Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell.

Review #2263: Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell.

Cast: 

Peter Cushing (Baron Victor Frankenstein / Dr. Carl Victor), Shane Briant (Dr. Simon Helder), Madeline Smith (Sarah "Angel" Klauss), David Prowse (the Creature / Herr Schneider), John Stratton (Asylum Director Adolf Klauss), Michael Ward (Transvest), Elsie Wagstaff (Wild one), Norman Mitchell (Police Sergeant), Clifford Mollison (Judge), Patrick Troughton (bodysnatcher), Philip Voss (Ernst), Christopher Cunningham (Hans), and Charles Lloyd-Pack (Professor Durendel) Directed by Terence Fisher (#257 - The Curse of Frankenstein, #258 - Dracula [1958], #272 - The Hound of the Baskervilles [1959], #469 - The Revenge of Frankenstein, #833 - Spaceways, #857 - Frankenstein Created Woman, #858 - Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed, #859 - Dracula: Prince of Darkness, #1280 - The Brides of Dracula, #2096 - The Mummy [1959])

Review: 

Admittedly, the Frankenstein series operated by Hammer needed a rest. This was the seventh and final feature of a saga that had started nearly two decades prior with The Curse of Frankenstein (1957). Cushing, if one remembers correctly, had appeared in all but The Horror of Frankenstein (1970), which was the ill-fated attempt to start anew with a different Frankenstein that no one cared about. This was the 50th feature film directed by Terence Fisher. He was a craftsman at getting movies done, doing a variety of features one could put for a double feature (crime or otherwise), such as his first effort for Hammer with The Last Page (1952). When Curse rocked the horror world, Fisher was there to direct the 1958 follow-up with Revenge along with adaptations of other books and horror creatures. He returned to the series with Frankenstein Created Woman (1967) and Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed (1969), with the latter being his last film for five years because of a few accidents he had to heal from. He turned 70 prior to the release of the film (which actually was shot in 1972 but delayed), whereupon he retired until his death in 1980. Fisher may not be the seminal name for British horror directors, but he was prolific and efficient enough to endure with a hodgepodge of features that still get airplay every so often in October. The film was written by Anthony Hinds, one of his last features for Hammer; the company was liquidated in 1979, having closed itself out with films such as Captain Kronos – Vampire Hunter (1974), To the Devil a Daughter (1976), and The Lady Vanishes (1979).

I wish I could love the movie, but it sure is bound to its asylum setting and its idea of makeup to its own detriment that is only a notch above The Evil of Frankenstein. Sure, you can say that the film was the last gasp for those who wanted to see something different beyond the creature features, but really it just is a case where some decent movies are just mediocre regardless of the times. It came out in the same year as the other swansong for Hammer involving Cushing with The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires (1974), and it is pretty easy to see that at least one series got to end with some sort of dignity. Apparently, Cushing did his own wig for the film. It does not fit him well in any sense, but one does not get the sense that he has lost any step from the stuff of old when it comes to dogged pursuit of creation. He has essentially become a prisoner of his own ambition, one who can manipulate certain people when he feels like it but is still doing the same song-and-dance of trying to play God that has only seen death (that and damaged hands). Briant obviously is meant to be taken as part of the "new blood" of taking interest in the human body, but he doesn't really have that much to do beyond the general "assistant" role that had been in some of the other previous films. He and Smith are going through familiar motions when it comes to hands and work (take a guess what happens with a mute). And then one gets to the monster and wonders what the hell happened. Simply put, it will remind one of a very, very, very moldy piece of meat, probably because someone had to have been hungry when the designer was told to go for "subhuman". I suppose it is a compliment that every one of these films decided to be imaginative in designing a monster without just re-hashing the old one. Of course, the plight of the monster in its ugly form of beast and man is interesting enough to make the general drama at least on the level for 99 minutes. It may be a cheap movie, but it doesn't creak and groan at itself. I wish the ending was a bit more interesting, since the asylum-bound setting means the fate of the monster isn't too hard to see coming despite the dark amusement that comes from Cushing slowly but surely getting parts to fall into his lap. The direct ending really is a capstone to the series though, going not this time with the possible perishing of Frankenstein but instead with a moment of him looking at what he saw and re-starting the donation process. In general, the movie is bleak but committed in the traditional Hammer sense that can be applauded 50 years later rather than just labeling it as a headstone of Hammer. Cushing and Fisher were a worthwhile pair for such a variety of features together, and this one was an ideal one for them to go out on.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next up: doubleheaders, derangement, and death all the way around for the days ahead

Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III.

Review #2262: Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III.

Cast: 

Kate Hodge (Michelle), William Butler (Ryan), Ken Foree (Benny), Toni Hudson (Sara), Viggo Mortensen (Edward "Tex" Sawyer), Joe Unger (Tinker "Tink" Sawyer), R. A. Mihailoff (Leatherface), Tom Everett (Alfredo Sawyer), Jennifer Banko (Little girl), Beth DePatie (Gina), and Duane Whitaker (Kim) Directed by Jeff Burr (#1104 - Stepfather II)

Review: 

You know, the idea of making another Texas Chainsaw Massacre film didn't make me roll my eyes like I thought it would, even with the first film officially turning 50 years old this month. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (1986) was a decent audience favorite in the annals of "made some money". Sure, some people hated it (a horror sequel that the establishment can't get behind? waiter, this dish is cold!), but the eyes of a cult following always wins out, and I sure liked it just fine. Anyway, The Cannon Group had the rights to the series purchased by New Line Cinema, who naturally thought of wanting to do their own Chainsaw movie. The film was written by David J. Schow, who is mostly known for his horror fiction, which is sometimes labeled as "splatterpunk". He wrote a handful of screenplays for film (direct-to-video and features) along with TV; interestingly, he would go on to co-write the screenplay for The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning (2006). Jeff Burr was brought in to direct after ideas of asking Tom Savini and Peter Jackson failed (Jonathan Betuel also came in and out) before they went with Burr. Burr made roughly over two dozen features (some for video) that were generally in horror (with few exceptions such as Eddie Presley [1992]) prior to his death in 2023 at the age of 60. The movie was quickly shot in the summer of 1989 and was shot in California of all places. The rating of the film was meant to be an R but take a guess at how it worked out with the MPAA; the original rating was an "X" before several minutes were cut from it (remember that the last one had been released unrated), particularly with the ending that basically saw the negative cut right then and there before a release not in the fall of 1989...but in January 1990. They apparently fired Burr and then re-hired him (and then they let him go after production ended to help edit a new ending, thanks to Michael Knue). The middling audience reaction led to New Line ditching the rights, but the next in the series would come out with even less fanfare in The Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1995).

