End of the Year: Documentary Feature

   Often, I always consider putting documentaries onto the end of the year list. I always refrain from this, because I feel that comparing narrative films to documentaries would require a complicated system, due to their vastly differing nature. However, I still want to acknowledge the various documentaries that I have seen this year. And not just those released this year, but just ones I happened to watch for the first time this year. So, here are the documentaries I've seen this year. Not necessarily ones that came out this year, but ones I happen to have seen. These are going to be ordered by means of recommendation, meaning those I recommend the most will be closer to the top, while those I don't recommend will generally go below. So, without further ado....

Tower(2016)


This is the first one, because, of the docs that are going to be featured here, this is the one I recommend the most. This is an animated account of the events of the 1966 mass shooting at the University of Texas at Austin, from the perspective of some who had witnessed it, from students caught in the crossfire to policemen responding to it in real time. These accounts provide a unique perspective of the incident, and shows how confusing and horrifying this situation can be if you're in the middle of it. A good example of this is that for much of the documentary, many recall that they assumed there were two shooters (instead of the one). This documentary brings you directly into the mist of this situation, and shows you its tragedy, but also the heroism that some displayed even in the chaos. In this era of mass shootings, this is a must-watch.

Icarus (2017) 

   The story of how one man's investigation into doping in amateur bicycling and help he receives from a prominent Russian anti-doping doctor ended up with that man stumbling onto a massive doping conspiracy by the Russian government is an interesting thriller in and of itself, before you remember that it is a real, ongoing story. It is eye-opening as to how pervasive this really was, and disturbing how intricate it was planned out with. It is a great expose on this issue, and with recent actions by the Olympic Committee, it is still an ongoing story.

OJ:Made in America (2016)

   This is an excellent companion piece to The People v. OJ Simpson. Made for ESPN's 30 for 30, it doesn't just cover the trial, but also is a comprehensive look into OJ's entire career, from football to Hertz spokesman to film star. It looks at how he had effectively been accepted by white America by assimilating and declining to get involved with African American causes. This would prove ironic when race would play a large factor in his trial (set in the backdrop of the aftermath of the LA riots). It also shows his life post-trial, and how he gradually alienated everyone who had stuck by him, even during the trial. It shows how OJ's life and career occupied a unique position in the intersection of race, celebrity, and sports during the late 20th century, and all three came to affect his life and his murder trial. This is perhaps as comprehensive as you could get with a documentary.

Red Army (2014)

   If you've seen Icarus, the revelations in that might put a damper on this documentary about the Soviet national hockey team, especially since the focus, Viacheslav "Slava" Fetisov, was apparently chair of the World Anti-Doping Agency. Still, this is a fascinating look into the Red Army Hockey Club and Hockey in the USSR in general, as recounted by Slava and some of the players themselves. It looks into the infamous unbeatable team, and explores how they got to be that powerful. However, there are also dynamics with a brutal coach and a authoritarian government which looms over their shoulders and tries to limit their interactions with the Capitalist west. Even if you have no interest in hockey, it is still an interesting history documentary on a very popular sport in the USSR

Jodorowsky's Dune(2013)

   Earlier this year, I read a book called "Shock Value", about the 70's horror renaissance. It was a decent enough book, and provided some good information about some of the classics from this era. I bring this up, because the book focused primarily on Dan O'Bannon, writer of Alien, and his involvement with Alejandro Jodorowsky's ultimately doomed adaptation of Frank Hubert's Dune was chronicled briefly. I remembered that's the focus of this documentary, and decided to pick it up. I'm glad I did. It is an interesting look into the process of making a film like this, and how people are brought together to make a film, and how it eventually can peter out from one thing or another. O'Bannon, French comic artist Moebius, HR Giger, and even Salvadore Dali were all involved with this film during it's production.  In some way, despite never actually being made, it was influential in its own way, with the former three mentioned going on to create the Alien franchise. The designs Jodorowsky and Moebius created are alone good recommendations to see this film, but it is also a fascinating look into what might have been. And, while it might have been an unwatchable mess, I am interested in seeing what might have been with this film.

The Farthest: Voyagers in Space (2017)

Released on PBS to honor the 40th anniversary of the launch of the Voyagers, this is a comprehensive look into the program, exploring its origin, how it was build, the composition of the Golden Record, and its eventual launch. It explores how scientists and engineers were able to overcome obstacles and problems during the production of the two crafts, and be able to launch this craft. It also explores how it made its various scientific discovers, and the sacrifices in other areas to make those. This is a fitting enough documentary to explaining the continuing endurance of the crafts after 40 years, and how they became the first man-made objects to leave the Solar System. The usual great PBS science documentary.
Sembene!(2015)

    I had really no knowledge of the subject of this documentary aside from a short skim on his Wikipedia page when I came across it, nor did I have any familiarity with African cinema in general. It certainly was enlightening in that regard, and I learned a lot about both subjects. This documentary on the radical Senegalese filmmaker Ousmane Sembene is in part an examination of his filmography, and his friend and biographer Samba Gadjigo trying to contemplate Sembene's legacy and their own personal friendship. It is a fascinating look into a man whose work captured the attitudes and problems facing post-colonial Africa, as well as a look into a region that is often neglected in world cinema. If you're interested in either, I do recommend seeing this film.

Five Came Back (2017)

   Netflix's much vaunted WWII documentary sees several filmmakers (among them Steven Spielberg, Francis Ford Coppola, and Guillermo del Toro), discuss other filmmakers (William Wyler, John Huston, and Frank Capra for the three listed) participation in the "Motion Picture Unit" of the US Army during World War II. It explores each of the filmmakers, what their careers were up to that point,  how they added their own unique perspective and experiences during their service, and how it affected each of them after the war had ended. Whilst the "famous directors talking famous director" is a bit gimmicky, the actual stories are each unique and interesting in their own way, and sort of encapsulate the American experience on both fronts. If you're into World War II, this'll provide a less explored topic in most histories of the war.
June 17th, 1994 (2010)

Another 30 for 30 about OJ, though this takes a completely different route. It intersects coverage of OJ's chase in his Bronco on the titular date with other sports events happening that day. These range from Golf master Arnold Palmer's final round at the US Open, New Yorkers celebrating the victory of the Rangers in the Stanley Cup, and the Game 5 of the NBA Finals between the Houston Rockets and the New York Knicks. This admittedly odd conceit actually works well in terms of juxtaposition, showing the relative tranquility of Palmer's round or jubilation at the Ranger ticker tape parade with the tension from Simpson's chase. It especially works when the clips start to interact, with newscasters (including Bob Costas) at the NBA finals determining how to cover the OJ chase in the midst of the game. A fascinating and effective experimental documentary, I certainly do have the inclination to watch it again.

Exporting Raymond (2010)

    This was the last doc I saw this year (having only seen it hours ago). It looks at Everyone Love Raymond creator Phil Rosenthal's attempts to adapt the show for Russian audiences, and the enormous difficulties that he faces. He finds that some themes that he thought universal were actually quite hard to translate in some culture, but other themes and ideas (especially the persistence and interference of network executives) are actually universal. It's a good look into how television shows like this are produced in Russia, and how shows like Raymond are adapted for non-American audiences. Just as someone interested in how American ideas are adapted by non-American cultures, that was probably the best part.

An American in Madras (2013)

    Despite being half-Tamil myself and both my parents having come from Tamil Nadu, I have little knowledge of Kollywood, or Tamil film industry. That was perhaps why this was more of a personal enlightenment. Ellis R Dugan was an American filmmaker who found himself in India, and worked in Tamil Nadu for over 15 years, directing many very popular films with some of the biggest Tamil stars. When I watched the film with my mother, while many of the films had been before her birth, and she didn't know Dugan by name, she had recognized a lot of the actors and the songs. (The former because a lot of them ended up becoming political figures in the state). It was a nice look into a part of the history of what is essentially my ancestral region, and a little bit more on the history of Kollywood. Even you aren't Indian or Tamil, it still is pretty interesting story about an American making films in a foreign country.

     

The Lovers and the Despot (2017)

I wrote an entire review about a book I read on this exact topic (The kidnapping of South Korean director Shin Sang-Ok and his actress wife Choi Eun-hee by Kim Jong-Il), so I knew the story of this pretty well. While it was nice to hear Choi describe her experience, along with friends and associates, the doc's leading problem is a lack of details. Even if I didn't know this story, that part would've still bothered me. There is little on the films made by Shin during their captivity, or any details on how Kim Jong-Il was, or why he kidnapped them. Granted, yes, it can't be as detailed as a book, but the lack of substantive detail  is apparent. Still, if you want the basics of this strange story, I think this'll do nicely. 

