Now, here was a fun one, although I can imagine a lot of people finding it trite and boring. To begin with, my wife alerted me to this movie while we were watching a Hellraiser film. She said "there's some movie that has something about a man being turned inside out...."Screamers," or something like that?" And, this is rare. Since I've turned into such a movie nerd/buff, it's not often she'll know about a film I haven't heard of. So, I researched and found "Screamers," and in a now-out-of-print but affordable Scorpion Blu-ray release.
The story of this film and its marketing are almost the best things about it. The film itself began life as an Italian film (directed by Sergio Martino, who also helmed "Torso" and "Your Vice is a Locked Room") called "Island of the Fishmen." It starred Barbara Bach, Richard Johnson and Joseph Cotten, and is straight out of the "Island of Dr. Moreau" playbook. The movie was purchased for American distribution by Roger Corman's company and his team went to work in trying to find a way to sell the movie to the American public.
A prologue of nearly 15 minutes was added, and included appearances from Mel Ferrer and Cameron Mitchell. This had some nice, gory kills, as the original movie was found too tame. And it was Italian!! In the 70s!! There are a few other shots that were added, and the original film was trimmed by 10 or so minutes. The resulting movie is consistently entertaining, although the end is a bit of a mess. But an entertaining mess. We both dug it.
About the marketing: when it was time to release the movie in America, it was released as "Something Waits in the Dark," and nobody was waiting to see it in the theaters. So Jim Wynorski (later to helm the Traci Lords-starring "Not of this Earth") put together a trailer mentioning a man being turned inside out and including footage not even in the movie....and renamed the film "Screamers." So there....nobody gets turned inside out in the movie. Apparently, though, after some theater patrons complained about that not happening in the movie, Corman ordered the insertion of some of the trailer footage (maybe there was other footage, too?) into the release prints. Which was done, but none of that footage survives today. That would have been fun to see.
As you can tell, the story of the movie is almost more fun than the actual movie. But you know what? It's entertaining anyway. And my wife liked it, too. So there. It really is a cross between "Island of Dr. Moreau" and "Creature from the Black Lagoon"....the latter based on the look of the Fishmen themselves. Shots of the halfway-created Fishman toward the end of the picture look exactly like the Creature in the third Black Lagoon movie.
This reminds me: I need to dive into that "Blood Bath" box set from Arrow. Sometime soon. In the meantime, here's the "Screamers" trailer, and remember, it ain't in the movie:
And here's a nice link (from the great Movie Censorship web site) spilling the differences between the American and Italian versions.
Finishing up The Scarlet Box, "Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth." I hadn't seen all of this one before, as the prior DVD releases were all pan-and-scan chop jobs, and I just couldn't make it through it. This time, with a pristine transfer, was much more enjoyable, and it's not a bad movie.....although you definitely get the feeling of "franchise mode." Actors are less memorable, plot is less daring, and I could swear Pinhead's head gear looks like a slip-on job. And we're on to showing a metal band in a club.....Armored Saint, in this case.
Despite those trappings, the movie isn't bad. Once the killings roll in, things start moving, and I did like the dichotomy of Pinhead and his human antecedent (forgot the name). The only appearance of someone in the first two movies is by Ashley Laurence, via videotape. Well, outside of Pinhead. And his human antecedent (gotta look that name up).
One note I'll make about the Hellraiser films.....there is more smoking in these movies than in anything since the 1940s, it feels like. A minor point, maybe, but noticeable, certainly now.
Still, the movie closes The Scarlet Box nicely. I have not seen any of the Hellraiser films past this one, although I've read that "Bloodlines" is okay. Maybe I'll hit that one soon.
And now, let's Italian it up a bit: "Burial Ground: The Nights of Terror." This is from 1981, during the massive Italian zombie movie flood following Fulci's "Zombi 2." Andrea Bianchi is the director of this one; he's mostly notable for the sleazy (and entertaining!) "Strip Nude for your Killer."
Now, you have to know going in that this movie has almost no plot. Really. After a prologue showing a curator being chowed upon by zombies, a bunch of folks go to a house....and get chowed upon by zombies. There is one scene that is famous in horrorland, though, and it does not disappoint. There is the character of what is supposed to be the young son of one couple, but he's played by a 25-year-old smallish man. (Many sources say a midget, but I'm not sure that's true.) In a setup scene, the boy obviously has incestuous thoughts about his mother. And this is all so he can.....well, I won't spoil it for you, but it happens in the last five minutes of the movie. Let's say that you'll view breastfeeding a little differently after seeing this.
For a film with virtually no plot, it's actually fairly entertaining. The zombies, while in some ways looking cheap, are effective. Lots o' maggots, Fulci-style. Lots o' gut-munching, every-director-Romero-and-beyond-style. Enjoy! (Not finding a trailer....)
By the way, I watched the Shriek Show DVD of this....did not go for the recent Severin Blu-ray.
Next up, "Dreamscape." From 1983 (never mind the trailer below stating 1984, the film was made in '83), and maybe today, somewhat buried by the successes of "Nightmare on Elm Street" and "Inception."
In a special feature on the Scream Factory Blu, the screenwriter mentions "Spellbound" as a kicking-off point for the story, in particular the Dalí-designed dream sequence from that Hitchcock film. This is a story centering around the ability to enter people's dreams for good....or bad....purposes. Dennis Quaid stars as a former subject of maestro Max von Sydow's dream experiments. He is rooked back into the dream factory in order to aid an associate of von Sydow's, played by Christopher Plummer. (I'm forgetting character names; just going with actor noms.) And, of course, Plummer's a bad guy, and a "friend" of the President, played by Eddie Albert. (Try as I might, I cannot see Eddie Albert for any length of time without hearing Eva Gabor's "Ohlivah! Ohlivah!")
I found the movie to be a bit of a slow-burn, but maybe I'm saying that because I read too many only-slightly-favorable reviews of the movie before watching it. Once the movie gets in the final third, I thought it was pretty damned good.....and entertaining. Sure, the special effects are dated, but it's always nice to see practical ones. And it really hit me this time how much Dennis Quaid not only looks like Harrison Ford, but pretty much plays off Ford's patented smirk.
Not sure what else to write.....thumbs up from me. Maybe someone can enter Trump's dreams. Stat!
And one more. You know this one. You probably think this one's pretty silly, but hey, this is one from my youth (okay, early teenager) that I have a fondness for. "Night of the Lepus." 1972 killer bunny film. That's right, killer bunnies.
My memory was that this was a TV movie, but apparently not. Released to theatres, it has a fair number of medium-sized names within its furry walls: Stuart Whitman (probably why I thought it was a TV movie), Janet Leigh, and Rory Calhoun. Poking around on review sites before this viewing, I was surprised to see how reviled it is. Now, sure, the fact that the eco-monsters are rabbits is silly on its face (which member of Monty Python saw this first?), but the movie does build some tension. I've always liked the pulsing sound when the rabbits are shown terrorizing the countryside, and it's pretty damned gory for 1972.
Another surprise to me is the derision this movie faces when reviewed by "serious reviewers." Well, I suppose I just explained that with the word "serious." You can't take this movie seriously, but it is well made and somewhat suspenseful, and above all, fun. It takes me back to being a goofy little 12-year-old with a few pimples and not much film taste. Yes!
Back to the goofy horror/splatter/whatever flicks. I'll go with the last few watched, one of them a couple-times-repeat but certainly seasonal.
"C.H.U.D." is one of those....wow, what do you say?.....movies you definitely know the title of but may not have seen all the way through or at all. I was in the former category. The first understanding (in the movie) of what the acronym stands for....Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dweller....pretty much sums up what the film is about. Well, some of those dwellers and some humans of varying stations in life.
