Rings.

Review #1919: Rings.

Cast: 

Matilda Lutz (Julia), Alex Roe (Holt Anthony), Johnny Galecki (Gabriel Brown), Vincent D'Onofrio (Galen Burke), Aimee Teegarden (Skye Johnston), Bonnie Morgan (Samara Morgan), Chuck David Willis (Blue), Patrick R. Walker (Jamal), and Zach Roerig (Carter) Directed by F. Javier Gutiérrez.

Review: 

You know what would have been a better idea than making a re-hash from before? Doing nothing at all. Ring (1998) is generally considered the best of the Ring movies, and it was the first film adaptation of those Koji Suzuki novels that had inspired everything in the first place. But The Ring (2002) was a decent American adaptation, one that played the mystery angle with a bit less subtlety but just as useful execution. The Ring Two (2005) stunk when it came to trying to expand on the narrative of its threat of "Samara". Granted, it is hard to make a sequel of a film that doesn't fall into the trap of explaining too much, but it just didn't justify itself in where it wanted to go without becoming silly. Honestly, the better premise for a sequel came with the 2005 short film Rings, which involved teenagers circulating the VHS tape from before as a subculture within Oregon that pass the tape along when they get too afraid at what they see before the one-week deadline, complete with videoing their reactions. Twelve years later, here we are with a film called...Rings. The 2005 film told you who was the mother of the main threat, now you get to find out the father and the manner of conception. Well, and the tape has a new twist to it, because even I would be surprised if they re-used the exact tape from 15 years ago without any sort of change. The screenplay by written by David Loucka, Jacob Estes, Akiva Goldsman while the story was done by David Loucka and Jacob Estes, which evidently took a few elements from Suzuki's 1995 novel Spiral (that book had its own Japanese film adaptation, which coincidentally was a movie with terrible critical reception). The movie was directed by F. Javier Guttierez, who had exactly one feature credit in Before the Fall (2008).

Congratulations, you made a boring teenager movie. There is just nothing here to really grab on when it comes to any sort of new scares, unless you count everyone but D'Onofrio being bland as horror. Remember that short film? There is a resemblance to that in this film, since both films involve a group of kids deciding to get their kicks in checking out the VHS tape (at least there is file copying) before they find a mark to pass it on. Of course, the opening scene is something a bit different: someone trying to avoid the curse by riding on an airplane. Let's just say you would be better off being frozen instead. I do think there is something about the weirdness of people willing to take an experiment involving the soul and other gobbledygook (college, remember). The problem is that the film veers back into the Morgan plot in making a more "intricate" story...oh hell, it doesn't end mattering when you think about it. Does it really matter to know that a priest held someone captive and had a child with them only to, you know...? Besides, the twist ending that comes in the final minutes may have been a better idea to do an actual feature rather than as sequel bait (which apparently was spoiled in marketing, begging the question how one can market so badly). But nope, you get the mildest of mild people trying to make things interesting for the most uninspired efforts. Lutz and Roe just can't make this work out together, seemingly bewildered at being in a teen movie that can't distract itself with gore or any kind of meaningful characteristics that happen even in hack films (you know, ones that are overly self-aware...); in short, when they make dumb decisions, I don't even feel like caring about it. Galecki is barely worth mentioning in the movie, as out of all the people I would assume could play the role, he would probably rank in the bottom tier. Simply put, he brings nothing to the role beyond what a community theater actor might bring to a role that is barely written to begin with, and you don't even get to see him very much once the movie ditches its first narrative trick. If it wasn't for the fact that D'Onofrio is already in the movie, you would've ditched Galecki to the side of the road, because D'Onofrio at least makes the effort for deranged dignity, one that grabs your attention like any seasoned pro would do without hamming things up. The idea of terror veering its way onto new technology (i.e. not just a friggin' VHS tape) does sound like part of an interesting idea for a film, but it doesn't come together for something to justify its 102-minute runtime. Instead, it goes with bland cheap tricks and writing that doesn't know what it wants to be that results in a forgettable effort. You would be better off spending an hour looking at a film shelf rather than this movie.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: One more movie for Halloween: The Week After 4.0 to close the circle. 3 from Hell.

Redux: The Ring.

Redux #140: The Ring.

Cast: 

Naomi Watts (Rachel Keller), David Dorfman (Aidan Keller), Martin Henderson (Noah Clay), Daveigh Chase (Samara Morgan), Brian Cox (Richard Morgan), Shannon Cochran (Anna Morgan), Jane Alexander (Dr. Grasnik), Lindsay Frost (Ruth Embry), Amber Tamblyn (Katherine Embry), Rachael Bella (Rebecca Kotler), Richard Lineback (Innkeeper), and Pauley Perette (Beth) Directed by Gore Verbinski.

Review: 

This was the third feature film of Gore Verbinski, a Tennessee native that grew up as both a filmmaker and a man interested in playing guitar. He directed numerous commercials after graduating from UCLA before Mouse Hunt (1997) was his feature film debut. Oh, but you aren't here for background when it comes to a review dedicated to re-doing an old review. Enclosed here is the entire review of what I thought about the movie in 2012, as a 15-year old in his second year of doing reviews.

This is a remake of a 1998 Japanese film named Ring (which was based on the novel also named Ring). Anyway, this film has some scares that don't use sneaking up on people, found footage, or gore, but by disturbing images that keep you invested. The acting's decent, with Watts doing a good job. The little kid feels like a Sixth Sense type of kid, which isn't necessary. This film feels fine, until the end. I feel this is a confusing end that makes you wonder this: Why? Why do you need this type of ending? Why not just end on a good end rather then twist end us, setting up the basis for a sequel rather then just easily close out this film that is decent, with scares, and...a setup for a sequel.

Pretty short, huh? I gave a movie a 7-star rating and I didn't even bother to make a useful case for why. I can at least give myself credit for listing it as a remake of Hideo Nakata's Ring (1998) which in turn was an adaptation of the Koji Suzuki novel of the same name that had a key distinction: no psych-meter to attempt to solve the horror-mystery like in the novel. That movie had a slow build in narrative threading to play on expectations with spirituality and calm pacing involving the threat of Sadako. The 2002 movie (as scripted by Ehren Kruger) has its own approach to its threat, now named Samara, based on the same idea of a ghost that is manifested after death with a grip of rage to seek vengeance on the living while never sleeping. So yes, you watch a VHS tape (yes) and possibly die in seven days. Incidentally, the film was 130 minutes when it came to its original version before being trimmed to 115 that mainly involved making it a bit less graphic along with cutting a character played by Chris Cooper that showed up for just the start and climax. Two decades later, The Ring is a decent movie, one that represents the time that it was made in capturing anxiety and unease without verging into gore. Granted, no movie is good or bad just because they don't play into the gore angle for horror (unless you happen to be squeamish or really into things), it all goes down to execution. After all, the VHS tape that makes it all possible is brief but unnerving enough to lurk in your mind. I think it works out quite well in keeping the tension at a reasonable length when it comes to the human element, complete with a gloomy setting in the state of Washington (mostly Seattle) to make it fit. Watts makes a solid presence to hold the film up in ordinary withered charm that works to the tension required when it comes to balancing mystery and family devotion, which works best when paired against her on-screen son Dorfman, who lurks in nerves without saying much. Henderson is casually there, but really the attention goes to Cox, hostile but alluring when presented in the second half of the film to bring it all together. 

