer on these films since The World Is Not Enough while Logan helped to write Skyfall. So, three years later, with the same director in Sam Mendes from the previous film, who decided to do the film after initially saying no (Nicolas Winding Refn had said no in the meantime), here is another one of these Bond movies. Oh, but it's not any kind of mild follow-ups, no, it's the kind of sequel that tries to go all out in all the narrative and epic pulls you might see in a franchise blockbuster of the 2010s. 

Guess what? It isn't particularly good. It reminds me of a goldfish in a fishbowl: the fish seems to be happy in the bowl, and it gets to look something nice outside the bowl, but its memory span will prove forgettable despite all the food (spectacle in this case) you give it. In short, it manages to show not the strengths of spectacle in locations and budget but rather the weaknesses of trying to use it to hide a limp story that runs at 148 minutes for reasons I can't really comprehend. You may or may not remember that the character of Blofeld had been featured in physical form as the primary villain in four movies (one being a non-EON feature), but none since the 1980s. Of course, you would hope in that time spent away dealing with litigation with Kevin McClory that EON found folks that could make a quality adversary that would make the best portrayal (Telly Savalas) proud. Nope! Being overshadowed by Bautista playing a heavy with one word to say is bad, being nondescript and being brought down by narrative choices is just as bad. He manages to be like a shadow, non-descript in menace because of the choice of time given to Waltz (because hey, time to visit another country on the plot that is totally not familiar). And yes, there is a twist to help connect these previous films together: Quantum is basically a subsidiary to the real power behind the throne of secret doom: Spectre (no, not SPECTRE), complete with being linked together because someone found a ring that had everyone's fingerprints all over it (get it?). Spectre and the master plan involves surveillance that seems cribbed from both a 1984 ripoff and the "Cain and Abel" narrative. Maybe I wouldn't have seen the twist coming if I never saw the villain having a connection to the spy in "family"...in Austin Powers in Goldmember (2002). The idea of one adoptive brother wreaking havoc on the other adoptive brother is hysterical in its ridiculous contrivances - remember that after Blofeld reveals his whole "daddy liked you better" spiel to Bond and mildly tortures him (tied to a chair, but thank goodness for watches), his next brilliant plan is to go to an abandoned building and taunt Bond to find him with arrows pointing where he is while trying to do the "save yourself or save the girl and die"...totally not a parody to guess how that goes. Exploding watches are one thing, but somewhere you have to draw the line (that line probably gave up when it heard about smart blood). It almost clouds the fact that the "surveillance angle" the film tries to play is the bare minimum of an angle, which would not be a problem if you have a striking villain or actual conviction to do something beyond "Is James Bond still relevant?" again. Simply having an adventure while tinkering with the tiniest things of the formula is too much, nah, you have to play it really safe or throw as much spectacle in digital effects to distract from this being a neutered average movie (unless you count not shooting someone as innovative). Having the illusion of an opening sequence done in one take is probably the best trick the film plays in a movie that seems to have no idea where the third act is going to go besides just throwing things up in the air and "leaving it to God" (which is probably how they decided on Sam Smith being the title singer for the film rather than Radiohead). 

You know you might be in trouble when you have not one but two Bond romances to go around, and one of them is basically a glorified cameo that really is there for info-dumps than actual passion (Bellucci, in a role I imagine had a nice paycheck, because "oldest Bond girl" means diddly squat). Seydoux reminds me of a broomstick in that things are meant to happen, but you completely forgot why you had it there because you fell asleep. The chemistry of Seydoux and Craig is amusingly dry (the age difference has never been more apparent, going from 10-11 in the previous three to...seventeen), inflicting only the bare minimum of what you might expect from a Bond romance arc...but of all the ones where you see the two do a walk off into the sunset, this is not even in the top half of being convincing. Perhaps not surprisingly, the parts that work to the usual Bond formula (a Q, a M, and a Moneypenny) do pretty well when it comes to seeing Fiennes try to make his first mark as M or the small moments of Harris and Whishaw when paired with Craig, whether that involves seeing how James Bond lives for the first time in a while or hijinks with tech. Bautista does make a useful adversary in the art of quick-skilled brutality (mostly in his first scene) that contributes to an involving chase scene or two that works best among the rest of the muddy foundation points, which goes with Scott and his "totally not a bad guy" presence and Christensen...uh, I will be honest in forgetting who he was supposed to be (Casino Royale had him get shot in the leg and that's all I remember). Of course, Craig still seems like the stellar man to play the lead role, one who has the confidence required to pull the film away from being the total disaster it might have been with someone who can't have a little bit of fun with some of these lines. In other words, he still seems likes the kind of person who can pull off being an odd man that big things happen around him (while not reminding one of late 1980s Roger Moore). As a whole, I really did want to like the film. I wanted to like the idea of a James Bond feature that continued the thrill of where the previous venture left off and see where one can go further in spy adventure as the series goes past its 50th anniversary. And yet, somehow, I found it to be probably the most mind-boggling misfire since Die Another Day (2002). In trying to dazzle the audience with new tricks, all they managed to do is show an empty hand. It may be a nice film in parts, but it is a dull stinker in all the other ways that make it a muddle to sit through. It isn't the worst Bond film, but it is probably the most confounding, and I imagine whenever I see the next one I can only have the slightest of expectations that they found a way to just, you know, do a Bond movie that isn't a big muddle when everything else is fine.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Delinquents (1957).