I'm surprised at some of the low ratings for this film; it's pretty enjoyable....a bit slow in the early going (even for this Tarkovsky fan), but it picks up speed later and finishes well. The cast is fairly unique and contains many at least somewhat-known names: John Heard, Kim Greist, Daniel Stern, Chtristopher Curry.....even Brenda Currin. (Come on, tell me you know who Brenda Currin is.) John Goodman also shows up in one of his first roles.
There's nothing surprising about the plot....that might be a reason for low ratings......but the film's still a lot of fun. It really belongs in that short list of "grimy NYC" flicks, with "Taxi Driver," "Maniac," "Basket Case," "New York Ripper," and the like. The monsters look fairly silly, but some of the attacks come off admirably tense. And, if you get the recent Arrow release, you'll be treated to a hilarious commentary from Heard, Stern and Curry....well worth the admission price.
Next up: some Hellraisin'!. I received as a late birthday present Arrow's recent domestic release of The Scarlet Box, comprising the first three Hellraiser movies and a ton of extras, including a very nice hardback book. I've always enjoyed the first two Hellraiser movies but have never gone any farther into the series. Since I've received this, I've only watched the first two films, but I'll jump on that third one soon.
The first two, titled "Hellraiser" and "Hellbound: Hellraiser II" respectively, are every bit as great as I remember them. These truly were "something fresh" when released in the late 80s; horror was still mining the almost-empty slasher cave. The first movie was created (or at least the script was) almost concurrently with Clive Barker's novel "The Hellbound Heart." "Hellraiser" is at its core, a dysfunctional family story. A grisly one, at that. "Hellbound" is an expansion of the first movie, with a couple of the core characters remaining, and is quite different than "Hellraiser," although for me every bit as satisfying. I have a feeling the third one might let me down a bit.
For those of you who know the Hellraiser series primarily from the iconic image of Pinhead, well, he ain't in it much of these two movies. And it might be a surprise to find out that he is one of a cast of Cenobites.....but he seems to be the leader of that little gang. The Cenobites are overlords of an area of the netherworld, overseeing people who crave "extreme sensation," let's say. (Oddly, I thought of "Martyrs" when watching "Hellraiser" this time. If you've seen "Martyrs," maybe you'll understand my connecting these two.) Andrew Robinson and Clare Higgins star in the first film, Higgins in particular shining.....as she does in the second film. Both these movies are better when she's in the scene. Robinson is admirable as the father figure in the first film, but I wish I could see him without shouting out "Callahan! It was Callahan!" ("Dirty Harry" reference....)
I'll leave you with this: these movies are both close to classics in my book, but they are grisly. Even for a horror buff such as myself, there are scenes that make me cringe a bit. And everything's gooey. You'll find out what I mean.
"Black Christmas!" Now, here's a classic. And we didn't even watch the new Shout! Factory edition....have not purchased that one yet. Supposedly, the transfer is much improved from this older Somerville House release, but ya know.....as long as the content's all there, sometimes a slighter image is better for horror. There, I said it.
[I have to quote my wife here. Recently, we watched "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" in its latest Blu-ray edition (and I didn't write about it!), and she said "ya know, the movie now looks TOO good." Even though I enjoyed the clarity of the version, I agreed with her sentiment. Maybe there's something to these folks who hang onto their old VHS tapes of 80s horror.]
"Black Christmas" (1974) is written about a lot as a forerunner of the slasher wave that hit America
after "Friday the 13th" was released in 1980. You usually hear about it as "first there was 'Bay of Blood,' then there was 'Black Christmas,' 'Halloween,' ' Friday the 13th,' and then the avalanche." That's pretty much true. In the pre-internet less-global days, for sure. "Bay of Blood" was from Italy's Mario Bava in 1971, "Black Christmas" was from Canada's Bob Clark, and "Halloween," of course, is from our John Carpenter. I didn't even mention Michael Powell's "Peeping Tom" or Hitchcock's "Psycho" (both 1960). There might be some question as to who saw whose movie, as to influence, although it's generally recognized that a kill in "Friday the 13th, Part II" is straight out of "Bay of Blood." Wait, I'm off track......
"Black Christmas" is less of a slasher and more of a psychological horror, but it's a good one....very creepy. And a very interesting cast: Olivia Hussey (Zefferelli's "Romeo and Juliet"), Keir Dullea ("2001"), Margot Kidder (you know who SHE is), Andrea Martin (later of SCTV), John Saxon (many genre movies of the 60s-80s), and Lynne Griffin ("Strange Brew"). The action mostly takes place in an old multi-level sorority house around (surprise!) Christmas time. The happenings lead you to
believe one character is responsible, until the very end when, well.....hmmm.....
Please watch this one. Doesn't have to be Christmas time. Excellent direction from Bob Clark, who also directed "Porky's" and "A Christmas Story," if you want to know how diverse his interests were. All three of these films look pretty much the same, too. Watch it!!!!
In returning to this blog for the first time in what seems like ages, I thought I'd interrupt the movie reviews, stay well away from the election results (although I might broach that subject later), and concentrate on my own physical well-being. Hey, this blog's about me, right? RIGHT??
Sometime earlier this year, I began to notice an issue when drumming; namely, my right ankle was not cooperating as well as it had been for the bulk of my drumming life. Grace notes in front of a standard strike on the "one" or "three" had become difficult to do. On top of that, I wasn't "feeling" them. I didn't have any numbness, per se, no "my foot fell asleep" sensation. Instead, it was just a feeling of, well, helplessness, when I would attempt to play fast grace notes on the kick drum. This is mainly an issue with the Pocket FishRmen, as the music, besides being blindingly fast most of the time, is loaded with that kind of feel in the kick drum patterns. The guys weren't noticing any difference in my playing, and I realized, after some horror, that I was playing these grace notes after all.....I just couldn't feel them.
The issue is also not at all consistent, and it's hard to tell when I'll have the problem. Some slower to mid-tempo songs are difficult as hell now, namely "Friendly Chimps." There are a couple of Hickoids songs that are more difficult now, but not nearly like the FishRmen ones are. As you can imagine, this is one of the scariest scenarios for a musician to face.
After a couple of trips to my doctor to attempt to diagnose this, I went to a chiropractor....but there wasn't really anything they could do about it...but they wanted me to keep coming back (ha ha)! So my doctor prescribed a bunch of physical therapy visits, and I'm starting to feel like I might be on the road to recovery, and on the road to playing more correctly.
I've been a fairly regular worker-outer (BowFlex, stationary bike) for awhile now, and one thing I definitely did not do enough of is stretching, beforehand and afterward. And I think that is a lot of the issue. I built up so much tightness that I think I was using that tightness to drive my kick drum leg. And I finally got stove up (as we say in the South) to the point that playing was becoming difficult. Now that physical therapy is loosening me up, I find that my ankle feels looser, but it's weak as hell. Two songs played, and my ankle's crying "help!" Going to take a while to build that back up. I'm doing a lot of ankle strengthening exercises now (e.g. balancing on one leg, calf raises), but it might be awhile. I only have three sets to play New Year's Eve. Hoo boy!!
I gotta say - the FishRmen have been more than patient with my complaining about this for some time. As I wrote earlier, they hadn't really noticed the issue in the overall sound, so it probably sounded like I was whining for nothing. They're good fellas.
That's it for the physical report. Back to the movies.......sometime.
Why so many movies? Well, my back's been messed up, badly this time. I'm still able to sit and play drums, but jeez louise, the rest has been nightmarish. Which means I've sat around watching a lot of movies. As a matter of fact, so many that the list in this post's title isn't complete. I know I've forgotten a couple of things I watched recently. Whoa.
On to 'em. "Argento's Dracula," released in, 2012, maybe? But just hitting video in the last year. And utterly vilified in other reviews I've read. Let me raise (?) its status a bit by saying it's not the worst movie I've ever seen, by far. It's not especially great, but it's not terrible. I think what might have set people off is the very cartoonish CGI used in many sequences. Although most of it looks like it was created on a Windows 95 platform, I think it may have been intentional. The music is certainly silly in many places, oftentimes sounding like the soundtrack to a 1970s Chiller Theatre-type TV show.
