What I Watched in December

KNIVES OUT (2019) is as deliriously entertaining a locked door mystery as I have ever seen. It moves cleverly from whodunnit to why-dunnit to how-dunnit and then back through each of those variations with smooth efficiency until the joy of watching such a well-crafted story is nearly overwhelming. The entire cast is excellent from top to bottom with my one complaint being that I wished for just a few more moments for Jamie Lee Curtis to shine. I suspect the eventual deleted scenes on the Blu-Ray will scratch that minor itch. Highly recommended!

Unlike a lot of horror film fans, I’m not against remakes of classic movies. I don’t think most remakes are very good but when they are well made, I’m happy to have a new film to enjoy. This is the second time BLACK CHRISTMAS (1974) has been remade and the 2019 version takes a very different tack compared to the earlier films. All three movies place the potential victims as the most interesting characters in the story but this variation goes out if its way to center their problems in the 21^st century. As with the touchy subjects underlying the situations in the original film (abortion, misogyny) this new movie puts real world concerns (sexual assault, casual sexism) at the heart of the motivations for the villainous actions. Smartly, the script also allows the victims to fight back in ways that demonstrates how women can and should work together to battle less bloody examples of these problems. With less violence, I would hope! This is a film that I think will grow in my estimation in the coming years once I’ve been able to rewatch it in better circumstances than my less than perfect theatrical viewing. I wish theaters would turn up the volume a bit with movies that spend a lot of time using subtle sound design to enhance the scares.

The List  

THE GUN THAT WON THE WEST (1953) – 5

BATTLE OF ROGUE RIVER (1954) – 6

KNIVES OUT (2019)- 9

THE LAST OF MRS. CHEYNEY (1937) – 7

KEEP’EM FLYING (1941) – 6

THE CHILL FACTOR (1993) – 4 (terrible supernatural horror that wastes a good setting)

MIRACLE ON 34^TH STREET (1947) – 8

ASSIGNMENT TERROR (1970) – 6 (rewatch on Blu)

SANTA CLAUS CONQUERS THE MARTIANS (1964) – 6 (rewatch via MST3K)

SANTA CLAUS (1959)- 6 (rewatch via RiffTrax)

STAR WARS: THE RISE OF SKYWALKER (2019) – 6

THE CHRISTMAS CHRONICLES (2018) – 7

TRAIL OF ROBIN HOOD (1950) – 7 (rewatch) (Christmas tree rustlers!)

IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE (1946) – 10 (rewatch on Blu)

BLACK CHRISTMAS (2019) – 7

TRAPPED ALIVE (1988) – 4 (lame horror tale)

THE KILLING HOUR (1982) – 7 (murder mystery with a psychic twist)

SANTA CLAUS – THE MOVIE (1985) – 5 (fairly mediocre after an interesting start)

ATTACK OF THE MAYAN MUMMY (1964) – 4 (Jerry Warren mangles a 1957 Mexican film)

PET SEMETARY (2019)

Unlike a lot of people, I've never been a huge fan of the 1989 adaptation of Stephen King's novel Pet Sematary. I've given the movie three tries over the past three decades and each time I've come away unimpressed with its poor acting and uninvolving direction. That first film has one good performance (Fred Gwynn) but that is its only standout element. It's just not a very good movie. Therefore, it fits the classic criteria for a remake in that it's a film with a good idea that (in my opinion at least) was done very poorly on first attempt.

So last week I finally checked out the 2019 version and I'm happy to say I think the second time they may have actually managed to make a good movie. I should say up front that I'm not someone who is a knee-jerk hater of remakes. I kind of enjoy seeing variations on classic films even when I think the remake may fail or turn out to be a weaker rendition of the general story. I think it's fun to see these older stories reimagined for a new age and often times you get a new version of an old story that can stand up next to the original movie. In the case of PET SEMETARY I think there was nowhere to go but up.

This new film has a much stronger cast with Jason Clarke doing very good work as the father that makes the fateful choice to use the titular plot of land. Replacing the late Mr. Gwynn is the excellent John Lithgow who continues to demonstrate his seemingly effortless ability to create sympathetic characters onscreen. The new film is stylishly directed moving from point to point swiftly without ever feeling as if it’s in a hurry to tell it’s tale. If you’re familiar with the earlier film or the book there will be few surprises other than in presentation but this is a well-done reworking of the story that finally gives the Stephen King book an effective screen adaptation. There is only one disappointment I can point to. The Blu-Ray has an alternate ending that I think works better than the one chosen for the finished picture. Both endings get to the same place but the mechanics of the revival and the time required for the Semetary to do its work is more believable in the unused ending. Plus, the final image of the alternate version is a much more potent finish for the story. 