Having seen both films, at least one can say the ending works just about right for a film that involves a cycle that does not yield to simple actions. I think the original film has a better resolution when it comes to the final decision made, although each have pretty decent choices to show its creature without going overboard. One could have ended without going back to the TV, but you need that little bit about what kind of sacrifice is needed to "combat" the threat. It is debatable as to which film is the better one, since the 1998 is probably a bit more subtle in subverting expectations while the 2002 film carries its own way of getting from point A to point B without falling into the remake trap of repetition without innovation. A 2005 sequel to the film followed in The Ring Two, directed by Hideo Nakata. It did not end well, to say the least. A 2017 film called Rings was released by Paramount Pictures. As a whole, the appeal of Ring definitely kept the attention of filmmakers in Japan busy, evidenced by the eight features (Sadako DX was released in October of 2022) with varying plot relations to the books or previous films. As for The Ring, the legacy of the film is the fact that it managed to be a quality remake that stands on its own in calm suspense for the 21st century.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Rings (2017). We are almost done.

House of Usher.

Review #1918: House of Usher.

Cast: 

Vincent Price (Roderick Usher), Mark Damon (Philip Winthrop), Myrna Fahey (Madeline Usher), and Harry Ellerbe (Bristol) Produced and Directed by Roger Corman (#368 - The Little Shop of Horrors, #684 - It Conquered the World, #852 - The Terror, #931 - Not of This Earth, #1007 - Attack of the Crab Monsters, #1039 - Five Guns West, #1042 - War of the Satellites, #1136 - Gas-s-s-s, #1147 - X: The Man with the X-ray Eyes, #1186 - A Bucket of Blood, #1423 - The Wild Angels, #1425 - The St. Valentine's Day Massacre, and #1674 - Machine-Gun Kelly, and #1684 - Creature from the Haunted Sea)

Review: 

“What drew me to Fall of the House of Usher was first the macabre setting, the house itself. Surrounded by fog, deserted…and then within the house, the relationship between Roderick Usher and his sister. The incestuous sexual/horror relationship between them, it was just a fascinating situation.” - Roger Corman

Undeniably, a film by American International Pictures leaves a bit of curiosity to go along with trepidation. Sure, they made plenty of fast and cheap movies in their day, but you always have to pick your hopes and doubts when it comes to wondering how they can handle executing premise the right way...so imagine them adapting the works of Edgar Allen Poe. But they did do so, with Roger Corman behind it all. Instead of making two low-budget black-and-white films (done in 10 days each) fit for a double feature that AIP desired, Corman came to an agreement to make one color movie for them (with 15 days to shoot), and the result became its own cycle of movies, much to the surprise of Corman. He would make eight feature films as director and producer for eight Poe works House of Usher (1960), The Pit and the Pendulum (1961), Premature Burial (1962), Tales of Terror (1962), The Raven (1963), The Haunted Palace (1963), The Masque of the Red Death (1964), and The Tomb of Ligeia (1964). All but Burial had Vincent Price as the star, as he was a contract player for the studio. Corman wanted him for this movie, and he got his wish for an actor that loved playing this role, one he felt was the most sensitive of the lead characters of a Poe work (he even bleached his hair for the role). The film was made on a budget of $270,000. Richard Matheson was best known at the time for his novels I Am Legend (1954) and The Incredible Shrinking Man (1956), and he had written film scripts for two prior movies (one being an adaptation of the former novel). He wrote the adaptation of this film and wrote for three more of the Corman/Poe cycle of films. The movie, as you might know, is adapted from Edgar Allen Poe's short story "The Fall of the House of Usher", first published in 1839. The movie changes the dynamic of the trio of characters: the story features an unnamed narrator that visits the house to see the elder Usher, his "best and only friend", while the film has him visit the Ushers because of his fiancé. This was the third adaptation of the book, after La Chute de la maison Usher (1928), the short The Fall of the House of Usher (1928), and The Fall of the House of Usher (1950). It was the last film adaptation for 29 years.

Corman was an engineer before he realized that he was destined to be a filmmaker, you know. By 1960, he was already a five-year director familiar with getting things done on a quick and engineered basis. This proves to be right up his alley, given the limited cast and one big set captured in CinemaScope. Well, that, and a barn in California that had its teardown filmed by Corman to be used in the film, which ended up being used in a handful of future movies. I think it is a splendid film in its execution that benefits most from having Price on screen more than anything. He is the perfect one to emulate such a pale figure of doomed stature, and his belief that the film was a gamble worth believing in is proven correct, and his dynamic with his on-screen sister in Fahey is appropriately eerie. The monster of the movie isn't any one thing but instead the curse that has stricken a bloodline: it is the specter of inevitability that looms over the film when you boil it all down, combining two curiosities into one: folks who love to see Corman try to pull another cheap show of entertainment and Price dominate your attention with dignity, for which you get exactly what you want in terms of fun in horror. Ellerbe may not have the name power of the others or even as many lines, but he fits the puzzle in the tiniest crucial moments needed to keep the movie on point of weird stylings that never get distracted. In a lesser movie, you might focus on Damon, who actually won an award for his performance (granted, it was a Golden Globe...awarded for "newcomer" actors, despite the fact he appeared in a number of shows and movies since the mid 1950s). It isn't a terrible performance, merely just being an ordinary one to contrast with Price and the other doomed figure in Fahey that is, well, a guy trying to make sense of oneself. Corman utilizes cinematography by Floyd Crosby and production design by Daniel Haller to striking effect to make a solid 79-minute ride of creeping atmosphere. You are left to brood for the time required, and it rewards your patience in a movie that is one of Corman's highlights as director. 

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Good morning. THE HOUSTON ASTROS HAVE WON THE WORLD SERIES AGAIN! Friends of the show know my appreciation for this baseball team and all they have done for the state of Texas, and it feels so good to call them the king of baseball once again. 

Next Time: A redux special.

The Quatermass Xperiment.

Review #1917: The Quatermass Xperiment.

Cast: 

Brian Donlevy (Professor Bernard Quatermass), Richard Wordsworth (Victor Carroon), Jack Warner (Inspector Lomax), David King-Wood (Dr. Gordon Briscoe), Margia Dean (Mrs. Judith Carroon), Maurice Kaufmann (Marsh), Harold Lang (Christie), Lionel Jeffries (Mr. Blake), and John Wynn (Det. Sgt. Best) Directed by Val Guest (#224 - Casino Royale (1967))

Review: 

"It wasn’t quite like anything fans had seen before. The success of the picture helped put Hammer on the road to specializing in sci-fi and horror movies.”

You may know the film as The Creeping Unknown, since that was the issue title when released in America (with a run-time of 78 minutes as compared to the British 82 minutes). But we are talking about a film made by Hammer Film Productions as one of their first big hits, and the reason for the X is because that was the Certificate (rating) it got from the British Board of Film Censors. The film is adapted from the 1953 television serial The Quatermass Experiment, which was broadcast for six episodes from July 18 to August 22 on the BBC (who agreed to a deal with Hammer for the rights to do a film). The episodes were transmitted live, but only the first two episodes survive due to the other four not even being recorded on their live broadcast. Each episode was written by Nigel Kneale and directed by Rudolph Cartier. Hammer co-produced the movie with Robert L. Lippert, the distributor/producer behind a number of American and British movies that had seen him finance and supply American stars for certain Hammer films in exchange for distribution of his films in the UK. With this film, American star Brian Donlevy was brought in to serve as the main character, as originally played by Reginald Tate. At director was Val Guest, who actually started out as an actor before he became a writer, first for London's edition of the Hollywood Reporter before a challenge by an interviewee had him writing his first screenplay, which led to a comedy career for a time before becoming a director in 1943. A director for Hammer of fourteen films (starting with The Men of Sherwood Forest), Guest wanted to make the film look as if it was filmed by hand-held camera. Kneale would write three further television serials (1955, 1958-59, 1979), with each being turned into feature films in 1957, 1967, and 1979, respectively. Hammer also did X the Unknown (1956), which was meant to be a sequel to this film before they had to do a bit of re-branding when Kneale refused to allow the title character of this film to be included, but Hammer would later be behind the 1955 and 1967 Quatermass features, with Guest directing the former.