None of this put me off a bit, but each to their own taste. Frankly, the script for the movie is good. I like the decisions made; the characters are the same, for the most part, but the circumstances and situations are a bit different. One problem the film has, though, is that the acting is all over the place. Thomas Kretschmann doesn't make a bad Dracula at all. And Unax Ugalde as Jonathan Harker is okay, too. I also liked Miriam Giovanelli as Tania, Dracula's "bride" of sorts from the early going. Her story thread of being jealous over his machinations on Mina were an interesting part of the plot. But Asia Argento as Lucy and Marta Gastini as Mina left a lot to be desired. Asia was okay, I guess, a bit wooden, but Marta spent a lot of her screen time with a blank almost-oh-my-god expression. And Rutger Hauer as Van Helsing.....well, he seemed tired or jetlagged the entire time.
Proceed at your own risk, but again, it's not the worst movie I've ever seen, not by a long shot. Mostly, it's pretty entertaining.
"The Bat," from 1959, is based on a stage play and stars Vincent Price and Agnes Moorehead....and, oddly enough, features Darla Hood (Our Gang) in her last screen role. Fun movie, but not a whole lot plotwise to recommend it. It's more of a murder mystery than anything else. The reason to watch it is for Vincent Price, of course, and Agnes Moorehead's performance as a snooty mystery writer. I'd be willing to bet that when Bewitched was being cast, someone remembered her work in "The Bat" and asked her to be Endora. Or at least someone asked her to basically play this role as Endora; they're almost one and the same, even if she doesn't have a Derwood to play off here. All in all, it's fun.
"The House with Laughing Windows," an Italian thriller from 1976, is one of the better films I've seen in awhile. I'd always read good stuff about it, and it did not disappoint. The protagonist is a man who takes a job restoring a mural in a church in a small Italian village. Turns out he learns more about the painter, and this guy was a crazed torturer of people who liked to paint their expressions receiving such treatment. The movie's kind of a slow burn, but the last 15 minutes or so is in-sane. I don't want to write too much more about it, just watch for yourself. It's rather hard to find on DVD right now; I got lucky from an eBay seller. Loved it.
Hey! Let's shift gears, shall we? I'll start with a confession; I've never really been a fan of Charlie Chaplin. But I say this having never watched any of his feature films. I'd seen several of his shorts, and the "Little Tramp" made me cringe. The cutesy act. You know what I mean. I respect Chaplin's artistry, but as far as silent clowns go, give me Keaton, Lloyd, Langdon, Chase, Laurel, and not the guy who has to almost simper in front of the camera.
Well, that might change. I'll re-evaluate. I recently came into possession of a collection of Chaplin's feature films....mainly as an investment, because the boxes are well out-of-print. But I figured I'd give it a go watching some of these. I've begun with "Modern Times."
Released in 1936, and yet for all practical purpose a silent film (there are music cues and sound effects, and the voice of a factory boss), the film, like most silents, is rather vignette-oriented. But the first 2/3 of the movie are flat-out hilarious. You've probably seen the shots of Chaplin in the factory and ending up in the gears of the big machine. That all happens in the first 20 minutes or so; the rest takes place in jail or with Paulette Goddard (as the "gamin"), trying to eke out a life. There is a gag, that I won't even try to fully explain, which happens in that first 20 that I cannot believe got by the censors of the time. I'll just say it involves Chaplin's perpetually-turning wrench and the nut-like ornaments decorating the large bosom of a matronly woman. Nothing happens; it's all inference. And it's friggin' brilliant.
I do think the movie poops out a bit after the first 2/3. The rest is entertaining enough, but something starts to feel more "standard." As in more silent movie gags you've seen before. I still have to recommend it, and I'll watch another Chaplin feature soon.
And what would one of my long many-movie posts be without a Jess Franco effort, huh? This time, it's "Jack the Ripper," from 1976. Produced by Erwin Dietrich and starring Klaus Kinski as Saucy Jack. I give it a "very good" overall. Surprisingly, and not just to connect it with the above-mentioned movie, it co-stars Josephine Chaplin, one of Charlie's daughters. Imagine.....a Chaplin in a Jess Franco flick.
It's a fairly standard horror/butcher flick in many ways, but Kinski is great as the mad doctor who moonlights by curing prostitutes of their trade, permanently. Lina Romay shows up, of course, and it's a hoot to see how Jess films her as opposed to the other women in the movie. There's quite a bit of gore, and not a whole lot of it is convincing, but that's to be expected. We're talking Franco, and the budget probably mostly went to Kinski and Chaplin.
It's enjoyable. Check it out, especially if you've already seen and enjoyed some Franco stuff. Can't find a trailer.....
"The Tenderness of the Wolves," which is a Ulli Lommel-directed effort from 1973 is last on the list for this massive update. I'm still unfamiliar with Lommel (and his mentor, Fassbinder), but this was a good, solid movie. It's based on the story of a German serial killer, one of the ones who inspired the screenplay for Fritz Lang's "M." The guy is a piece of work, certainly, but the strong point of the film is the way everyone around him is portrayed. I don't know if Germany was in the last stages of a Nazi hangover at this point, but there's a culpability in everyone surrounding the lead character. Almost enabling him. I haven't seen much post-war German cinema until recently, and even then, it's been newer films. (Not counting "Wings of Desire," which didn't bowl me over as it seems to do to everyone else.)
I give this one a hearty recommendation, and maybe I'll get around to a Fassbinder film or another Wenders film sometime soon. (Wait, what was I writing earlier?....I've seen many Herzog films. Somehow, they don't seem "German" to me, even if they're in that language. Hmmmm......)
And I can't find a trailer for this one, either. Well.......bye bye!! Hope to be writing again soon.....
Howdy. Time to investigate something directed by Walerian Borowczyk, a director whose work I'd never seen and frankly, didn't know much about. I did know that his stuff seems to be loved and reviled in equal measure, so the term "polarizing" seems to apply.
TSCODJAMO (how's that acronym?) is another take on the famous Robert Louis Stevenson novel, "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde," which you might have already gathered. And this film adaptation was released in 1981, with Udo Kier as Jekyll, and supporting performances from Patrick Magee as a somewhat over-animated general and Howard Vernon as a physician. The "Miss Osbourne" of the title is Jekyll's fiancee (named after Stevenson's wife), played by Marina Pierro.
Most of the story will be familiar to anyone with a passing knowledge of the book or other adaptations. This particular version is heavy on the, uh.....kink, let's say. Hyde is even played by a completely different actor with a close-cropped Moe Howard do. There's a whole lotta blood-lettin', rapin' and other general mischief. And someone else gets in on the act, too.....guess who?
The movie is engaging visually, although so much light is used in most shots that an almost blown-out video effect exists for most of the runtime. I'm unfamiliar with Borowczyk's other efforts, so I'm not sure if this is typical of films with his stamp on them or not. Maybe I'll investigate "The Beast" or "Immoral Tales" soon.
In all, the movie is an odd mash-up of art and exploitation, and according to what I've read of Borowczyk, seems indicative of a lot of his live-action career (he made many stop-motion animated films, as well). There's a lot to look at in the movie, but I'm not sure how successful it really is. I wasn't bored, I'll say that much.
Oh, man....over three months since the last post? Get regular, Lance. Regular, like after a good dose of Haley's M-O. Regular, man.
"Slaughter Hotel" is a giallo from 1971, directed by Fernando diLeo, known much more for his Italian crime pics than anything giallo. I'm not sure if he made any other gialli, but this one....is....interesting.
All the standard pieces of gialli are present in the movie, but at best, they're clumsily put together. It's almost as if diLeo, et.al. had a checklist to go down and make sure requirements were met. What we get is a film that's shaky in structure but does have some nice moments....along with some embarrassing ones.