Ghosts of Ole Miss (2012)

   Another 30 for 30 (spoiler, the next is also a 30 for 30) dealing with the successful Football season for the University of Mississippi team in 1962, which corresponded with the riots surrounding James Meredith's enrollment into the University (the first African American to do so). It is an decent enough recounting of both events from many of the participants (including Meredith himself), but aside from one instance of Meredith not being able to attend a Football game, the two don't really interact in a significant way. It feels like just two events that just happened to be around the same time, and the filmmaker is trying to derive some meaning from that, rather than treat it like a coincidence. Maybe if perspective was exchanged on the issues, it could've worked, but it felt off as is.

The U (2009)

    The final 30 for 30 for this year, this is about the University of Miami's football team during the 80's, and how it went from an underfunded operation to a very successful team. It was also ostensibly using that to explore Miami during the 80's, and how the team became an icon, but in practice, it mostly focuses on the team and its successes and failures. That is fine, but I felt the occasional intersections of Miami culture was a bit superfluous. It was just me, it is perfectly serviceable and accessible to a non-sports fan.
Lost in La Mancha (2002)

This is close to the bottom, because I couldn't finish it. Unlike the surreal, detailed, and fascinating look into an unmade film like Dune above, this look into the making of Terry Gilliam's unfinished adaptation of Don Quixote (called The Man Who Killed Don Quixote) was not particularly interesting. It was intended as a making-of feature, which it feels most like, but that works best for a film that's actually finished. It works significantly less knowing that the film isn't finished. Maybe the part I didn't see would've been actually had some intrigue, with production ultimately stalling the film until this year (editing was finished on the film just last month), but the beginning was not promising. Who knows, maybe if the finished film is good, I'll go back to this.

Voyeur (2017)

    I'll admit, there was one primary reason I watched this: the events depicted (Gerald Foos, owner of the Manor House Motel, spying on his guests through a system of fake vents) happened near where I grew up.  The motel is demolished now, but I easily could've driven by it at some point. So, imagine my surprise when it turned out to be more about famed journalist Gay Talese writing first a New Yorker article and then a book on Foos. That should've been a sort of interesting look at how these sorts of articles are written, but this feels off. That might be because it seems to play devil's advocate on Foos (the only reason he isn't being prosecuted for what he did is the statue of limitations), which doesn't exactly put Talese himself in the best light. It probably wasn't intended by the creators, but comes off that way to the viewers. Also, it doesn't really much actual fact-checking aside from one episode where Talese is confronted by a Washington Post reporter, who challenges the account, which is resolved quickly off-screen, but highlights that little fact-checking was shown on screen. As a result, it feels  insular and fishy, and even if all of it was true, it still probably should've acknowledged Foos' behavior more as creepy and, you know, illegal. That is probably the main reason it is the lowest one in terms of recommendation.

-------------------

So, yeah, all the documentaries I saw this year. I hope you  seek out some of these, and join me in the next few days as I rank the films of 2017.

Current Film Reviews: November Criminals

    There is one, and only one reason I decided to watch this film. Despite the fact it has been available on demand for a few weeks, only now have reviews appeared. My sister has surmised that it was because it wasn't out in theaters. That is likely true, but it seemed odd that no one was talking about a film that has technically already been released. I mean, you could buy or rent this film, and watch it beginning to end. The trailers were savaged for their seeming portrayal of a typical white savior narrative (which, having watched the film, it is, spoiler), but only now have two actual reviews come up in preparation for the release date next week. This, despite widespread availability since Nov. 7, apparently made so little of an impression on the culture. And I could see why.

     Based on the book by Sam Munson, we follow the story of Addison Schacht (Ansel Elgort), who we see dropping off his application for the University of Chicago with his female companion Phoebe or "Digger" (Chloe Grace Moretz), with 22 pages in response to the question "What are your best and worst qualities?" I don't know why that was particular germane to the rest of the film, but we continue as they travel to their favorite hotspot in Washington DC. There, Addison and Digger met their friend, Kevin Broadus (Jared Kemp). When they leave, however, someone walks into the coffee shop, and kills Kevin. Addison hears a brief remark about this being gang-related, and, deciding that nobody is paying attention to this story because of this (despite the extensive coverage on the news and the police investigation, and the fact that a detective later tells him they don't know if it is gang related, and apparently haven't heard testimony from any of his other friends), decides to investigates his death. This  investigation ... doesn't actually go very far, but it apparently brings him and Digger into the brink of danger. Apparently.  (the danger is not that apparent)


     This film is.... in focus. You can tell what is happening. Chloe Moretz and David Straithairn (who plays Addison's dad) are decent in their performances. It was coherent in terms of narrative and cinematography. I don't really know what else is okay.

     Where do I start? Well, you could tell by my larger than normal snark in the synopsis that the plot isn't that good, primarily relying on "show, don't tell", (because based only on what they show, the plot would not be able to happen otherwise), and relies on contrives and the main character not thinking for 5 minutes. It could've worked if (Spoiler) He decided that it was not his place to investigate, and try to handle the grief in a way that he could understand that some things he can't control, like was implied with how he deals with his deceased mother. But no, he manages to solve it (accidentally, because, once again, he doesn't think), and it turns out well for him.  Oh, yeah, and that U. Chicago application is completely tangential to the proceedings. I heard that was the center of the entire book. I feel like it should've been something that the events of the film could've built up to.(Spoilers) Ansel Elgort decides to piss away the goodwill he received for Baby Driver by giving a non-committed performance full of "dull surprise" expressions. He and Chloe Moretz have no chemistry, and their attempts at romance are painful to watch. It's only an hour and 25 minutes, but it feels so much longer, with the tedium of him tepidly investigating and constantly (and rightly) being told not to. Simultaneously, because of the latter, it feels like nothing really happens until the final act. Nothing was accomplished by Addison, except when he stumbles on it. There are shots in the film that, in theory, should work, but are so mangled, they become unintentionally funny. The director is competent, having helmed a pretty good retelling of the making of Psycho in 2012's Hitchcock , but here, when it's not interesting shots done wrong, it's mostly generic looking and feeling.  As for the white savior narrative, yeah, while some of those complaints are exaggerated (one of them from the The Mary Sue claimed that Addison gave Kevin a book in the trailer because that is what a white person does to uplift a black person in a white man's burden narrative. In the actual film, they're exchanging books, with Addison giving Kevin the Aeneid, and Kevin giving Addison a James Baldwin book), but their basic complaint is true. Kevin is a driving force for Addison, less in the sense of a friend trying to honor a friend, as the movie seems to think, but as a way for Addison to self-actualize through the experience. This line from the Mary Sue article I linked is particularly prescient: "That friend is played by Jared Kemp, who is billed so low on IMDB it’s hard to imagine he’s more than a featured extra in his own story." That is very, very true. The character of Kevin Broadus appears in the film just as much as he does in the trailer, despite his centrality to the plot. We don't see or know much about him from observation, except how Addison is affected by his death, and his own friendship. Once again, it is less about the black person killed than how his white friend was affected by it. It leads to a larger problem with the film. None of the characters are well-developed. That whole "show, don't tell" problem is very apparent, where we are told things about characters, instead of them being shown. As a result, the events hold little interest, because these character don't resonate, and what happens to them doesn't really have any impact on the viewer.

      Based on the fact it was released on video on-demand before theaters, I was expecting some sort of complete disaster. A fascinatingly bad film with A-list talent (the way Suburbicon was a couple months ago) that Sony clearly thought a dud, and wanted some money back on. This is not it. Oh, it's certainly a dud, but it's not interestingly bad. It's just boring and awful, to the effect of a really bad TV movie. I certainly cannot think of any reason to see this, especially in the theater. If you're still interested, it's still available on Google services, so just watch it there. But don't watch it. This was fun, though. Exposing an obscure film , despite finding it terrible.

Current Film Review: Justice League

    You know, I had higher expectations for this film. Wonder Woman was good, and Joss Whedon was brought in help with the reshoots, following an incredibly tragic death in director Zac Synder's family. Whilst the trailers weren't impressive, it didn't seem like the disasters that Man of Steel, Batman V. Superman, and Suicide Squad turned out to be. Maybe they were starting to get the idea. Maybe this would continue the streak Wonder Woman started. Maybe they could create a viable cinematic universe. After seeing the film.... Let's get this over with.

       Based on the DC team created by Gardner Fox, we start immediately after the events of BvS. While the world is in shock following Superman's (Henry Cavill) death, Batman (Ben Affleck) is seeing strange creature appear across the world, and trying to assemble a league of heroes with Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) to try to protect the Earth from impending threats. This includes Arthur Curry, alias Aquaman (Jason Mamoa); Barry Allen, alias Flash (Ezra Miller); and Vic Stone, alias Cyborg (Ray Fisher).  Sure enough, Steppenwolf (Ciarán Hinds), a member of the New Gods (Jack Kirby's group of powerful beings in the DC universe) and commander from Apokolips (in the comics, the realm dominated by Darkseid), comes to Earth to gain the three Motherboxes, which he had previously fought a war on Earth with the power, only for an allaince of humans, Amazons, Atlantians, Green Lanterns, what have you, and which have reactivated with Superman's death. Now, Batman and Wonder Woman must assemble the League and stop Steppenwolf from gaining the three Motherboxes. They may even get some help from beyond the gra.... Okay why do I have to treat that like it's a spoiler. It was obvious this was going to happen, but...

