Halloween
My favorite moment in Halloween isn't a death scene (though "can't I get your ghost, Bob?" is pretty great), it's not a scare, it's not even a line of dialogue, it's the spectacular grin that Loomis gives after he scares the kids off the porch of the Myers house. Donald Pleasence just looks so perfectly pleased and thoroughly full of himself at that moment that it gives me a similar grin every single time.
I can't even tell you how many times I've seen this movie (or how many times I've bought it thanks to a seemingly infinite number of "special edition" releases on various formats) but man, it still works. It's so good I even forgive it the ultimate movie sin of killing a dog on screen (RIP Lester).
From the spare, frightening score to that horrifyingly blank Shatner mask, everything still works. The fact that the focus is on tension rather than gore certainly helps, but it's still a staggering achievement for a movie to still feel tense after countless viewings.
This was my first time watching the new 35th anniversary blu-ray and it's absolutely stunning, easily the best I've ever seen the movie look, maybe the best it's ever looked. It's far from a flawless movie, there's plenty of camera shadows, a puff of Carpenter's cigarette smoke from offscreen, lots of lush greenery for Illinois in the fall, California plates on all the cars, etc....but none of that matters at all. The movie casts a spell and it's exquisitely paced, practically tightening around the audience until we can barely breathe.
Thanks to everyone who's been following my Scary Movie Month ramblings. I've enjoyed writing them and chatting with a bunch of people about all the scary movies I've been watching. 16 of the 31 movies were new-to-me, which is a happy accident and exactly the balance I was hoping for. The only thing I love more than horror movies is discovering new horror movies to love, and I can already tell that a few of those 16 will be entering my rotation. Hell, I already can't wait to watch Dead & Buried again. Of course I don't confine my horror watching to only Scary Movie Month, but 11 months is still gonna be an awfully long wait until next Scary Movie Month.
Maybe I'll watch Halloween II tomorrow so the wait won't seem quite so long. Then Halloween III the next day. Then....
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Scary Movie Month, Day 30
The Slumber Party Massacre
Rita Mae Brown is the author of a series of "cozy" mystery novels featuring a sleuthing cat named Mrs. Murphy. Her credited co-author on the series is her own cat, Sneaky Pie Brown. There are, to date, 21 novels in the Mrs. Murphy series which means that somebody must be reading the things. The reason I bring this up is because it thoroughly fascinates me that the writer of the detecting cat novels popular with grandmas nationwide is the same person who wrote this movie, a thoroughly sleazy and gratuitous wallow in depravity.
I mean "wallow in depravity" in the nicest respect, by the way. The movie follows a group of 30-year-old teenage girls who have a beer-and-pot-fueled slumber party and are (of course) stalked by an escaped lunatic with a phallic power drill. Brown originally wrote the movie as a parody of the then-current slasher craze, but producer Roger Corman (who else?) decided to take her screenplay and have it shot as a straightforward slasher flick. It's still mostly funny, you certainly won't find much (if anything) in the way of tension or scares but there's plenty of gore and nudity to keep the audience captivated for the scant 77 minute runtime.
I like the tone of the movie. While it's not the comedy it was originally envisioned as, it's still got a pleasantly subversive streak running through it along with an infectious sense of fun. There are two sequels (natch) and I'm looking forward to checking those out soon, I hope they're as odd and fun as this one. It's notable that all three movies in the series were written and directed by women (different women each time, too) which is an extreme rarity in any genre, much less one so often dismissed as misogynistic as horror. It's a refreshing change in theory, but in practice it only seems to inform us that women can write and direct sleazy exploitation just as well as men.
Rita Mae Brown is the author of a series of "cozy" mystery novels featuring a sleuthing cat named Mrs. Murphy. Her credited co-author on the series is her own cat, Sneaky Pie Brown. There are, to date, 21 novels in the Mrs. Murphy series which means that somebody must be reading the things. The reason I bring this up is because it thoroughly fascinates me that the writer of the detecting cat novels popular with grandmas nationwide is the same person who wrote this movie, a thoroughly sleazy and gratuitous wallow in depravity.
I mean "wallow in depravity" in the nicest respect, by the way. The movie follows a group of 30-year-old teenage girls who have a beer-and-pot-fueled slumber party and are (of course) stalked by an escaped lunatic with a phallic power drill. Brown originally wrote the movie as a parody of the then-current slasher craze, but producer Roger Corman (who else?) decided to take her screenplay and have it shot as a straightforward slasher flick. It's still mostly funny, you certainly won't find much (if anything) in the way of tension or scares but there's plenty of gore and nudity to keep the audience captivated for the scant 77 minute runtime.