SUSPIRIA (2018)

As soon as this remake of Argento's classic 1977 film was announced there was the usual hue & cry from horror fandom. It was a noise similar to the one made every time a remake of a beloved film is learned of and, to be blunt, I'm damned sick of it. Yes, a large number of remakes suck. No joke. But some of them are very good examples of creative people finding new ways to tell a good tale. Why not hope for the best and discover what the new film might have to offer? Of course, I think I know why. For a lot of self appointed defenders of cinema, The Great Screaming is a public display of their bona fides as real fans. I'm not saying they don't actually feel that remakes are a bad idea. I just think that a very public rending of garments is a way to prove they are to be taken seriously. Their loudly derisive sneers about a movie they have not yet seen are broadcast to enhance their own standing in fandom. "Look at me! I hate something sight unseen. I also hate food I haven't tasted. Aren't I to be admired?" This is pathetic. It's the one thing that I know will eventually cause me to go off on some bloviating idiot in a way that will require me to make a major apology or do hard time. One day I will be screaming 'Grow Up' at some gibbering protector of art while fighting the urge to strangle them with a length of 35mm film from Cronenberg's THE FLY (1986).

But I digress. How was SUSPIRIA (2018)?

Surprisingly brilliant. As a friend said after the credits rolled, "Now that's how to remake a film!" Indeed. The filmmakers have taken the story of a young American woman traveling to Germany in 1977 to attend a dance school that is secretly run by witches and crafted something new and fresh. Smartly avoiding the incredibly colorful visual style of the original, this film strives to look as grim and bleak as Winter in 1970's Berlin actually probably looked. The colors are muted, the sky overcast and the population is constantly reminded of the dark realities of life by steady news reports of the ongoing Red Army Faction terrorist activity in the country. These visuals change the feel of the story immediately from a place of bright beauty with shadows creeping into view from the corners to a dark, pitiless place with harsh details seeping into life from all over. Here, the dance studio could be seen as a retreat from the unpredictable world of sudden violence and ugly reality. This sets the tone for the story brilliantly. We are already worried about the real life horrors that occasionally intrude onto the soundtrack adding an uncertainty to events that would be ordinary in other circumstances.

Also, in this remake, the dance academy actually comes alive. In Argento's film it was just a place to gather a group of young women of a certain age to provide victims for the witches. In this film dancing is an integral part of the witches' lives. Dance is used as part of the casting of spells and as a way of testing the latent powers of the students. This addition to the tale builds a depth into things that allows the final act to become more clearly part of the whole story. Along with the machinations of the witches/teachers as they choose their coven's new leader it paints a complex picture of these women as layered characters with competing visions for their art - both witchcraft and dance. It is fascinating!

The addition that I worried most about was the expansion of the realistic element from the first version. In the original movie we have a couple of 'experts' on the human mind who are replaced here with an elderly Jewish psychiatrist pulled into investigating the academy by the disappearance of one of his clients. This character seemed an odd one to enlarge in the story even as he becomes a stand-in for the audience, exploring the background of the school and it's founders. But by the final act it is clear why he, with his tragic history, is perfectly suited to demonstrate the change in the coven by the end of things.

This new film is fantastic and, while it won't replace the original for me, it is an incredible achievement. I wish that more remakes were given this level of thought and effort by their creative teams. 2018's SUSPIRIA is a great film that stands proudly next to 1977's film as a cleverly conceived variation on it's themes. Well done!

Brief Thoughts - THE STEPFATHER (2009)

Caught up with the remake of THE STEPFATHER (2009) and found it to be pretty good. As with most remakes it's nowhere near the quality of the original film but it's far from bad. In fact, I can easily imagine someone unaware of the 1987 film thinking this 21st century version is a really sharp thriller. And it is. But everything it does was done better the first time around.

The main point of interest for me was to see if this new take on the story would add any twists or if the crucial central performance would measure up. In the original Terry O'Quinn plays the role with an effortless confidence that holds the viewer in amazement at the control he shows. His acting is so nuanced and carefully crafted that it is nearly invisible. He manages the tough balancing act of being scary but also charming with only the slightest hint of darkness peaking out around the edges. From the opening scenes we see he is a merciless killer capable of even child murder but he is able to present an incredibly normal facade to the world. His madness leaks out around the eyes, sometimes giving him the look of an early stage rabid animal plotting it's next move even as circumstances drive it to attack.

In this remake the title character is played by Dylan Walsh and he is just fine. He does a good job but he can't erase the memory of the stronger performance from 1987. Walsh brings real intensity to what he's doing but the darkness seems more transparently on display too soon in the story. Once again, this is a pretty good film but the first version is better.

SUSPIRIA (2018) Trailer

I still can't understand why a filmmaker would set themselves up for the beating they will inevitable take for remaking a beloved classic of the genre. BUT - this trailer looks interesting, fresh and as if the creators have found a way to build something new on old bones. I am now curious to see this as soon as possible. 