What? I was fine with this movie. Honestly, this was pretty surprising. Sure, it may not be as horrific as the original feature or as darkly glee as the second feature, but I thought it was suitably entertaining in the same way that one is seeing a wind-up toy refined for enjoyment. It is familiar and semi-glossy without making me think of it as a huge sellout because the characters are semi-compelling. It is familiar goop involving the dangers of, well, picking up a conversation with people on the backroads in Texas that I can accept. When talking about the film and its troubles with the MPAA, one statement included by Burr (whether by them or him) is that the films "all revolve around an alternate family unit who does not have any conventional morality." Really the films all seem to play around with different perspectives on the same idea of loopy people who just do whatever they please, which here is cut and dry when talking about a creepy child or Leatherface spelling "f-o-o-d" with a learning tool. To introduce the film when it comes to the travel is Hodge and Butler, who may be ordinary, but they at least are useful lambs to the eventual terror. Undeniably, the highlight is Foree. The power of Foree is that a test screening liking him so much ended up influencing a decision to edit the film (without the knowledge of Burr) so that his character doesn't die at the end (evidently the last shot wasn't exactly the choice of Burr either). Playing a survivalist who just happens to hit the backroads only to encounter weirdos is a useful task for a character actor to chew on, so points to Foree there. Evertt and Unger, and (in particular) Mortensen, are weird enough on their own to fit the standard set from before with goofy abandon. The mask for its title character may not be as ideal in grim quality as before, but the character is one driven by seemingly seeing everything as food that I find to be a strangely curious one to view as a pitiful creature (pity, no pity, you get the idea). Regardless of how the film would've been in a different moment where the loser MPAA didn't get in the way of its violence or with someone not as weird in franchising as New Line, I found this to be a solidly average movie (the 85-minute runtime is short as well). It is not better than the two films that preceded it, but it did not offend my tastes or expectations when it comes to making a play on familiar aspects with loopy flair. There is enough for me to like to actually say one should at least give it a shot when it comes to saw action.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Frankenstein looms.

Macabre (1958).

Review #2261: Macabre.

Cast: 

William Prince (Rodney Barrett), Jim Backus (Police Chief Jim Tyloe), Christine White (Nancy Wetherby Tyloe), Jacqueline Scott (Polly Baron), Susan Morrow (Sylvia Stevenson), Jonathan Kidd (Ed Quigley), Philip Tonge (Jode Wetherby), Dorothy Morris (Alice Barrett), Howard Hoffman (Hummel), and Ellen Corby (Miss Kushins) Directed and Produced by William Castle (#369 - House on Haunted Hill (1959), #1071 - 13 Ghosts, #1418 - The Night Walker, #1703 - Undertow)

Review: 

Admittedly, the gimmick used for the film is probably more interesting than the final result. If one remembers correctly, William Castle had a serviceable career in the eyes of B-movies and quickly made stuff. But he had a yearning for more, and it was the success of the 1955 French film Les Diaboliques (which had aa message at the end telling people not to spoil the ending they just saw to others that hadn't seen it yet) that inspired him to make his own shockers for the masses...complete with a campaign. Of course, Castle wasn't particularly new to doing campaigns. One time, in his days of theatre work, having gotten the chance to lease one out, he had to come up with a German play for his German-born actress to act in (ask yourself why that would be a rule for a theater guild in the 1930s), so he did that over a weekend. Then, he turned a telegram inviting his actress abroad into a chance to call his star "the girl who said no to Hitler"...and then secretly vandalized the theatre with swastikas. Anyway, Castle bought the rights to an obscure-ish novel in The Marble Forest (as written by a few writers of the "Mystery Writers of America", who used the psuedonym Theo Durran). He had Robb White (a partner in the production company with Castle) write a screenplay around it; Castle would utilize White (an adventure novelist and occasional film/TV writer) for four further features. Macabre was the first of what became seventeen films from 1958 to 1974 that had their tinges of horror to go with the occasional gimmick to promote it. An audience member was given a "$1,000 life insurance policy from Lloyd's of London" in case they died of fright from the film; Castle mortaged his house to do the film. Incidentally, a few months after the release of this film, The Screaming Skull (as distributed by American International) had an opening prologue that said the film was so frightening that it might kill its viewer (unlike Castle though, they didn't actually contact an insurance company or hire nurses for the premiere).  

For all the nice things in general one can say about Castle as a filmmaker and in general when it comes to cheap little horror movies, this just isn't that good of an experience. It is a very average and very drawn-out movie for 72 minutes that honestly begs to be twenty minutes longer somehow. There actually are a few flashbacks in the film that try to string us along when it comes to the mystery of just why someone might want to mess with a guy by burying their daughter alive. The sordid stuff that comes (flings with women, people lurking around graveyards, phone calls of terror) is basically the stuff you might see in a crime drama or a soap opera, but the movie just isn't as compelling as one would wish it could be. One could've called it anything other than Macabre, because even though the definition involves "gruesome" things, it just ends up making one believe that the end result fits under "generic". Prince has a bit of punch when it comes to the unraveling of what one really is beyond first impressions, with that panic for the initial pursuit at least being handled with Scott for something worthwhile...for a time. The twist is just straight out of the soap playbook that basically throw the book back at the viewer, but with a lack of cast to begin with, the mystery of what lies beneath the box isn't exactly a hard one to stab a guess on. Backus sounds like he should have more to chew on beyond mild aggression that barely registers even after the story "turns" to flashback. One can see that slow step from making B-flair in say, noir trappings (but with a funny gimmick) to the eventual turn in curious horror (B-flair or not, you be the judge). In general, it is a perfectly mediocre movie, being more known for a gimmick than being good, but if you are curious for what lies beneath the works of William Castle in what he is best known for, go and lurk for oneself.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Return of the Vampire.

Review #2260: The Return of the Vampire.

Cast: 

Bela Lugosi (Armand Tesla), Nina Foch (Nicki Saunders), Roland Varno (John Ainsley), Frieda Inescort (Lady Jane Ainsley), Miles Mander (Sir Fredrick Fleet), Matt Willis (Andreas Obry), Ottola Nesmith (Elsa Walter), Gilbert Emery (Dr. Walter Saunders), Leslie Denison (Detective Lynch), and William Austin (Detective Gannett) Directed by Lew Landers.

Review: 

Believe it or not, I actually was trying to find time to do this film for quite a few years. Sure, it probably doesn't sound like much, what with the title being probably the most generic one could ever do...but it is Bela Lugosi playing a vampire again. Sure, Mark of the Vampire (as directed by Tod Browning in 1935) had you going with the idea of Lugosi as a lead vampire (until that twist), but, well, here you get the real deal. This is for a movie that is basically a discount version of Dracula (1931), complete with a subservient person that, uh, turns into a wolf. It was released by Columbia Pictures, who could be efficient in cheap B-moviemaking, which is probably evident pretty quickly here, complete with select stock footage shots (the climax involves WWII footage, take a guess what that means). The film was written by Randall Faye and Griffin Jay based on an idea by Kurt Neumann; Faye was a regular writer (and sometimes director) on plenty of cheap features from 1926 until he died in 1948. The movie was directed by Lew Landers, who actually had a handful of experience in horror as a journeyman director, as he went from actor to assistant director by the early 1920s before becoming a director of pretty much anything and anywhere, such as The Raven (1935), which also featured Lugosi as star (Landers would then shift over to TV by the 1950s prior to his death in 1962). It wasn't quite the last time Lugosi played a vampire, but further efforts were, well, comedies such as Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948) and Mother Riley Meets the Vampire (1952). The movie was released in the same year as Universal's Son of Dracula and ended up being a decent hit.