I like the tone of the movie. While it's not the comedy it was originally envisioned as, it's still got a pleasantly subversive streak running through it along with an infectious sense of fun. There are two sequels (natch) and I'm looking forward to checking those out soon, I hope they're as odd and fun as this one. It's notable that all three movies in the series were written and directed by women (different women each time, too) which is an extreme rarity in any genre, much less one so often dismissed as misogynistic as horror. It's a refreshing change in theory, but in practice it only seems to inform us that women can write and direct sleazy exploitation just as well as men.
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Scary Movie Month, Day 29
Munster, Go Home!
Boy oh boy, technicolor does not do the Munsters any favors. The sickly blue-green hue of all their faces (other than Marilyn, of course) is ugly and off-putting to the point where I considered turning down the color on my TV but I eventually decided to watch it as it was intended. It's refreshing to enjoy their antics without that horrendously grating laugh track, though, so I guess it's a somewhat worthwhile trade.
For their only theatrical foray, the Munsters head overseas to jolly old England when Herman is notified that he's Lord of Munster Hall. Once there they of course run afoul of scheming relatives (including the great Terry-Thomas, always a treat to watch) and wind up having to clear the family name in a drag race (don't ask).
Fred Gwynne has always been my favorite of the main cast (and the "Car 54, Where Are You?" joke was worth watching the whole movie for) but I've read that he had had enough of playing Herman due to the uncomfortable make-up and costumes. He was forever identified with Herman Munster and it's a shame, he was so great in so many other roles ("Sometimes dead is bettah") but never really seemed to get his due. The rest of the family is fine, though it's a new Marilyn for some reason.
Despite the exotic location it all plays out as an extended episode of the sitcom, especially considering it recycles quite a few jokes from the run of the series. It's funny (and Herman's race car, Dragula, is kind of the best) but it's a trifle, and it's easy to see why the Munsters didn't find new life on the big screen after the series ended.
Boy oh boy, technicolor does not do the Munsters any favors. The sickly blue-green hue of all their faces (other than Marilyn, of course) is ugly and off-putting to the point where I considered turning down the color on my TV but I eventually decided to watch it as it was intended. It's refreshing to enjoy their antics without that horrendously grating laugh track, though, so I guess it's a somewhat worthwhile trade.
For their only theatrical foray, the Munsters head overseas to jolly old England when Herman is notified that he's Lord of Munster Hall. Once there they of course run afoul of scheming relatives (including the great Terry-Thomas, always a treat to watch) and wind up having to clear the family name in a drag race (don't ask).
Fred Gwynne has always been my favorite of the main cast (and the "Car 54, Where Are You?" joke was worth watching the whole movie for) but I've read that he had had enough of playing Herman due to the uncomfortable make-up and costumes. He was forever identified with Herman Munster and it's a shame, he was so great in so many other roles ("Sometimes dead is bettah") but never really seemed to get his due. The rest of the family is fine, though it's a new Marilyn for some reason.
Despite the exotic location it all plays out as an extended episode of the sitcom, especially considering it recycles quite a few jokes from the run of the series. It's funny (and Herman's race car, Dragula, is kind of the best) but it's a trifle, and it's easy to see why the Munsters didn't find new life on the big screen after the series ended.
Monday, October 28, 2013
Scary Movie Month, Day 28
The Dark Half
George A. Romero adapting a Stephen King novel starring Academy Award winner Timothy Hutton, and the movie seems to have been all but forgotten. That seems unfair to me, but then again I'm an unabashed fan of all three principals.
Hutton stars as Thad Beaumont, an upper-class, intellectual writer who has been making a living secretly churning out violent pulp novels under the name George Stark. After a blackmailer threatens to expose him, Beaumont decides to go public and "kill" Stark. As it happens, that high-toned son of a bitch Stark doesn't want to go and the people who helped Beaumont "kill" him start to die for real. Has Beaumont cracked and started killing or has Stark somehow entered the real world?
The movie makes it clear what's going on pretty early on after playing it coy for a short while, and Hutton is great as both the buttoned-down Beaumont and his leather-clad, pompadoured, razor-slinging alter ego. There are plenty of terrific supporting performances too, from the likes of Amy Madigan, Michael Rooker, and Julie Harris, among others.
The Dark Half was the last novel King wrote before going completely sober, and the theme of dual identities certainly fits that but neither the book nor the movie get preachy or hit you over the head with any sort of message. In both cases, they're out to scare you first and make you consider duality later on, preferably with all the lights on.