The nice moments are mainly in the photography itself. The movie takes place in a "rest home," a mental hospital for disturbed young women, all of the Italian giallo "hottie" persuasion. Rosalba Neri and Margaret Lee are standouts in this particular category. Lots of gratuitous nudity and inserted shots of masturbation, in a couple of instances. You can tell it's not the actual actresses involved in this, and you can also hear an off-camera producer yelling "I needa more-a play-with-herself-a!" (Well, figuratively.) Frankly, after viewing the movie, I felt like I needed a bath.
So, back to the photography. The setting is a nice sort of castle-converted-to-group home, although, oddly, there is a room full of medieval torture devices, including an iron maiden and various knives and axes. Just the thing to have in a home for the loony. Klaus Kinski stars but really doesn't have a whole lot to do. He's the definite red herring with his hair styled the way it is (I'm not giving away anything there, believe me), and he plays a good guy. Imagine, a loony bin, with Klaus Kinski as the kindly doctor. Wow.
So, all in all, I'll say that this is one of the most uneven movies I've ever seen. It's worth watching for the good stuff, especially if you're a giallo fan, but many scenes, in particular the reveal-of-the-killer resolution, are almost eye-rollingly bad. I give it 2 1/2 out of 5. It's a 50-50 proposition at best, but I'd be willing to bet I'll watch it again someday.
Okay, the next two films finish what's known as "The Apu Trilogy," directed by Satyajit Ray. I mentioned "Pather Panchali" in my previous post, and the next two are "Aparajito" and "Apur Sansar."
There are few films (or things) in this world that you can experience, and you just feel like a better person after watching them. These three films are the very definition of that. And yet, I can't point to any specific thing about them that makes them supremely special.
At their core, they are slice-of-life movies about Bengali life in the 1920s to 30s (I'm guessing that, based on the books the films are based on). Apu is the thread character of all three, and yet, he's not really a main character in the first film. The films concentrate on his immediate family and a few friends here and there. The third film goes into marriage and child-rearing. And really, without giving away too much, the plot turns could be looked at as a series of downers....but the overall effect of the films was almost magical. Sure, it could have something to do with the fact that it's a culture I don't know a whole lot about. But at the end of the third film, I just felt pure satisfaction. Cant' ask for much more than that.
Special kudos, beyond the writing and direction, must go to the actress who played Apu's mother. Her performances stood out. These did make me want to seek out more Ray stuff. And soon.
Moving just a bit to the northeast, we get to "The Living Corpse," which was made in Pakistan in 1967. Yep, Pakistan. Basically, what's been done here is take the 1958 "Dracula," from Hammer, and modify it to fit a Pakistani "entertainment." This means you get song and dance numbers, and even a car chase at the end. Yes, Dracula, or in this case, Professor Tabani, is auto-pursued by Dr. Aqil (Harker) towards the end. All in all, it's a pretty fun feature, especially after the first 30 minutes or so, which are pretty slow.
This makes my second Pakistani horror film, the first being "Hell's Ground" from the mid-2000s. I heartily recommend that one. This one....it's fun.....for the curious, mostly. Paki censors didn't want to put any stamp of approval on it, purely for its supernatural content, but they finally passed it with an "X." Funny. I'm glad we have this, though; it was thought lost for many years. Here's a dance number:
"The Invisible Ghost" is the first of the nine Monogram pictures Bela Lugosi made, this one produced/released in 1941. It's a fairly well-made interesting thriller, although the premise is a bit silly. Still, for one of these Monogram jobs, it ain't bad. And, at only 63 minutes, I was always entertained, even if it was obvious how the resolution would come about. Bela's pretty strong in it. Joseph Lewis, who later directed the superb noir "Gun Crazy," handles the directorial chores here. And special mention must be made of Clarence Muse, as Evans the butler. Muse is the polar opposite of the stereotypical African-American servant in one of these pictures. VERY refreshing to experience.
If you want to really delve into this movie, check out this web page. Now, there's some analysis!
"Pather Panchali" is the first of the so-called "Apu Trilogy" of films made by Indian director Satyajit Ray in the mid-to-late 50s. This is something I received in the mail, thought I'd put in the first film to see what it looked like and ended up watching the whole 125-minute thing in one sitting. Not that a whole lot happens in the movie; it's definitely a slice-of-rural-Bengali-life, but that's enough. I found it riveting. Ray was apparently the first Indian director to stray from the happy-happy-musical format, and he hits a home run here. Can't wait to watch the other two.....I'll probably write more after doing that.
Awreety, awright, here we go again.....once again, I've paused in the writing schedule. Maybe "Dark Shadows" just disappointed me too much.
"Ms. 45" (1981) is New-Yawkuh Abel Ferrara's second feature film, following "The Driller Killer." Despite knowing a lot about this movie for quite awhile, I'd never actually seen it. The plot centers on a mute seamstress who is raped twice in a day. Through her own despondence and other events, she ends up becoming a mostly indiscriminate serial killer of men.
I was pleasantly surprised by how much I liked this film. It's very, very well-directed, uses its low budget well, and the lead actress (who has her own tragic story; Google "Zoë Lund") is completely riveting. Some of the supporting performances are a little lacking, but none of them really do the movie any harm. And the band playing at the party cracked me up, as someone evidently thinks a trumpet sounds like a saxophone. You'll see what I mean. Yes, there are two rape scenes at the outset, but they don't last long and are necessary to set the whole plot in motion. Five stars for this one. It won't be leaving my mind anytime soon.
Drafthouse Films has put out a nice Blu-ray of this, with some interesting special features, not least of which is a tribute film from Zoë Lund's widower husband. Her sad demise does weigh on the legacy of the film, a bit like John Kennedy Toole's over "A Confederacy of Dunces."
"The Black Sleep" is an independent production from 1956, with a bevy of classic horror personalities in it: Basil Rathbone, Akim Tamiroff, Lon Chaney, Jr., John Carradine, Tor Johnson, and a year before he perished, Bela Lugosi. Frankly, I didn't know Lugosi had any roles outside of Ed Wood's movies at this time. And, by the looks of him, and considering remarks made during Tom Weaver's commentary track, maybe he shouldn't have. He does look almost comatose most of the time. Very sad. At least his character doesn't have to do much.
But back to the movie, which I found surprisingly entertaining. If you can buy the opening 20 minutes of the movie, you'll enjoy it all....mad scientist trying to get his wife out of complete catatonia and rescuing a fellow doctor from the gallows to assist. John Carradine doesn't appear until the last 20 minutes, but when he makes his entrance....oh, yeah! Classic crazy Carradine. Lon Chaney, Jr. plays a former doctor, "Munro," who is now called "Mungo," due to his reduced mental state. I thought everyone was saying "Mongo," which made me wonder if the "Blazing Saddles" writing team had watched this before writing that script.
I wasn't expecting much when starting this film....mainly wanting to see it for the classic cast....but I was happy with it overall. The Blu-ray contained an informative, if sometimes harshly-worded (escpecially about Lugosi) commentary from Tom Weaver. No trailer is online for this one. Waaaah....
"Straight Outta Compton." My wife, being almost ten years younger than I am and a fan of N.W.A's music, wanted to see this one. I have to admit I did, too. I don't know much about them or rap in general, but I was willing to delve in. Glad I did. Great film. I haven't been wanting to see bio-pics lately, preferring instead to watch documentaries about actual people, but this film was mostly excellent. Only one scene that turns a bit hokey in the middle pulled me out of it for a minute, and that didn't last long.
Jason Mitchell, who plays Eazy-E, is a standout performer in it, as is Paul Giamatti as their manager. Ice Cube's son plays Ice Cube, and at first, I thought he was a pretty limited actor. But then after watching Ice Cube interviewed in a special feature, I remembered that Ice Cube's face is fairly limited in its movement. Maybe IC, Jr. was just "in character." (I did think of Mario van Peebles playing his dad, Melvin, in "Baaaadasss," the story of the making of "Sweet Sweetback's Badasssss Song.")
