Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Darkman

      Director Sam Raimi had a pretty good 1980's. From his smash hit Evil Dead in 1981, and its sequel in 1987, he would become something of a rising star, along with his good friends Joel and Ethan Coen (themselves rising on the opposite end of the indie circuit with films like Blood Simple and Raising Arizona). A longtime comic book fan, he sought out the rights to Batman and, later, the Shadow, but failed to get them. So, in the grand comic tradition, he decided to make his own character to tell essentially their story. He also took inspiration from the Universal Monsters, especially the idea of a tragic, freak hero and a doomed love story. He would turn in a 40 page treatment called "The Darkman", which he submitted to Universal. Universal accepted the script, and Raimi, his brother Ivan and some other writers hashed out the script. Originally, Raimi wanted his friend, Evil Dead star Bruce Campbell to star as the titular character, but Universal wasn't keen on it. Eventually, the role went to Northern Irish actor Liam Neeson, at the time a minor actor notable for his role in John Boorman's Excalibur. Francis McDormand, the wife of Joel Coen, was cast as the romantic lead. Danny Elfman, who had just come off Tim Burton's Batman, also did the score for this film. The film went through a difficult production, with Raimi finding some friction with cast and crew. The film would be a relative success critically and financially, spawning three sequels, two comics, and several novels. Of course, both Neeson and McDormand would be Oscar winners in later films, and Raimi would go on to direct some actual comic book films in the Spider-Man trilogy and, just recently, the Dr. Strange sequel.

     Dr. Peyton Westlake (Liam Neeson) is a scientist working on a new synthetic skin to help burn victims. His girlfriend Julie Hastings (Francis McDormand) is an attorney investigating a real estate developer Strack Industries, led by Louis Strack (Colin Friels). She confronts him with evidence that they're bribing the local zoning commission. In vengeance (and to get rid of incriminating evidence), Strack's ally Robert Durant (Larry Drake) breaks into Westlake's lab, killed Westlake's assisstant Yakitito (Nelson Mashita), and torture Westlake. After burning his hands and putting his face in acid, Westlake is left to die, but manages to barely escape, leaving Hastings to think he's dead. He ends up a John Doe, given a radical new treatment that makes him impervious to pain. He breaks out, and as with any good superhero story, decides to take vengeance on those who wronged him. 

     I'll admit, I never really cared for Tim Burton's Batman. It was well-shot, and the production design looks good, but the story is really haphazard and it gets kind of silly, especially towards the end. I honestly think this was a better execution of the general idea behind that film. Raimi manages to evoke the panels and settings of a comic (especially a Marvel comic book with the idea of a freak as a hero) onto film, including psychedelic features and really creative action scenes. It's always entertaining to watch. Of course, Liam Neeson and Francis McDormand are great actors, and they bring a lot of pathos to these characters and their interaction. I like that Raimi makes this a full-on tragedy, taking the best part of the Universal Monsters (the idea of the monsters as tragic heroes) and applying it to a superhero story, making this a very dark, dramatic film about injury and loss. With, you know, comic book villains and fight scenes. 

     Two main problems I can think of. Parts of this film are very slow, and they tend to stretch longer than they need to. This is a problem with the climax of the film. I also felt the film had too much information. Maybe it was just more anxiety focus, but I had trouble following parts of the film because the events tended to get to complicated with the zoning conspiracy and the details about the mask. 

    This is definitely worth a watch, if only to see two Oscar winners in a very early role, and an acclaimed director doing a prototype of his more successful work. Plus, it's just a really fun, really entertaining film that works as a drama. I highly recommend it to superhero fans, and for those who, like me, didn't really care for Tim Burton's Batman.

    Alright, November 1st, and I've finally caught up to my own schedule. This year.... Well, we close out on an excellent film that came out last year, Bit. Thanks for reading, and happy Halloween. 