You have to remember that Lugosi was basically typecasted after the success of Dracula (1931), particularly because of his Hungarian accent (of course by that time he was a naturalized US citizen). He couldn't get that many starring roles unless it involved horror or being with studios beyond Universal Studios. Chronic sciatica (and taking drugs to treat it that left him addicted) did not help matters for an actor that was relegated to doing stuff for studios such as Monogram Pictures. This was one of those rare times in the 1940s where he could actually do something as a star for a name studio, and I think he handled it confidently enough to make one want to see it as more than just a cheap Dracula imitation. Lacking the elegance befitting of the older film for something more akin to a creature of the night, he carries the film when required to do so to go with a movie that is generally paced well enough to let things go where they need to without overextending itself. Sure, it was made during the war, but there sure is something to making a vampire feature involving "bombing raids" with complete seriousness for a runtime of 69 minutes. Inescort and Mander prove suitable presences to do the investigative aspects required (the "vampire pursuit" is a bit cheekier when you consider the ending is addressing the audience!). Foch plays the object of pursuit patiently enough to make one go with the usual flow. Willis doesn't exactly have the werewolf makeup do him many favors, but the dilemma of a once-devotee is at least semi-compelling enough to view in the lens of trouble and toil to be free. I kind of like the idea of having a vampire tale told in two different war-time settings (the opening quarter of the film involves Emery and Inescort during 1918 putting a stake in the vampire only to inspire questions about putting a stake in a "living" person 25 years later!), complete with the vampire trying to impersonate a concentration camp escapee. It is the kind of brazen horror film that one can appreciate even as a clearly average movie, and the fact that Lugosi was there to lead the way rather than be trapped by a hokey foundation is a worthwhile thing to say when recommending a decent way to start the horror season.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Welcome to October. It probably won't be as busy as last year's extravagant event, but we will try to cover plenty of new ground in horror, whether that involves sequels long awaited or remakes to go along with new directors and familiar ones. For example, the next review is Macabre and the one after that...is Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III.

Meet the Feebles.

Review #2259: Meet the Feebles.

Cast: 

Donna Akersten (Lucille the Dog / Samantha the Cat / Dorothy the Sheep / Female Rabbit #1 / Chorus Girl #2 / Fitness Tape Voice), Stuart Devenie (Sebastian the Fox / Daisy the Cow / Sandy the Chicken / Cedric the Warthog / Eight Ball the Frog / Seymour the Elechicken / Female Rabbit #2 / Chorus Girl #1), Mark Hadlow (Robert the Hedgehog / Heidi the Hippo / Barry the Bulldog / Chorus Girl #3), Ross Jolly (Harry the Rabbit / Dennis the Aardvark / Abi Bargwan the Contortionist / Mr. Big the Whale / Pekingese / Crab 2 / Vietnamese Gophers 2), Peter Vere-Jones (Bletch the Walrus / Arthur the Worm / The Baker / Newspaper Mouse / The Announcer), Brian Sergent (Wynyard the Frog / Trevor the Rat / F. W. Fly the Fly / Dr. Quack the Duck / Jim the Frog / Chuck the Frog / The Spider / Vietnamese Gophers), and Mark Wright (Sid the Elephant / The Masked Masochist / Louie the Dog / Guppy the Fish / Poodle / Snake bartender / Crab 1 / Chorus Girl #4) Directed by Peter Jackson (#1486 - Bad Taste, #1507 - Heavenly Creatures, #1540 - King Kong [2005])

Review: 

"You know, I do want to make the sort of films I like watching, so what I had to try and do with the Feebles is make the sort of puppet film that I would like to watch. That if I had to go down and watch a puppet film for an hour-and-a-half - what would I like to see?"

It is very strange to be so interested in the early years of a director rather than the stuff they are best known for. And yet, here we are with Peter Jackson, who had made five feature films in his native New Zealand prior to being hired for some sort of "Lord of the Rings" adaptation. If you thought Bad Taste (1987) was a weird little film, well, here's a fun curveball for you. The movie evolved from being thought of as something that could be its own little TV series into feature-length because of potential interest from Japanese investors; funding also came from the New Zealand Film Commission, although they were not particularly big on the film by the end to where they didn't even put themselves on the credits. The film was written by Peter Jackson. Danny Mulheron, Fran Walsh, and Stephen Sinclair. All the dialogue tracks were recorded prior to shooting, with Jackson personally being the one operating the camera. There were a handful of people responsible for the puppeteering, such as Mulheron also serving as the in-suit performer for Heidi the Hippo to with supervision of the puppeteering by Jonathon Acorn and Ramon Aguilar (for more clarification on how they did the puppet-work, one could click here or here). While it wasn't a big hit with audiences (making less than half of its reported $750,000 budget), it eventually attracted a cult following; the next film Jackson got to make was with Braindead (1992), which actually was planned to be done after Bad Taste but was postponed because of funding stepped out at the last second. The film later served as an inspiration for the script of another puppet-related film with The Happytime Murders (2018).

I'm sure you know the story: a behind-the-scenes look at a variety theatre troupe ready to put on a show who are wracked with affairs, drug-pushing, pornographic filmmaking, and more....it just happens to involve puppets. So yes, it is a bit off the road from something like The Muppet Show. It is delightfully vile in the ways that appeal greatly to my interests when it comes to executing amusement from committed voices and gags that are hit-and-miss in the nicest of ways. Oh sure, there are moments that are totally ridiculous to go along with a few slow moments, and I do get why some folks (read: the ones who aren't wimpy about gross stuff by default) won't be big on it, but I found it to be a pretty good 97 minutes to spend some time in the grime of it all. It throws the whole wall of cliches you could find in a backstage film about show business and runs with it, whether that involves a star potentially dying of a disease trying to go on (the punchline is one to run for), a guy trying to do his act while wracked with PTSD (complete with a homage to The Deer Hunter!), a somewhat there love story, and to top it all off, efforts to get a song into the show...about sodomy. Well, that and what you might see on the cover involving a gun, but the less said, the better. It probably goes without saying that the voices are pretty good for making an atmosphere of plenty come out through just a handful of people, particularly with Hadlow, who gets to play a melodramatic hippo and a cliche-bland hedgehog all in one. Sergent probably gets the best stuff to do, since the fly he voices cracks me up each time with its craven sound that goes right in with a do-anything journalist, and to say nothing of the Peter Lorre impersonation with a pervert rat, that is pretty silly. In general, calling it crude doesn't even feel like a critique, because it might as well be a badge of honor to make such a ridiculous movie work so well in terms of mayhem and the occasional effective gag. Jackson did not stumble much for his second film effort here, and I salute having made time to see it for myself, and if you are fine with a hodgepodge of weird humor here and there, you might be for it too.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Exit stage right and enter the world of October.

The Wild Robot.

Review #2258: The Wild Robot.

Cast: 

Lupita Nyong'o (ROZZUM unit 7134), Pedro Pascal (Fink), Kit Connor (Brightbill), Catherine O'Hara (Pinktail), Bill Nighy (Longneck), Stephanie Hsu (Vontra), Mark Hamill (Thorn), Matt Berry (Paddler), and Ving Rhames (Thunderbolt) Written and Directed by Chris Sanders (#294 - How to Train Your Dragon and #387 - Lilo & Stitch)

Review: 

"I only engage with projects that take risks, and go to audacious places. But with The Wild Robot, there was also an unusual purity to the world which I never expected to encounter in my career. The animal characters have no cars, jobs, neckties or cell phones. The animals move like … animals!  I knew immediately we had to elevate our visuals so they would allow the emotional wavelengths to fully resonate. Put simply, the style of this film needed to be worthy of the story we were telling."