I don't need to embed a trailer of "SOC," do I? Good, because there is a ton of material online for the film, and I didn't feel like sifting through it.
And finally, "The Children," a British horror film from 2008. This is one of the best horror efforts of the 2000s first decade, a decade pretty lean on good horror.....excepting the Asian market, of course. "The Children" is a fairly taut 84 minutes, and none of it is wasted. The setup works well, there are only a few characters, and I thought it was a fairly original premise. Ambiguous, too, which I like. You don't have to know why they act that way....just that they do. That's what makes it horrific. And I really liked the end. Really liked it. May have seen it coming, but.....
Could not find a trailer for this one online, either. Oh, and by the way, there are several other films out there called "The Children." Make sure you get the one from 2008.
Yay, four winners!! Time to practice drumming.....
For some reason, I haven't written in this for awhile, although I have watched several titles. I'll go ahead and muse on the latest viewing, 2012's "Dark Shadows."
As I'm sure you know, "Dark Shadows" is based on the television soap opera airing from 1966 to 1971, and which I'm currently over half-way through watching (!!). The possibility of the show being turned into a feature film for a third time (previously by Dan Curtis in 1970 and 71) was proposed to Johnny Depp, who signed up Tim Burton to direct. Depp plays Barnabas Collins, and the supporting cast includes folks who've worked with Burton before, such as Helena Bonham Carter as Julia Hoffman and Michelle Pfeiffer as Elizabeth Stoddard.
Being a fan of the TV show, I'll admit that there were moments of this film which shone, but overall, it's a mess. It definitely reeks of "too many cooks." The prologue is very well done and looks fantastic. Once you get to the main movie, the script quickly loses focus. A good example happens right at the beginning.....most likely in order to shoehorn Maggie Evans' name into the picture (as the character is absent), the opening shot of a young lady riding the train into Collinsport has her murmuring to herself "hi, I'm Maggie Evans, and ....." She then spies a poster for a vacation in Victoria, B.C., and continues "hi, I'm Victoria Winters, and I..." There's absolutely no motive for her to change names suddenly.
As I said, being a fan of the show, there are still moments I enjoyed. Some of the music choices are surprisingly good, such as Iggy Pop's "I'm Sick of You" and Alice Cooper's "The Ballad of Dwight Fry." Although, how Carolyn would have a copy of "I'm Sick of You" in 1972....well, I'll stop. Other music insertions are simply awful, such as The Carpenters' "On Top of the World" for a Collins business re-invigoration (and comedy) montage, or Barry White's "You're the First" when Barnabas and Angelique get down to business (and, uh, comedy). And I dig Barry White. It just feels silly and wrong.
The third act is where everything just goes straight downhill, and that's where you can feel the ol' "hey, the studio has a special effects budget!! Better use it now!!"
So, the performances are pretty good, the script is pretty bad, and the direction is so-so. That's my take. Proceed with caution.
"The Devil Within Her." A movie made when (1976) people were still more or less copying "The Exorcist," and the bowl was being licked clean by this time. You still have to enjoy the pedigree of many of the principals here, though. Peter Sasdy, director of several Hammer efforts, steers this one. Joan Collins, Ralph Bates, Eileen Atkins, Donald Pleasance, John Steiner, and Caroline Munro star. Sounds good, huh?
Well, it's.....okay. And actually hilarious in moments, especially any shots of the baby used to be the "evil baby" in the film. I know the filmmakers were trying to balance the awfulness of the kills with the innocence of the baby, but really. They got the most hilariously "what, me?" baby they could have gotten. Every shot of that kid had me howling in laughter. And.....there's a sinister midget. Not quite "Sinful Dwarf" territory, but hey....
So, it's not especially well-made, but it will keep your attention. Worth a watch. And I'll watch anything Caroline Munro's in. Period. Since I couldn't find a trailer for this film, here's a Dr. Pepper commercial featuring Ms. Munro from 1985:
This French thing....it's continuing! Guess I've been missing France. And trying to speak its language, a little.
The next film up is "Mon Oncle," from Jacques Tati, and it's his film that's probably more well-known than any other. I'd never seen any of his films until 2 1/2 years ago or so, when I saw "M. Hulot's Holiday" for the first time. Great, great stuff. "Mon Oncle" is the follow-up to "Holiday," and Tati once again plays his M. Hulot character. This one is fairly long as comedies go, almost two hours. And it needs the time, as most of its gags build up over time.
The plot, or what there is of it (most of Tati's stuff seems to center on vignettes within a framework), concerns the manager of a plastics plant named Arpel, who has a wife, son, and a very modern (for 1958) house. A lot of the humor has to do with his and his wife's fascination with all this new gadgetry they have, regardless if they really need it or not. Most times, it's "not." Their small son likes to spend as much time as possible with his uncle, who is M. Hulot. Hulot lives in a ramshackle place in town that has infinitely more character and charm than the Arpels' place. Come to think of it, the Arpels' place looks a little like the interior of a rocket ship from a fifties sci-fi cheapie.
One great repeated gag concerns a mostly hideous fish fountain that Mme. Arpel turns on whenever she thinks someone important has come over. Whenever she finds out it's "just" Hulot or a delivery guy, she switches it off. But my favorite gag of the whole movie doesn't have anything to do with the Arpels' house but centers on the son and his friends trying to get local folk to run into light poles. They'll place bets with each other and then right as the poor intended victim is about three feet from a light pole, one of the boys will whistle, intended victim's head will turn, and then there may or may not be a collision with the light pole. There's a small succession of these, and then a great return to the gag later in the movie. I loved it and laughed harder than at anything else in the film.
Terry Jones (of Monty Python) provides an introduction to the film on the disc I saw, and in the intro, he admits that he didn't think much of the movie when he first saw it....only to have it become his favorite on repeated viewings. I think it might be that way for me, too, although I did like it on this first watch. It does seem like there might be a lot I didn't get this first time. Tati's films are very dense, and this one was no exception.
Remember the Heinz ketchup commercial from the 70s? "It's sloooooow good." Sometimes things can be sloooooow not so good. On to this review....
"The Thing That Couldn't Die" is a horror (?) movie from 1958 I'd been wanting to see for some time. No big stars in it and directed by Will Cowan. And, man, is it a snoozer. And it's only 69 minutes!
The basic idea is good, involving a decapitated head that's been alive for hundreds of years and sealed in a wooden box. When released, the head can control nearby people to do its bidding, which mostly involves wanting to be reunited with its body. Like I said, the idea's kinda cool, and the way the head just mouths words without sound (no vocal chords or lungs) is rather creepy.
My issue with the film is its direction and staging; it's just exceedingly limp. Everything's lit way too brightly to ever give you any sort of dread feeling, and the cast is mostly either made up of poor actors or people ready to speak lines and head off to lunch. The final "reunification" scene is one of the most ineptly shot/acted scenes I've ever seen....and I actually like a lot of Jess Franco's movies. I'd call this one a wasted opportunity, and yet, at only 69 minutes, I don't feel like I wasted too much time.
The only trailer I can find is the MST3K version. Maybe that's the way to go to view this one.....
Wow, back to the French stuff, huh? Well, yes. I had received the Blu-ray of this one and wanted to give it a quick spin to view video quality....and of course, enraptured in the first five minutes, watched the whole thing. And I've seen this movie a couple of times before. Many call it the greatest anti-war movie ever made, and I'd find it hard to disagree. It might even be the greatest war movie ever made, even without any combat footage. I find it interesting that when the three French soldiers are captured in the first ten minutes, it isn't shown. You only see the aftermath.