Brief Thoughts - FIRST MAN INTO SPACE (1959)

The other night I pulled out my DVD of FIRST MAN INTO SPACE(1959) because I couldn't remember if I had watched it yet. When I first purchased the four movie Criterion set it is a part of I know I watched the two Karloff films and I vaguely remember THE ATOMIC SUBMARINE (1959)  but FMIS was not bringing back any images linked to the title. Now that I have watched (rewatched ?) it I can say that the reason it might not have stuck with me is that it is pretty much a remake of Hammer's THE QUATERMASS XPERIMENT (1955). The plot of both films are almost identical with only a few character's relationships slightly changed to differentiate things. I wonder if Hammer or Nigel Kneale ever thought about taking legal action. Adding to my amusement in comparing the two films is that both were made in Britain but FIRST MAN INTO SPACE tries (and fails) to maintain the idea that it takes place in New Mexico. Sorry, but New Mexico is just not that cold in the middle of the day, folks. Seeing Marshall Thompson bundled up in a parka and everyone's breath steaming around was quite funny.

Of the two THE QUATERMASS XPERIMENT is much better but it's unofficial remake isn't terrible. 

What I Watched in January

Caught THE REVENANT last month and was very impressed. Director Alejandro González Iñárritu proves that he is a master of visual storytelling and incredibly clever at building shock moments, suspense sequences and visceral images. His fluid camera style takes the viewer into his tales in a way that few other filmmakers working today would imagine. Like his fellow Mexican director Alfonso (GRAVITY) Cuarón he has perfected a way of smoothly blending a God's Eye point of view camera practice seamlessly with very competent CGI work to craft multiple stretches of this film that never leaves the lead character out of our sight. This stylistic choice adds to the tension we feel watching because we never have to readjust our POV and so we become more and more anxious when the violence continues as a uninterrupted act. It smartly works on us as film watchers because, as people accustomed to the seeing faked acts of violence every day in our entertainment, we automatically relax slightly when an edit happens onscreen. It's this short moment of disconnect that allows us to disengage enough to keep the image just that - an image. By not giving us that almost subliminal break from the action Iñárritu pushes his audience into higher and higher levels of unease until it is finally released by a natural break in the violence that is structured by the physical reality he has built. By keeping one long unbroken shot for the length of a fight, attack or chase he forces his audience to almost participate in the action even if that participation is only manifested by gripping the armrests of your chair or holding your breathe for an unnaturally long time. His is a brilliant craftsman of this type of scene and has clearly learned just how boring they might be if he edited repeatedly in these moments. You only need to examine the fast editing technique of most other action directors to see how easy it can be to become detached from what is happening until you feel nothing about what you're watching. Iñárritu wants you to care about the characters he is showing you and that makes him a formidable creator of movies.

Oh! And the performances in THE REVENANT are fantastic along with the amazing visuals. Filming on location in winter and having the actors get cold & dirty makes for an arresting experience that feels like travelling back in time. Of course, now I want to see the first film to bring this tale to the big screen MAN IN THE WILDERNESS (1971) which stars Richard Harris, John Huston and even has a small role for James Doohan. Yeah, gotta see this one soon. 

THE LIST 

CROOKED HOUSE (2008) - 8 (Mark Gatiss penned ghost story anthology)

THE SISTERHOOD (1988)- 5 (not bad low-budget post apocalyptic adventure)

M (1951) - 8 (very well done remake of Lang's classic)

BATMAN: ASSAULT ON ARKHAM (2014) - 8 (well done animated Suicide Squad story)

MUCHA SANGRE (2002)- 4 (Spanish zombie/alien comedy)

EQUALIZER 2000 (1987)- 5 (fun post apocalyptic action film)

BONE TOMAHAWK (2015)- 9 (excellent western)

THE PROPOSITION (2005) - 8 (Australian Western)

JESSABELLE (2014) - 7 (very good ghost story)

THE BAT (1959) - 6 (Vincent Price and Agnes Moorhead make a mystery)

WE'RE NO ANGELS (1955)- 9 (excellent sort-of Christmas tale)

SODOM AND GOMORRHA (1922) - 6 (silent epic from Curtiz)

12 TO THE MOON (1960) - 3 (silly, cheesy and dumb SF)

CANNIBAL APOCALYPSE (1980)-  6 (rewatch)

MIDNIGHT SHADOW (1939) - 3 (terrible but fascinating all black cast film)

UNFRIENDED (2014) - 8 (very well done)

THE TERRORNAUTS (1967) - 4 (bad but very earnest and fun British SF)

JUSTICE LEAGUE: GODS & MONSTERS (2015)- 8

A FORCE OF ONE (1979) - 6 (early Chuck Norris actioner)

EL ESPECTRE DEL TERROR (1973) -4 (sub-par Spanish giallo)

OCTOPUSSY (1983) - 7 (rewatch)

THE EROTIC RITES OF FRANKENSTEIN (1973) - 6 (rewatch)

THE REVENANT (2015) -9

MR. HOLMES (2015) - 8 (fantastic tale of an aging Sherlock)

X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST (The Rouge Cut) - 9 (longer is even batter)

X-FILES: I WANT TO BELIEVE (2008) - 7 (way better than I expected)

WEB OF THE SPIDER (1971) on YouTube!