George A. Romero adapting a Stephen King novel starring Academy Award winner Timothy Hutton, and the movie seems to have been all but forgotten. That seems unfair to me, but then again I'm an unabashed fan of all three principals.
Hutton stars as Thad Beaumont, an upper-class, intellectual writer who has been making a living secretly churning out violent pulp novels under the name George Stark. After a blackmailer threatens to expose him, Beaumont decides to go public and "kill" Stark. As it happens, that high-toned son of a bitch Stark doesn't want to go and the people who helped Beaumont "kill" him start to die for real. Has Beaumont cracked and started killing or has Stark somehow entered the real world?
The movie makes it clear what's going on pretty early on after playing it coy for a short while, and Hutton is great as both the buttoned-down Beaumont and his leather-clad, pompadoured, razor-slinging alter ego. There are plenty of terrific supporting performances too, from the likes of Amy Madigan, Michael Rooker, and Julie Harris, among others.
The Dark Half was the last novel King wrote before going completely sober, and the theme of dual identities certainly fits that but neither the book nor the movie get preachy or hit you over the head with any sort of message. In both cases, they're out to scare you first and make you consider duality later on, preferably with all the lights on.
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Scary Movie Month, Day 27
Evil Dead 2
I don't know who it was that came up with the term "splatstick" to describe Sam Raimi's particular brand of mayhem, but it feels like the perfect fit. Even now over 25 years after its release Evil Dead 2 still feels energetic and fresh, and it's so unafraid to go over the top that it leaves the top many miles below itself somewhere in the first reel.
I tend to forget just how much of this movie is "The Bruce Campbell Show"...he spends a surprising amount of screentime completely alone, dealing with the diabolical forces released by the Book of the Dead. The fact that he manages to be as sympathetic as he is while going batshit crazy (and making a huge mess of that cabin) is a testament to how strong a presence Campbell is and how much fun he made Ash as a character despite the fact that we're two movies in and still know nothing about him other than his name, his resilience in the face of almost certain death, and his proclivity for antiquated expressions of satisfaction. Oh, and he has very little luck dating women who don't become possessed by ancient demons and try to swallow his soul. He's 0 for 2 on that count thus far.
There are 3 movies in the Evil Dead series (plus a remake that left me cold) and for my money, this is the best of the bunch. I enjoy all 3, but this one finds just the right balance between horror and comedy, and while its commitment to total insanity never wavers, it doesn't become numbing like so many other movies that try to attempt relentlessness do. It's an incredibly difficult balancing act, and Raimi makes it look as easy and effortless as cutting off your own demon-possessed hand with a chainsaw. I mean that as the highest possible compliment.
I don't know who it was that came up with the term "splatstick" to describe Sam Raimi's particular brand of mayhem, but it feels like the perfect fit. Even now over 25 years after its release Evil Dead 2 still feels energetic and fresh, and it's so unafraid to go over the top that it leaves the top many miles below itself somewhere in the first reel.
I tend to forget just how much of this movie is "The Bruce Campbell Show"...he spends a surprising amount of screentime completely alone, dealing with the diabolical forces released by the Book of the Dead. The fact that he manages to be as sympathetic as he is while going batshit crazy (and making a huge mess of that cabin) is a testament to how strong a presence Campbell is and how much fun he made Ash as a character despite the fact that we're two movies in and still know nothing about him other than his name, his resilience in the face of almost certain death, and his proclivity for antiquated expressions of satisfaction. Oh, and he has very little luck dating women who don't become possessed by ancient demons and try to swallow his soul. He's 0 for 2 on that count thus far.
There are 3 movies in the Evil Dead series (plus a remake that left me cold) and for my money, this is the best of the bunch. I enjoy all 3, but this one finds just the right balance between horror and comedy, and while its commitment to total insanity never wavers, it doesn't become numbing like so many other movies that try to attempt relentlessness do. It's an incredibly difficult balancing act, and Raimi makes it look as easy and effortless as cutting off your own demon-possessed hand with a chainsaw. I mean that as the highest possible compliment.
Saturday, October 26, 2013
Scary Movie Month, Day 26
Carrie (2013)
Earlier this week on the always excellent F This Movie! podcast, the equally always excellent Adam Riske referred to this movie as "X-Men Origins: Carrie" and he's absolutely right. When shit goes down at the prom (spoiler?) Carrie floats around and poses like she's a silver wig and bad toad joke away from being Halle Berry in the X-Men movies. As they said in the podcast, this time around Carrie has much greater control over her telekinetic powers than she did in the original movie (or in Stephen King's novel, for that matter) and frankly that's a decision that thoroughly deflates the movie.