        Good things: Ben Affleck and Gal Gadot (as they were in the last film), Ray Fisher as Cyborg, Ezra Miller (in parts) as the Flash, decent McGuffin, creative creature design, some decent fight scenes, some good jokes (likely the product of Whedon), a decent enough homage to a classic comic in one of the, oh yeah, there are two after-credit scenes for this. Some nice nods to the DCU.

       The main problems with this film are the same problems with Batman v. Superman and Suicide Squad. Like BvS, it is boring, a slog that drags on too long with its portentous alleged grandiosity. Despite the use of iconic characters and settings from a shared universe with large history, it just doesn't click on screen, with its action scenes simply not illiciting excitement and its character moments either clearly cut down, or pretentious. The overuse of CGI doesn't help in the former's case. It resembles a DC video game at times. Not even a modern one. One that might have been on the Playstation 2. Which brings me to the Suicide Squad comparison, which involves very heavy studio interference. It is abundantly clear this was hacked up by the studio after Whedon finished the reshoots and editing. Like Suicide Squad, this makes the film very haphazard, going from a sequel very much fitting in the universe of the previous films, to an Avengers-style character romp. It's jarring, and the retouched shots, like the bad CGI, create a very ugly looking film. It looks low budget, which is not a criticism that should not be for a film that cost $300 million to make.

       This was not as bad as Batman v. Superman or Suicide Squad. That's not an endorsement, given that this was merely bad, as opposed to inconceivably awful. If you, for whatever reason, liked the other DCEU films, you might like this. If you didn't, but Wonder Woman got your hopes up, well, it turned out how you expected. I really don't have much else to say. This was like cold, stale oatmeal. It was bad in a generic, forgettable fashion.

     I am going to do a double feature, because I want to share with you something that I had found. A film that has technically has been released for several weeks on the internet, but is only now getting reviews ahead of it's theatrical release. The November Criminals. Never heard of it? Well, let us take a look into it.

TV review: "Rick and Morty, Season 3" and "Stranger Things 2"

  Today, I'm going to do something a little different. I'm going to review a television series. Two in fact. A quick change of pace for the holiday season. This will also have a different structure than my other reviews, in that I'll do more of a stream of consciousness, as if I were talking off the top of my head. If it comes off disjointed, I apologize. Rest assured, my normal reviews will return very soon, but for now, let's dive into Rick and Morty, season 3, and Stranger Things 2. Oh, yeah, obviously, this will contain spoilers for both shows. Non-spoiler version, I did like both of these seasons, and I would recommend seeking them out (though if you haven't seen the shows, watch the previous seasons to catch up).

 Rick and Morty, Season 3

After the whole Szechuan Sauce debacle, I decided to wait a bit to this. Just let the dust settle. With that out of the way, Season 3 started out well, went down hill, had a really good middle part, and ended on a low note. I'm guessing a lot of "Top 10 Worst Rick and Morty episodes" lists will contain a lot of season 3 episodes, because of the three seasons thus far, this has some of the least good episodes. However, there are big highlights from this season, which save it from being a complete disappointment. My favorite episode of the season, as with others, is the "Ricklantis Mixup", whose anthology structure and world-building were a good change of pace, and an interesting look at things to come with it's ending. It provided good self-contained stories as well. My second favorite was probably "Rest and Ricklaxation", simply because it was very funny and had something substantive about Rick's character, which was not revealed earlier. Third is the "Whirly Dirly Conspiracy", another funny one with an inventive setting and a good B-Plot. The worst episode is "Vindicators 3: The Return of Worldender", simply because it was not funny, and it wasn't even a good superhero spoof (it relied more on expressing the most cliched, most common complaints about the genre through Rick, instead of actually parodying it.) I was disappointed that more stuff from the actual comic books (which has material for parody in abundance) wasn't used, instead, once again, focusing on cliched (and sometimes completely inaccurate) complaints about the films. The second worst is "Rickchurian Candidate", which was completely disappointing as an finale, considering it feels, aside from Beth and Jerry getting back together and the entire family turning against Rick, like nothing was really accomplished. No story was really wrapped up, aside from the arc of Rick gradually destroying his family finally coming back to haunt him. Third is probably "The ABC's of Beth", which wasn't funny, and had a very forced ending, instead of one that naturally came from Beth's characterization and the events of the episode.

Whenever I talk about this season, I usually compare it  to the later seasons of Community, another Dan Harmon show. The problems with Community as it went on are, well there are two major problems. Inconsistent character development and an increased reliance on being subversive for the sake of being subversive (instead of it  serving a purpose), and an overt insular self-referential nature. Neither of these are huge problems with this season, but they are elements one can discern. Much is made of Rick being "too powerful" and almost never suffering consequences. I think those criticisms miss the point. He is god-like. That's the point. He is less a man, and more a force of nature. The real after-effects come to the people around him. Morty is gradually desensitized to the horrors he is regularly exposed to, and is disillusioned by his adventures. Summer is becoming more and more cold and methodical in her demeanor, much like Rick is. And of course, he purposefully broke up Beth and Jerry's marriage. However, while these characterizations hold for most of the season,there are moment where they more resemble their season 1 and 2 counterparts (most notably, Summer in "The Whirly-Dirly Conspiracy"). Beth and Jerry suddenly having a moment, and getting back together feels forced, and unsupported by the rest of the season. It feels inconsistent, however, most with Rick. While his power is part of the point of his character, I feel like the season opener was hinting that Rick was going to be a darker, more sinister character, and while that is hinted at a few times, he really is no more bad than he was in the past seasons. This season didn't really have much self-reference (and those moments worked, like in "Ricklantis"). However, that smug "subversiveness" is very present in this season. The show is good at subverting traditional sci-fi plots, that's the whole point of show. However, the subversion of "this seems important, but it's actually pointless", seems like Harmon is trolling the audience. The problem with this is that, while the show aspires to have a strong narrative undercurrent, continuing subverting it or not following up on characterization stalls that narrative and makes the viewer feel like nothing was accomplished.

Am I excited for the fourth season? Yes, I am. I didn't hate this seasons, but I'm worried the show is going into the same rot that affected Community. Granted, it's animated and science fiction, so if it goes off-the-wall, it's fine, but the same sort of insularity and increased focus on fan-pleasing, than on actually moving the narrative forward with these characters. Hopefully, I'm wrong, and am able to actually follow this to the end (instead of give up as I did with Community.

Stranger Things 2

This was pretty good, though not as good as the first season. I honestly thought I'd have more to say, but that's really the gist. Favorite episodes feels pointless here, because this is more of a serialized TV show with an ongoing plot, so any individual episode works mostly on how it fits into that narrative. Once again, it manages to supplement nostalgia for 80's horror and science fiction with a legitimately engaging narrative and likeable characters. I enjoyed this season's new addition of Max and her budding romance with Lucas. Oh, yeah, with romance, I disliked the love triangle (sort of) between Nancy, Jonathan, and Steve. It felt like a repudiation of what made their arc in the first season work, which rejected the traditional way these stories end.

I liked that there were more 80's references in this. The first season, the only one I could think of was The Thing, but they had more references, and it feels more in setting, with the arcades, and the new movies from '84 like Ghostbusters. Normally references are grating for me (*Cough* Ernest Cline), but it works here as setting dressing. It also helps the plot doesn't rely solely on references, but uses them as foundations for a larger villain. Oh, yeah, I really enjoyed the twist where it turned out the creature was so massive, that it is essentially everything that has been seen (the cave, the little creatures, the cells inside Will).

On the controversial episode 7, I enjoyed it. It may not have had anything to do with the rest of the story, but it was a nice sojourn towards a more urban setting, and it provided a little more motivation of Eleven to come back. It seems like a backdoor pilot, for a later arc. And I did enjoy these characters, and do want to see more of them when the time comes.

Not much else to say. I enjoyed this, and if you enjoyed season 1, you'll definitely like this.

----------------------

So, that was fun. If a new season of a show I've following comes out (I don't really watch that many shows), I might do this again. For now, I will be reviewing Justice League in the coming week.