I am always stunned by the number of obscure cult films that are so easily available for free. This is one of the Antonio Margheriti film's we'll be covering next month in the Bloody Pit podcast. It's the director's remake of his own earlier film CASTLE OF BLOOD (1964) making it one of the very few times such a thing has happened. We plan to compare and contrast the two movies so if you want to play along here is your chance to get started.

The Bloody Pit #20 - ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13 (1976)

John Carpenter is easily one of my favorite filmmakers. He has made more than five movies that I hold to be of such enduring quality that I have lost count of the number of times I have watched them. Even in his weakest movies I can find lots to love and the film under discussion in this episode is NOT a weak one. ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13 was only the second feature Carpenter directed but it shows off his skill and abilities brilliantly. I could go on and on but we get into that in the show! Carpenter may never get his shot at making a western but he come pretty close with this fine effort. 

In this episode I'm joined once again by my friend John Hudson who last sat down with me to talk about Carl Kolchak. This time out we dig into this film and use it as a reason to touch on other Carpenter movies as well. I'm proud to say that we were able to stay mostly on topic so there weren't as many barely related things discussed this time out. Of course, that doesn't keep either of us from relating some very odd analogies among the actual information so you have been warned. Ad John is able to shock me with a bit of sleazy information that nearly shocks me into silence. Nearly.  

Any comments, praise, condemnation or opinions can be sent to thebloodypit@gmail.com - we welcome your input. What is you favorite John Carpenter film? 

Download LINK

iTunes LINK 

RETURN TO HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL (2007)

File this under 'Sequels Nobody Wanted'.

I recently watched for the first time RETURN TO HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL (2007) which begs several questions. One - what is that? Two - why? Three- huh?

RETURN TO HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL (2007) is the direct-to-video sequel to the Dark Castle remake of the William Castle/Vincent Price funhouse classic HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL (1959). Why did a remake garner a sequel when the superior original never did? That’s a question I can’t answer but I can explain why I watched this sucker. First- I actually enjoyed the 1999 remake and have watched it several times since its theatrical run. It has been about ten years since I last saw it so maybe it’s time for a rewatch but my memories are of a fun romp with a game cast, plenty of scares and some nice creepy atmosphere. It also has some dodgy CGI effects but no film is perfect and they never bothered me. They might on a rewatch, though. Hum'

Anyway- I have wanted to see this sequel since it debuted because of my general curiosity about most horror movies but this one also had a neat gimmick. The Blu-Ray was supposed to give you the option of playing a kind of ‘Choose Your Own Adventure’ style way of viewing the film. This was touted at the time of its release but I had no desire to pay money for what would probably be a crappy film just to experience this possibly crappy game-like extra. I was able to get the Blu for nothing (seriously- nothing at all) and I have now watched the film once as a normal film to see how it is supposed to play out. I plan to soon sit down and try to do the experimental Choose My Own Adventure thing soon but I had to let readers know about this one thing that surprised me.

One of my favorite actors from one of my favorite cult British science fiction TV shows stars in RETURN TO HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL! The fellow in question is Steven Pacey who played Tarrant on the last two season/series of Blake’s 7.  I couldn’t recognize him in the professor role here but I knew I had seen him someplace before and it was driving me crazy until I resorted to an IMDb search. How cool! He’s a pretty good actor and in this film he covers his accent very well so I doubt I would have ever figured it out with the inter-tubes help. I now think I should look up the other cool actors from that classic show to see if I have missed them in movies I have already seen. Strange.

Oh- the film is not good. It’s not bad either, managing to fall in that sad mid-range that means it is not going to be very memorable. It was an OK movie that at least knew to keep the pace fast to hide the lack of logical reasons for the people to be crawling around the haunted old madhouse. It also doesn’t overstay its welcome with a short running time. Hell- the credits start at about the seventy-five minute mark so that is a plus.

Now I just need to mess with that strange viewing option….

Revisiting PLANET OF THE APES (2001)

Because of the two recent well received additions to the POTA series, I decided to rewatch Tim Burton's much derided attempt at rebooting the PLANET OF THE APES franchise from 2001. This film is generally disliked by both hardcore fans and the movie going public but I enjoyed it pretty well when I caught it theatrically and have never really understood the level of hatred directed toward this it. I never thought it was anywhere near as good as the original but it wasn't the crapfest everyone screamed about, either. So it was time to revisit the movie in question and reassess it in light of the franchise's rebirth and new health.