I don't think that remaking Carrie is a bad idea. I think there's a lot that the story of Carrie can say about our current culture of viral videos, bullying, and school violence. This version, with a screenplay credited to Larry Cohen and Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa (who adapted King's epic novel The Stand for a 35-part Marvel comics series) touches on those things, but they're only so much window dressing on an otherwise slavish adaptation of Brian De Palma's version of Carrie.
King wrote a novella called Apt Pupil, another story of a high school outcast (though a more purposefully malevolent one than Carrie White) that culminates in an event of tremendous, tragic violence. When Apt Pupil was adapted for the movies, the ending was significantly altered, removing the violence while staying somewhat true to the nihilistic tone of the original story. When King was asked how he felt about the change, he said he was glad for it because if they had kept the ending from the novella it would have been "the wrong kind of movie". This adaptation of Carrie borders on being the wrong the kind of movie. By making Carrie more of an aggressor and less of a victim it feels uncomfortably close to a movie about a school shooting that tries to get the audience on the side of the shooter.
It's not all bad, Chloe Grace Moretz is decent in the lead (I wonder if some of the poses she takes as she wreaks havoc are her own choices or those of director Kimberly Pierce) and the unfortunately named Ansel Elgort stands out as the kind-hearted Tommy Ross. Most of the other performances range from decent to forgettable, the only one who registers at outright bad, unfortunately, is Julianne Moore as Margaret White, Carrie's domineering mother. While it's good that she's not aping Piper Laurie's Academy Award-nominated performance from the original she just never manages to bring Margaret to life in any way, she never feels like anything more than a fictional character.
It's not a terrible movie by any means, but by that same token it's a movie that really has no reason to exist. While they're not all gonna laugh at it, it's a disappointment at best.
Earlier this week on the always excellent F This Movie! podcast, the equally always excellent Adam Riske referred to this movie as "X-Men Origins: Carrie" and he's absolutely right. When shit goes down at the prom (spoiler?) Carrie floats around and poses like she's a silver wig and bad toad joke away from being Halle Berry in the X-Men movies. As they said in the podcast, this time around Carrie has much greater control over her telekinetic powers than she did in the original movie (or in Stephen King's novel, for that matter) and frankly that's a decision that thoroughly deflates the movie.
I don't think that remaking Carrie is a bad idea. I think there's a lot that the story of Carrie can say about our current culture of viral videos, bullying, and school violence. This version, with a screenplay credited to Larry Cohen and Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa (who adapted King's epic novel The Stand for a 35-part Marvel comics series) touches on those things, but they're only so much window dressing on an otherwise slavish adaptation of Brian De Palma's version of Carrie.
King wrote a novella called Apt Pupil, another story of a high school outcast (though a more purposefully malevolent one than Carrie White) that culminates in an event of tremendous, tragic violence. When Apt Pupil was adapted for the movies, the ending was significantly altered, removing the violence while staying somewhat true to the nihilistic tone of the original story. When King was asked how he felt about the change, he said he was glad for it because if they had kept the ending from the novella it would have been "the wrong kind of movie". This adaptation of Carrie borders on being the wrong the kind of movie. By making Carrie more of an aggressor and less of a victim it feels uncomfortably close to a movie about a school shooting that tries to get the audience on the side of the shooter.
It's not all bad, Chloe Grace Moretz is decent in the lead (I wonder if some of the poses she takes as she wreaks havoc are her own choices or those of director Kimberly Pierce) and the unfortunately named Ansel Elgort stands out as the kind-hearted Tommy Ross. Most of the other performances range from decent to forgettable, the only one who registers at outright bad, unfortunately, is Julianne Moore as Margaret White, Carrie's domineering mother. While it's good that she's not aping Piper Laurie's Academy Award-nominated performance from the original she just never manages to bring Margaret to life in any way, she never feels like anything more than a fictional character.
It's not a terrible movie by any means, but by that same token it's a movie that really has no reason to exist. While they're not all gonna laugh at it, it's a disappointment at best.
Friday, October 25, 2013
Scary Movie Month, Day 25
Scream
It seems that at some point over the last few years Scream has developed a reputation as a straight-up comedy. Sure, it's got a genuine sense of humor and I could see how a generation weaned on Family Guy would mistake references for comedy, but it's still a damn solid horror movie. Just because a movie is smart enough to know how to use humor doesn't make it a comedy.