It should be noted that Kneale was not too big on this film, one he had no involvement in and one that he did not like the casting of Donlevy. The ending being modified for one with action to decide the climax rather than a "talking down" as per the original probably didn't help either. As a film though, it does work out pretty well, primarily because it makes for a fundamentally sound 82-minute feature in balancing procedure and the eventual horror with useful and chilly atmosphere. Yes, it is a movie involving British astronauts being spooked by a mass of space from out there, but it is a clinically useful movie, never wasting its time on anything too pointless, aside from a few quiet characters. Donlevy is firmly in the middle between the general scientist cliche: he isn't a mad doctor nor is he exactly the one envisioned by Kneale, which certainly tried to appeal to scientific and moral authority, although he has been quoted as wanting to write a strong character that counteracted the "horrible people" in American sci-fi films. Honestly, I understand where he is coming for in his sensibility (I mean, he has more written works than most ever dream of), but I found Donlevy to be the ideal fit for what the film needs: hard-set in ways, regardless of the terror provided. He may seem like he was pulled out of a noir, but it works to his beat because of how he maneuvers the situation without becoming beholden to gobbledygook. If it was this guy that had to "talk the creature to death", we would laugh at it, so he seems right for what the script really wants in. He looks like a guy who cares about what he does in terms of basic execution and nothing else, which makes for quality tension when compared to the others - so yes, moving forward matters most. Wordsworth is the one notable interesting supporting presence, if only because he is the key man besides Donlevy to make an impression because of what he is asked to do as a slowly mutating (and quivering) shape. I enjoy seeing him play out the fear required to make this horror a relevant one to bring terror to proper shape (which evidently used bovine entrails and tripe). The stunt of electricity at a set to double for Westminster Abbey is a quality climax to go with a movie that for all of its low budget surroundings is generally involving, and I especially like the final little shot of Donlevy walking back without saying much to get back to what matters most in the logical sense: Beginning again.

As a whole, it may not compare to the original serial it arose from, but it does manage to make a useful impression for its audience that wants to enjoy what Hammer set out to do in horror sci-fi entertainment. It set the stage for them to seep further into the world of horror to entertain audiences in ways that hadn't been seen before, and for that, I think it makes the film a useful curiosity to look into.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: House of Usher.

Underworld (2003).

Review #1916: Underworld.

Cast: 

Kate Beckinsale (Selene), Scott Speedman (Michael Corvin), Bill Nighy (Viktor), Michael Sheen (Lucian), Shane Brolly (Kraven), Erwin Leder (Singe), Sophia Myles (Erika), Robbie Gee (Kahn), Kevin Grevioux (Raze), Zita Görög (Amelia), Scott McElroy (Soren), and Wentworth Miller (Adam Lockwood) Directed by Len Wiseman (#320 - Live Free or Die Hard)

Review: 

Admittedly, making a movie that looks like it had a tryst with Blade (1998) and The Matrix (1999) (and perhaps The Mummy (1999)) sounds like quite the attraction for people that are curious about horror blend movies or perhaps folks that want to see what the hell can come out of a 21st century movie meant to deliver entertainment. The movie is directed by Len Wiseman in his feature debut. The Fremont native did film work on a number of Roland Emmerich films such as Stargate (1994) in property assistance before he became a music video director. The film began as a script by Kevin Grevioux (who also acts in this film), who was inspired by Romeo and Juliet alongside his study of microbiology at Howard University (which he graduated with a degree in that field before becoming an actor). Danny McBride, formerly a stuntman before being introduced to Wiseman by their mutual agent, was brought in to help with the script by the director, who also co-wrote the story that had each received screen credit, although McBride alone would write the screenplay, with he and Wiseman setting out to make a trilogy of films. Screen Gems. Distributed by Screen Gems on a budget of $22 million, it was a surprise hit that made four times its budget back, which would inspire a cadre of sequels and one prequel: Underworld: Evolution (2006), Underworld: Rise of the Lycans (2009), Underworld: Awakening (2012), and Underworld: Blood Wars (2016), with Beckinsale remaining the constant presence while Wiseman and McBride contributed to two of the follow-up films (with Wiseman serving as producer for the three others). It should be noted that the film was subject to a lawsuit by White Wolf, Inc and Nancy A. Collins, who each claimed that the film's setting was too similar to their respective works (Vampire: The Masquerade and Sonja Blue, respectively), which resulted in a confidential settlement.

You know, I actually kind of dug the film in a weird way. Maybe the idea of combining vampires and werewolves (called Lycans) is a bit on the outrageous side, but I actually find it to my liking. Sure, one is quite aware of what they are getting themselves into with an action/horror hodgepodge like this, which kept my interest through its 121-minute runtime. It may be goofy, and it may not work for everyone, but I found it worth my time, although one would obviously have their hesitation about further films, regardless of how much they enjoy a bit of gun fighting and folks wearing black (leather or coat). The mythology is handled in a manner that invites interest without delving into parody or overt self-awareness, and it at least looks like you can understand this "war" without needing to strain your brain too much (one side was a servant, the other liked swords). Beckinsale is a solid lead to hold it together, steely in composure (perhaps from not getting to enjoy the sun) that can handle the action elements and the ounces of dramatic depth with the patience it all requires from her. A weaker actor would look foolish in that getup and then not make the lines stick beyond what they are written, but she seems to be having a blast with it that results in a worthwhile time. Speedman isn't as fortunate, but then again, he plays the part about exactly what you would think it involves in reserved patience when dealing with effects and some sort of story to get him along with a bit of chemistry shared between him and Beckinsale. Nighy may have a bunch of makeup on him, but when he does show up, he makes an engaging presence with an aura of arrogance. Sheen chews up the material handily when on screen for voracious effect that makes a useful adversary worth smiling about, while Brolly makes a quality cad for the proceedings, confidently pathetic in all the right ways along with Leder. As silly as it might sound to present werewolves as "Lycans", I did find that the story presented of them and their beastly defiance semi-compelling enough to go against the usual presentation of the wolf, and it also makes a useful contrast to the aristocratic vampire presented here (it has its own touch of cliche, but it is expected cliche). The conflict of trying to create extinction within endless warfare (in modern society, hidden to others or not) does execute itself with the right balance of cliches and flourish, with effects and action sequences that are handled to adequate effect. As a whole, it does all the little things to useful effect in terms of entertainment value without flubbing up in pale depth or pale mood to make the general target: something to watch if it suits your fancy, silly or not.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Exorcist II: The Heretic.

Review #1915: Exorcist II: The Heretic.

Cast: 

Linda Blair (Regan MacNeil), Richard Burton (Father Philip Lamont), Louise Fletcher (Dr. Gene Tuskin), Max von Sydow (Father Lankester Merrin), Kitty Winn (Sharon Spencer), Paul Henreid (The Cardinal), James Earl Jones (Kokumo), Joey Green (Young Kokumo), Ned Beatty (Edwards), Karen Knapp (The Voice of Pazuzu), and Dana Plato (Sandra Phalor) Directed by John Boorman (#565 - Zardoz, #975 - Deliverance, and #1210 - Excalibur)

Review: 

"The sin I committed was not giving the audience what it wanted in terms of horror ... There's this wild beast out there which is the audience. I created this arena and I just didn't throw enough Christians into it."