First, I must say that the two strongest elements of the 2001 film are the amazing score by Danny Elfman and the brilliant makeup effects by the legendary Rick Baker. I really enjoy the apes effects in the new movies but the apes in this film are superior to my eyes. The reality of them is tangible in a way that even the best CGI will never accomplish- these are real actors in prosthetic pieces and costumes that look and bend correctly and add a level of realism to the images that makes for a better visual experience for me. At the very least, I'm not constantly looking for mistakes in the CGI rendering to see the sloppy spots that distract me. Real actors in real makeup will always trump CGI for me. Sorry.

But with those two elements noted I have to admit that I don't find POTA (2001) to be as enjoyable as I once did. I'll lay out my thoughts like this-

1. The script seems to have been tailored to be a Tim Burton film instead of an Apes film. By this I mean that there is an overuse of jokey dialog and silly remarks that constantly call attention to themselves. Dressing up standard human conceits (bitchy formal dinner parties, sexual humor, jokes about hormonal teenagers, concerns about fashion, etc) in Ape Talk is silly and insulting if all you are going to do is point and giggle. If you are not making a point, plot or otherwise, there is no reason for it. We don't need a dozen examples of this culture being a distorted mirror image of human culture- a couple will do fine. This is too often done just to illicit a laugh and this isn't supposed to be a comedy.

2. I remember thinking that the film had been seriously edited down because several transitions were too fast. By this I mean story information seems to have been cut out in an effort to keep the film under two hours. On this viewing I still think it may have been too brutally edited but I also suspect things were just not scripted that needed to be in the story. Where is the conversation between our human astronaut and his fellow captive humans in the wagon pen on the journey to Ape City? Where is ANY conversation with his fellow prisoners until he is placed in the kitchen of his new owners? This is illogical and stands out as a major script problem. No one would keep their mouths shut in these circumstances. Why are we not given some time with the other humans to get a sense of them and their world? These people are not dumb brutes like in the original film so they must have stories to tell and information to impart to our fish out of water protagonist. Why aren't they doing this? Tribes are later mentioned so why not ask him where he comes from and about his odd clothes?

3. This may seem minor but I found it really distracting that characters would just disappear. For instance, when Paul Giamatti's slave-trader character shows up to reclaim his property he has two big enforcer gorillas with him but after Leo uses his blaster they are just gone. Poof! They weren't killed and we don't see them run off- they are just edited out of the picture somehow. Why not give us an idea of what the Hell happened to them?

4. If you are going to have two characters make lovey eyes at each other there needs to be some payoff or you need to leave that aspect of the story out. If Helena Bonham Carter wants to get her freak on with the exotic human astronaut - fine. But do something about it or leave it out of your already complicated tale. If you are going to hint at interspecies sex either pull the trigger or leave the weapon on the shelf.

5. The film needed to step away from repeating classic lines from the first film. One was fine but by the time Charlton Heston is wheezing out his memorable final line from 1968 it is eye rolling time. I like Heston's cameo overall with its neat referencing of his personal gun worshipping history but that line is too much.

As you can tell from these remarks I don't think as highly as I once did of the film. It plays like a film that was pushed into production too soon and almost as if the script wasn't finished. I suspect that it was a patch job of several ideas done to get a movie made during a window in Burton's schedule. He has remarked that he had little control over the film from the beginning and I can believe it. This is one of the least 'Tim Burton' looking movies of his career and the Burton touches all seem plastered on like the jokey dialog and silly characterizations.

I can't say I dislike the film as I feel it has too many good elements to wave away, but it is a mess and unlike most viewers I love the bizarre out of nowhere ending of the film. It is very much a throwback to the source novel by Pierre Boulle and for that reason alone I would like it. But the questions it raises with its final image of General Thade as a revered founding father still puts a smile on my face today. What a wonderfully strange idea to end the film! Maybe I'm the only one this appeals to but I seriously love the possible mad futures this could have created if this film had not been so loathed.

This is my least favorite POTA film but I still like it a little. I guess I'm just a hopeless fanboy! 

What I Watched in February

Through nefarious methods (thank you faraway friends) I was able to see the ROBOCOP remake and I have to say that it was not bad at all. It is not in the same league as the original and the satire has been mostly excised (along with the harsh humor) but its an effective action film that held my attention. The movie even offered up a few surprises that made it clear that the filmmakers had thought through a number of elements of the story in ways that are actually fresh. The cast is very good with Gary Oldman as the scientist in charge of building a better police officer really giving the film a performance above the norm for this kind of material. The movie is also well directed with an organic feel as it moves efficiently from place to place in a way that is smooth enough to paper over some logical questions the script skips past. The biggest problem is that it feels a bit neutered in its aim to stay bloodless for a PG-13 rating so the story has very little punch. Its a well done movie but, unlike the 1987 film, it is easily forgotten and might only become something memorable with a sequel that goes for more visceral thrills and sharper wit.