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- In The Mouth of Madness

       The script for In the Mouth of Madness was originally written by Michael De Luca, then Vice President of Creative Development at New Line Cinema in the mid-1980's. One of the first directors he offered it to was John Carpenter... who rejected it, feeling the script needed more work. After Tony Randel (Hellbound: Hellraiser II, Fist of the North Star) and Mary Lambert (Pet Sematary) were briefly attached to the project, Carpenter finally came on board in 1992 after reading an improved version of the script, after finishing his work on the anthology film Body Bags. Carpenter (as he often does) did an uncredited rewrite of the script, along with novelist Evgenia Citkowitz. Carpenter felt he could use the film both as his way of exploring Lovecraftian themes and explore the hysteria that surrounded horror media(his included).Originally having a budget of $15 million, it was reduced to $10 million, and finally $8 million. New Zealander actor Sam Neill, whom Carpenter had worked with in the comedy film Memoirs of an Invisible Man , was cast as the lead, which would prove to be a casting coup, giving he was also the lead in Stephen Spielberg's Jurassic Park, which had been recently released. (Charlton Heston was also given a minor role). It was filmed in Ontario between August and October 1993. It released to mixed reviews, and disappointing box office ($8.9 million, Carpenter's lowest until 2001's Ghosts of Mars). Still, in recent years, it has gotten a critical reappraisal. Carpenter himself has stated this was the third in his "Apocalypse Trilogy" (The Thing and Prince of Darkness being the other two.)

       The film opens with John Trent (Sam Neill) being committed to an asylum. While in his room, he has a vision of a visitor, whom he recognizes, and asks if this was the end. The visitor then shows him a stranger vision. Later, a psychologist, Dr. Wrenn (David Warner) visits Trent, and Trent is able to recount his tale. Trent was an insurance fraud investigator, known for his thorough work, who is hired by publisher Jackson Harglow (Charlton Heston) to find missing author Sutter Cane (Jürgen Prochnow), a popular horror novelist whose work even exceeds Stephen King, and whose newest novel, In the Mouth Of Madness, is to be released. Trent deduces from the covers of the books that he must be in New Hampshire, in a town called Hobb's Lane not on any map. Cane is sent to find him, accompanied by Cane's editor Linda Styles (Julie Carmen). They find that Cane's fiction may be more than fiction. Then again, they also find reality a bit flimsy as well...

     This was a perfect Lovecraftian film. Very much in his themes and style, while not being a direct adaptation of one of his works. At first, it may seem to slowly lose coherence, but it actually makes sense when thought of in a Lovecraftian sense. To the character of John Trent, who has a worldview informed by his own rationalization of people's behavior (as shown when he exposes a fraudulent claim early in the film), who finds that reality is more flimsy than he thinks, and that his rationalization of the world is insufficient to explain the events around him. Slowly, his mind is destroyed by the knowledge that the reality he had clung to was just a facade, a playground for beings beyond his comprehension to play around with, changing the details at any moment. Cane is their agent, and he can also shape this reality to fit whatever their needs are. Sam Neill is especially good in conveying this growing unease and insanity. I liked the subtle references to Lovecraft and other cult figures (Quatermass and Stephen King, among others). The effects are good, and there are some incredibly creepy and terrifying ones. These all help create the atmosphere of incomprehensibility, and the fear of it. The disturbing imagery showing what lies beneath our reality once we bother to look. There is no rationalization for any of these, no real hope. Just one reality, with unseen players behind it.

    That said, some of the disturbing imagery was unnecessary.  It feels like it's there merely for the effect, and not really to advance the theme. It always remains grounded to the film itself and its universe, but sometimes, it felt excessive. There is also a "Enter Sandman" riff at the beginning and end, which are odd, and not reflective of the soundtrack as a whole. Very 90's, I must say.

      This was the best Lovecraft adaptation that actually wasn't by Lovecraft. It captures the essence of his stories perfectly, and provides a visualization of what the horror Lovecraft wrote about could look like. It is also a smart, legitimately scary horror film in its own right. I highly recommend any Lovecraft fans or horror fans to seek this film out. I don't think you'll be disappointed.

   So ends this years Masterpiece of Horror Theatre. Thank you for reading all these, and next time, I will do something a little different, and do a review of two TV seasons that came out recently. I'll hopefully get those out soon. 

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Day of the Dead

       Romero intended this to be the Gone with the Wind of zombie films. However, he had to scrap his original script when the budget was cut from 7 million down to 3.5 million. Even then, it went through three more revisions before the eventual shooting script was produced. The film was shot in Florida and Pennsylvania, with the former providing all above-ground shots, and latter all underground scenes. Because of budget, the cast and crew slept in the Pennsylvania mine it was shot in to avoid the cost of travel. Zombie extras were recruited from Pittsburgh natives, who got a copy of a newspaper from the film, $1, and a hat saying "I was a Zombie in Day of the Dead". Despite the production troubles, Romero stated this was his favorite of the Dead series. Despite relatively positive reviews, and good box office, this was the last time Romero worked with producer Richard Rubinstein as a director, and he later tried his hand at a studio picture with Monkey Shines, which I covered last time.

       The film is set (as Dawn of the Dead was) in the middle of a zombie apocalypse, and a military/research base is attempting to find how to stop the pandemic, by capturing zombies and researching them. Dr. Sarah Bowman (Lori Cardille) is part of a group of researchers at the base . Her associates include radio operator Bill McDermott (Jarlath Convoy), helicopter pilot John (Terry Anderson), fellow researchers Dr. Logan (Richard Liberty), and Dr. Ted (John Amplas, whose appearance here kind of makes this retrospective go full circle). They are guarded by a small contingency of soldiers, led by Major Cooper, and including Pvt. Steel(Gary Howard Klar) and  Pvt. Miguel Salazar (Anthony Dileo, Jr.), whom Lori has a relationship with . Major Cooper is killed off-screen (hence, no actor plays him in the film), and replaced by Captain Rhodes (Joseph Pilato). Rhodes is very hostile to the scientists, whom he feels aren't worth protecting as the zombie threat rises, and their research shows little. Dr. Logan, in turn, shows them a zombie he has been training named Bud (Sherman Howard), who is showing slow sentience. However, during one corraling of the zombie, Miguel is injured, and as Lori and Bill try to find morphine, they find that Dr. Logan has been doing shady things to get his results, which will only increase the tension between the soldiers and scientists.

     This isn't really a message film, in the way Night and Dawn were. It's not really satirizing or commenting on any phenomenon. (in a way, Dawn was a commentary on 80's consumerism, despite it being made in 1978). This is just a romp with zombies, and on that ground, it succeeds. This goes back to the traditional Dead formula of "characters trapped in location dealing with zombie hordes", which has proven effective in exploring tension. In this case, we see the characters, how they interact, and how those interactions pay off. Each character is identifiable, and there is moral grayness. While the military men are rough and war-like, the lead researcher Dr. Logan is doing underhanded things as well. The Savini effects, as with the other films, are very gory, very graphic, and incredibly good, and this film is possibly the best of those I've seen this month. I did like the little sub-plot with Bud, and the remnants of his intelligence. The climax is the best part, with a lot of action, and a lot of payoff.

    There are two dream sequences, which I've grown to loathe. It's only the two, so it's not like all the scares are those, but it is distracting. I  also feel the movie should've been longer. It feels short at only 100 minutes, and I feel more could've been done. The synopsis I provide is actually the first hour and 10 minutes of this film. It feels like there was meant to be more, but it was lost in the revisions. What is left isn't bad, but more needed to be there.

   Dawn was the better film, but this was still a solid entry, especially with its more action oriented approach. It also has enough zombies to satisfy. This would be fun romp to watch in a zombie marathon or if you want a good zombie film. It is also a great example of a Dead film, though I would watch Night and Dawn before this.

  (Note: realized I forgot to put this when first published)
    So ends our retrospective on the career of George A. Romero. He was a giant in the genre, and one of its most influential creators. He effectively created the modern zombie and he was able to use the creatures to explore various issues. However, as shown with these films, even without the zombies, he was still an effective horror director, knowing how to use characters to build the horror, and explore the dark issues that lies within all of us. He knew that horror was the best tool of social self-examination. His presence will be sorely missed. RIP.

We end this year's Masterpiece with an entry from John Carpenter, In the Mouth of Madness. 

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Monkey Shines

     Not much history on this film I could find. Monkey Shines was a 1983 novel by British author and entrepreneur Michael Stewart. It was apparently one of those paperback animal thriller fiction novels, as far as I can tell. Orion Pictures bought the rights to the film. George Romero, dealing with various difficulties and compromises during the production of Day of the Dead, decided to make this his first studio picture, while still having his trademarks (filmed in Pittsburgh, for instance). However, this apparently turned out badly, as Orion would tack on both a happy and shocker ending against Romero's wishes. After this bombed ($5.4 million on a 7 million budget), he returned to independent filmmaking. That's basically all I could find.