I was waiting for this day to happen, if you can believe it. I knew damn well what I was getting into when it came to the sequel to The Exorcist, which I remember being a fine film, if not exactly one I went back to again and again. Maybe it was one of those times where I stick more to my comfort horror picks than anything, but yes, the things that stuck with me was the voice of the demon (maybe the devil) by Mercedes McCambridge or maybe the lead performance by Ellen Burstyn. It was good, but the fact that it was nominated for multiple Academy Awards makes its reputation perhaps a bit too lofty when compared to other features of its time. Of course, others will remember William Friedkin and his direction of material that had been written by William Peter Blatty based on his 1971 novel of the same name, and it should be noted that neither had spoken about it being a horror film, instead viewing it as a movie about the mystery of faith. Uh, okay. However, you do not get to see none of them in the sequel, since Blatty and Friedkin clearly had better things to do (such as suing each other and Warner Bros because of disputes over profits and credits) and the only actors to return from the original was Blair, Winn, and von Sydow (who is given more mention than Jason Miller, whom the film practically ignores). Somehow, it should only make sense that a director that didn't even like the first film was recruited to do the sequel, and the studio actually thought they could aim for a PG rating rather than an R, if only because they didn't want to be as controversial as the original was when it came to being rated an R (because some people thought it merited an X, proving that taste is selective).. No seriously, Boorman though that he could make a "kind of riposte to the ugliness and darkness of The Exorcist" - you know, the guy who turned down The Exorcist for Zardoz. William Goodhart was tasked with writing the script, one that was aimed for the metaphysical, but this script ended up with rewrites from Rospo Pallenberg and Boorman, albeit with no credit to them (Blair has stated that Pallenberg directed a good chunk of the film, probably because of Boorman suffering from Valley fever for a number of weeks). The final product came about after attempts were made to tinker with it due to bad preview screenings, which didn't really help matters. You know how bad the reviews were? Apparently, when studio executives went to see the film, the audience members got so mad at what they were watching that they chased down the executives down a street. The film was successful on its $14 million budget, but the reputation was so horrendous that a third Exorcist movie wouldn't happen until 1990, directed by Blatty. While the fact that the film turns 45 years old this year seems like a good reason to cover it, the fact that there is a new Exorcist film out for release in 2023 seems like another good reason to get back into the spirit, regardless of who is directing it, I guess.

You know, I wanted to give things a chance, if only because I am reminded that Martin Scorsese stated that the film got a bit of a bum rap upon release, noting its interesting question about the great goodness drawing all evil and all of that stuff that I'm sure would make a nice essay to get drunk with. Sure, a movie trying to frame the first film with "look, what really happened that night?" is a bit shaky, but there is potential. Then the synchronizer and its strobe light come into the picture, which starts the giggling process, complete with see-through glass for the "institution" and a silly sound for the device to boot. Somehow, seeing Richard Burton watch as Louise Fletcher puts on that ridiculous contraption alongside poor Linda Blair makes it apparent just how ridiculous making a sequel can be. It makes me wonder if Blair's appearance in the Exorcist parody Repossessed (1990) would be any less embarrassing, honestly. The fact that Burton (cast because Jon Voight dropped out) drank heavily as the film production wore on makes this only more offbeat. Remember this: Burton did the film as a "paycheck movie" so he could do better things like Equus (1977), a movie about a teen being treated for blinding horses in a stable. Hell, Blair has stated that she doesn't know what the film is actually about, does that tell you all you need to know about this movie? You have a scene that goes on for a bit about Pazuzu and Africa before it ends with a shot of James Earl Jones growling that does a cut to a shot of a leopard. The barrage of locusts doesn't help matters out, either. Honestly, it isn't the lack of gore or exploitation angle that makes things so baffling, it is the fact that it is so bland as a horror movie to the point of coma. In other words: the audience may be a bit weird in what they think they want, but when they know what kind of bullshit won't fly with them, they will tell you very clearly. One feels like they are watching two different movies smashed up into one, as if they couldn't make up their mind as to who to lend their focus on beyond zigzagging everywhere with its alleged main trio of Blair, Burton, and Fletcher, with the latter either suffering the most because of a lack of things to do or benefitting from the lack of dumb shit to do besides maybe playing the "science" lead, which amounts to a bag of sand in screen presence. If Blair was put through plenty of tough things for the original, she gets to have the pleasure of being put through the wringer in a role that even a more quality actor would have been doomed to fail. She seems lost in a wholly different movie than the one that is actually happening, as if being in a movie about silly teenagers would actually be more up her alley than the gobbledygook present (she didn't put on the makeup for the demon as with the first film, by the way); she seems confused, and you would be too, which results in a sad performance that satisfies no one. Burton gets to wander through a paycheck movie with mild dignity that somehow seems too nice for trash like this, as if the movie needs someone to take this material less seriously. Okay, so you are probably wondering how the plot goes. Well, aside from a failed exorcism or so, you get to learn about psychic healers that Pazuzu likes to target while a heretic priest resists the urge of a succubus that looks like Linda Blair before the house from the original goes belly up in locusts. Oh, and there's a scientist that had these powers who now spends time trying to target locust swarms. Got all of that? In its attempts at trying to play with the story elements of the original, it demystifies the test of faith that made a solid first movie.

 

You know who I was most curious to see? Beatty and Jones, because each get to wait over an hour to show up. Yea, maybe the fact that there isn't much to say about them makes them seem better, unless Jones being in a locust suit and spitting some fruit onto a row of spikes counts as embarrassing. The only one who has any sense of dignity is von Sydow, and he is in it for flashback scenes of all things. That is this movie in a nutshell: things happen, and you just go with it to see how stupider it can get. The best possible director for this kind of movie may not have been someone like Boorman, honestly. It needed someone who was willing to work in the parameters of what the script entailed with their own sense of imagination, whether that involved keeping the script as it was or going even more gonzo. Maybe it should have been made as a straight-up exploitation copy of the original instead, because it probably would've looked as cheap as this film feels, which is astounding considering the multimillion-dollar budget on this film. It feels like an exploitation movie that thinks it is high class with no sense of awareness. If the original had the hint of elegance within its material, this movie is like a bastard fifth cousin that came from outer space. The Ennio Morricone score may be the only thing about the movie that makes any sort of sense. This is the kind of movie that will make people who though the original was the greatest horror thing since sliced bread hate the idea of sequels (and perhaps challenge the very nature of God itself) and make people who thought it was fine remind oneself the merits of the original. In short, the only thing scary about it is the idea a sequel worse than this exists. It is an incoherent mess from start to finish in the most amusing ways possible.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Literally anything will be better than this film. So it is time at last for Underworld (2003).

The Cat and the Canary (1927)

Review #1914: The Cat and the Canary.

Cast: 

Laura La Plante (Annabelle West), Creighton Hale (Paul Jones), Forrest Stanley (Charles Wilder), Tully Marshall (Roger Crosby), Gertrude Astor (Cecily), Flora Finch (Susan), Arthur Edmund Carewe (Harry), Martha Mattox (Mammy Pleasant, housekeeper), George Siegmann (the Guard), and Lucien Littlefield (Dr. Ira Lazar) Directed by Paul Leni (#863 - Waxworks and #999 - The Man Who Laughs)

Review: 

When it comes to the haunted house movie, you can't go wrong with The Cat and the Canary, even if it wasn't the first to really come out. There were quite a few films with a killer going around a house, such as Cecil B. Demille & Oscar Apfel's The Ghost Breaker (1914), its 1922 remake by Alfred E. Green, D. W. Griffith's One Exciting Night (1922), along with Roland West's The Monster (1925) and The Bat (1926), for example. It would continue in further years, with West remaking his film in 1930 as The Bat Whispers, and James Whale directed The Old Dark House (1932). But some films last longer in the public consciousness than others, as is the case with a film like this. The movie was adapted from the 1922 play of the same name that had been written by John Willard to noted success on Broadway. The screenplay was written by Alfred A. Cohn and Walter Anthony, while the story was done by Alfred A. Cohn and Robert F. Hill. This was the first of five adaptations: Universal did both an English and Spanish version in 1930 (The Cat Creeps and La Voluntad del muerto, respectively), which are both lost. A 1939 film was done with more comedy involving Bob Hope and Paulette Goddard, while the next (and last) adaptation was done in 1979 for British audiences. It was the first of four American films directed by German director Paul Leni, the German Expressionist director that went from avant-garde painting to set designer to work in film by the 1910s. He moved to America at the invitation of Carl Laemmle at Universal Studios, as part of a wave of people from Europe coming to America for films (like Fritz Lang, for example). The Last Warning (1928), his final film, was presented as a companion film to The Cat and the Canary, as it also stars La Plante (it was released in both part-sound and silent, but the latter survives), albeit more as a mystery than comedy-horror. Leni would not live long to direct many films in America, dying of a sepsis from a tooth infection in 1929 at the age of 44.