I had hopes that JACK RYAN: SHADOW RECRUIT might be a smart thriller but it didn't measure up. I was excited to see what director Kenneth Branagh could bring to an espionage tale although the idea of rebooting the Jack Ryan character again was less than appealing. The cast of the film is pretty darned good with Branagh himself as the main Russian nemesis, Kevin Costner as the older mentor and Chris Pine as the big screen's fourth (or fifth - I don't care) Jack Ryan. The surprise was Keira Knightley as Ryan's finance. This is the first time I've seen her try on an American accent and its a reasonably good fit. In fact, all concerned do fine jobs onscreen with what they are given but the problem here is that the story is nothing you haven't seen before. There is nothing surprising or even particularly interesting going on in this film. The plot is straightforward and it unfolds in a standard, predictable manner. Some of the spy sequences have visual snap but the style and talented cast can't conceal a mediocre film that should have been much more entertaining. Its not a terrible movie but it is nothing thrilling or memorable.

THE LAND THAT TIME FORGOT (1975)- 7 (rewatch)

THE MAN WITH THE IRON FISTS (2012)- 4 (not very compelling love letter to Kung-Fu action films)

THE PEOPLE THAT TIME FORGOT (1977)- 6 (rewatch)

SEX KITTENS GO TO COLLEGE (1960)- 3 (terrible comedy but it has some interest)

THE LOST WORLD (1960)- 6 (fun version of the Doyle tale - not as good as the 1925 film)

COME OUT AND PLAY (2012)- 4 (flat, dull remake of WHO COULD KILL A CHILD?)

JACK RYAN: SHADOW RECRUIT (2014)- 5

THINNER (1996)- 5 (mediocre Stephen King horror tale)

NIGHT OF THE HOWLING BEAST (1975)- 8  (rewatch)

SHE (1935)- 8 (rewatch)

SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE MASK OF DEATH (1984)- 7 (Peter Cushing's last run at the role is a Hammer reunion)

ROBOCOP (2014)- 7 (solid but neutered and forgettable remake)

MONSTERS (2010) - 8

DEVIL DOLL (1964) - 4 (rewatch)

THE FORMULA (1980)-  5 (slight thriller with an interesting cast)

SANGRAAL, THE SWORD OF FIRE (1982)- 3 (terrible but entertaining Italian barbarian film)

JUSTICE LEAGUE: THE FLASHPOINT PARADOX (2013)- 8

BURIAL GROUND (1981)- 3 (rewatch) (I love this terrible film!)

THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS: PARTS 1 & 2  (2013)- 9 (near perfect animated adaptation of the comic books)

What I Watched in November

Brief thoughts on last month's trips out to the theater.

Caught the CARRIE remake last month and it was a pretty good version of the tale. In some ways this film is a great example of the reason some people dislike remakes in general because it had nothing at all to add to the superior 1976 film. I have never been a part of that camp of film buffs - I like seeing if a new group of creators can bring new insight to older material. You often end up with crap (THE FOG remake springs to mind) but sometimes you get a classic like Carpenter's THE THING or the very smart update of DAWN OF THE DEAD. I'm open minded about these attempts and I always hope for the best. CARRIE (2013) is a solid adaptation of the King novel with a strong cast. I might have hoped for more stylish direction but after Brian de Palma's split-screens and slow motion suspense exercises, maybe the idea was not to go camera crazy. This version is good but not great and so it may well become a forgotten bit of horror cinema for a few decades. We will have to see.

THOR: THE DARK WORLD (2013) was a fantastic follow up to the first film and a good sequel to THE AVENGERS. I am very impressed that the creators at Marvel have been able to craft such a strong film that hits pretty much every target at which it decides to aim. Smart, well paced, funny, exciting and even emotional this is exactly what I want from my modern superhero films. This is the kind of movie I pictured in my mind's eye when I was a young boy reading Thor comics. I can hardly believe that I was rooting for Loki at the same time I was angry with him- that's good storytelling. I could not be happier with this series of movies and look forward to whatever Marvel serves up next. It's a great time to be a superhero fan!  

BLADE (1998)- 8 (rewatch)

GNAW: FOOD OF THE GODS 2 (1989)- 3

GABRIEL OVER THE WHITE HOUSE (1933)- 7

WHAT WAITS BELOW (1985)- 4 (not completely awful, but....)