       Allan Mann (Jason Beghe) is a college athlete, who, while jogging one day, is hit by a truck. While he survives the accident, the surgery has rendered him paralyzed. Stuck in a wheelchair, he grows increasingly despondent, affecting his relationship with his mother Dorothy (Joyce Van Patten), girlfriend Linda (Janine Turner), and hospital appointed nurse Maryanne (Christine Forrest). Seeing his pain, his friend Geoffrey (John Pankow), a research assistant specializing in injecting human brain samples into monkeys, gives him one of his helper monkeys Ella (Boo, a male capuchin monkey) to make his life easier. Melanie (Kate McNeil), a helper monkey specialist, helps him, and the two gradually grow closer. However, he and Ella have a much stronger bond, and it is making him a little more aggressive. But is it him, or could it have something to do with Ella....

      This was an interesting premise for a film. I admit, "Helper Monkey" is not something I was aware of, but they do exist, and are apparently very helpful. (A disclaimer in front of the film explains this). I could see how, given Monkeys have opposable thumbs.  They make good use out of the abilities of the monkey in the film, and it is creative. I admit, I was not expecting a horror film about a "helper monkey.", but it turned out well. I was invested in the film, its character (who are all very well-drawn), and the story it was telling. I also liked that the main character gained self-awareness early on, and is actively trying to combat the monkey, while still confined. It also was scary in parts.

     I'm going to sound like a hipster, but I felt the larger, glossier studio cinematography of the film makes the action a bit silly. This sort of action would work better in a lower budget picture, like Romero's earlier work, but it comes off ridiculous and over the top here. Especially the end, which I won't spoil, but if I told you what happened, you might not believe me. It also feels like a lot could've been cut out (there's a brief odd subplot about Geoffrey and his boss about the ethics of animal testing, which adds nothing to the film, and feels like it's there only to have political themes.) On that point, I felt more could've been done with how Allan's life was changed by his paralysis. It is addressed, but I felt it could've been explored in greater detail.

    I liked this fine, but as you could tell, I had trouble talking about this. There really isn't much to say here. It's a film about a killer Capuchin monkey, based on what I think is an airport "animal horror" paperback. I can't really think of anything else to say. If you want a mildly entertaining film to watch, or are interested in the premise of a helper monkey going bananas (pun intended), this should satisfy you. If you want a terrifying experience, watch one of Romero's earlier films, or watch  Rise of the Planet of the Apes, which has a similar idea now that I think about it.

     Next week, we finish the Romero retrospective with Day of the Dead. 

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Creepshow

      From 1944 to 1955, EC was the biggest name in comics. Founded as an educational comic company by comic book pioneer and DC co-founder Maxwell Gaines, the company found its calling when Gaines' son Bill turned it into a genre powerhouse The biggest of its titles were his horror and crime comics, most famously Tales from the Crypt, The Vault of Horror, The Haunt of Fear, and CrimeSuspence Stories. Despite the overwhelming popularity of these books (and others like Weird Science), their brutal depiction of crime and violence caused controversy, and eventually, activists like Dr. Fredric Wertham even got the Senate Subcommittee on Crime involved. The Comics Code Authority was formed in the aftermath, with rules cartered specifically to prevent EC from publishing their most famous books. They were left with their humor comic, Tales to Drive You MAD, which is still around today, though you may know it by the name it took after becoming a magazine in 1955: Mad Magazine.  Despite being so short-lived, EC proved to have staying power in popular culture. You may have recognized some of the titles I mentioned earlier from movies and TV shows, and those were adapted from or influenced by EC. Similarly, an entire generation of children grew up with the books, including artists inspired by their style. Two of those were George Romero and Stephen King. Friends for a while (King making a cameo in Romero's 1981 film Knightriders), they decided to use their shared affection for old EC horror books to make a film. King  already had two major film adaptations of his wrk at that point (Brian De Palma's Carrie and Stanley Kubrick's The Shining), but this was the first screenplay he wrote, adapting two of his stories ("Weeds" and "The Crate"), and wrote original material for the film. Veteran EC artist Jack Kamen did the in-film comic artwork (which delighted me when I found out, because I noted that inbetween scenes with the comic and some filmed scenes resembled his art style most of the EC artists I have knowledge of), as well as the cover of the Creepshow tie-in comic (though Swamp Thing co-creator Bernie Wrightson did the art for the book itself). The film was shot in an empty all-girls school near Pittsburgh. It made $21 million on a $8 million, and has a cult following to this, spawning two sequels.

      The film is an anthology, exploring different stories with different casts. The framing device has Billy (Joe King, son of Stephen and later known as author Joe Hill) being chastised by his father Stan (Tom Adkins, playing every father from every 80's metal video) for reading the horror comic Creepshow. After Stan throws the book away, Billy fantasizes of the undead host of the book (apparently named "The Creep") coming to his window, and he starts the film off by retrieving the comic from the trash, and giving us the tales within it. The first story, "Father's Day", sees a wealthy Grantham family, including Sylvia (Carrie Nye), Richard (Warner Shook), Cass (Elizabeth Regan), and Cass' husband Hank Blaine (Ed Harris) waiting for their aunt Bedelia (Viveca Lindfors) to arrive. Several years earlier, Bedelia killed her father Nathan (Jon Lormer) on Father's Day in the culmination of years of anger at him for his demanding and demeaning nature. Thus, every Father's day, Bedelia stops at his grave to continue her anger. However, this Father's Day, Nathan might have his cake (and eat it too. I made that joke a lot during this segment.). The next segment is "The Lonesome Death of Jody Verrill", which sees the title character (Stephen King. Yep, that one), an incompetent farmer, discovering a meteor. While trying to keep it to make money, it breaks, and starts to spread plant-like aliens around. Including on Verill himself. "Something to Tide You Over" sees wealthy Richard (Leslie Nielsen) take vengeance on his cheating wife Becky (Gaylen Ross) and her lover Harry (Ted Danson), by burying them on the beach, and having the high tide drown them. However, he finds that some people are just durable. "The Crate" has a college custodian (Don Keefer) find a crate with the label "Arctic Expedition, 1834". He calls upon Professor Stanley (Fritz Weaver) to see and open the crate. What they find is quite hungry. Finally, in "They're Creeping Up on You," which sees ruthless businessman Upson Pratt (EG Marshall) trying to maintain a sterile apartment, whilst cockroaches seem to keep popping. As he makes cutthroat deals, the cockroaches keep coming. And coming. And Coming.

    I loved the style of this film. The animated scene transitions  make you feel like you're reading an old Comic book, ads and all, and give you a sense on how the film feels. The film is also shot to emulate a comic book panel. Not just shots that show comic panels directly, but the way the film is lit and shot resembles the way old comic books would emphasize actions where reality couldn't. I think my complete enjoyment of this film can from that style, how it so captured the feeling of reading old EC books (I myself own a collection of EC Weird Science issues), and how much fun it could inspire. I love superheroes movies, but very rarely do they invoke the spirit of the comics they originated from the way this film does for horror comics. Similarity, it is legitimately terrifying. Each segment has a terrifying moment, one which jumped me out of my seat. The more comic book inspired look of the film actually made some scenes scarier than they would've been. The last segment, especially if you hate cockroaches, like I do, will haunt you. The effects helps, with surprisingly realistic resurrected dead (which still look very much like ones from old horror comics), and some good creature designs. The acting all around is good, with Stephen King of all people giving a strong comic performance. Each segment works as it's own story, and each hold up.

     I felt the segments should've been of roughly same length. Like I said, none of them are bad, but some feel longer than they should be. Those segments did have a payoff, but it took a while, and some scenes could've been cut. Also, to keep with the atmosphere, I felt the horror host ought to have been narrating film, instead of a background figure flipping the pages, using some sort of snearky dialogue. It's fine as is, but having an active horror host would've helped.

    I honestly loved this film. It is a joyride of fear and euphoria, simultaneously fun and terrifying. This is a great homage to EC Comics and their output, but holds up on its own as an individual horror film. I highly recommend this for horror fans as a fun nighttime romp, or for a brief Halloween scare.

Next film is Monkey Shine.  

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Martin

   In honor of the late George A. Romero, I'm going to review four of his films for the next few entries. However, except for the final one, I'm going to focus on some of his non-Zombie film, to show some underappreciated parts of his filmography. We start with his own favorite of the films he made, Martin.     

    After Night of the Living Dead, George A. Romero had trouble following up on its success. He had attempted a romantic comedy immediately after, There Will Always Be Vanilla (which Romero considered his worst, and is not well-regarded today) in 1971. Later, in 1973, he returned to horror with Season of the Witch (not to be confused with the Halloween sequel), which is also not-well regarded, and science-fiction horror The Crazies, which has come to be seen as a cult classic, neither of which was successful. By 1977, he was in very serious debt. However, he refused to declare bankruptcy, because he didn't want to dishonor those who had stood by him. Impressed, friend and investor Richard Rubinstein joined forces to help Romero get out of  debt, forming the production company "Laurel Entertainment". This was their first effort in that company. Filmed, like his previous films, in the Pittsburgh area, it stars many associates of Romero in supporting roles, including his future wife Christine Forrest. The script changed from a literal vampire trying to survive the modern day to someone who may or may not be a vampire struggling with urges, after John Amplas was hired. Tom Savini, a friend of Romero, not only did the effects for this film, but also did the stunts and even plays a minor role in the film. This would start the very fruitful collaboration between the two over the years. Originally 2 hours and 45 minutes, it eventually cut down to an hour and 35 for wide release. The 165 minute cut has been lost to history. Moderately successful ($100,000 made on a $80,000 dollar budget), Romero would only get out of debt later on, when he returned to the zombie genre with Dawn of the Dead, with Rubinstein's help.