So yes, we have a story about a creepy house filled with folks hearing about a will from a man 20 years dead. The only thing standing in the way of riches for one is to just not be declared insane but sliding panels and a fiend called "The Cat" threaten the whole affair. So yes, the suspense is balanced with comic relief, because this was the time for that kind of movie where horror can't be given to you full throttle, and the final twist is about what you might expect. However, it is the presentation that matters most, and that is where Leni shines. He utilized all of the tricks one would hope for in terms of establishing quality atmosphere, whether that involves shadows, superimpositions, gliding camera shots, or its lively title cards. The scene with a person walking in the hallway with a candle in hard while curtains blow is certainly a highlight when it comes to striking effect, alongside the opening sequence when it comes to saying "a man is trapped like a canary". So yes, the movie is a causal ride of spooky terror that fits far better than a movie without as much subtlety, because, well, things in 1927 can still play well in 2022. La Plante was a key presence for a number of Universal Pictures in the pre-sound era, and she does pretty well for not having too much to really do besides having things happen to them rather than with them. So yes, it's not too hard to be on her side when it comes the towering threat of spooked either by weirdo eccentrics or visitors. The other castmates are mostly there for relief without pandering to bad jokes, which works in favor for Hale in goofy charm that compliments La Plante pretty well or with the familiar face in Marshall. The others bumble in all the right ways without leaving an obvious clue to what could happen next. Yes, you have a good idea where things could go in its 82-minute runtime by about the halfway point, but it still is weird and engaging enough regardless of that fact. As a whole, it is a solidly dignified bit of horror worth a look for its era, being unsettling while having a solid atmosphere that makes everything work out just right.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Well, we have had a quality month of horror. But you know the turn to November means it ain't over yet. As with the case with 2019, 2020, and 2021...it is time for Halloween: The Week After 4.0. That is correct, a number of horror reviews from November 1 to November 7, basically comprised of movies that deserved to be covered in October but are now present in November for all to enjoy. This time, I will be generous and tell you what is coming next because I like you very much.

Next film up is Exorcist II: The Heretic. Shit.

Count Dracula.

Review #1913: Count Dracula.

Cast: 

Christopher Lee (Count Dracula), Herbert Lom (Professor Abraham Van Helsing), Klaus Kinski (R.M. Renfield), Frederick Williams (Jonathan Harker), Maria Rohm (Mina Murray), Soledad Miranda (Lucy Westenra), Paul Muller (Dr. John "Jack" Seward), Jack Taylor (Quincey Morris), Jesús Puente (the Minister of Interior), and Franco Castellani (Renfield's Warden) Directed by Jesús Franco.

Review: 

Consider, for a moment, the state of Dracula movies in 1970. I think we can agree there are two actors you can think of when it comes to Count Dracula: Bela Lugosi and Christopher Lee. Lee first played the role for Hammer Film Productions in Dracula (1958), which also featured Peter Cushing as Van Helsing. Lee didn't return for The Brides of Dracula (1960), but he would return for the next couple of films with Dracula: Prince of Darkness (1966), and Dracula Has Risen from the Grave (1968). Now here we are in 1970...with Christopher Lee playing the role of the Count in three films (as star, not counting any guest appearances), two of them from Hammer. Taste the Blood of Dracula was released in May while Scars of Dracula was released in November. But we are here to talk about the odd man out: Count Dracula, released in April of 1970 as a production between Spain, Italy, West Germany, Liechtenstein, and the United Kingdom. An experimental film comprised from behind-the-scenes footage from the making of this film (which shows how the effects and sets were designed) was shot in high-contrast black-and-white that was called Cuadecuc, vampir (1971), which was directed by Pere Portabella. Lee would do a few more movies as Dracula, which even included a comedy with Dracula and Son (1976). Oh, but there is one more thing to consider: This was directed by Jesus Franco, a Spanish filmmaker proficient in many, many, many exploitation / B-grade movies (as done in Spain, France, West Germany, Switzerland, and Portugal) who directed from 1959 to 2014 that specialized in sex and sadism in his horror features (for which there are nearly 200 of them), which varied in budget depending on who was his producer. Harry Alan Towers, who he shot nine films for, was the producer on this film, which evidently was presented as a more faithful adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel (incidentally, Towers was behind the production of films that had Lee star as Fu Manchu). Well, at least as faithful as one can be, anyway, because not even the death sequence in the climax matches the book (as opposed to being stabbed with knives...here he dies in a fire). At least Lee's Dracula changes in age throughout the movie. There are a handful of writers: Erich Kröhnke did the story, while Augusto Finocchi and Jesus Franco did the screenplay, but there are others responsible depending on the language version: Harry Alan Towers did the English screenplay, while Dietmar Behnke did the German script and Milo G. Cuccia and Carlo Fadda did the Italian version.

So, when looking at the Dracula movies played by Lee (not counting the comedy), there is an undeniable appeal...it sure is a shame that it is not nearly as good as even the most average Hammer Dracula movie. Imagine being outclassed by Dracula movies that see an atheist-turned Christian lead hero. Well, the movie may be hampered by a low budget when it comes to failing to live to expectations, but the real problem is that the movie is just not exciting enough. It seems too static to go anywhere beyond what might have worked on television than a film experience. Granted, telling a book that is comprised of diaries for a film is hard, but there isn't an interesting perspective to really latch onto here. The 97-minute runtime moves with pale pacing that doesn't have a single striking element beyond just having Lee look slightly more interested to play the role with dialogue than usual. So yes, when viewing performances on a curve, his performances usually reflect the energy of the movie more than anything, which means he is the best part of a dull time despite not being his best portrayal of the character. Lom was apparently cast after Franco's first choice of Vincent Price fell through (my God, could you imagine how Price would have been? Oops, where were we?). Lom is technically a wise choice to counteract Lee as Van Helsing, mildly dignified in what is needed despite a silly script. He may not compare well to say, Peter Cushing (who went 12 years between portrayals), but he does fine in the exposition sequences, even if Lom and Lee don't share a scene on screen together (since heaven forbid both actors be on set at the same time). The core of Williams, Rohm, Miranda, and Muller are not particularly special, and this is a problem when Dracula isn't around for a good chunk of the feature (you know, the time after the Transylvania sequence). Kinski barely has anything to do besides a handful of "weird" moments involving flies and yep, it sure is a shame to be outclassed by Dwight Frye without saying a word. The silliest thing is not Dracula's death but instead a sequence where our characters are being stalked by deadly animals...that are stuffed. At least it makes one a bit complimentary to Francis Ford Coppola trying to do his own "faithful adaptation" of the book 22 years later. In short: Count Dracula may seem more like the book, but it doesn't come close to the exploitative fun that came from the Hammer movies, which means this movie is only worth watching if one is really into seeing Christopher Lee in movies or like cheesy horror movies. Don't take my word for it, Terence Fisher (who directed Lee in the first Dracula film twelve years prior) was quoted as saying “For the first ten minutes I thought, my God, it’s better than mine – and then I thought no it’s not!” I cannot recommend the movie as a good one, but if one really wants to see something with Lee or Franco, well, here is something to bite on if better movies aren't easier to find. A stinker is a stinker, but some stinkers are more fun to write about than others as opposed to actually sitting down and watching it.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Happy Halloween, everyone. I hope you have enjoyed the horror reviews in October and enjoy your holiday time....and stay tuned for November.