It probably shouldn't be a surprise that this is based on a children's book (with illustrations that were actually black and white) by Peter Brown. He had been struck with an image in his head of a robot next to a tree when working on a book that stood with him and eventually it came to him as basically an extreme example of a "fish out of water" story that gelled with his love of science fiction and nature. The Wild Robot was published in 2016 and became its own series, complete with a third book that was released last year. Chris Sanders had a daughter that had read the book but hadn't really thought about it until Dreamworks Animation had the rights to the book for possible filming since before the book had been published. He read the book and described it as "at once deceptively simple, and emotionally complex" while believing he was the guy that could bring the book to the screen. A handful of films have been cited by Sanders as inspiration such as Bambi and My Neighbor Totoro, as he had the imagery of each film in his head when reading The Wild Robot and it came to him that a film adaptation had to be visually sophisticated. This is apparently the last Dreamworks Animation film to be produced fully in-house at their studio, as they are cutting costs by using third-party studios for further features (which are distributed by Universal Studios). It happens to be the first animated film directed by Sanders since The Croods (2013).

I'm sure there is no surprise to be found here in saying this is a pretty good feature. It is the execution that matters most when it comes to making a story about kindness and a select group of talking animals stand on its own in crisp entertainment. It is the kind of movie that looks and feels like it would make a neat doubleheader with The Iron Giant (1999), if that makes sense. The hand-painted aesthetic is lovely in establishing the atmosphere that arises when trying to make a film look and feel organic that really should be seen on a screen as big as possible. The 102-minute runtime shows plenty of warmth without being a vessel for cheap songs or bits just for the sake of it. If the books aimed for a sense of being a fable, the film surely has achieved that same effect by making one remember what a connection means to the world around it to go with appreciating a landscape as breathtaking as nature can be. It rests on the shoulders of Nyong'o to make the lead work as well as it does in making the journey of a robot (and accompanying expressions from the salespitcher-turned-naturebot) worth seeing play out, which she does quite well. The pursuit of a task leading to adoptive motherhood is tenderly handled by her to go with Pascal and his trading of snide remarks and advice that is just as effective in showing the importance in following the circle of life. One takes flight when the moment requires one to feel flight and one has the same wonder when spending a few moments away from the island setting in the sheer difference that is apparent in a less-natural world. In other words, it isn't merely just a mother hen story with a cute duck, it really is a neat little coming-of-age story, for which Connor handles that part pretty well. The training sequences of trying to be one with a species (such as flying) is pretty fascinating. There are a few bits of levity provided by O'Hara and Berry while Hsu comes in late for an interesting (if not exactly covered too much) look in trying to do friendly forced compliance for robots. The ending for the film is interesting, mostly because it really does click this as a fable worth looking to and back again that doesn't play a cheap trick on the audience and leaves them satisfied, regardless of if there was a craving for a sequel or not. In general, it is a dazzling movie that has plenty to offer in crisp filmmaking from committed people and voices to match that should play well for just about anybody, which is a worthwhile thing to say when it comes to a film about kindness.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Layer Cake.

Review #2257: Layer Cake.

Cast: 

Daniel Craig (XXXX), Colm Meaney (Gene), George Harris (Morty), Sienna Miller (Tammy), Tamer Hassan (Terry), Jamie Foreman (the Duke), Kenneth Cranham (Jimmy Price), Michael Gambon (Eddie Temple), Ben Whishaw (Sidney), Tom Hardy (Clarkie), Dexter Fletcher (Cody), Steve John Shepherd (Tiptoes), Burn Gorman (Gazza), and Sally Hawkins (Slasher) Directed by Matthew Vaughn (#042 - X-Men: First Class, #993 - Kingsman: The Secret Service, #994 - Kingsman: The Golden Circle)

Review: 

"The problem is that every gangster film's been full of all this gore-blimey-cockney-mate-I'm-a-*******-hard-guy nonsense and that's what Layer Cake isn't. Lots of people in the test screenings complained that the drug dealers in the movie were middle class. But that's how life is! The idea that every drug dealer is a cockney or a scouser is just a cliché. My aspiration was to make Heat but set in Britain. That was the goal."

Twenty years ago in October of 2004, Matthew Vaughn directed his first feature film with Layer Cake, which actually was an adaptation of the 2000 novel of the same name by J. J. Connolly, who had described himself as formerly being "an end-user, a punter." He wrote the novel with a handful of it being based on anecdotes by people he knew while noting that when he wrote the book, it was a time when "smart criminals" (as he put it) getting to find the idea of having a public profile abhorrent. The interest that the book generated in the public found its way to Vaughn. The son of a banker, he had worked as a film director assistant before trying (and dropping) to attend university in London for history. He produced his first film (at the age of 25) with The Innocent Sleep (1996). His next two features were with Guy Ritchie as a director that attracted attention in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998) and Snatch (2000). He happened to encounter Connolly on a train ride and found himself wrapped up in directing the film, complete with Connolly writing the script for the film. A neat hit with audiences, Vaughn has managed to direct (and produce) a handful of features over the next two decades. Connolly wrote a follow-up novel eleven years later with Viva La Madness, which has yet to be adapted in any form.

Really one could say this is a skewed look at "the process", only now in the view of a criminal. It ends up wracked with twists and layers that end up doing a few favors in the art of clever engagement for a solid feature. Of course, it happens to be the film associated with Daniel Craig getting to play James Bond in Casino Royale (2005), and it probably goes without saying that this is a pretty good showcase for him. Sure, it is a familiar feature but being hip and spry for 105 minutes is not a hard thing to accomplish, and the commitment works when you have a cast that is worthwhile to follow with. Craig just has that "it factor" here, which is interesting considering he had been around for a handful of film roles of varying prominence (after honing his craft on the stage, naturally), but he has a way with words that draws you in how direct he is in the art of not wanting to be a career guy with such suave confidence. One wonders exactly what our unnamed lead would actually have ended up pursuing as a "gentleman of leisure", but I think you can see that whatever it could have been in terms of a pursuit, he sure would've made a killing at it. His pursuit of dancing in and out of the inane web set upon him is a fun one for him to show his charm while blood gets drawn around him, and it probably helps to have Meaney around, because the occasional humorous moments that occur (amid the violence and the situations that arise from that) are mostly because of him and his piercing qualities. Others come and go to varying effect, whether that involves Miller and a few alluring glances or the stark differences in Cranham and Gambon when it comes to established figures in the "layer cake" of crime (Gambon in particular is quite amusing). Evidently, there were a few endings shot for the film before Vaughn maneuvered it so the one used was the one he wanted (one that apparently is distinct from the book, but they share the same last line). It is a startling ending to the film but worthwhile when you really get down to it, at least when compared to the usual fare. As a whole, it is a pretty good feature with entertaining execution from all involved in the art of process within the criminal underworld that cuts like a knife on butter for solid results.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Ipcress File.

Review #2256: The Ipcress File.