     The film opens with the title character (John Amplas) on a train, sneaking into a woman's room, and very viscerally attacking her when she emerges from her bathroom, injecting her with a strange substance. After a very graphic and very harrowing struggle between the woman and Martin, the substance is revealed to be a sedative, and she is knocked unconscious. Martin then uses a switchblade to cut her skin and suck her blood. He arrives in Pittsburgh to his granduncle Cuda (Lincoln Maazel), who is taking care of him after the death of his parents. However, Cuda himself believes that he is actually an 80-year old vampire, and tries to restrain him, using seemingly traditional methods. However, Martin dismisses these as mere fiction. Martin also meets his cousin Christina (Christine... Forrest), who is more sympathetic and concerned that Cuda is ignoring Martin's illness in favor of him being a literal vampire. As Martin works in Cuda's shop, he has various interactions with people in his new neighborhood, including Abbie Santini (Elyane Nadeau), whom he grows close to. However, even as he maintains a low-key persona, his urges continue to rise, and with those, fantasies that pop up, which warp his mind. Soon, those fantasies may consume him.

     The best film I can compare this to is a film I watched recently, Attack the Block, which actually came out in 2011 (and stars a pre-Star Wars John Boyega). Both films are low-budgets genre pieces, that are able to use great filmmaking techniques and effects to hid their low budget origins. This film is very rugged and grainy, but is able to make up for it, by utilizing not only good effects, but good editing, inserting sometimes gothic scenery into the proceedings to help create the feel of this character's mindset. The film can be seen as something of a retroactive deconstruction of the whole "loner is secretly a supernatural creature" trope seen in modern fiction like Twilight. Martin is very much how that character comes off in real life, and it is not pleasant at all. Romero spends a lot of time with Martin, showing his everyday life and how he interacts with the rest of the world, and he is seen as a low-key, shy sort of person. This only amplifies the horror of what he does, showing how he represses these feelings, and how horrific that release can be. He is not a sympathetic character at all, but Romero knows to show those scenes of him interacting in everyday life, in order to emphasize the horrific nature of his crimes and his deluded fantasies. It's all in the tagline on the film's poster "He Could Be the Boy Next Door". Despite being a horrible psychopath, he can show the fascade of normal. Martin is by no-means the only well-developed character. Each characters is very well-defined. Cuda in particular, may seem harsh in his treatment of Martin, but after seeing Martin's crimes, you can see that Cuda's fears are well-founded. Chrstina is the only really sympathetic character, but even she has some flaws down the road. The film has good effects (much like the last film I covered, which was also Tom Savini), and it makes good use of its setting. The sort of urban decay that is happening in the neighborhood is not emphasized, but you can see it all over, and it provides a interesting setting to contrast with the gothic nature of Martin's fantasies. Another deconstruction is the sort of religious resolution that was popular with films like The Exorcist. While the color portions aren't bad, the black-and-white portions were especially well-done, and I would like to see the extended version, which was entirely in black-and-white.

    I'll admit, some scenes in this were difficult to watch, because of their nature. I won't go into it, but there are very disturbing scenes in this, and I did feel uncomfortable watching it. It didn't offend me, because those scenes were obviously framed to be horrific and uncomfortable in the worst way, but it did make me feel quesy. This is just a warning to anyone who is interested: there are some scenes that are disturbing, and I would exercise caution while watching it. Otherwise, my main complaint would be length. It was cut down extensively, and many parts feel that way. There is a heavy narration element, which explains the character's feelings instead of showing them, and that sort of ruins the film. I feel the feelings he has or actions that happened were shown in the longer cut. The ending also feels a little abrupt, like there was meant to be more to it, but they just simply ended it there, with no reactions. Sometimes that works, but it also can feel curt and unneeded.

   Like I said, this film is disturbing in some scenes, and if you want to see it, my big warning is just exercise some caution and discretion while watching it, and know there are scenes you might want to skip over on whatever player you have it on. This film was not as good as Night of the Living Dead or Dawn of the Dead, but it is a solid late-70's horror film, with some excellent editing and narrative structure. It is grainy and b-movie like, but it uses that to create a truly chilling experience. If you liked the Living Dead, this could be a watch.Just, bear what I had to say in mind.

    Next time, we look at Romero and Stephen King's homage to EC horror comics, Creepshow. 

Masterpieces of Horror Theatre- Friday the 13th

        Sean S. Cunningham was a theater director, who went into film production in the late 60's. After directing and producing several low budget films, he hit gold when he produced The Last House on the Left in 1972, directed by a young discovery of his named Wes Craven. He went on to direct several other films through the 70's, all comedies, though none of them to success of Last House. Then, in 1978, a little film called Halloween came out. It became not only the 10th highest grossing film of that year, but the highest grossing independent film made up until that point. Cunningham wanted to seize on that success, by making his "own version", to put it charitably. Victor Miller, a playwright whom Cunningham had previously worked with one of those aforementioned comedies, a Bad News Bears rip-off called Here Come the Tigers , consciously made the decision to follow Halloween's example, churning out a script in two weeks. Originally named A Long Night at Camp Blood, Cunningham saw the title Friday the 13th as a more striking title, and, before the script was even finished, put an ad with that title, which did manage to get some of his old investors to cover the film's budget. (A reference to the date was later inserted at the request of Cunningham) Famed horror special effects maestro Tom Savini provided the effects for the film. With the exception of actors like Kevin Bacon (who had made his first appearance in 1978's Animal House) and veteran actress Betsy Palmer, the cast was mostly unknown.  It was filmed on an actual, functioning campground in New Jersey, Camp No-Be-Bo-Sco, which is still around today. Upon release, it was savaged by critics. Gene Siskel, critic for the Chicago Tribune and the other half of Siskel & Ebert, hated the film so much, he put the addresses of both Charles Bludhorn (owner of Paramount, the distributor of the film) and Betsy Palmer in his review for people to complain. (Amusingly, the latter address was apparently wrong). Though, this may have only boosted sales, since it made nearly 110x it's original budget, and started off one of horror's most well-known franchises.

     The film opens in Camp Crystal Lake in 1958, with two camp counselors (Willie Adams, Debra S. Hayes) having some "alone time", being murdered by an unseen assailant. Twenty years later, Steven Christy (Peter Brouwer) is attempting to reopen the camp, despite the rumors that it is haunted due to a number of strange occurrences happening at the camp over the years, including a young boy drowning in 1957. One of the counselors he brought in, Anne (Robbi Morgan) is undeterred by local warnings about the camp, but is killed on her way to the camp, once again by an unseen assailant. The assailant then observes as the other counselors. We watch as Alice (Adrienne King), Bill (Harry Crosby), Jack (Kevin Bacon), Marcie (Jeannine Taylor), Brenda (Laurie Bartram), and Ned (Mark Nelson), settle in for some down time before the children arrive. However, they are warned by Ralph (Walt Gorney), that the campgrounds are haunted, and indeed, they are soon targeted for the next curse...

     The effects for this film are great. As mentioned, Tom Savini, who was behind the make-up for many of George Romero's films, did the effects here, and they are very effective. It looks realistic, at least to me, and it helps increase the terror of those scenes. There are a number of good scares in this, and even some decent jumpscares. I'm going to spoil the ending for this, because I need to talk about this. However, given that my previous attempts at color-coding haven't gone over well, what I'll do is add two large bold Spoiler tags in front and at the end to indicate where a spoiler begins and ends. Ready? (Spoiler) Jason is not the killer in this movie. I know, I didn't even know this until several months ago. He's mentioned, and his drowning drives the real villain of this film, Pamela Voorhees (Betsy Palmer). Palmer only took the role for money, deriding the script, but on screen, she actually is an intimidating presence, and she is legitimately menacing. Her warped mindset (where Jason seems to talk to her mentally) is incredibly creepy in and of itself. Not to say Jason doesn't appear at all. In fact, one of those jumpscares I mentioned is him jumping out of the lake at the very end to attack Alice, the last survivor. (Spoiler). Finally, the score is good, especially when scenes need to be spruced by a little terror.