I Was a Teenage Werewolf.

Review #1912: I Was a Teenage Werewolf.

Cast: 

Michael Landon (Tony Rivers), Yvonne Lime (Arlene Logan), Whit Bissell (Dr. Alfred Brandon), Malcolm Atterbury (Charles Rivers), Barney Phillips (Detective Sgt. Donovan), Robert Griffin (Police Chief Baker), Joseph Mell (Dr. Hugo Wagner), Louise Lewis (Principal Ferguson), Guy Williams (Officer Chris Stanley), Tony Marshall (Jimmy), and Vladimir Sokoloff (Pepe, the janitor) Directed by Gene Fowler Jr.

Review: 

Admittedly, making a movie about teenagers in horror could be an interesting time, if only because the 1950s had plenty to work with for audiences to enjoy, as evidenced by the output generated by American International Pictures. There were plenty of successes and failures with this studio, where a week was all one needed to make a movie like this, made on a budget of $82,000. This would be the first of a teenage craze with AIP, with Blood of Dracula and I Was a Teenage Frankenstein being released in November 1957 as a double feature that saw teenagers transformed into a vampire and a Frankenstein's monster, respectively. How to Make a Monster (1958) featured teens being hypnotized to kill while in werewolf and Frankenstein makeup. The film was directed by Gene Fowler Jr. He was more known as an editor, participating in films such as Tales of Manhattan (1942) and It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (1963). Fowler directed dramas and Westerns in his seven-film career of directing (1957 to 1959), with two exceptions: this film and I Married a Monster from Outer Space (1958).

Meh, it's not particularly interesting when compared to the slew of teenage-infused movies that came in its wake such as say, The Blob (1958), but there are a few nice things to say about its 76-minute runtime. It is at least a movie that tries to say something about teenagers and anxiety: kids sure get weird when you get on their case. In a way, it might remind one of another oddball werewolf movie in The Werewolf (1956), which had a werewolf transformation different from the usual full moon terror. In this case, the werewolf is triggered by some sort of "scopolamine serum" that helps someone in reverting their personality to primitive instinct (so yes, the doctor gives him a serum, then gradually convinces a teen that he was once a werewolf because somehow it will be good for the future of mankind...okay). This film just happens to have a janitor from the Carpathian Mountains who recognizes the threat, too. Honestly, the movie is also like the other one in not really knowing what to do with its creature (besides having both villain and victim be the same person), seemingly trapped in not doing anything more with its lead beyond the occasional line about being an ultra-aggressive dude. Landon would actually become a noted presence in television for three decades beginning in 1959, having been discovered by an agent while working as a gas service attendant near Warner Bros. (after hurting himself out of an athletic scholarship for javelin throwing at USC). He does okay with what is needed for impulse before the inevitable effects happen. After that, he kind of falls by the wayside when it comes to true dilemmas, as the movie doesn't really go farther than that when it is talking about someone being a wolf and being weird about it. Well, that or being a guy who can't control his temper, I guess. Bissell is the only other presence to focus on, since he plays the mad scientist type to about what you would expect, which basically means that if there was no mad scientist, the movie might even be more boring. So yeah, it is inevitable to see where these two go once they meet up, but you could only imagine how worse it could get. The teenagers are pretty stock, while the only noticeable support comes from future TV star Williams or the exposition-heavy Sokoloff. Besides, the body-count is pretty light, probably because the werewolf makeup comes and goes to varying effect. As a whole, it is a movie that has the blueprint for drawing a certain audience that ends up being a middling curiosity relic of its time, one that will either work out for those who desire something light and quick or not. For me, I can't quite recommend it as a good movie, but I recognize the staying power generated by an AIP flick like this one.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Innocents (1961).

Review #1911: The Innocents.

 

Cast: 

Deborah Kerr (Miss Giddens), Peter Wyngarde (Peter Quint), Megs Jenkins (Mrs. Grose), Michael Redgrave (The Uncle), Martin Stephens (Miles), Pamela Franklin (Flora), Clytie Jessop (Miss Mary Jessel), and Isla Cameron (Anna) Directed by Jack Clayton.

Review: 

Admittedly, there are films that work best when considered for how they can cultivate atmosphere through dedicated execution, which generally happen in horror. Of course, some horror films get an interesting reputation through whosever eyes are viewing it. I was a bit curious about this film, if only because sometimes I worry a movie gets a good reputation in horror when it comes to ghost stories, real or not. This was the film to be adapted from The Turn of the Screw, an 1898 novella written by Henry James. However, it also utilizes text from the 1950 screen play (called The Innocents, which had Beatrice Straight and Peggy Feury as the star in separate theatre runs) that had been written by William Archibald. Archibald wrote the original screenplay for the film, but Clayton hired Truman Capote and John Mortimer to do re-writes because he wanted a script a bit more ambiguous on whether the ghosts were real or not. This was the third film script that had Capote as a writer. Most will know him as the writer of novels of fiction and nonfiction such as In Cold Blood (which he was in the middle of writing when approached by Clayton) but he did occasionally write for films, which included Beat the Devil (1953) and Terminal Station (1953). Mortimer was brought in to deliver a Victorian polish to the dialogue, but the film is generally thought of as having the spirit of Capote (he later described reading the novella as one without a plot). This was the second of seven films directed by Jack Clayton, who had worked a variety of studio jobs such as tea boy and editor before getting his chance to direct. The next adaptation of the material was in The Nightcomers (1971), which acted as a "prequel", and there have almost been as many television adaptations (four) than films (five).

Sure, it is possible to read a certain kind of repression and Freudian elements in a story of psychological terror. Oh sure, you could ask yourself if the ghosts are real or not, but I'll just go with the idea that they are, if only because I did not come to a ghost movie to watch a movie without a ghost (you can play the ambiguity card for only so long). However, it is the question of whether the kids are in danger or not that ends up being a really good question to think about. Besides, the movie is pretty good regardless of how you choose to view it, headlined by a tremendous performance by Kerr and an efficient pace at 99 minutes. It makes for an elegant and unnerving film, straddling itself in seeping paranoia that makes things not exactly what they seem. It has the touch of uncertainty that would be rivaled in films such as The Haunting (1963), if not topped. The cinematography was done by Freddie Francis, who had won an Academy Award for his work in Sons and Lovers (1960) before becoming a director the year after the release of this film. He helped to dissuade Clayton's annoyance at 20th Century Fox insisting that the film be shot in CinemaScope, a bigger aspect ratio than the usual standard. Francis used the wide space for shadows to make for an uneasy movie by doing things such as painting the edges of the lenses and bright lighting, and all of this works out to the advantage of the movie, although one of its sticking points ends up being a singing of "O Willow Waly" (which is actually sung by Isla Cameron) that happens from time to time. There are three key actors here: Kerr and the two children with Stephens and Franklin (Wyngarde doesn't speak, Redgrave is only in one scene and Jenkins provides some support). Kerr does tremendous here, vulnerable in all the right aspects when it comes to Victorian standards that generates interest in how one views her perspective in terms of what is seen and what isn't seen from the doubts exhibited. Stephens (known for this and Village of the Damned before becoming an architect) and Franklin (screen debut) do well, pulling one into the idea of innocence that imprints well on your mind that dawdles on the little things, such as how they interact with Kerr, such as the little embrace Stephens does with Kerr or the little moment Franklin shares when arising from bed late on a windy night (with Kerr tossing and turning) - whether they are just kids being kids or possibly possessed is up to you to squirm over. Jenkins proves quite fretful enough to support the core cast, wavering in the right points needed while Wyngarde makes a quiet terror anytime he looms for moments on screen. The climax is delicately handled to the right touch of what is needed from the source material while also circling back to its opening (writhing hands in a dark background) in the right execution. As a whole, the movie is quite eerie and effective in telling a good ghost story with a dance of ambiguity that results in a generally effective piece of looming terror fit for the patient horror eyes, one where not every explanation is needed to make the pieces fit right. 