It would be hard to describe this movie, and not because of any big spoilers, really. It's just better absorbed and enjoyed. There's a little text and a lot of subtext concerning the European class system that may not play so well stateside. The two soldiers we spend the most time with are Maréchal (Jean Gabin), who has a common background, and de Boeldieu (Pierre Fresnay), who is from aristocracy. Erich von Stroheim knocks his part as a German prison camps head out of the park. There is a complete shift in location for the final 20 minutes of the movie but absolutely no change in tone. I find that remarkable.
Still playing catch-up of sorts, although I won't even try to go over films I watched during the year and a half or so I didn't write in this blog. THAT would be daunting. And, unless something was super-duper memorable, I've probably forgotten plenty about the movies viewed.
But, I did finish "Mr. & Mrs. Smith" yesterday, a Carole Lombard-Robert Montgomery comedy directed by Alfred Hitchcock in 1941. I have to give it one big "meh." There are a couple of scenes that stand out, one being the couple stuck on an amusement park ride high above a crowd...bringing some of the ol' Hitch suspense...and another being a hilarious scene in a nightclub where Montgomery pretends to be chatting up a woman other than the one he was supposed to be seen with.
I should summarize the plot a bit. The Smiths discover, through an odd technicality, that they're not married at all, right after Mr. Smith confesses to the Mrs. that he might not have married her at all had he the chance to do it over again. When he doesn't rush to marry her again after the technicality is discovered, she assumes the worst, and the war begins. The war lasts until about the final ten seconds of the movie.
While there is a bit of humor here and there, the movie certainly doesn't fit into the Lombard "screwball" category. It's okay, but I consider it the very definition of a "trifle." (By the way, the 2005 film with Pitt and Jolie is not a remake of this film....previously, I thought it was.)
Continuing on the ol' French movie watching trail....Criterion put out "The Complete Jean Vigo" about four years ago, and I've recently viewed it all. "Viewed it all" sounds like a monumental achievenment, but the "all" is one 90-minute feature, one 45-minute sorta-feature and two shorts of 23 and 10 minutes. All of it is worthwhile, particularly the main feature "L'Atalante." That film shows up on best-of lists all the time, so it was good to finally see it. The films were made from 1930-4, so you could best describe the work here as highly influential, which it was while "L'Atalante" is just flat out a good movie. Vigo died of tuberculosis shortly after shooting "L'Atalante," and it's pretty apparent that he would have become known as one of the masters had he lived longer.
The first short is "À Propos de Nice," and that's credited as a co-direction between Vigo and his only cinematographer Boris Kaufman. It's silent and consists of what seem to be random shots of people in Nice, doing whatever it is they're doing. The editing is what makes this one more than even the sum of its parts....the order everything's assembled, as you see everything from the well-to-do out on the Riviera to poor folks scratching it out.
The second short is "Taris"....although on the actual title screen is more verbiage; I forget what it is. This one's only ten minutes and features a champion French swimmer. What makes this one interesting is the experimentation with photographic technique. Fun stuff.
The third film is the almost-feature "Zéro de Conduite." It's said that François Truffaut was really inspired by this one, and well, if you've seen "The 400 Blows," you'll get that immediately. It's basically a bunch of students acting up in different, often funny, ways. There are also fantasy elements to the film, including an obviously impossible handstand by a teacher (monitor here) and a brief animation of a pencil drawing coming to life. Again, fun stuff.
And then "L'Atalante." I won't go on much about this one, as there's plenty on the web about it already, but suffice it to say that it's a clear winner. I watched it a second time to hear the commentary track and enjoyed it even more. There's not a whole lot to the story; this one's in the telling. And the performance by Michel Simon as Père Jules is pretty unforgettable. Plus there are cats. And they multiply during the course of the runtime. Also....the female lead is played by Dita Parlo, also of "La Grande Illusion." My curiosity made me look up her name, and yes, Madonna used the name "Dita" in her "Sex" book as an homage. Also, noted burlesque artist Dita von Teese named herself after Ms. Parlo. That's your trivia for today.
Okay, folks, yours truly has finished the Jacques Demy box set. Movies, anyway....there are a few documentaries and short films to go. In the meantime, what did I think about the last two films in the set?
"Donkey Skin," from 1970, is a live-action fairy tale musical. Yep, that's what it is. Music by Michel Legrand again, and once again starring Catherine Deneuve (and Jean Marais, for you "Beauty and the Beast" fans). Most reviews I've read of this set are much less enthusiastic about the last two movies in the box, but I liked this one as much as the previous ones. True, the story comes from a children's fairy tale, so it's fairly predictable, and there's a simplistic air to the whole construction. Still, I was completely involved in it start to finish. I kept thinking of "The Princess Bride," which I think is a superior movie to this one, but the attitude about a lot of "Donkey Skin" is the same. The music here isn't nearly as memorable as the songs in the previous musicals, but it still works well. I won't go into a plot synopsis, as.....well, it's a fairy tale.
Which brings us to "Une Chambre en Ville," the final film in the set. This one was released in 1982, and yet stylistically it's not much different than "The Umbrellas of Cherbourg." The music is constant, and all dialogue is sung. While I liked it, I do see why people are less enthusiastic about this one. For one thing, the music this time is by Michel Colombier, instead of Legrand. The music is good enough but lacks the magic of Legrand's themes.
The plot of this movie is much darker than all of the other movies in the box (well, maybe not "Bay of Angels"), and presenting it as a pop opera seems a bit odd. But it does work. It might not be a highly-rewatchable movie, though. The sets are as garishly colorful as in any of Demy's previous color films. I'll call this one a winner, but less of a winner than the previous five films. How's that?
Awright, another two-fer. Mainly because I hadn't gotten a chance to write about the first one yet.
"Eyes Without a Face" is a French horror (sort of) film, directed by Georges Franju and released in 1960. Although its original title may be most familiar as the namesake of a Billy Idol song, it's actually quite a nice twist on the Frankenstein tale, with a forward-thinking surgeon wanting to repair (by replacing) his daughter's face after a car accident claimed a large part of it. The accident was his fault, too. He has an assistant (played by Alida Valli) who had her face fixed by the surgeon earlier and has only a small scar on her neck to show for it. The assistant helps him procure potential ladies with nice faces, and in the first scene, she is disposing of an unfortunate procuree.
This is the second time I've seen the film, and this time a lot of the music really stood out....particularly the comical "shopping music" that plays whenever Valli's character is lookin' for dames. This is still the only film I've seen directed by Franju; "Judex" is on my list for some future time. "Eyes" is worth a watch. Do it sometime.
I need to mention something else. Earlier, I wrote about the film's "original title," which is "Eyes..." After its initial release, an American distributor released an English-dubbed version called.....wait for it....."The Horror Chamber of Dr. Faustus." And it was stuck on a double bill with "The Manster." Yep, see for yourself.
And on we go to the fourth of the Jacques Demy Criterion Collection box...."The Young Girls of Rochefort." And man oh man, the winners keep coming. Four for four from this box. And this movie is pretty much a straight-ahead musical. Hell, Gene Kelly is even in it. Lotsa singing, lotsa dancing. But I gotta tell you, after watching this, I might become a fan of musicals. This one's riveting from start to finish. And this film is a full 35 minutes longer than the longest of Demy's I'd watched this far. It tops two hours. The music (again from Michel Legrand) is fantastic....I'm about to search it on Amazon and probably buy it.
Catherine Deneuve and her real-life sister, Françoise Dorleac star as a pair of non-identical twin sisters lookin' for that special man. And most of the other major players are all lookin' for that special person, too. Most of the end you can predict, but it's one swell multi-colored, swingin' ride getting there. And Gene Kelly speaks French. Pretty well, too.
I'm still just floored by the four Demy films I've watched so far. The final two in the box are not as well-liked as these four.....I'll get to 'em soon and see for myself.