Cast: 

Michael Caine (Harry Palmer), Guy Doleman (Colonel Ross), Nigel Green (Major Dalby), Sue Lloyd (Jean Courtney), Gordon Jackson (Jock Carswell), Aubrey Richards (Dr. Radcliffe), Frank Gatliff (Eric Grantby), Thomas Baptiste (Barney), Oliver MacGreevy (Housemartin), Freda Bamford (Alice), and Pauline Winter (Charlady) Directed by Sidney J. Furie (#787 - Superman IV: The Quest for Peace)

Review: 

"If you have a great story and you try to do all these different camera angles, you'll get away with it. But if you don't have a great story, they'll hit you hard. If you try to use the screen the way a painter uses a canvas, somehow it's not considered acceptable. The reason I did it for the first time on THE IPCRESS FILE was because we had a script and we hated it. What we did was we shot from the beginning and we rewrote as we went."

When it comes to spy features, it makes sense to eventually encounter this film. It is an adaptation roughly based on The IPCRESS File, a 1962 novel written by Len Deighton, who had been inspired by a neighbor he once had named Anna Wolkoff, a daughter of a czarist admiral and also a spy that ended up being arrested, which Deighton (a young boy living in central London when World War II started) witnessed. Interestingly enough, the ensuing film would be produced by Harry Saltzman, who had went from producing stuff such as Look Back in Anger (1958) to being a partner in producing the first couple of James Bond films (incidentally, Deighton was initially hired to write From Russia with Love [1963] and had even travelled with the crew but was eventually replaced). The director was the Canadian Sidney J. Furie, who had started his career in his native Canada in 1957 (turning a planned CBC project into his debut feature with A Dangerous Age) before moving to England and gradually rising up the ranks of small-scale stuff in horror, drama and musicals (most notably with Cliff Richard). Apparently, Harry Saltzman did not like Furie in production and even once claimed editor Peter R. Hunt (also a Bond alumni) was mostly involved in direction (he wasn't big on certain angles utilized in certain shots, but Hunt backed Furie). The film screenplay was credited to Bill Canaway to James Doran, although apparently Lionel Davidson, Johanna Harwood, Lukas Heller and Ken Hughes delivered uncredited work; according to Caine, Furie took a copy of the script on the first day he was on set and set it on fire, which meant that the film was basically being re-written as they shot it. Deighton wrote five further novels involving Harry Palmer (he wasn't named in the books, but, well, go with it) until 1974; two of those books were turned into films (Funeral in Berlin [1966] was directed by Guy Hamilton while Billion Dollar Brain [1967] was directed by Ken Russell) to go with two "TV films" that all had Caine as the lead. In 2022, The Ipcress File was adapted again as a six-episode TV miniseries.

There are a handful of people familiar with the James Bond films here, such as production designer Ken Adam, editor Peter R. Hunt and composer John Barry, but it doesn't mean one is watching a pastiche. Instead, one has a neat and compact feature that has a wonderfully dry Caine. The results matter most in a grounded and cynical feature that clearly reflects well upon its era with a craftsman and a worthy cast and crew to make entertainment in the art of the mundane for elite paranoia. There is a smoothness to the production that you can feel through its 109-minute runtime that has style even in the mask of realism. Even for his second big role in a film, one just sees Caine and understands just how he could be a star just like that, because his habits are ones that we quickly grow to know and love that goes from disregard for authority to appreciating the fine art of cooking. His wit is drier than say, a certain quippy film icon of the time, but it oozes a certain type of charm within the perception that just never fails. Doleman and Green provide worthwhile contrast to Caine in the general stiff-lipped sense of bureaucracy and stone-wall nature that is more unnerving than it seems (of course Doleman would end up being the only recurring actor besides Caine in the trilogy of feature films). Lloyd is soothing in that elusive tête-à-tête between her and Caine. When you think about it, it really isn't so much about the plot (although Gatliff is pretty unnerving when it comes to the brainwashing stuff) as it is about the vibes that arise from a camera that has you view the action as if you were the one staking out the characters. The atmosphere (complete with seemingly underrated John Barry doing the music) is one that is hard to match in carefully composed fun. The patience taken to watch it play all the way through leads to plenty of reward for the viewer that seeks it out.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Master of the World (1961).

Review #2255: Master of the World (1961)

Cast: 

Vincent Price (Robur), Charles Bronson (John Strock), Henry Hull (Prudent), Mary Webster (Dorothy Prudent), David Frankham (Philip Evans), Richard Harrison (Helmsman Alistair), Vito Scotti (Airship Chef Topage), Wally Campo (First Mate Turner), and Ken Terrell (Crewman Shanks) Directed by William Witney.

Review: 

Oh sure, an American International Pictures production that isn't just about horror, what could go wrong? The movie is loosely adapted from the works on Jules Verne, specifically the novels Robur the Conqueror (written in 1886) and Master of the World (written in 1904), as screenwriter Richard Matheson (in his second screenplay for an AIP film, as this was released between House of Usher [1960] and The Pit and the Pendulum [1961]) combined elements for this hodgepodge. But hey, we (yes, I include you) are here for the entertainment value in whatever is being cooked up on an "efficient" budget and maybe even in its cast. And this seems especially apparent here with Vincent Price being the star. Believe it or not, there were rumblings of making a follow-up feature, despite the way the actual film ended (an explosion!), complete with drawings, although these plans were scrapped pretty quickly. Witney was an experienced director dating back to the 1930s, which included films such as Adventures of Captain Marvel (1941) along with plenty of television; he directed until he was in his late sixties. 

Really this is a curious movie, because you get a little adventure in color with Price trying to thread the needle of adversary that doesn't require fey qualities to go with Bronson getting a chance of a leading man as opposed to the early heavy stuff (such as Machine-Gun Kelly, if you remember) to go with a few others that either will keep your interest or have the effect of a puddle. 102 minutes is probably decent enough to command the attention of a movie that has pretty routine filmmaking to go with occasional goofy comic-strip moments. So yes, you get the triangle of conflict between the obviously cool adversary in Price (no bias detected), a bullish Hull, and "ambiguity" (nicest word possible) in Bronson. Well, and a bit of hammy old-man acting from Frankham and window-aisle stuff in Webster, but you get the idea. Price seems to be having quite the ball here, playing the angle that arises in pacifism taken to a certain type of notch when it comes to trying to force it down on everyone from the clouds to go with occasional spouting of the Bible. Price isn't playing it for camp, but he makes it fascinating, nonetheless. Bronson and his dryness might not compare to, say, The Magnificent Seven (1960), but it probably does reflect well to see his casual observation at the difference between ideals and methods, particularly with how leaden one finds Hull or Webster (set in the 19th century or not, wondering what is fit for a "gentleman" is not interesting in the slightest for someone like me). Interestingly, this is a movie made for about a million dollars that still manages to look a bit cheap, particularly if you like to wonder just what is made of stock footage and what is not (the opening at least is obvious because hey, "flight'!). Sometimes the aerial view is a bit silly (those familiar with rear projection might have a guess), which is especially true with the rope sequence. At a certain point, one just has to wonder where the low bar is but considering certain other AIP features past and present in terms of trying one's patience (such as here and here), I was fine with it here just enough. I can at least dig the climax for giving one a good sendoff in terms of unsettling ideas. Those with the fortitude to enjoy an AIP film for what it is in goofy entertainment will find something fine here, while others might recognize an even more hammier AIP film than usual. I went with the flow because it went with my expectations of a fairly decent time, which I suppose made it a winner that I could recommend for those with the fortitude to enjoy a goofy film from old yesteryear with one worthwhile performance to follow along with in the usual tradition.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Thief (1952).

