Saturday, September 30, 2017

Masterpieces of Horror Theatre- The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

     Welcome back to Masterpieces of Horror Theatre. Let me first talk a little on the unexpected direction this took. I was already going to look at four Tobe Hopper films since at least last December. There were several reasons, including their relative infamy in his filmography. His tragic death a few weeks ago was unexpected in this regard. So, given my already set plans, I decided to make this look a tribute to the late director and his works. I will do the same to another director that died this year, and I was already planning on looking at some of his works. So, to begin this year off, let's look at The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. 

     Texas Chainsaw was the brainchild of Tobe Hopper, a filmmaker working at the University of Texas at Austin. He had based on the concept on the sensationalist material that local San Antonio news had been reporting on at the time, the Ed Gein murders (notably also the inspiration for Psycho), and the general aftermath of the Watergate Scandal.  He and associate Kim Hinkel wrote the script, and created "Vortex, inc." to produce the film. Hopper cast unknown local actors or friends (including a young John Larroquette to do the narration at the beginning). With a budget of around $60,000, the shoot was marked with difficulties, having to film in the hot Texas summer, and dealing with problems with the effects, which caused many of the actors literal pain (Edwin Neal stated filming was worse than his tour in Vietnam). When it was finally finished, the editing took an additional 80,000. The budget eventually came to $300,000. The film was distributed by Bryston Distribution, a New York based company with... shady connections. The film turned out to be a massive success, earning 10x it's initial budget. While received with mixed reviews initially, it has come to be seen as one of the scariest horror films ever made, and started off a franchise that continues to this day (with Leatherface to be released in late October this year, and no, I will not be covering it).

     The film opens with a text crawl stating that it is based on a true story (it isn't), before showing two propped up corpses being photographed while news coverage blares out, discussing a grave robber in the area. Five friends, Sally Hardesty (Marilyn Burns), her paraplegic brother Franklin (Paul A. Pertain), Jerry (Allan Danzinger), Pam (Teri McMinn), and Kirk (William Vail) are traveling to the grave of Sally grandfather to ensure that his grave wasn't disturbed. They continue on to the old Hardesty homestead, when they pick up a hitchhiker(Edwin Neal) near an old slaughterhouse. The hitchhiker acts very strangely, graphically recalling the process by which cows were killed, and cutting himself. The hitchhiker than cuts Franklin, prompting his ejection from the car. They try to stop for gas afterwards, but the attendant (Jim Siedow) states that there won't be gas until morning. They decide to stay at the homestead until the gas comes. Jerry and Pam head out in search of a water hole Franklin told them about, and comes across a home with a generator. When Jerry tries to get ahold of the resident, he finds a strange assortment of cow and human skulls on the wall. When he tries to get a closer look, the resident, Leatherface (Gunnar Hansen) kills him. Pam goes inside as well, and finds the bone motif extends to the furniture. Leatherface kills her as well. The remaining friends soon find themselves at the mercy of Leatherface, and find there are more horror to this strange Texas backdrop than meets the eye.

     This film is about violence. It is about how deeply ingrained violence is in American culture, without us realizing.  From the background news broadcasts in some scenes to the depictions of slaughterhouse killings, the film connects the violence promoted by the media and the actions of Leatherface. It asks if these murders are entirely surprising, given this climate. The violence in this film isn't actually that graphic (more implied than anything else),  because the film is more about the culture surrounding it. It helps that the setting is isolated and barran. The kind of place that you might see on a road trip, but never stop at. It underscores how ingrained this sort of violence is, even without the media. The setting also provides an almost dreamlike reality, warped and distant, which only increases the terror of the situation. What also makes this film effective in its horror is Leatherface. The sheer terror of his killings is offset by his childlike demeanor. It seems that he isn't entirely cognizant of his actions, which makes him scarier. He is like a more proactive Norman Bates. The acting is solid the whole way through, and the twist is probably the worst kind (I mean that in a good way)

    It's short. Only an hour and 23 minutes. While it gets the most effective scares out of that time, it feels like more could've been put in. The ending feels rushed. It's harrowing, sure, but it feels abrupt. The final dispatch of Leatherface feels like a letdown. I was expecting something more memorable than what actually happens. There are a couple of moments I felt needed a little more explanation.

    I can say that I can agree with most: this is one of the great horror films. You can see how it changed the genre, made a more visceral experience than most were used to. It also is an interesting film in itself, exploring how violence and culture are intertwined. If you like horror, this will not disappoint, but it is also an interesting cultural touchstone of the 1970's. It is rarely brought up as one of those social commentary films of that era, which is a shame, because its themes have a sort of resonance even to this day.

   Next time we jump forward to the mid-80's as we look at Tobe Hopper's space epic Lifeforce.