Scream was released a couple of days before my birthday in 1996, and as a horror junkie who goes to the movies on his birthday every year I was very glad to have a new Wes Craven movie during a season typically reserved for broad family comedies and award-bait dramas. I went to see it with fairly low expectations due mainly to the fact that Craven's previous feature was the aimless and unscary/unfunny horror/comedy Vampire In Brooklyn. It turned out to be one of my very best birthday movies.
As you may recall, Scream opens with Drew Barrymore popping some Jiffy Pop and receiving a strange phone call, leading to a harrowing 13 minute sequence that is absolutely terrifying. The ads and posters for the movie touted Barrymore as the star, and the sequence ended on a true shock that leads you into the body of the movie off-balance. It's a bravura sequence that shows you right off the bat that even though it has a sense of humor this movie means business when it comes to scaring the crap out of you.
Another great thing about Scream is that on top of it being a genuinely scary horror movie and a successfully funny tweaking of genre conventions (it's funny without being jokey, by the way, an important distinction) it's also a whodunit, and a clever one at that. The reveal is surprising (at least it was for me) and even better than that, it holds up to scrutiny on subsequent viewings. The movie doesn't cheat by having the killer revealed to be somebody we don't even know (fuck you, Friday the 13th) and there are clues and beats throughout that support the reveal.
The sequels are much broader and lean more toward comedy. Scream 2, released less than a year later, is surprisingly good and has quite a few surprises up it's sleeves. Scream 3 is an overlong episode of Scooby Doo, much too jokey and self-aware to ever be scary and in my opinion is the weakest entry in the series. Scream 4 isn't much better than 3, but it tries and I believe it has a few moments that work though they're few and far between. It's rumored that Craven and co. are working on turning it into a weekly TV series. I can't imagine that working, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't curious to check it out.
Dilution of the brand notwithstanding, Scream holds up. Scary, funny, filled with memorable moments, quotable dialogue, and a likable cast all turning in solid performances. The killer is fond of asking his/her prey if they like scary movies. If more scary movies were like Scream, the answer would always be yes.
It seems that at some point over the last few years Scream has developed a reputation as a straight-up comedy. Sure, it's got a genuine sense of humor and I could see how a generation weaned on Family Guy would mistake references for comedy, but it's still a damn solid horror movie. Just because a movie is smart enough to know how to use humor doesn't make it a comedy.
Scream was released a couple of days before my birthday in 1996, and as a horror junkie who goes to the movies on his birthday every year I was very glad to have a new Wes Craven movie during a season typically reserved for broad family comedies and award-bait dramas. I went to see it with fairly low expectations due mainly to the fact that Craven's previous feature was the aimless and unscary/unfunny horror/comedy Vampire In Brooklyn. It turned out to be one of my very best birthday movies.
As you may recall, Scream opens with Drew Barrymore popping some Jiffy Pop and receiving a strange phone call, leading to a harrowing 13 minute sequence that is absolutely terrifying. The ads and posters for the movie touted Barrymore as the star, and the sequence ended on a true shock that leads you into the body of the movie off-balance. It's a bravura sequence that shows you right off the bat that even though it has a sense of humor this movie means business when it comes to scaring the crap out of you.
Another great thing about Scream is that on top of it being a genuinely scary horror movie and a successfully funny tweaking of genre conventions (it's funny without being jokey, by the way, an important distinction) it's also a whodunit, and a clever one at that. The reveal is surprising (at least it was for me) and even better than that, it holds up to scrutiny on subsequent viewings. The movie doesn't cheat by having the killer revealed to be somebody we don't even know (fuck you, Friday the 13th) and there are clues and beats throughout that support the reveal.
The sequels are much broader and lean more toward comedy. Scream 2, released less than a year later, is surprisingly good and has quite a few surprises up it's sleeves. Scream 3 is an overlong episode of Scooby Doo, much too jokey and self-aware to ever be scary and in my opinion is the weakest entry in the series. Scream 4 isn't much better than 3, but it tries and I believe it has a few moments that work though they're few and far between. It's rumored that Craven and co. are working on turning it into a weekly TV series. I can't imagine that working, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't curious to check it out.
Dilution of the brand notwithstanding, Scream holds up. Scary, funny, filled with memorable moments, quotable dialogue, and a likable cast all turning in solid performances. The killer is fond of asking his/her prey if they like scary movies. If more scary movies were like Scream, the answer would always be yes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)