Review #2254: The Thief (1952)

Cast: 

Ray Milland (Allan Fields), Martin Gabel (Mr. Bleek), Harry Bronson (Harris), Rita Vale (Miss Philips), Rex O'Malley (Beal), and Rita Gam (the Girl) Directed by Russell Rouse (#549 - The Oscar)

Review: 

I'm sure you haven't heard of this film before, unless of course you admire old films or happen to admire bad puns when writing opening sentences for reviews. That is because this is a film where, well, no dialogue is spoken the whole way through, complete with the smallest possible use of verbal communication possible: seeing a telegram message (there is sound of course). It is basically a test to see how much one can get out of an actor, and a former Academy Award winner in Milland seems apt here. The film was written by Clarence Greene and Russell Rouse, who had written a handful of films together since The Town Went Wild (1944). Most notably, they co-wrote D.O.A. (1950) and the story for Pillow Talk (1959), with the latter resulting in an Academy Award. Rouse had rose up all the way from props (and a background related in film from his father and great uncle), and The Thief would be the second of ten features he directed from 1951 (The Well was first, which he co-directed with Leo C. Popkin to considerable notice) to 1967; Greene either co-wrote or produced all of Rouse's films. Rouse continued to write until a few years before his death in 1987 at the age of 73.

 

Really this is the kind of movie where using your imagination might help with a film as strangely involving as this one is. Dwelling in the shadows of fear where a man is alone is interesting when you don't know the motives behind such things for a strange 86 minutes. I suppose it is important to make a movie that show the methods of work as one that isn't so much about action or wordplay but instead wordless grind that can and will turn one inside out. Imagine a movie where one can see some legs in a film that really does go to show that actions speak louder than words. In that sense, Milland is up to the challenge, one filled with weary dread for the business that he has signed himself. The guilt for where his responsibilities now lie is a palpable one that especially leads one to imagine where we would be in his shoes. It isn't exactly a blank slate, but I think you can see where films like Silent Night (2023) found interesting inspiration to try and mold something with weary (silent) abandon. Gabel simply just has to stare in the manner that arises from men in shadows that have no use for fear or heavies when procedure is enough. This is a film for those that would like to see just what makes a clock tick beyond just sounds. Sure, there are moments that seem to contort to follow the rules it sets for itself, but it doesn't hurt it completely when one thinks about low-budget cheapies that either made up their own rules or went with the flow (or alternatively, improvisation). The ending of the film is probably predictable for the era it was made (take a guess where a guy taking photos for "the enemy" is going to end up beyond either jail or death), but it doesn't detract from the overall achievement of the film in curiosity.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

He Ran All the Way.

Review #2253: He Ran All the Way.

Cast: 

John Garfield (Nick Robey), Shelley Winters (Peg Dobbs), Wallace Ford (Mr. Dobbs), Selena Royle (Mrs. Dobbs), Gladys George (Mrs. Robey), Norman Lloyd (Al Molin), Bobby Hyatt (Tommy Dobbs), and Clancy Cooper (Stan) Directed by John Berry.

Review: 

Remember John Garfield? Tough guy actor, Method acting pioneer, martyr for the cause of not naming names, one probably should remember this actor. He had made his debut on Broadway at the age of nineteen in 1932 after rising from a tough upbringing to honing his craft in New York theatre (such as the Group Theatre). Six years later, he appeared in his first film with Four Daughters (1938) and garnered an Academy Award nomination to start his first couple of years in the Warner Bros. studio system before he decided to venture out with his own production company in the mid-1940s; Body and Soul (1947) was the highlight of the three-year run. Garfield died at the age of 39 from long-term heart problems (he had scarlet fever as a child while missing service in World War II because of his heart) in 1952. One year earlier, he appeared in his last feature film with He Ran All the Way, which was based on the 1947 novel of the same name by Sam Ross. Hugo Butler and Dalton Trumbo wrote the screenplay adaptation. Two months before this film was released, Garfield was asked to testify before the House Committee on Un-American Activities. He was a member of the Committee for the First Amendment, which was in support of ten individuals that were cited for contempt of Congress and blacklisted when they didn't answer questions of alleged involvement with the Communist Party, which included Trumbo; being a part of that committee, combined with a wife who actually was a member of the Communist Party in America and testimony that did not "name names", led to Garfield being ignored by studios. Incidentally, John Berry was also wrapped up in the HUAC witch-hunt, because Edward Dmytryk (a member of the aforementioned "Hollywood Ten") decided to testify and named Berry as a communist (Berry had indeed been in the party for a time). Berry would have to move away from America to find work to direct for a time; Berry returned and eventually got to direct features again, most notably with Claudine (1974). Butler himself was chased out of working in Hollywood for a number of years because of the HUAC. The film, distributed by United Artists, made $1 million on original release.

Seemingly, you can find a noir classic if you know where to go. There is a great sense of claustrophobia present for a movie with such a delicate sense of self for 78 minutes. Garfield as a whole deserved better, but he really pulled it all in with this performance of a scared creature that is exposed to the elements when you see him opposite other people. Sure, you might wonder what he is doing interacting with a mother in the intro where he looks a bit old to still be around living with her, but then I think that even there it seems clear that we are dealing with someone who lives only to use people and things as much as he tries to do because of how alone he really is. Imagine the depths one has to go to make people be around you and all one can come up with is aggression. Garfield just sells that desperation in such a quick amount of time that makes one realize that some Method guys really could just lock in when they needed to. Incidentally, this is the same year that Winters was nominated for her first Academy Award for her performance in A Place in the Sun. Interestingly, she was so into the idea of being into this film with Garfield and Berry that when faced with the idea of having to turn down the film for some contract costume drama (Little Egypt), she intentionally went on an eating habit (apparently over a week and a weekend) to gain weight to get out of that film, which worked. It is easy to see her talent, because she plays opposite Garfield with such worthwhile timing that makes the drama of collaboration with a kidnapper-turned-accomplice so fascinating. Ford provides the usual character actor stuff that is reliable in terms of apprehension, as one would expect from someone in the middle of a growing shaky bond between man and woman. As a whole, this is a damn good movie, with Berry and Garfield leading the way in worthwhile tension in the portrait of a scared creature and the personality that comes out in such a rapid-fire and terse way for such a grim and devastating film, particularly in its climax in those last few minutes.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Convoy (1978).

Review #2252: Convoy (1978).