Review #1890: The Delinquents.

Cast: 

Tom Laughlin (Scotty White), Peter Miller (Bill Cholly), Richard Bakalyan (Eddy), Rosemary Howard (Janice Wilson), Leonard Belove (Mr. White), Helen Hawley (Mrs. White), James Lantz (Mr. Wilson), Lotus Corelli (Mrs. Wilson), and Christine Altman (Sissy Wilson) Directed by Robert Altman (#900 - Nashville and #1433 - M*A*S*H)

Review: 

"The danger of writing a script is that everybody has the same voice. I think when they don’t have the same voice it makes the film better. So when you have five different sources in there, five different voices, it seems closer to reality. I’m trying to push the actor into becoming a real creator—creating that part. Bringing things to it that the writer and/or myself couldn’t bring."

Here we have a couple of firsts. This was the first feature film in work of Robert Altman. The Kansas City native returned from service in the Thirteenth Air Force with the interest of writing, but his minimal success in that field (one film script got sold) had him move back, and his next assignment was with the Calvin Company, an advertising, educational, and industrial film production company. He directed many industrial shorts for the company before he got his first foray beyond that with television in the early 1950s. This was the first starring role for Tom Laughlin. Yes, before he got into the act of trying to write and direct his own films, Laughlin was an actor, starting in 1955 with a handful of television appearances and one film to his name before this feature. If you can believe it, Laughlin and Altman did not get along during production, mostly because of the way that Laughlin wanted to do the film (Laughlin described himself as a "Stanislavsky actor", not a Method actor), complete with actually preparing for a tired moment by running laps, and Altman later called him a "pain in the ass" while finding the best way to settle things: he simply told Laughlin what he wanted in a certain scene; for his part, Laughlin described the film as "very amateurish" along with expressing a dislike of Altman's lack of organization, and at one point he started rolling the cameras to shoot a scene rather than wait for Altman to arrive (because he felt guilty given whose money it was). Tying this all together is the debut production of Elmer Rhoden Jr, a Kansas City-born exhibitor of films that was president of a theater chain that encompassed six states. Wanting to tap into the teen market in an era where there was plenty to go around from rock and roll to hot rod features, Rhoden Jr made his first effort into producing, complete with using the theater chain as a way to get his film regional success. With a budget of roughly $63,000, he recruited Altman, who would write along with recruit the people required for said production in terms of casting and location picking, complete with recruiting people from his industrial films and a mix of California talent (including cooperation from the Kansas City Police Department) to go alongside Altman's wife at the time (Corelli, who divorced him when he began having Hawley as his mistress) and Altman's daughter as actors in the film. Rhoden would make two further features as a producer before he died in 1959, dying a couple of months after suffering a heart attack (owing to his alcoholism) at the age of 37.