Breaking up the monotony of constant movie reviews (!!!), I'll write about what took up this last weekend...namely, the annual Star of Texas Tattoo Art Revival. A good friend of mine has put this on for the last 14 years, and I've done work for her from the beginning.....starting with the web site. I continue to update the web site, sometimes create advertising and promotional video, and as of a few years ago, I've graduated to full-on event announcer and stage manager for the entertainment. Or stage wrangler.
This year's convention went very, very smoothly. It was moved to the Austin Convention Center for the second time. The last few years, the event's been at the Long Center, but beginning in 2014, it was moved to the Convention Center due to a booking conflict. Last year, it was back at the Long Center, but this year, it returned to the Convention Center. Next year? Yep, back to the Long Center. I hope the audience isn't too lost by the ping-ponging. One attendee this year did tell me she mistakenly went to the Long Center first.
This is a job I really love, but it's hard work. And I'm not just saying that because I'm 54. It's not the physicality involved....which isn't much. But it is a mental strain to try to remember each year what to take care of, especially when you don't do it all the time. It's like driving once a year, and when that time rolls around annually, trying to remember the order of steps: put key in ignition, turn ignition, let car warm, etc. Plus, as far as entertainment goes, I'm usually the artist, on the opposite end of the relationship. So on top of making some scratch, it's good to do this and keep in mind what all stage crew goes through for the sake of a smooth performance.
We had familiar faces as entertainment: my wife Michelle Manx, Jigglewatts Burlesque (Ruby Joule, Ruby Lamb, Something Blue, and Dana DeLuna), Brass Ovaries (different ladies this time), and the Lizard Man Experience (Lizard Man, Joel, and Mossy). I'm getting used to dealing with all of them and pretty much know what their needs are....although Michelle and I did have to scramble to get some extra equipment for LME.
Announcing the tattoo contests is something that I really enjoy now but can't say I did so much in the beginning. Our fearless leader has a lot of faith in me, and the first time I announced the contests, she pretty much stuck a mic in my hand and said "go to it!" I'm getting better but still have a long way to go. It's the kind of position where you want to throw in some witty banter to keep people entertained while they await their turn at the contests, but you don't want to overdo it and turn it into "your show." Luckily, this year, Aaron, who took photos of all the contestants' pieces, kept me entertained and laughing throughout. Suzy Homewrecker, pinup model, etc. hands out the trophies, and she keeps me company, too.
This year, I didn't do a TV commercial for the event as a sort of experiment, but I think we'll do one next year. Or at least a promo video for YouTube, Facebook, etc. And there are a couple of other ideas I want to try.
Yay. I'm tired. Maybe I'll watch a movie. Oh wait, I have rehearsal in a few hours.
Digging further into the Jacques Demy box set, I hit "The Umbrellas of Cherbourg," the only title I'd heard of before grabbing the set. The first two movies, "Lola" and "Bay of Angels" were big hits with me. What did I think of "Umbrellas?" Well, we're three for three.
"Umbrellas" is a musical. But not like any musical made up until then....and frankly, I haven't seen that many filmed musicals, so it may very well be the only one made in this style. And by style, I mean constant music with all dialog sung. And. It. Works. Beautifully. The film's already a marvel just to look at....the first color one in this set....and the performances are for the most part spot on.
The plot is really rather simple and told with economy. Unlike most musicals, no one breaks into song, because they're already in song, and there are no dance sequences. The male protagonist of the story is an auto mechanic, and it's pretty funny to hear regular garage talk done in a musical style (in French, of course, too). He, midway through the movie, has to go to Algeria to fight in 1959 ("Battle of Algiers," anyone?). The role of Geneviève was Catherine Deneuve's first major one....and she shines, as you'd expect. And the movie's all of 92 minutes long....again, Demy doesn't waste time.
The sometimes-jazzy, sometimes-melancholy music is from Michel Legrand, I swear I had heard the recurring, and closing, theme before somewhere....or several times in my life. In an accompanying feature on the disc, the host refers to the movie as a jazz opera. I had that same thought while watching it.
This is the rare foreign movie I'll try to get my wife to watch. She doesn't like to read subtitles, but I think this one is a ripe case for exception. I'm really looking forward to the fourth movie in this box!
I just laughed to myself, typing the title above and thinking about the wonderful SCTV spoof "Dr. Tongue's 3D House of Stewardesses."
So "Dr. Terror's House of Horrors" was one of the first (maybe the first?) anthology film delivered by the Amicus company.....a company formed by American ex-pats doing business in England in the 60s and 70s. They produced several other anthology films as well, such as "Asylum" and "From Beyond the Grave." This one's from 1965, directed by Freddie Francis, and features Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, and Donald Sutherland, of all people. You'll recognize Michael Gough in it, too.
There are five stories held together by the glue of five people riding on a train with the good doctor, played by Cushing, and his tarot deck. At 98 minutes running time, none of the stories wears out its welcome, but I have to admit this was not one of my fave anthology films....and I do likes me some anthology films. Probably goes back to my childhood love of "Night Gallery." None of the individual stories is really that great, and the fourth one is a direct remake of "The Beast with Five Fingers." There's nothing really bad here......just......well, it rates a "meh." Some of the settings are nice to look at; there, I said something positive.
There's never been a Region 1 DVD release of this, and now Olive Films has released this Region A Blu-ray. The absence of the film in America probably helps build up a "this is gonna be great!" feeling, that sadly, doesn't really happen. Nice to have to complete an Amicus collection and for Cushing and Lee, surely.
I couldn't find the trailer, but here's a segment from the third story....a sort of goofy voodoo story.
Back to the horror well, shall we? "We Are Still Here" is a recent film from Dark Sky, which I've known as a DVD company with some great niche releases under their belt ("Eaten Alive," "Werewolves on Wheels"). Here, they back a newish horror director, Ted Geoghegan, and one of the best veteran genre casts you could ask for.
The plot is pretty much your standard haunted house story, with the protagonists mourning the loss of a child upon move-in. I wouldn't say anything that happens plotwise will be a shock, but the overall feel and atmosphere of the film is really well-done. Many wide shots of snow and the countryside. The last 20 or so minutes are pretty revved-up, but other than that, it's a slow-moving 83 minutes total.
I mentioned the cast: Barbara Crampton ("Re-Animator," "From Beyond"), Andrew Sensenig ("Upstream Color"), Larry Fessenden ("Wendigo," his own projects), Lisa Marie ("Ed Wood," putting up with Tim Burton), and an almost 80-year-old Monte Markham, who looks about 55. It's nice to watch a horror movie and see it fully populated by people your own age.
Is it great? Well, no. But it's enjoyable, well-executed, and I look forward to more from this Ted Geoghegan (just wanted to see if I could correctly type his name twice).
I have an odd pairing to write about today. "Marnie" and "Mad Max: Fury Road." Well, at least they both start with "M." (Have I written about "M?" Can't remember.)
"Marnie." A Hitchcock film I hadn't seen yet. And, yes, it's a bit of a letdown. There are a couple of decent scenes in it (e.g. the robbery in the office), but the script pushes the fashionable-at-the-time (and maybe even now still) psychology of recovered memories. While Tippi Hedren admittedly does a great job with her role, Sean Connery looks like he's just going through the motions most of the time. At least Diane Baker looks hot when she's onscreen. Yeah, I just gotta say "meh." Pains me to write that, and it might be the first time a Hitchcock film has left me this way. Might not be the last, as I've watched mostly his classics.
Now, "Mad Max: Fury Road." I watched this about a week ago and watched it again today. Last week, I enjoyed it but thought of it as a B+ pic. Today's rewatch clarified a lot in what is a really, really fast-paced movie.....and yeah, I'm bumping it up to an "A." The characters seemed much more defined to me in the second viewing. This film has the current studio film nasty habit of firing the setup exposition at you with all the subtlety of a super water cannon, and does it in roughly four minutes. That's about the only negative I can say about the movie. Of course, a lot of that exposition is unnecessary if you know the previous "Mad Max" entries.....but there are still some newer things you'll need to know at the outset.