Cast: 

Kris Kristofferson (Martin "Rubber Duck" Penwald), Ali MacGraw (Melissa), Ernest Borgnine (Sheriff Lyle "Cottonmouth" Wallace), Burt Young ("Love Machine" / "Pig Pen"), Madge Sinclair (Widow Woman), Franklyn Ajaye (Spider Mike), Brian Davies (Chuck Arnoldi), Seymour Cassel (Governor Jerry Haskins), Cassie Yates (Violet), Walter Kelley (Federal Agent Hamilton), Billy Hughes (Pack Rat), and Jorge Russek (Texas Sheriff Tiny Alvarez) Directed by Sam Peckinpah (#590 - Ride the High Country, #591 - The Wild Bunch, #944 - Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid, #1439 - Straw Dogs, #1685 - The Deadly Companions, #1936 - The Getaway)

Review: 

Sure, one might think of Smokey and the Bandit (1977) first when they wonder about Convoy. But actually, there is a tiny bit of things to think about beforehand. Bill Fries Jr was interested in music but more so in commercial art, which eventually lead to Bozell & Jacobs for art direction. In the 1970s, a character called "C. W. McCall" was created to aid in advertising for...bread, which because of the nature of transporting it through trucks, well, why not making a truck-themed ad and character. The ads (played by Jim Finlayson) were a hit, and Fries used it as a way to come up with a song, which he wrote with Chip Davis (with Donald Sears as producer). Played over the winter of 1975 and early 1976 to interested airwaves, the song (an ode to renegade truckers) was a hit to people in an era where CB radio and trucking were a thing to talk about (McCall wasn't exactly a one-hit wonder, he merely just found other things to do besides singing songs for long, which actually included being mayor of Ouray, Colorado for six years; he died in 2022 at the age of 93). I think you can understand how it might've made sense for United Artists to go out for a film based on the truck stuff. The film was written by B. W. L. Norton, who had wrote/directed Cisco Pike [1972], the somewhat noted cult classic that had starred Kristofferson in his first go at being an actor. Sam Peckinpah had directed these three films before this one: Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia (1974), The Killer Elite (1975), and Cross of Iron (1977). Suffice to say, he needed a hit, and he went with it while fiddling where he could in the script that found a bit of time to cast someone like Ajaye in an apparent attempt to add some social commentary. Apparently, he used James Coburn not so much just for second unit work but also to direct certain sequences due to his furthering addiction to drugs and alcohol. Evidently, the original cut of the film was over three hours long, but editing resulted in a 114-minute film, complete with a new rendition of McCall's "Convoy". The production of the film resulted in a commercial hit, but he did not direct for a while (doing second unit work on Jinxed! [1981] before his final film with The Osterman Weekend [1983]).

Admittedly, you could probably say the film sure smells like it has a substance in its body with how it actually makes one appreciate the fine art of enjoying a dumb-as-hell movie. You thought Smokey was hokum? You haven't seen anything yet. It is the staging of chaos like you have probably seen before, but it is kinetic enjoyment (complete with stunts you can't quite tell are staged or just part of the "go with it" show) that I can't help but admire even in average enjoyment. Besides, the casual average qualities of his prior 70s work such as Straw Dogs and The Getaway make one appreciate the pedal-to-the-medal ridiculousness that looks like if a Western was deep-fried (what else could one say about a line in which Kristofferson refers to him and Borgnine as being part of the "there ain't many of us left" department). Kristofferson drifts in and out as the inadvertent hero for the people that you probably have seen before, but there is a lean confidence in his charm that you can practically have a beer with. MacGraw may have been fine for Peckinpah's Getaway, but she doesn't really have anything of note to do in this film (cut because of the edits or not, you decide)., particularly when one focuses more on the goofy dynamic between Kristofferson and Borgnine anyway,. There is something delightfully enjoyable about Borgnine in how he cuts through the film in terms of smarmy authority that is the kind of played-out entertainment worth sticking around for as the film gets further absurd with the introduction of a Governor character that really believes a convoy of truckers (comprised of a chunk of folks who probably don't even know why they are going along with it all) can be the key to reaching "the people", which is pretty amusing. Rounding out the interest is Ajaye and Young, who make quality character presences in the salt-of-the-earth nature that comes from people wrapped up in essentially the grind of their lives (the off-screen assault of the former in particular sticks out). The ending is probably easy to see coming when it comes to "man of the people!", but it does ring amusement in the actual reveal and lasting laugh, so that works out. The film is clearly not any better than the fried ridiculousness that arose in low-budget / B-movie enjoyment in its wake, but Peckinpah and company managed to grind out a curious movie filled with chaotic engagement anyways. It wouldn't be the first one to recommend in the work of Peckinpah, but it sure would garner curiosity for those who love to see vintage 1970s entertainment with the staging of real-scale effects and stunts to go with a catchy song.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Beetlejuice Beetlejuice.

Review #2251: Beetlejuice Beetlejuice.

Cast: 

Michael Keaton (Betelgeuse), Winona Ryder (Lydia Deetz), Catherine O'Hara (Delia Deetz), Jenna Ortega (Astrid Deetz), Justin Theroux (Rory), Monica Bellucci (Delores LaVerge), Willem Dafoe (Wolf Jackson), Arthur Conti (Jeremy Frazier), Burn Gorman (Father Damien), Amy Nuttall (Jane Butterfield Jr.), Santiago Cabrera (Richard), Danny DeVito (Janitor), and Nick Kellington (Bob) Directed by Tim Burton (#040 - Batman [1989], #107 - Beetlejuice, #132 - Alice in Wonderland, #196 - Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, #262 - Corpse Bride, #316 - Batman Returns, #969 - Planet of the Apes [2001], #1257 - Pee-wee's Big Adventure, #1295 - Sleepy Hollow, #1615 - Edward Scissorhands, #2160 - Mars Attacks!)

Review: 

"It was only until fairly recently, with all this talk, that I just put all the noise away and I just go, 'Okay, I love the Lydia character.' That was the character that I connected with, like, as a teenager. So I go, 'What happened to this person 35 years later? What weird thing?' You go from cool teenager to some fucked-up adult. What relationships do you have? Do you have kids? What's your relationship with that? It's not something I could have done back then; it's only something you could do once you experience those things yourself. So for me, this became a very personal movie, like a kind of weird family movie about a weird family."

You know, I actually had to go back and look up the most recent Tim Burton film I expressed interest in seeing right then and there. I actually forgot it has been five years since his last feature film, in which I'm sure went completely well in non-soulless remaking in Dumbo [2019] (in fairness, younger me was okay with Alice in Wonderland [2010]). I didn't really think about the chance of Beetlejuice having a sequel, even though I remember having a neat time with it in the couple times I remember seeing it, one originally devised by Michael McDowell and Larry Wilson with helpful re-writing from Warren Skaaren that had plenty of amusement within the bureaucracy of the dead and a free-spirited (read: pervert) bio-exorcist. In some ways, it really is a manic syrupy tribute to the B-movies that Burton grew up with, made in an era where one could just do stop motion and blue screen effects to go with slapstick in a neat 92-minute package. The idea of a sequel has been kicked around long enough that one concept was to have the title character go to Hawaii, but it only gained actual steam in the last couple of years (so just a bit after someone adapted the film into a musical). The screenplay this time around was done by Alfred Gough and Miles Millar (best known for developing Smallville and incidentally, Wednesday) while the story was done by Gough, Millar, and Seth Grahame-Smith (probably best known as the writer of the mashup Pride and Prejudice and Zombies). 