Admittedly, if you did not know that Altman was the director or that Laughlin was the star, you might not be inclined to pick it out among the oodles of delinquent films. But the film is a decent one in the ways that matter most from folks making their first attempt at breaking into features, regardless of how they thought of the other. Laughlin would get his chances to act and direct by 1960 while Altman would get to direct on a regular basis in television before he got his next chance to direct in features again with Countdown (1967) before hitting the big time in the 1970s. The Delinquents isn't exactly anything special, but it was a modest success that did all the things one might see from seeing people (not quite teenagers but not quite just 30-year olds) try to play juveniles and do the mildest form of "bad things" (you see a mildly involving switchblade fight to go with robbery hijinks and partying). You can see the idea of Altman wanting to have loose and free dialogue go with his favoring of trying to not go through all of the Hollywood channels. One can see the seeds of the observer of chaos even in a movie that Altman might have been only loosely fine with in the long run. He got to make a movie on his terms but saw it changed with voiceovers to start and end the movie that present it as a tale of violence and immorality...that sees delinquency as a disease that could be treated with either more attention from parents or youth groups. I think Altman just wanted to make a movie where teens just go around on a cruise about town without an easy endgame, and in that sense, it is a neat little movie, efficient in 72 minutes in going where it wants without seeming stifled by boredom. The parental figures present their cases of thinking they know what is best for their kids in this age (which isn't like when they were kids, obviously). Laughlin may have the screen presence of a rock tumbling down a well, but it is a graceful presence that handles what is required in someone trapped in expectations on all sides without becoming just a Method punching bag while Howard maneuvers panic with mild success. Bakalyan and Miller won't exactly set a new presence as "hoods of tomorrow" like the poster might say, but they are capable threats that you would expect from a film like this that keeps things firmly on the level. As a whole, things come, things go, but some things are forever, whether that involves actors or directors getting their first true chance to make an impression mean something. Regardless of how the experience went, The Delinquents is a solid feature for its headliners that makes quite the curiosity for those who wish to seek it out as an average but fascinating piece of chaos.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Ocean's Eleven.

Review #1889: Ocean's Eleven.

Cast: 

George Clooney (Danny Ocean), Matt Damon (Linus Caldwell), Andy Garcia (Terry Benedict), Brad Pitt (Rusty Ryan), Julia Roberts (Tess Ocean), Bernie Mac (Frank Catton), Elliott Gould (Reuben Tishkoff), Casey Affleck (Virgil Malloy), Scott Caan (Turk Malloy), Eddie Jemison (Livingston Dell), Don Cheadle (Basher Tarr), Shaobo Qin (The Amazing Yen), and Carl Reiner (Saul Bloom) Directed by Steven Soderbergh (#984 - Logan Lucky and #1526 - Traffic)

Review: 

"I wanted to see if I could combine two types of films, one that had this elegant, elaborate, technical side but also this casual off-hand quality to the performances – a film that wasn't aggressive."

The thing to remember about Ocean's 11 (1960) is that it sucked. It was a mediocre, bland movie that begged for a more involving script when it came to making a star vehicle heist movie that did only one thing right: making the idea of stealing money from Vegas with an intricate plan sounded cool. So yes, I would understand why someone would think they could do a remake of a 40-year old movie with a new array of talented name actors. Ted Griffin serves as the screenwriter for this film, which takes the loosest of inspiration from the original film and its screenplay by Harry Brown, Charles Lederer, George Clayton Johnson & Jack Golden Russell. Soderbergh, who went from indie classics such as Sex, Lies, and Videotape (1989) to mainstream success with Erin Brockovich and Traffic (both 2001), was recruited to direct, and he directed both of the subsequent sequels (released in 2004 and 2007), which were all commercial successes.

The easiest thing to say is that the remake is better than the original. In fact, it runs laps around the original, doing so despite perhaps being just a good feature rather than the possible great caper it could have been. It is not particularly outstanding in any one area, but it manages to do just enough in being good in most of the core aspects to make it a solid piece of entertainment. It is a movie that wants you have a good time and that's about it, doing so with casual energy and expertise that would make anyone favorable to a machine-type of film (i.e. a movie that is mechanical but solid for a rental) where the heist is a heist you might see coming but enjoy anyway, complete with assembling its key eleven pretty quickly in the 116-minute run-time. Clooney glides through the adventure with casual charm, maneuvering through the machinations of what comes with heists and people, which mainly consists of a few amusing moments when it comes to the setup and his key part of the climax. Pitt maneuvers as the second man with casual coolness that also lends for a few little neat moments, such as pretending to be a doctor to move his way forward. Damon has the self-effacing qualities one might see from other films with him, which more or less means that he makes the best of playing a quiet pickpocket. Granted, some of the supporting cast sticks out better than others. Cheadle tries his best to play the charade of having a Cockney accent in a manner that would make Dick van Dyke proud. Oh right, I hadn't actually seen Julia Roberts in a movie before. Eh, she's okay, but watching the chemistry between her and Clooney is merely passable in bittersweet zippiness, which either means I should watch more films with Roberts or just go on my merry way. Besides, Garcia is the real presence among the others, odious and calculating in all the right ways as the targeted heavy. Mac and Reiner make quality relief in the "comedians turned con men" roles, as is the case with Gould and his loose charisma. Disappointing that Jemison and Qin kind of fall by the wayside, since Jemison's panicky characterization is at least semi-interesting as opposed to Caan and Affleck trying to play siblings for what you'd expect in very loose amusement. Each half could be seen coming in terms of general "know where it's going" quality, but they work out in not dragging the obvious points down, and the eventual endpoint is a nice way to go out. As a whole, the movie is a glossy and familiar work, but it is a well-executed familiar work that does everything you would expect from it with plenty to like that fulfills its reasonable expectations just fine. Whether one has seen the original or the subsequent sequels to the remake, you can't really go wrong here.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes.