     Remember in the intro, when I said the filmmakers purposely ripped off Halloween. Yeah, it's obvious watching this. It rips off Halloween in so many places. The most notable is the fact the camera serves as the killer's eyes, which is cool when it's used sparingly, like in  Halloween, but they use so many times here that the effect wears off, and it becomes dull. In fact, the movie takes the wrong elements of Halloween to rip off. It takes mostly superficial elements, like some of the kills and the camera shots, but not the way Halloween built up both Michael Myers and the tension that he evoked. This film has no real build-up for its villain and tension in any of scenes, which leads to my second problem. You notice how the synopsis of this was actually short and light on content. Aside from stuff that would spoil the film, there really isn't that much plot. It is mostly aimless and tedious, and most of it isn't particularly scary. I would've been fine that it had ripped off Halloween, had it been consistently scary or had a more condensed plot, such that the scares would have impact. As is, it just sort of rambles, until the third act.

     I wasn't terribly fond of this. I didn't hate it, because it had technical chops and the acting was decent. However, it felt like very much like the knock-off of Halloween that it was intended as. Still, if you liked the technical aspects of horror films, this is a very good example, or if you just want a quick watch for Halloween. I might do the sequel next year, see if they improved. So, yeah, happy Friday the 13th, everyone.

    Next, we begin the retrospective of the late George A. Romero with Martin, his personal favorite of his films.

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Texas Chainsaw Massacre II

     At the end of his deal with Cannon, Tobe Hopper decided to finally make a sequel to the film that had put him on the map. He and Chainsaw co-writer Kim Henkel had considered a sequel in 1980, which would feature an entire town of cannibals. However, this never came into fruition, but Hopper apparently kept the idea in mind. However, ultimately, Cannon rejected this, and had Hopper's friend, actor and screenwriter LM Kit Carson (co-writer of 1984 cult hit Paris, Texas) to create a new screenplay with Hopper. Originally only a producer and co-writer, Hopper took the director's chair after they failed to find a sufficient director. Hopper decided to take a different direction with the sequel. He had noted that the sheer intensity of the first one was enough to distract most from the more satirical elements that were present. So, he and Carson wrote a more comedic spin on the material. When they wrapped up, Cannon, hoping for an intense horror film like the first one, were disappointed by the more comedic route they actually took. Dennis Hopper would call the worst film he was ever in (note this was 7 years before Super Mario Bros., so...) While receiving mixed review, it was a relative box office success ($8 million on a $4.5 million budget), and has become a minor cult hit. (By the way, I'm going to spoil the hell out of the first film, because this one wouldn't make sense, so go watch the first one, or read a synopsis of its events, before reading the synopsis here).

     14 years after the events of the first film (which would actually place this in 1987, which is odd, considering this is a film from 1986), two teenagers,Buzz (Barry Kinyon) and Rick (Chris Douridas) are driving down a highway, prank-calling a rock station hosted by Vanita "Stretch" Brock (Caroline Williams), when they are very suddenly attacked and killed by none other than Leatherface (Bill Johnson). Police Lieutenant Boude "Lefty" Enright (Dennis Hopper), the uncle to Sally and Franklin Hardesty from the first film, investigates the murders, having become obsessed with the chainsaw murders, ever since Franklin was killed and Sally mentally scarred. Stretch finds Lefty, and gives him a tape of their call, which has the murder on it. After deliberating, Lefty decides to accept her offer to have it air on the station. Sure enough, the Sawyer patriarch, Drayton (Jim Siedow, the only actor to reprise his role from the first one), now a semi-popular chili chef (and yes, the implication is very clear there) in the Dallas area, hears it. That night, when Stretch is about to leave, she finds Crop-Top (Bill Moseley), a strange pale fellow who rambles a bit, before Leatherface comes out and attacks Stretch. Her producer LG (Lou Perryman) is brutally beaten by Crop-Top. Leatherface eventually sees Stretch up close, and falls in love. She escapes, but finds herself going down the rabbit hole (literally). Now, her and Lefty must combat the grotesque nightmare situation they've found themselves in, and defeat the Sawyer family.

     Bill Johnson was a good Leatherface. In fact, Leatherface is the best thing about this film. He manages to capture the sheer terror that his costume evokes, and also his child-like nature, in the same exact way that Gunnar Hansen did. This provides both good scares and the occasional morbid laugh. For what he said about the film, Dennis Hopper does seem to be having some fun, hamming it up and wielding a chainsaw all over the place. The production design is especially good, utilizing the higher budget this had to create the Sawyer's warped shrine to Americana.  The best moments come , surprisingly, when it does invoke the good parts of the original. It has a new spin on it, a comedic look.

    I understood what Hopper meant. The intensity of the first film masked the parts which were more black comedy in nature. However, the humor I got from the first was the dysfunctional family of cannibals and how they seemed to be more a bickering sitcom family than a menace, which only underscores the horror and themes of the originall. While the film does try to use that as the basis of some jokes, it comes off more over-the-top than intended, and it feels disconnected from the universe of the first film. I wouldn't mind this, if it were funny. I didn't think it was that funny. There was one or two good jokes, but it fell flat, as did the horror part, which lies solely with Leatherface. Crop-Top was especially annoying. He is meant to be a riff on the Hitchhiker (and in fact, carries the corpse of that character), but is less disturbing and more obnoxious. The biggest problem with this film isn't even the horror-comedy. It's that its bad scenes go way beyond what they should be. I was complaining about editing in the last two films, but this needed some more editing. The film feels very long, despite its 100 minute runtime, and I wouldn't have a problem with the extended scenes if they weren't so awkward and tedious. Finally, it feels very...wider than the first. Unlike the dispairing setting of the first one, this feels less isolated and thus less suspenseful than the first.

    I didn't like this. It wasn't very good, and I do agree with some critic this time around. It just failed as a horror-comedy. However, apparently, people have come up to defend this, calling upon its commentary on 80's consumerism (which is present, but it's not They Live, so watch that). Still, if you enjoyed the first one, you may like this one, depending on if you saw the more comic strokes of it. If you've never seen the first one, this doesn't necessarily require it, but it helps.

    So ends our retrospective of Tobe Hopper. Throughout each of these films, Hopper always infused them with a frantic energy. An energy which gives the viewers intense feelings, whether fear, excitement, humor, and for better or worse, makes them shudder or think or clap. This adrenaline defines these works, and helped create (even in this last one) memorable experiences. Whether in the Texas backwoods or at the heart of Halley's Comet, Hopper knew how to channel weirdness and terror with this energy, but infuse it with depth. These were some of the most intense films I've seen for these reviews. The horror genre was forever changed by Hopper, and his death is a very unfortunate loss. RIP.

   I intend to explore George A. Romero in a similar retrospective (looking at four of his films), but first, in honor of that particular day happening this year in October, we will look at the first Friday the 13th.  

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Invaders from Mars

      Invaders from Mars was an independent colored (as in, not black and white) science-fiction film released in 1953. It was inspired by a dream recounted to writer John Tucker Battle, by his wife. Directed by William Cameron Menzies (who coined the term "production designer", while working on the film Gone With the Wind), the film fits neatly into 50's science fiction filmmaking, an exploration of Martians invading the Earth using proxies and internal subversion, and one boy seeing it unfold before him. That sort of commentary on the 50's Red Scare would be explored further in films like Invasion of the Body Snatchers. The film today is largely regarded an underrated classic in the genre, with some filmmakers citing it as a childhood favorite. In 1978, the rights for the film were purchased by Wade Williams, millionaire science fiction fan. Eventually, he decided to commission a remake, with Cannon buying the rights for 50x the price that he had bought the rights for. Tobe Hopper, in the middle of his three picture deal with Cannon, signed on to direct, having been one of those influenced by the film in his youth. Dan O'Bannon and Don Jakoby once again wrote the screenplay. The effects for the film were done by special effects legends Stan Winston and John Dykstra. When producers Menachem Golan and Yoram Globus saw the finished product, they (after confusing it with their adaptation of King Solomon's Mines) hated the picture. Critics and audiences sympathized. It received overall negative reviews and $4.9 million on a $7 million budget. I did watch the 1953 film in preparation for this film, so I could how this version compares.

       One night, David Gardner (Hunter Carson) sees a UFO land in the small hill outside his house. His parents Ellen and George (Laraine Newman, Timothy Bottoms) are too late to it, but George promises to search the Hill when he wakes up. The next morning, David notices George acting strangely, and having a strange scar on the back of his neck. He also fails to come home the next night from his job as a military scientist. Ellen calls the Police Chief (Jimmy Hunt, who played the David role in the 1953 original) to investigate. When the Chief and another Policemen head over the hill, George suddenly reappears with neighbor Ed (William Frankfather). The policemen return, reporting nothing wrong, but acting strangely. Sure enough, the next day at school, he finds teacher Mrs. McKeltch (Louise Fletcher), with a bandage on her neck, eating a frog. Classmate Heather (Virginya Keehne) seems non-plussed at this. David confides in the school nurse, Linda (Karen Black, Carson's real-life mother). While initially not believing him, Linda becomes suspicious, and sees the bandage on McKeltch's back. She helps David escape. He accidentally sneaks into McKeltch's van, and she drives to an isolated location. David follows her into a cave, where he sees the truth: the UFO was indeed real, and the aliens are now kidnapping people and implanting them with strange devices to control them. While initially skeptical, Linda and David witness two investigators fall into the pit. Now, the two must find General Wilson (James Karen) at the base George worked at, and convince him to "send in the Marines", and stop this invasion from expanding.