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Curse of the Fly.

Review #1910: Curse of the Fly.

Cast: 

Brian Donlevy (Henri Delambre), George Baker (Martin Delambre), Carole Gray (Patricia Stanley), Burt Kwouk (Tai), Yvette Rees (Wan), Michael Graham (Albert Delambre), Mary Manson (Judith Delambre), Charles Carson (Inspector Charas), Jeremy Wilkin (Inspector Ronet), and Rachel Kempson (Madame Fournier) Directed by Don Sharp.

Review: 

Return of the Fly (1959) was not exactly a good movie to follow The Fly (1958), but you can at least understand where one would have fun in making a quick buck when success had just struck before. Robert L. Lippert loved making movies on the B-level, making over 200 movies. Of course, by 1966, now he was making movies in England that had distribution by 20th Century Fox, because making movies in Hollywood was not as cheap (plus with the Eady Levy, there was a tax on box office receipts in England for nearly two decades). This was the phase in his career that saw films such as Witchcraft (1964) and The Earth Dies Screaming (1964), for example. His career ended with The Last Shot You Hear (1969) when he and Fox mutually parted ways. At any rate, Lippert figured he could churn out one more of these films with the rights he had, so he tasked Harry Spalding, the writer behind plenty of Lippert productions, to go along with the idea. Don Sharp was recruited to direct, and he stated that the opening pages at the asylum were pretty good although he said the overall script "wasn't good enough". It did not help that he and Spalding were not particularly happy that Donlevy was cast as the lead, because Spalding actually envisioned Claude Rains (by that point 75 years old, as opposed to Donlevy, who was 64) in the role. In fact, it seemed to help Sharp lose confidence in what he made, since the only reason he did the film was to get back in the directing chair after spending months doing second-unit work on Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines (1965); Sharp had moved from acting to directing by the mid-1950s and would direct for three decades.

The film never received a proper video release on VHS or LaserDisc, being rarely seen for many years until the 21st century, and it didn't help that the movie was little seen on release in 1965. Calling it the movie where a fly isn't present is probably the easiest way to describe it, but there are a few decent points made when not mired in complete mediocrity. Both Fly sequels aren't good, but they make useful curiosity pieces as the depths one can go in trying to draw blood from a stone. This film is technically a sequel, in that it retains the family name seen in the last two films (Delambre) and even shows a still from the second film that tries to connect the dots, although the Delambre here is...the son of the guy who got turned back into a human in the second one, I think (well, maybe the elder Delambre is the one played by Donlevy, but the second film had him named Philippe, so...). Hell, put it like this: a guy got turned into a fly, went nutty, then got turned back into a human, but his offspring have after-effects...a curse, you might say. Yep, that is what the title refers to, as the family is cursed to keep trying to do teleportation (oh, and they had tested on others, with...less than savory results); they basically act like mad scientists, but with a bit less competency (one guy teleports across the continent but can't go anywhere because he has no passport and gets sick to go along with that - the climax of his fate is just as amusing). With an 86-minute run-time, the result is a movie that doesn't particularly get more interesting than the opening scene with a woman breaking out of an asylum and casually lying her way in hitch-hiking (yes, the escape is presented in slow-motion). The rest manages to be a stiffly executed feature that moves in exactly one way that seems inevitable in plodding nature that means one is trapped with a movie that never reaches greatness or awfulness. It is too modest to go anywhere beyond mildness, as if the idea of a family trying to reach for "the greater good" is just a bit too quiet. 

Well, casting the man behind a number of tough guy roles and The Quatermass Xperiment (1955) seemed like an interesting plan. Donlevy isn't terrible in the film, but I think you can see where the filmmakers seemed like they didn't have the guy they wanted, since he seems a bit too quiet to really make the role seem anything more than a pale one, and I imagine even an elderly Rains would lend some gravity to the situation. You should feel the ooze of a man who sees experiments go really wrong (including on himself) and decides to go full speed anyway. This goes for Baker as well, who has to deal with the fact that he has a middling chemistry with Gray that tries to play the angles of both having secrets on the other and her possibly going nuts (ooh, the asylum escapee thinks she is going nuts, wonder how that will work out). Seeing the reaction to the first wife being used to test the experiment (and the horrifying result probably sounds a tad more interesting, but I digress. It just seems all too plain, never really seeming to gain much steam besides a few cheap effects, such as a writhing mass concocted by teleporting two people in the same chamber, or the moments where the younger Delambre starts to show his age. The feeling of inevitability overwhelms the movie in a way that just makes things out to feel like obligation rather than general interest. There are ideas here that could make for a fun time, but it just can't go beyond first gear to really get anywhere. It is a watchable sequel, and in some ways, it may prove a bit better than Return of the Fly but neither movie hold a candle to The Fly (original or remake). If you want to see just where the road leads in sequels for horror movies and like to see obscure movies not be held out, I suppose here is your chance.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2.

Review #1909: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2.

Cast: 

Dennis Hopper (Lt. Boude "Lefty" Enright), Caroline Williams (Vanita "Stretch" Brock), Jim Siedow (Cook), Bill Moseley (Chop-Top), Bill Johnson (Leatherface), Ken Evert (Grandpa), Harlan Jorand (Patrolman), Kirk Sisco (Detective), and James N. Harrell (Cut-Rite Manager) Directed by Tobe Hooper (#348 - Poltergeist and #1297 - The Texas Chain Saw Massacre)

Review: 

"It's crazy as hell. It's a film that's just loony. But at least I got a chance to make a comedy—a very grim comedy—that is receiving an acknowledgement for its stylization. In the past four or five years, it's being seen for the first time."

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) probably should not have become a franchise, since writers Kim Henkel and Tobe Hooper wanted to make a film involving "moral schizophrenia". In fact, Motel Hell (1980) was actually made as an imitator of the film from screenwriters that liked the 1974 film. But, here we are, talking about a sequel film made twelve years after the original. Tobe Hooper originally intended to just produce the film, but budgetary issues led to him stepping in to direct. You may remember him as the director of this film and Poltergeist (1982), after all. The film was written by L. M. Kit Carson, albeit one that was different from the intended approaches that Hooper thought of. Kim Henkel and Hooper wanted to do a film that made fun of Motel Hell with a town full of cannibals, which would have been named Beyond the Valley of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and Hooper wanted to amplify the dark comedy that he felt was not recognized in the original film. Yes, you could call him an early example of wanting to give the audience something they didn't expect. Carson, along with Hooper served as a producer, but most will focus their attention on Menahem Golan and Yoram Globus as producers. The Cannon Group, Inc (as headlined by Golan and Globus) loved to specialize in a variety of "B-movies", such as action or ninja movies. This was the third film that Hooper did with Cannon after Lifeforce (1985) and Invaders from Mars (1986), and only this film ended up making its money back with audiences (of course, none of them were exactly critical hits, but hey, there are morons who believe that Hooper didn't really direct Poltergeist all on his own, so things happen). Every subsequent Chainsaw film tried skirting around the end of the second film: Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III (1990) was cut down to fit for R-rated audiences while The Next Generation (1995) had Henkel as director/writer and little success. A remake was done in 2003 that was followed by a 2006 prequel before Texas Chainsaw 3D (2013) tried to act as a direct sequel to the first one. Leatherface (2017) was a new prequel to the series...and then comes Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2022), a title stupid enough to only fit a movie that tries to act as a sequel to the original that ignores all the other ones that fittingly premiered on a lesser platform like Netflix. Bottom line: never make a franchise, especially when this film goes the way of Halloween II (1981) in killing its main character before bullshit (read: money) seeps through.