Review #1888: Dawn of the Planet of the Apes.

Cast: 

Andy Serkis (Caesar), Jason Clarke (Malcolm), Gary Oldman (Dreyfus), Keri Russell (Ellie), Toby Kebbell (Koba), Kodi Smit-McPhee (Alexander), Kirk Acevedo (Carver), Nick Thurston (Blue Eyes), Terry Notary (Rocket), Karin Konoval (Maurice), Judy Greer (Cornelia), Jon Eyez (Foster), and Enrique Murciano (Kemp) Directed by Matt Reeves (#1038 - Cloverfield and #1814 - The Batman)

Review: 

"I think that what I thought was this emotionality and being in the apes kind of inner lives, that's a reason to do this.  Like because you know the ending.  And so now the question is how do we get from here to there?"

I'm sure you remember Ruper Wyatt's Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011), the first reboot movie involving Planet of the Apes since the last time someone tried to do a new Planet of the Apes ten years prior. With the use of visual effects and performance capture by Weta Digital rather than prosthetics, it certainly made quite the impression in trying to make a new path inspired by Pierre Boulle's 1963 novel Planet of the Apes. Honestly, while I remember Rise being fine, I think I could only tell you that Andy Serkis was the best part to remember, if only because his motion capture performance (and occasional voice) really made the film distinct in not just being a mundane reboot/makeup show (of course, Serkis had considerable experience with capture in the previous years, so that helps). Wyatt did not return for this film, instead being replaced by Matt Reeves, director of films such as Cloverfield (2008) and Let Me In (2010), and the only cast members to return are Serkis, Konoval, and Notary (you may notice those are all performers for apes, and this is the case with the subsequent 2017 sequel). The film was written by Mark Bomback, Rick Jaffa, and Amanda Silver (the latter two wrote Rise and also serve as producers on this film), with Bomback being brought in to do re-writes, as Reeves was not big on the original treatment (post apocalyptic San Francisco...with humans and apes pushing up power lines), favoring fir a story with Caesar at the forefront that spends a good chunk of its first quarter with him before eventually segueing into the "surprise" of human life (since remember that the humans suffered an airborne flu that spread worldwide in the c-sorry, Simian flu).

So yes, there are elements of previous Ape films (such as Battle for the Planet of the Apes (1973), for example), but there is something here that was sorely needed from the shallow or mild foundations seen in the last two features: energy. It has a pacing to it in its presentation of the similarities and differences that come with human and ape life (where you can see some American Sign Language utilized with certain quirks done), one that has an edge in handling the material with a useful main presence with plenty of credibility and presentation to go around. With a more balanced film of actors with and not with motion-capture, Serkis leads the ensemble with commanding presence, one that handles the dilemma present in both apes and humans in the battle of how one treats others (hint: co-existence is easy to say but hard to administer). One looks past the fact that Serkis (and others playing apes) had to act with a bunch of dots around his face and instead sees the talent shown by him in the art of showing dominance alongside conflict. Serkis has managed to evolve the character with his performance that mimics the evolution of the apes in the most fitting of ways, which makes the overall result all the more interesting. The rest keep up okay. Clarke makes a reasonable counterpart to the divide, well-meaning in trust when it is earned in ways that operate in similar fashion to the performance by James Franco in the earlier film (with regards to Caesar) without being a copy, and Russell and Smit-McPhee make okay companions to the human element (well, one is here for folks like the big orange primate, not kids and step parents trying to make friends). Oldman has only a select number of things to really do as a sort of caretaker, since Serkis has the show, but he does prove a useful adversary for what is needed in the long run, which also applies to Kebbell when he is paired against Serkis in terms of pain and aggression. As a whole, it shows plenty of perspective on its inevitable road to ruin. As a movie depicting the brink of war and a demoralized world, it's a pretty solid adventure. It runs through its 130 minutes with careful ambition to make involving drama for a useful epic. It makes most of an effort to stand apart from the number of sci-fi dystopias involving the usual suspects while inviting the question of what could happen next with Ceasar and beyond.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Thin Man.