Sure, the sequel isn't quite at the same level of "good" than the original, but it is evident that Burton and company at least had a good time making it. I didn't really pick it because "hey, sequel to something I liked", I picked it more because I figured it would be the type of film to experience with a crowd at least once (as opposed to the usual "who cares" or half-empty amusement, because even mothers deserve a visit to the theater for the first time since *Cats*). It complements the original while fulfilling two obvious things: thank goodness this was not a lazy "continuation TV series" (or god forbid, a streaming original) and thank goodness it was a film that wasn't merely a lazy vessel for passing the torch. One moves on from the stylings of Harry Belafonte to stuff such as "Tragedy" and "MacArthur Park" without a bump in the road that will surely mean a Beetlejuice double-header in the coming years would be a delightful idea for the spooky season (104 minutes is resourceful enough when you consider the earlier film was also under two hours). Of course, it helps that Keaton, Ryder and O'Hara are committed to not mailing in their returns to go with a few neat moments from the fresh faces to go alongside a few interesting moments involving effects (read: a movie that generally doesn't look like it got shot on one stage), which is probably most amusing in its handling of killing off a character (ironic that a film about a perverted title character featured an actor later found to be a pervert) or in not over-riding the "Beetlejuice baby" into the ground. Keaton might be in his seventies, but he obviously hasn't lost his enjoyment in terms of mischief that he handles in such carefully crafted time on screen (Keaton didn't want to have that much screentime in the film, which actually reflects the original, when you think about it). One can savor those moments of mischief without thinking back to the original and thinking things have gone soft (sure, he might not turn into a snake, but one late bit is pretty hell-raising). Of course, the dynamic of Ortega and Ryder is playing on a few familiar beats (we have graduated from "strange and unusual" to estrange daughter of "strange and unusual"), but Ortega is snappy and charming enough to go with the material for us to follow along with. Theroux is amusingly wormy to stick out, while Bellucci is basically relying on screen presence and little to really do for a movie that isn't exactly keen on having a "big bad" but instead just relies of, shall we say, casual macabre vibes (this is a movie where someone gets their limbs back while playing an oldie tape). Dafoe playing a stock cop type somehow seems on point for worthwhile commitment. In general, the movie inspired a few neat chuckles in its eventual road to getting a climax that borrows a bit from before while feeling the need to try and do something a bit wilder than already mentioned, which is, well, fine. I was conflicted about rating the film for a few days because sometimes it really does take a while to wonder just how "good" something is. The original was pretty neat, and the sequel is fine, but I'm not sure if giving it the whole "good" rating makes sense when there is a totally serviceable option in calling it "fine" (this is when I debate if putting a ".5" rating would be ideal in the future). It is a solid film in the aspects of slipping it on one night and just admiring that a well-made sequel to a film from decades ago will come and go in spooking the gut without churning one's soul, if you know what I mean.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Destroy All Monsters.

Review #2250: Destroy All Monsters.

Cast: 

Akira Kubo (Captain Katsuo Yamabe), Jun Tazaki (Dr. Yoshido), Yukiko Kobayashi (Kyoko Manabe), Yoshio Tsuchiya (Dr. Otani), Andrew Hughes (Dr. Stevenson), Kyoko Ai (the Queen of the Kilaaks), Kenji Sahara (Nishikawa, Moon Base Commander), Chotaro Togin (Moonlight SY-3 Astronaut Ogata), Seishiro Kuno (Moonlight SY-3 Astronaut Tani), Wataru Omae (Moonlight SY-3 Astronaut Arima), Yasuhiko Saijô (Moonlight SY-3 Astronaut Fujita), Naoya Kusakawa (Moonlight SY-3 Astronaut), Yoshibumi Tajima (General Sugiyama Tada), with Haruo Nakajima (Godzilla), Hiroshi Sekita (Anguirus), Marchan the Dwarf (Minilla), Teruoshi Nigaki (Rodan), and Susumu Utsumi (King Ghidorah) 

Directed by Ishirō Honda (#167 - Godzilla [1954/1956], #711 - Mothra, #1092 - Gorath, #1224 - King Kong vs. Godzilla, #1225 - Mothra vs. Godzilla, #1226 - Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster, #1623 - Invasion of Astro-Monster, #1999 - Matango)

Review: 

Admittedly, the Godzilla series might have needed a bit of a rest. Ever since the roaring hit of King Kong vs. Godzilla (1962), Toho had managed to cultivate a hodgepodge of features involving the title monster, with this being the seventh of eight Godzilla features of the 1960s (to recap: Kong vs. Godzilla, Mothra vs. Godzilla, Ghidorah, Invasion of Astro-Monster, Ebirah, Horror of the Deep, and Son of Godzilla) with the last few being island-bound. Ishiro Honda had even directed a few of those films, so naturally, Toho had him and Takeshi Kimura (writer of films such as Matango and Rodan) do the screenplay (this was the only Godzilla film of the 1960s to not be written by Shinichi Sekizawa, who returned for a couple more of the films). Of course, the film was thought of at one point to be the closing film of the series because, well, one can be worn out when ticket sales slowly decline from film to film. Incidentally, this was also near the tail-end of Honda's career as a director, with this being the 15th feature film he did in the 1960s. Of course, Honda and Godzilla would re-unite quickly enough with All Monsters Attack, a feature aimed directly for the youth that would be made on the cheap (filmed in less than three months for release in late 1969) to go with a different tide of success in the next decade (more on that in the future). 

So, what better way to throw a curveball in the series by setting oneself in the latter end of the 20th century (let's just say 1999, but with trips to the Moon as opposed to the actual, sort of disappointingly real 1999) with a place called "Monsterland" that is basically one straight plot with no side characters and, well, a dry tone (the idea of monsters being controlled in some way reminds me of Invasion of Astro-Monster, the one where Planet X wanted to borrow monsters to fight one off their planet). The last film had Godzilla confront fatherhood to go along with some sort of weather device plot and spiders. Watching the film with the knowledge that Honda's intent to show what is basically a "monster farm" basically got cut to just the basics is, well, easy to spot. One just goes with jumping from seeing monsters (featuring a few in close shots like Angurius, back for the first time in a decade, and others in shots totally not to hide further inspection) being given plenty of food to consume to alien women (well, slugs, but they show up as women most of the time in the film) mind-controlling people into slaves. In that sense, it is a bit more impressive than the lightweight charm seen in the last two films (for me, I haven't seen a bad one of these features, but of course that doesn't include the insane idea of watching a dub - in this film though, the dub is apparently not that different). This is the kind of movie that sees a guy jump out of a window and a skirmish breaks out not long after that. The cast here is about on par for what you usually see from people mostly near the end of appearing in these films (most also happened to reunite with Honda with 1970's Space Amoeba). It is pretty easy to say the monster mayhem (the climax being the emphasis) outweighs the invasion, but the 88 minute runtime mostly goes without a hitch, at least for those who are fine seeing a few miniatures (which seems more clear than usual) as one sees a straight-to-the point narrative of trying to get the status quo back that happens to dovetail with seeing monsters stomp eventually. I think the earlier 60s films had a better hold of mayhem (Kong is probably the one people remember by default) but if the series really did take a break after this, one would be pretty content with that here, because it is pretty fun to see coordinated mayhem all in the name of heightened engagement in clear-as-day vision. It isn't merely a film you just knock as "kid stuff", unless one happened to live in a house of seclusion with no figures to imagine growing up. As a whole, Honda and company made a serviceable feature that relies on a few familiar tricks to maneuver a usefully solid time that basically serves as a nice bow to the 60s rendition of Godzilla as one knows it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.