LAS ALIMANAS (1976)- 5 (Amando de Ossorio crime tale)

CONAN THE BARBARIAN (2011)- 6 (rewatch)

CARRIE (2013)- 6 (well done but unnecessary)

HARD CONTRACT (1969)- 7

THE CURSE OF THE VAMPIRE (1972)- 5 (OK if overwrought Spanish horror)

THE LAST KAMIKAZE (1984)- 7 (well done)

THE INCREDIBLE MELTING MAN (1977)- 3 (terrible but I kinda like it)

ANCHORMAN (2004)- 6 (funny but too scattershot and broad to be great)

MANIAC (2012)- 7 (good remake)

SAVAGE WATER (1979)- 2 (terrible on every level -amateur hour)

THOR: THE DARK WORLD (2013)- 9

SEVEN KEYS TO BALDPATE (1929)- 7 (excellent mystery adaptation)

UN FLIC (1972)- 7 (Melville's last is solid)

SEVEN KEYS TO BALDPATE (1935)- 6 (second version not as good)

CAPTAIN NEMO AND THE UNDERWATER CITY (1969)- 7 (rewatch)

SKYSCRAPER (1996)- 2 (Anna Nicole Smith 'acts')

TROLL 2 (1990)- 2 (rewatch)

MANIAC (2012)

Via NetFlix streaming I recently caught the remake of the seminal trashy horror film MANIAC (1980) and I must admit that I found it to be quite well done. I have to confess that I have never been much of a fan of the original film. Its grungy, filthy look and its generally unpleasant tone always put me off and made it hard to easily enjoy the excellent effects work and the fine performance by star Joe Spinell. I can admire the 1980 film without really thinking very highly of it and I think I'm far from the only horror fan that feels this way. Its a dark, oppressive movie that generates a depressive state in the viewer that makes it difficult to think positively about the work.

By all rights, the same should be true of the remake. It tells the same tale of a tortured man guilt-ridden by his sexual urges, driven to commit hideous murders to calm the horrors in his own head. The ways in which this new version is more impressive (and, for me, more compelling) is in that the story is better structured and the agonized suffering of the main character Frank is more sharply detailed. Part of this is because the film is told completely from the point of view of Frank as he stalks and kills his victims and then deals with his own shame and revulsion at his actions We see him in mirrors and other reflective surfaces as he tries to control his emotions while obsessively scrubbing his hands with steel wool in a Lady Macbeth style attempt to wash away his conscience. We see his home in the backroom of his family's manikin store where he tries nightly to create a world where he is loved and cared for in the ruins of the early life that warped him into his present state. In both versions Frank is a man with serious Mother issues but in this film we see her actions in flashbacks that show specific moments that make her son's adult existence hellish. He can't trust women once they arouse him sexually and this horrific fact makes his burgeoning relationship with a French photographer all the more tragic.

It is in this odd courtship that the 2012 film stands well above the 1980 version. In the first film the scenes of Spinell's Frank and the luminous Caroline Munro out on restaurant dates were out of place and completely unbelievable. In the new film Elijah Wood as Frank is able to get across a convincing sense of being barely able to string sentences together well enough to talk to the beautiful lady come to admire his restoration work on manikins. Her flirtatious nature is sexy but not so aggressive that it triggers his migraine-like need to kill and her careful conversation about a subject he knows well makes the bond they begin to share quite convincing.

Of course, this tale is never going to end well but the 2012 version ends in a way I think is very satisfying. I'm glad this film was produced by the brave French filmmakers that tackled the project as I'm sure that if done by an American team it would have failed quite badly. I'm curious to learn what fans of the 1980 film think about this updated approach. 

BODY SNATCHERS (1993)

I'm a huge fan of the third adaptation of Jack Finney's novel The Body Snatchers. Even among the genre fans that are aware of it at all it seems to get little respect resting almost hidden in the shadow of the admittedly superior 1956 and 1978 versions. But Able Ferra's film has much to recommend it and I'm gratified to note that no less a film writer than Roger Ebert also found it to be a fantastic science fiction/horror film. If you have never seen it, this is the perfect time. Now if it would only come out on Blu-Ray.....

What I Watched In November

I got out to the theater four times in the Merry Month of turkey death! They were clumped at the very beginning and the very end but an average of once a week is fantastic any way it flows across the calendar, as far as I’m concerned.

First up was the horror film SINISTER which was far better than I thought it would be. Starring the underrated and underused Ethan Hawke as a former journalist turned crime book writer looking to craft a new bestseller out of an unsolved murder case. To further this goal he has moved his family to the town in which the crime took place without telling his wife that they are actually living in the home where most of the previous residents were killed. These deaths and the disappearance of the youngest of the family’s children are the mystery at the center of this story and when a strange box of old 16mm film cans show up in the house’s attic things get stranger and darker. Each film canister seems to show the murder of a family but each time the method of their demise is different. Hawke’s becomes convinced he’s on to something big when he realizes that these murders have to be done by the same person and take place all over the country and across decades.

SINISTER is a very capable chiller that had me creeped out for a good portion of the running time and scared out of my seat more than once. I found the entire film quite successful at what it sets out to do and its ending is both effective and rough. This isn’t PG-13 horror and for that I am truly grateful.