But yes, I'm sure you've heard plenty about this movie already, and I agree with the positives. It's a movie told more through action than anything else but doesn't leave you feeling like a halfwit when you're done watching it. Tom Hardy is.......okay.........really, they could have gotten about any other faceless actor to play this part. Charlize Theron is good, but there's not a lot in the way of meaty dialogue for either of them to work with. My favorite performance is by the guy who played Nux, Nicholas Hoult. But.....this film's all about the plot and look.
One more note: I saw Zoë Kravitz' name in the credits....thought "hmmmm," looked her up, and yes, it's Lenny Kravitz' and Lisa Bonet's daughter. I knew there was a reason I keep getting this AARP material in the mail.
So, for today's "elocution de movieness," I'll do a two-fer. Recently, I picked up the Jacques Demy Criterion box set, and I'll admit to doing that largely because whenever I see the word "collection" on a DVD box, my buyin' fingers start itching. I didn't even know who Jacques Demy was, although I'd heard of "The Umbrellas of Cherbourg" before. That's not either of the two movies I'll write about now.
In the last couple of weeks, I've seen the first two salvos in this box, "Lola" and "Bay of Angels," and folks, they're both big, big winners. When "Lola" was restored for DVD release, the original negative had been lost. So I thought, upon bringing home this Demy box, I'd put that one in the player and watch five minutes, just to see how it looked. I ended up rooted to "Lola" for its entirety right then....granted, it's only 88 minutes. And I just finished watching "Bay of Angels" today. Both have the same sort of plot basis, a female character in trouble, coupled with a naïve and mostly well-meaning male character.
These films were released in 1961 and 3 respectively, and yet their pacing suggests modern films. "Bay of Angels" is a crisp 84 minutes, and there's not a moment or shot wasted in either movie. I already mentioned getting tangled in "Lola"'s web almost immediately and "Bay of Angels" was no different. I understand that future movies in this box set are largely musicals, so we'll see how that goes, but these first two have me thanking myself over and over that I purchased the Demy box.
Okay, here's another one: "The Demoniacs," a 1974 French-Belgian release directed by Jean Rollin. Yep, I still get into that Euro-trash horror stuff.
This one has, as usual from Rollin, some great, great photography and mood pieces, although it's a bit high on the rapey scale. The ladies might not go for this movie. There are two fairly longish rape scenes (two women at once in each one....the same ones!). While they make sense for the period plot (and the time period the film was made), they're way, way too long and just.....very uncomfortable. Especially when you have the lead actress gyrating and pleasuring herself nearby during each scene.
That aside, the rest of the movie is pretty good, as these go. The old architecture in most of the movie is wonderful to look at. And the plot itself, concerning the two aforementioned victims' revenge on a gang of ship wreckers, is okay.
I'll give it a B, maybe B-. Or three and a half stars, if you prefer. Can't find a trailer for it....
Yeah, I just changed the name of the blog. Not sure why. Maybe to confound Google's search engine for a week. Well, that would mean more if I publicized the blog. Maybe one day I will.
Just
got done with "The Martian." I give it a "very good." And rewatchable.
You've probably heard a lot of the plot setup by now, with Matt Damon
playing a botanist/astronaut, Mark Watney, stranded on Mars after a storm sends the
rest of the crew launching away in the main ship after thinking Watney was dead.
A few things on my mind:
This
is one of the few films from the last twenty years I've seen where the
last half of the movie was stronger than the first half. The tension at
the end was built just right.
You can feel some....what do I
want to call it?....not studio interference, necessarily, but let's call
it "reasons to greenlight the project:"
What I call the "Breaking Bad Hangover." There are many spots in the movie where "science saves the day." ("All right, Mr. White! Science, bitch!")
Despite the science reliance (which is impressive), a shot of a crucifix in there. Damon's character is only using it for parts, but it's still in there....to show that at least one of the astronauts was religious. I find this insert interesting, and I've seen several instances of this in other recent sci-fi (e.g. Shaw's cross and unwavering "belief" in "Prometheus," otherwise-hardcore scientist Romilly's assertion that "some things we just weren't meant to know" in "Interstellar," etc.). I really wonder if these placements are there to placate the touchy religious crowd.
"Gravity" was a big hit. Not that this film has quite the same tone as "Gravity" (I actually prefer "Gravity" a bit), but there is a definite similarity in setup.
I just mentioned "Gravity," and how I prefer it by a half-star or so to this film, and that's mainly because the one thing I think is missing from "The Martian" is the feeling of isolation that Watney had to have. A lot of the first hour feels rushed, and that's probably to avoid having a three-hour running time.....and that does make sense. But I never got the feeling that Watney was ever really "alone." That feeling is in spades in "Gravity" and "Moon," but those films also had much, much smaller casts.
One more thing: the supporting cast was pretty outstanding, and I want to give a special shout-out to Jeff Daniels as the head of NASA. Daniels has been pretty underrated for all of his career, but can you think of anyone else who's played such extremes as the head of NASA and Harry in "Dumb and Dumber?" And been completely believable?
That's it....watch this one if you get a chance. I give it four out of five.
EDIT (1/18/2016): Had a second viewing of this one, and I think I'll bump up the rating to 4 1/2 stars. Although....I have to add a couple of small negatives.....I mentioned the shot of the crucifix; there's another short conversation between two major characters of the "do you believe/are you religious?" variety. Again, these things really have no place in an otherwise completely science-based script. Product placement for appeasement? Smells like it. Also....
(SPOILER)
It took at least seven months for the Hermes to get back to Mars for the rescue. You'd think by then they would have worked out more details of the actual rescue, instead of going into "what do we do about the velocity?" mode upon approach. Granted, this adds excitement to the film, but it did seem a bit of a (insert Chumley sound) "duuuhhhhh" moment for all involved.
Still.....4 1/2 stars. And Ridley Scott and crew still think there is sound in space.
Last night's late night viewing was of "The Man Who Fell to Earth." For probably obvious reasons. I hadn't seen the movie in almost ten years, so it was as much of a revisiting as a refreshing.
As I'm sure most of you know, the film stars David Bowie as an alien, locally-named Thomas Jerome Newton, who "falls to earth" in an attempt to save his species (and family) back on his home planet by developing patented devices on Earth, making money, and investing that back into devices to fix the home planet. Or something like that. In the meantime, he meets and marries Mary-Lou (played by Candy Clark), and much of the movie has to do with their life together....as he misses his family back home. Rip Torn, Buck Henry, and Bernie Casey also have meaty parts.
While the film is quite an original watching experience, my personal feeling is that it's a very good but not great movie. There's a certain disconnect I feel throughout viewing that is most likely intentional, but I think it has the final effect of making you not become too involved in the proceedings. Many of the plot points can get easily lost due to this disconnect. Plus, and I hate to say it, but Candy Clark's performance is....uh.....good, but an acquired taste. A taste from the '70s, definitely. You just don't see female performances like that anymore and probably not since the mid-eighties or so. The sort-of ditzy, squeaky-voiced dullard that was typified by Georgia Engel on the Mary Tyler Moore Show. (Remember her? Georgette, Ted Baxter's wife?) I'm pretty sure if an actress put on that sort of performance in anything now, she'd be vilified by all women.
As the first of the "Bowie watches," I still enjoy the movie. It has a strange allure, but it's not something I'd watch too often. Onward, folks....
Wow......the old guard rock icons are really dropping. David Bowie now. The real shocker there being that no one in the general public knew of his illness. His camp must've had some tight security!
While I can't claim to being a huge Bowie fan, I did hold the man in very high regard....and dug many of his tunes, too. Rick Wakeman once remarked how Bowie was a highly principled businessman; he kept the "Hunky Dory" sessions running smoothly and on time.
As far as his acting career went....well, I think it speaks to his iconhood that very few roles would he be believable in. I thought his casting as Tesla in "The Prestige" was perfect.