Review #1887: The Thin Man.

Cast: 

William Powell (Nick Charles), Myrna Loy (Nora Charles), Maureen O'Sullivan (Dorothy Wynant), Nat Pendleton (Lt. John Guild), Minna Gombell (Mimi Wynant Jorgenson), Porter Hall (Herbert MacCaulay), Henry Wadsworth (Tommy), William Henry (Gilbert Wynant), Harold Huber (Arthur Nunheim), Cesar Romero (Chris Jorgenson), Natalie Moorhead (Julia Wolf), Edward Brophy (Joe Morelli), Edward Ellis (Clyde Wynant), and Skippy (Asta) Directed by W. S. Van Dyke (#231 - San Francisco)

Review: 

Admittedly, a movie with a director known as "One Take Woody" sounds like a recipe for an interesting time. W. S. Van Dyke entered film in 1915 after a wide variety of time spent in business school and numerous part-time jobs and theater company tours. He went from assistant director with D. W. Griffith to director in the span of two years. When it came to sound, he was adept in his craft that made him a solid company man for Metro Goldwyn Mayer that served him well until his death in 1943. Of course, this is something worthwhile to mention because of the fact that he was one of the key parts behind what ended up becoming a film series. The Thin Man saw five further features: After the Thin Man (1936), Another Thin Man (1939), Shadow of the Thin Man (1941), The Thin Man Goes Home (1945), and Song of the Thin Man (1947). Van Dyke would direct three of the sequels while its main stars in Powell and Loy starred in each of the movies (one would notice that the "Thin Man" actually originally refers to a missing man played by Ellis, but people referred to Powell as "Thin Man" pretty early on). The movie, if you didn't know, is an adaptation of the 1934 novel of the same name by Dashiell Hammett. Hammett was a member of the Pinkerton National Detective Agency (both private law enforcers and aggressors against organized labor) before he was a writer, which led him to write numerous stories and novels with characters such as Sam Spade (as it turned out, this was the last novel written by Hammett, who dealt with tough health and other struggles before his death in 1961). Husband-and-wife duo Albert Hackett and Frances Goodrich wrote the feature, with instruction by Van Dyke to loosely adapt the novel while having concentration on providing witty banter for its lead actors, with Van Dyke often shooting the first take due to his belief that actors lose spontaneity with every passing take.

Go figure that a movie shot in less than three weeks ended up being a complete success for all involved.  The chemistry between Powell and Loy in banter is one that other filmmakers would be jealous enough to wish they could steal for themselves. Van Dyke knew he had magic with these folks, so he made a movie with resourceful pacing and spontaneity that makes for a capable mystery with chuckles to go around. Powell may have been considered a bit too old for the part (42) when compared to Loy (29), associated with exotic roles at the time. But they are so dazzling here, zinging off each other without serving as distraction for tired plotting. Powell knows exactly what to lend to the material in his timing and mannerisms, sophisticated in deduction without coming off as a Sherlock pastiche. He glides through 91 minutes as if the plot wasn't particularly important to having fun. It wasn't his first crack at playing a detective (he had played the character Philo Vance in four films from 1929 to 1933), but it was his first crack at having a film that wanted to show him with sophistication and charm. Powell and Loy would star in fourteen total movies together. Loy makes a quality partner in her own wiry charm that pushes things along with easygoing flair that matches wit (and alcohol) with Powell all the same in pure escapism. O'Sullivan and the others have to play a bit of catch-up in maintaining the plot to some sort of believable level (i.e. things that you've probably heard from a detective story but not completely cliche), in order to not be completely overshadowed by the duo, much less the dog and his paw movement. The dinner sequence where all are seated in order to gradually explain the whodunit is particularly effective in execution in closing the romp. This is the kind of movie where a guy can sock someone from behind before getting into a scuffle or have lines like "didn't come anywhere near my tabloids", you should have a real good time with this movie. Regardless how the follow-up films went, Dyke cultivated in record time a work of useful entertainment that saw one of the best pairings in film history (Powell and Loy) come together for one of the most interesting films of its era that practically walks on air with its sophistication that all would be proud to be part of.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.