    First, the aliens and their ship are incredibly well-done in terms of design and effects. Like I said in the introduction, the effects were done by two legends in the field (Stan Winston worked on works like Terminator, Jurassic Park, and Iron Man, John Dystra on Star Wars and Spider-Man), so the Martians are very distinct and memorable, as is their ship. The Master Intelligence in particular looks and moves very realistically (even if it looks like Krang). It's certainly a step up from the somewhat mundane Martians and the incredibly silly looking Intelligence from the original (the latter makes a brief cameo). The acting is good, if a bit over-the-top. Hunter Carson is good for what he has to do. Karen Black does well, if somewhat straining for horror (I get the feeling she was meant to be the mother, but, given that her son might be disturbed by the practical special effects, she decided to take the Nurse role, as she spends more of the film with him). The film improves some of the narrative from the original, which helps raise the tension and suspicion that David and the audience experiences. David also sees the Aliens earlier, which helps cement the conflict. Spoiler for both films, but when the Marines come in in this version, it feels less incongruous with the rest of the film. Finally, Hopper directs with a sort of innocent gloss that, even though it feels like a discount Spielberg riff, sort of feels appropriate for the film, capturing the terror this invokes for a child like David.

   Like Lifeforce, it definitely feels heavily edited. Certain scenes are definitely missing. While this works in some cases, like not seeing George investigate and fall into the pit, sometimes, it leaves out important details. The scene with the Marines is less incongruous than the 1953 film, but it still feels like a different film. There is also some scenes that feel entirely there for the weirdness factor than actually serve any purpose, like the frog-eating scene. A reviewer also pointed out to me that there seemed to be only two aliens made, so each shot only has one or two aliens.

   I  sort of see what Hopper was trying to do. He wanted to recreate in this remake, the feelings of terror he had watching the original. He wanted the children of that era to have that same experience watching this new version. He even said as much in an interview. It very much is a children's horror film, and I mean that in the best way. It is a movie that invokes the fear and powerlessness one feels as a child, much in the way the original did. It's a film that deserves at least one viewing. I think it deserves a little more attention than it gets. So, I'd recommend it. It wasn't particularly scary, but it definitely has some technical skill behind it.

    Next time, I end the Tobe Hopper retrospective full circle, with Texas Chainsaw Massacre II. 

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Lifeforce

    Before I talk about this film, I need to discuss the production company behind it, Cannon Films. Founded as a studio for low-budget independent films in 1967 (note that term carried a lot less prestige to it back then), it was bought by Israeli cousins Menachem Golan and Yeram Globus in 1979, who expanded the company's purview, churning low-budget blockbusters at a very fast rate during the 80's (some good, some successful, most neither). They are notable for the Death Wish series starring Charles Bronson,for introducing Chuck Norris as an action star, and for producing the fourth Superman film (the one with Nuclear Man). There is a fascinating documentary, Electric Boogalo (named for one of its most famous features, Breakin' II: Electric Boogalo), that details the insanity produced at Cannon, both on and off screen, that is, as of this writing, available on Netflix. In 1980, they managed to obtain the rights to Colin Wilson's 1976 novel The Space Vampires. The book was one of Wilson's riffs on Lovecraftian horror, one of a trilogy of sorts on the topic after Lovecraft's de facto estate executor August Derelith challenged Wilson (who had been critical of the late writer) to write a Lovecraftian novel. After years of trying to get the film made, they finally found a director when they signed Tobe Hopper on for three pictures in 1984. Hopper had recently come off  directing Poltergeist with producer Stephen Spielberg, but there was a massive controversy over who actually directed most of the film (most observers said that Spielberg had taken over directing duties from Hopper). Having little interest in Hollywood, Hopper signed on with Cannon, who, at least with big name directors, allowed them a degree of leeway with their works (hence, why John Cassavetes and Norman Mailer were among the directors who did films for them). Cannon had hoped this would be their breakout hit, pouring $25 million, higher than their usual. They also had the name changed to Lifeforce , as Space Vampires was too similar to the low-budget fare they normally produced. The screenplay was written by Dan O'Bannon, co-writer of Alien, and Don Jakoby who wrote... uh, Blue Thunder, the story to the Philadelphia Experiment, Death Wish 3, Double Team (that 90's movie with Dennis Rodman and Jean-Claude Van Damme.), and a bunch of other films you've never heard of. Though, theirs was the last of 8 drafts, and Hopper changed elements of it, including adding Halley's Comet (which was about to make its appearance on Earth in 1986), and moving the time setting accordingly (from the late 21st Century to the present). Hopper's 128 minute final cut was shopped down to 116 minutes for international audiences and 108 minutes for US audiences. The film opened to negative reviews and disappointing box office, but had a minor cult following, and a 67% on Rotten Tomatoes.

       The international shuttle Churchill (powered by a NERVA engine, which, as a space nerd, was a nice detail) is exploring Halley's Comet during its sojourn towards Earth, when it comes across a strange object that is 2 miles in length, that is orbiting the comet. The crew go inside the object, where they find thousands of strange bat-like creatures seemingly dead, before heading to a crystal room, where three humanoid creatures (Matilda May, Chris Jagger, and Bill Malin) are seeming in stasis. However, when they return, mission control is unable to make contact with the crew. The Columbia (which may or may not be the real life space shuttle) is sent to intercept the ship, and find the three humanoid creatures intact, but the crew seemingly dead. They are transferred to the European Space Research Center in London, where they are kept under the supervision of Dr. Hans Fallada (Frank Finlay) and Col. Colin Caine (Peter Firth). However, during the examination, the female humanoid comes to life, and escapes, sucking a strange substance (which Dr. Fallada calls the Lifeforce) from some of the guards. During the autopsy of one of those guards, he briefly comes back to life, and sucks the lifeforce from one of the morticians. When isolated, the guard disintegrates, showing that the vampires need a steady stream of this to stay alive. At the same time, the survivor of the Churchill mission , American Col. Tom Carlsen (Steve Railsback) lands in Texas in an escape pod, and is brought to London to brief on the situation. We learn that the crew gradually died as they transported the humanoids back, leaving him, and forcing him to flee. With the female vampire on the loose, Caine and Carlsen must find the vampire, and prevent them from killing more people.

     The first thing that popped out about this film was the score. Henry Mancini (famous for composing the score for Breakfast at Tiffany's and the theme to The Pink Panther) managed to create a score that evokes the mood for every scene. It helps set the mood for the film, and gives more emotion to it. Plus, it works in its own right. Look up the trailer for this film, and you get the idea for how intense this score is. The production design is also well-done. The alien ship around Halley is distinct and memorable in appearance. Some of the visuals and scares are very evocative. The plot has that sort of urgency that makes sci-fi B-Movies very enjoyable. Hopper said that he had wanted to make a "70 mm Hammer Film", and the largest influence I can see is the Quatermass series. As a fan of that series (Quatermass and the Pit is one of my favorite horror films), I appreciated how much this movie set out to emulate it, not only in the more methodical way the protagonists approach the problem, but the large scale disaster event which feels big and dangerous, even to the viewer at home. It also has the Gothic feel of many of Hammer's other films, which sets it apart from other science fiction horror films. It feels like a large-scale science fiction film, that just happens to have vampires in it.

     Like I said, this film was cut down, and it shows. There are plot holes on occasion, and it gets confusing, with characters occasionally appearing or disappearing from the film. The Lifeforce and space vampire also feel underexplained as concepts. There is enough there that the plot could be understood, but I felt a little more could've clarified certain scenes (including the ending). It also suffers from "middle syndrome", where it drags a little towards the middle of the film. Granted, not that much, but enough that it felt a little boring.

     Earlier this year, I watched a film called Life. It was a simple creature feature, but seemed to think itself as more thoughtful explorative film about extraterrestrial life. I felt then and now that film could've done what this film had done. This is a B-movie, and it knows that it's a B-Movie. Instead of running away from that, however, it embraces that label, and takes full advantage of its wonky premise. That's what makes it such an enjoyable film. It is campy enough that you are aware of its absurdity, but not so campy that you can't take it seriously. Thus, I highly recommend it to anyone wanting an enjoyable experience. It is also a legitimately good science fiction film, so if you like science fiction (and it's not really that scary, so you don't need to be a horror fan), this would be an interesting (if not good) watch.

   Next time, I continue with Hopper's three movie deal with Cannon with his remake of Invaders from Mars.

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.

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.