FRANKENWEENIE is Tim Burton’s big screen expansion of his 1984 Disney short film and, although I didn’t get to see PARANORMAN, strikes me as the perfect funny monster film for big and little kids alike. Done in wonderful 3D stop-motion and shot in black & white it clearly wants to evoke an older sensibility about its characters and story. This is a film made to appeal to lovers of old monster movies with a sense of humor about the creaky tales they watch over and over. The sweet tale of a brainy, geeky science nerd school boy broken hearted over the accidental death of his dog hits every little boy’s (and I’m sure more than a few little girl’s) great fear of losing their loved ones. The feeling of depressive loss when he has to bury his best friend drives home any kid’s essential powerlessness in the world. But little Victor Frankenstein is a very smart, resourceful lad! He’s not going to let a simple thing like death take his dog away. Its time to pull together a lab straight out of the 1931 FRANKENSTEIN and fix this little problem- and that is what he does. Of course, as with all tales of good old Frankenstein, the experiment goes a little out of control with other kid’s wishes to have their lost pets returned as well quickly escalating to a town endangering level of trouble.

This is a truly wonderful love letter to Monster Kids of every generation. I really wish I had a very young boy to share this movie with. The pure joy of its story, the sly humor, the fantastic creatures and its great characters make this a treasure that will be loved for decades to come. I highly recommend this one to any and all monster fans.

A lot has been written about the newest Bond film SKYFALL and I agree with the generally positive reviews. Daniel Craig is easily one of the best Bond’s the 50 year old series has ever had and, luckily, after the mess of the last film he again has a solid movie under his belt. Almost everything in the story works with a fantastic cast getting at least one (and often more than one) scene to shine. The action is very well realized with the series’ usual excellent stuntwork back to being visible and exciting instead of confusing and irritating. Javier Bardem is an inspired villain bringing a dangerous persona to bear as his character manipulates his old organization to engage in a perverse plot for revenge. Like Bond bad guys of old he is entertaining and theatrical without ever sacrificing the very real menace he radiates. This is one of the five best films of the series joining FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, GOLDFINGER and ON HER MAGESTY’S SECRET SERVICE at the top of the list. Let’s hope the next two that Craig has signed to do will be this good.

What to say about RED DAWN (2012 or 2009 or whenever it was actually made)? I will admit to a certain amount of curiosity about this long delayed remake. The original is a guilty pleasure from my teenage years that I haven’t revisited in decades. It was always a little silly even back then with it’s over the top jingoistic message of how awesome America is, but its well staged action scenes and personable young cast struck me at just the right time to slide behind my BS censors and wedge itself into my brain. I plan to watch the 1985 film again soon to see if it has aged well but I bet I will wince more than smile.

The new version is a mess. The cast is a combination of really good actors (Chris Hemsworth, Jeffery Dean Morgan) and younger TV actors that have a very limited ability to effectively emote. Josh Peck as the young, brash freedom fighter blind to his own faults is a real plank who tries to use his two separate facial expressions to convey things I’m not sure he even understands. Most of the time he just looks confused and the moments when he attempts to show anger were just embarrassing.

The story is pretty much the same as the original film with the villains switched to North Korea or more accurately China. Seriously- the lame attempt to retro-fit the Korea thing onto this story is dumb beyond compare and adding some ‘advisors’ from Russia doesn’t bring reality any closer to this silliness. I could buy Red China on the march as illogical as an invasion would be but North Korea can’t even feed its citizens. Give me a break!

Where the film breaks down as an entertainment is in some sloppy storytelling, dumb characters and several action scenes that are poorly shot and/or edited. I hate not being able to tell who is firing at what or why and this sucker makes that mistake a few times. I can forgive some things in an action film if you can keep me from wondering about the pot and I can tell why things are happening as they happen, but the second I can’t follow a basic firefight I start looking around and noticing things a filmmaker doesn’t want a viewer to notice. There are some good things in RED DAWN but not nearly enough to recommend it to any but the terminally curious.

SINISTER (2012)- 7 (good, creepy film)
STAGEFRIGHT (1987)- 7 (rewatch)

FRANKENWEENIE (2012)- 8 (a love letter to Monster Kids)

THE BRIDE (1985)- 7 (rewatch)

THE SLAVE (1962)- 8 (excellent peplum)

HALLOWEEN 2 (1981)- 7 (rewatch)

THE CRIMES OF PETIOT (1973)- 4

THE TALL MAN (2012)- 7 (flawed but exciting thriller)

I WAS A TEENAGE WEREWOLF (1957)- 6

BRAVE (2012)- 6 (pretty good but far from great Pixar film)

NIGHTMARES (1980)- 5 (rewatch)

ARSENE LUPIN RETURNS (1937)- 6 (solid but nothing outstanding)

SKYFALL (2012)- 9

RED DAWN (2012)- 4 (a mess in more ways than one)

DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS (2000)- 1 (rewatch)

INVASION USA (1985)- 2 (rewatch)

ATROCIOUS (2010)- 7 (Spanish found footage horror film)

FRIDAY THE 13TH 5: A NEW BEGINNING (1985) - 6 (rewatch)