The film was given an X rating by the Motion Picture Association, but Cannon responded to that by simply releasing it unrated (a smart idea, considering how hypocritical the MPA can be about ratings). I can see where Hooper felt that making a grim comedy would be a good idea to counteract what he felt was in his original feature. Hell, the poster of the film mimics The Breakfast Club (1985). In fact, I thought the movie was pretty decent for what it set out to do, serving as a gonzo experiment on how much patience an audience can have with a sequel that doesn't care about expectations beyond having weirdo laughs and a few grisly effects (as done by Tom Savini). Besides, a sequel aiming to do something different beyond just repeating the gore can work out well, provided that one doesn't veer into fan-fiction territory. So yes, a movie that feels queasy and punch-drunk at times is probably the most interesting idea to make rather than try to catch up with the levels of gore already covered in the 12-year gap between 1974 and 1986; besides, with Cannon's specific requirements in budget, the last 20 days of production was as frantic as the original film had been. Movies got gorier by that time, so why not make light of it with a moderate level of gore that goes hand in hand with the terror in loud and weirdness. Truly, a decade away hasn't made Hooper feel any less amused at the absurdity of how things are with handling gore. We've gone from isolated horror to celebrity horror, because now the folks being killed are being turned into chili and the family went from living in a farmhouse to an abandoned carnival ground that seems quite elaborate. 

If you can believe it, Williams got the role by screaming down a hallway and pulling the chairs out in front of the director when auditioning (since she saw others enter with a docile mood). She does quite well when it comes to reacting the excess in depravity. Anyone who can handle a scene with Leatherface wanting to show his chainsaw prowess (making this almost a love story) without turning it into parody is clearly on the right path. Consider the contrasts among the other members of the quartet: Dennis Hopper stated this was (at one time) the worst film he was ever in, while Bill Moseley considered it one of his favorite roles. Of course, Moseley was cast because of his participation in a parody short ("The Texas Chainsaw Manicure") that Hooper saw and liked. With Hopper, maybe the fact that he was trying to stay sober (18 months at the time of productions) alongside being in better movies released in that year (you know, Hoosiers, Blue Velvet...) helps to color that perception, and he changed his mind when he did Super Mario Bros. (1993) when it comes to regrets. Siedow was the only actor to return from the original film, reprising his role as "The Cook". These two films are what he is most known for as an actor, as he only acted in four other films/TV productions, and the 2nd Chainsaw movie was actually his final film role. The funny thing is that each do really well in the selling the varying madcap levels of madness required. I admire how Hooper handles the second half when it comes to self-righteous delusion, whether that involves him starting with a little sequence of chainsaw-shopping. Moseley's performance either reminds one of schtick or enjoyable madcap fun - I find him belonging to the latter category, one who oozes through every moment with the right sense of deranged timing. Siedow is just as off-putting as he was in the original in terms of patriarchal ooze, one with a fuzzy chemistry with his on-screen kin that is quite watchable, particularly since he gets to play a chili genius and an offbeat family man at the same time. Leatherface is just the plucky weirdo in the middle, saying his gibberish (and one line of focus) that I suppose will make one forget that Gunnar Hansen isn't playing the role. 

As a whole, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 is not as enjoyable as the original film, because it obviously is hard to top a classic with grisly execution. It does have a bit of rough pacing at 101 minutes, and the stakes are probably a bit lower when it comes to the overall result, which makes for a movie that works best when not taken seriously. However, I did find myself entirely comfortable with Hooper wanting to do what he felt was best - loony. It embraces the madness with fun rather than run away from things. Far from a bait-and-switch movie, it belongs in the same category with future films such as Evil Dead II (1987) and Gremlins 2: The New Batch (1990) in off-the-wall enjoyment in horror sequels that make this an interesting guilty pleasure for those who are curious about horror.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Mummy's Tomb.

Review #1908: The Mummy's Tomb.

Cast: 

Lon Chaney Jr (Kharis), Dick Foran (Prof. Stephen A. Banning), John Hubbard (Dr. John Banning), Elyse Knox (Isobel Evans), Wallace Ford (Babe Hanson), Turhan Bey (Mehemet Bey), George Zucco (Andoheb), Mary Gordon (Jane Banning), and Cliff Clark (Sheriff) Directed by Harold Young (#511 - The Three Caballeros and #1799 - Carib Gold)

Review: 

Two years after the release of The Mummy's Hand (1940) came this film, which retained a couple of actors from this film as a sequel (of sorts) to this one. Foran, Ford, and Zucco return for this film, while Lon Chaney Jr replaces Tom Tyler as the title character. Honestly, I fail to see the point of having Chaney in the role, since he doesn't have a word of dialogue beyond all that makeup, and he would end up starring in the next two of these films. Given the time that the film it was made, it should only make sense that the film re-uses footage from the previous Mummy film, and this is done to recap what happened in a ten-minute opening (while Zucco is used to do other exposition before dying after monologuing). So yes, an hour-long film is really 50 when you take that out. You could call it incredibly redundant, but I guess it works if you really don't remember mediocre movies like before. I would like to point out that it is set "thirty years later", which would actually mean this film was set 30 years in the future and since the last one was a contemporary film...well, 1970 sure looks like 1940. 

It sure is a shame that this sequel is only just the same kind of mediocre horror movie, complete with oddball decision making that goes along with the benefit of having less comic relief without dragging along for an intolerable hour. You get a body-count and a silly motivation for the climax, what more is there to say? At least Bey makes for a useful adversary, following in the footsteps of Zucco in terms of smooth devotion before the inevitable story bits come in. So yes, a bunch of actors in elderly makeup are taken down by a mummy that survived being burned that moves at an amusingly slow pace. Hell, one of the guys gets killed when he is cornered at a wall and doesn't think to just...run to the side of him. But hey, the townspeople get a bunch of torches and chase the mummy, which happens to remind one of the Frankenstein movies, with the mummy being a tool to kill, which isn't too fun. My favorite bit is the group of townspeople staying still with their torches before they decide to throw some of them into the house the mummy is present (while people happen to be in the house). In short, nothing really is improved from the last film despite the small improvements from before. Maybe it is a bit interesting to see where the story ends up for Foran and Ford along with Zucco (seemingly alive after getting shot down a staircase), but yeah, they don't really have much to do to make you care very much about what goes on, so the disposability of them isn't exactly a shocker. Hubbard is just kind of there, existing only to interact in the mildest of mild things when the mummy is not on screen. Knox is just as bland, only serving as an object for desires of the most predictable kind, because this is yet another Mummy movie where the priest wants the girl for himself (the last one had them plan to eat tana leaves to be immortal). Sure, it is nice to see Bey in the role rather than someone who would play it for stereotypes, but nothing really changes in terms of captivating drama beyond the mild horror things. As a whole, if you want only a movie that serves the basic requirement of mummy terror and nothing else, then it will probably rank better than the prior Mummy sequel, but otherwise, there isn't really much to say in terms of positivity besides calling it mediocre.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.