Thursday, September 28, 2017

Current Movie Review- Kingsman: The Golden Circle

    I heard a lot of bad press for this film. Mainly, what I had heard was that, in comparison to the first one, it was a disappointment. Some even hating it. So, I had trepidations going into this. I had hoped that it would be another John Wick, Chapter II. Another sequel that takes what worked about the original, and expands on it. However, the film many compared this to was Men in Black II. Another sequel which took the fresh original (also based on an independent comic), and alternated between repeating it and contradicting it in order to repeat it. (As Rick Sanchez said, it was a "soulless cash-grab") Having now watched it, The Men in Black II  comparison is the most appropriate. It's not as bad as MiB II or III, but yeah, in comparison to the first one, this was disappointing.

      Based on characters from Mark Millar's and Dave Gibbon's  The Secret Service (which didn't have a sequel), a year has passed since the events of the first one, and Gary "Eggsy" Unwin (Taron Edgerton) is now a bone fide Kingsman, still working alongside Roxie (Sophie Cookson) and Merlin (Mark Strong), and dating Swedish Princess Tilde (Hanna Alstrom) . The film opens with the James Franco look-alike from the first one, Charlie (Edward Holcroft) attacking him, having lost his arm (somehow) during the events of the first one. After an extended action scene in a taxi, he manages to escape. However, the robotic arm manages to hack the Kingsman's database. Charlie goes to his new benefactor Poppy (Julianne Moore), a drug lord obsessed with the 70's version of the 1950's (and keeps Elton John (Reginald Dwight) around as entertainment). Poppy has been sending tainted drugs in order to force full drug legaization across the world. She uses the info Charlie retrieved to launch an all-out offensive, leading to the destruction of the Kingsmen. Only Eggsy and Merlin survived the onslaught. However, when they drink a whiskey they had retrieved for such an occasion, they are alerted to the "Statesmen", a similar organization from across the pond. After a terse meeting with Tequila (Channing Tatum), they meet the American version of Merlin, Ginger Ale (Halle Berry), agent Whiskey (Pedro Pascal) and the Statesmen leader, Champagne (Jeff Bridge) (Get it?) Biggest of all, they find the Statesmen had retrieved Harry Hart (Colin Firth) after his death in the first one. Poppy's demand illicits an opposite response from POTUS (Bruce Greenwood) who wants to kill off all the drug users to gain some political points. Between people slowly falling victim to Poppy's drugs and the President herding them to force their death, the Kingsmen and Statesmen must team up to find the antidote.

      I'll give it this: like the first one, the actors are clearly having a good time, either hamming it up or indulging wholescale in the action. (Spoiler) One of the characters dies singing John Denver's "Take Me Home, Country Roads (The second time this year I've heard that song in a film) Some of the action scenes are good (I'll get back to that). Elton John was enjoyable in his supporting role. Most people got annoyed by him, but I found his presence funny (plus, he plays one of his most enjoyable songs "Saturday Night's Alright for Fighting"). The set design is good. The action set pieces are well-established, if contrived. The action is also toned down significantly from the first one (though it still has some gruesome moments, they feel less intrusive.  The fact that POTUS turns out to be a minor villain was a nice touch, (especially since it pokes fun at both extremes of the drug debate)

    The first fight scene in this film was hard to engage with. The problem was that it was so heavily CGI'd, which would be fine if it weren't so fake-looking. It set the tone for some of the action, which felt less innovative than the first one. It tries to top the first one, but it feels subpar. Sometimes, it wouldn't make sense. I mentioned MiB II earlier, and it feels most apt when talking about Eggsy. Like Will Smith in MiBII, it feels like the character has been stuck where he was in the last film. It never really shows any sort of growth for his character. Not that he is back to where he was at the beginning of the first film, but he doesn't really have anywhere to go. Taron Edgerton still gives an excellent performance, but the character felt running in place. The plot is engaging, but it doesn't feel organic and more contrived. It also feels like it goes on for too long, because they needed to wrap up everything. That goes with individual scenes as well, which sometimes take longer than they should. Some actors are wasted. Despite their prominence in the trailer, Channing Tatum and Jeff Bridges are basically cameoing. Julianne Moore's villain (aside from her opening scene) doesn't feel particularly disturbing or threatening. They outright killed Roxy (one of the best parts of the first one) after only one scene.

    So, yeah, this was not another John Wick, Chapter II. If you liked the first one, maybe you'll enjoy this, but it won't really exceed it. If you haven't seen the first one, don't bother. Go watch It, that was a good adreneline rush film, or stay home and watch the first one. I had fun in this, and I liked it more than other people, but I agree it wasn't as good as the first one, and I do see why people dislike.

   Tomorrow, I will start the next chapter of Masterpiece of Horror Theatre, with the late Tobe Hopper's Texas Chainsaw Massacre.