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Red Dragon

         This was the third film in the trilogy of films with Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter, and the final time he would play the character. Dino De Laurentiis, who had the rights to the Lecter character, had given the rights to the name for free to Silence of the Lambs, because of the financial failure of Manhunter, but would return to produce the last film in the series, Hannibal and this one, effectively a remake of Manhunter. Brett... (oh, Jesus) Brett Ratner, fresh off Rush Hour 2 directed this (this time, not an insipid comedy). Edward Norton, who would use his salary to make The 25th Hour, was the new Will Graham. It was receive mixed reception and box office success, though not enough to apparently sustain interest in a prequel.

          Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) attends an orchestra performance, and later entertains some of the board (while getting rid of a flutist he disliked). FBI agent Will Graham (Ed Norton) comes over to discuss a serial killer called "The Chesapeake Ripper," who appears to be a cannibal, and who Graham has been consulting Lecter with. Of course, Graham puts two and two together, and Lecter and Graham do battle, before Lecter is subdued. However, Graham can't handle the encounter, and retires. A few years later, another serial killer, "The Tooth Fairy" (Ralph Fiennes) is on the loose. Jack Crawford (Harvey Keitel) recruits Graham back, and when they stall, Graham decides to look at the one source he has, aka Hannibal.

        Perhaps the most distinct and interesting part of this film is Ralph Fiennes. He manages to bring the character of Francis Dolarhyde to life better than Manhunter, with a more interesting performance, and a more menacing presence on screen. It's well worth watching the film for him and the way he portrays the character. It also fully emphasizes the connection to the Red Dragon painting to its fullest extent. Anthony Hopkins continues to do well as Hannibal, especially in the few scenes he has, managing to be menacing, but charming, as the character should.

     Ed Norton's terrible dyed hair is perhaps a symbol for the entire film in general. It appears to be closer to the book, but that's ultimately to its detriment. Manhunter mostly stuck to the important bits, and just cut all the unnecessary parts. Not only are the additions the worst part, they make the film a lot less interesting. A lot more is explained (again, to its detriment), and the film is just stretched. Ratner directs this in such a generic way, with all the marking of studio film. None of the tense moments of Manhunter. It's also just completely forgettable. Nothing stands out, especially with the generic directing and writing. 

    So, yeah, you want a really good adaptation of this book, watch Manhunter. I didn't hate the film, but it wasn't really one that worked, especially with a better adaptation around. Maybe if you want to compare the two, or just want to complete Hopkins performance as Lecter, it might be worth watching, but otherwise, definite skip. 

    So, finally caught to the schedule. To finish off at the right film, our penultimate film is a very different sort of horror film in Darkman.

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Silence of the Lambs

    The Silence of the Lambs, Harris' 1988 sequel to Red Dragon, was originally optioned by actor Gene Hackman and Orion Pictures, with Hackman starring in the role of Jack Crawford. Hackman would exit the film eventually (uncomfortable in violent roles after starring in the Civil Rights drama Mississippi Burning), but Orion covered all costs, confident in the film and the developing script from Ted Tally. Eventually, Jonathan Demme (known at the time for quirky films like Melvin and Howard, Swimming to Cambodia, and Married to the Mob) was chosen as director. Demme cast Anthony Hopkins as Lecter based on his performance in David Lynch's The Elephant Man. Jodie Foster was interested in the role of FBI agent Clarice Starling, but Demme didn't consider her until he had exhausted other actresses. Ted Levine (a friend of William Petersen and Michael Mann, the star and director of Manhunter) was cast as the villain Buffalo Bill. Filmed in Pennsylvania, the cast would research the FBI's Behavioral Science Unit and actual serial killers to study their roles. Released in 1991, it is, of course, one of the most iconic films ever made, and was the first horror film to win the Academy Award for Best Picture (indeed, the third film to win the Oscars for Best Picture,  Best Director (Demme), Best Actor (Hopkins as Lecter), Best Actress (Foster as Starling), and Best Adapted Screenplay (Tally, adapting Harris). The film would become a perennial favorite, and would make Hannibal Lector a household name. 

      Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster) is a trainee at the FBI Academy in Quantico, who is called by Jack Crawford (Scott Glenn) of the Behavioral Science Unit. He wants her to interview notorious cannibal serial killer Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins), stuck in a Baltimore asylum run by arrogant Dr. Fredrick Chilton (Anthony Heald). Lecter could give insight into the whereabouts of Buffalo Bill (Ted Levine), who has been kidnapping women and murdering them. Lecter gives some clues, which is useful as Catherine Martin (Brooke Smith), the daughter of a prominent US senator, is kidnapped by Bill, upping the stakes.

         The film is very well shot. That's the first thing that stood out to me when I watched this many years ago. It's well shot, a lot of interesting angles, an especially interesting climax with complete darkness and night vision goggles. It helps build the tense atmosphere of the film, while providing both the investigation and the scares with intense action. Anthony Hopkins is iconic as Hannibal. Again, not necessarily sure if his performance is better than Brian Cox's, but it's definitely the definitive version. A lot of his quirks and coldness shine through, and Hopkins makes the character work despite him not being in the film. Foster does well as the main character, carrying the film with her chemistry with Hopkins and her Southern accent is fine. The film is easier to follow and less confusing than Manhunter. 

      The biggest thing hanging over my head watching this was the transphobia. As a newly out trans person myself, I did look at this film in a new light, especially an excellent documentary on Netflix you should watch called Disclosure, about transgender representation in film. Even as a questioning person, I figured that the film does explain that Bill wasn't actually trans, but merely thought themselves trans (itself a faulty concept in retrospect), so the film had an out in that . Rewatching the film, I'm less convinced of that. The character has all the signifiers stereotypically attributed to trans or other LGBTQ people, and whether or not they were actually  trans, the portrayal does resemble the stigma of us being mentally ill, especially the idea of a serial killer making a suit. So, that aspect is probably the most uncomfortable part of watching this in the modern day, especially as it may have contributed to the aforementioned stigma. Also, after a rather deliberate first two acts, the film just rushes to an end. Clarice doesn't even find out Buffalo Bill's identity, and she stumbles on them by accident. 

    It's definitely a well-crafted, well-directed film with good cinematography and good acting all around. The main specter on this film is Buffalo Bill and the transphobia, so I wouldn't quite know if to recommend this film. Maybe check the facts, and see if you, as an individual would be comfortable seeing this film. 

    I suppose it's an impromptu trilogy now, because for my next review, I'm doing the second adaptation of Red Dragon.

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Manhunter

     Thomas Harris' first novel Black Sunday (a thriller partially inspired by the Munich Massacre in 1972) was a moderate success in 1975, helped by a 1977 film adaptation by John Frankenheimer. This of course, spurred him to write a second novel. He drew inspiration from his past: In 1963, as a Waco reporter, he had visited a Mexican prison to interview an American citizen, Dykes Askew Simmons  imprisoned for the murders of three people. He ended up interacting with a man named "Salazar", who saved Simmons after a guard shot him. Salazar unnerved Harris, especially with his fixation on Simmons' disfigured face and his crimes. Salazar, or as revealed later, Dr. Alfredo Ballí Treviño, was a former surgeon who was accused of killing and mutilating his close friend, and killing several hitchhikers (he was eventually released in 1981, and lived quietly until his death in 2009). Harris also took influence from the then-newly formed Behavioral Science Unit of the FBI, which had been interviewing imprisoned serial killers and creating profiles based on them to catch other serial killers (the recently departed Netflix series Mindhunter explored the origins of that unit). Eventually, he brought it together to tell the story of an FBI agent named Will Graham who tries to hunt a vicious serial killer named "The Tooth Fairy" by consulting another serial killer, Dr. Hannibal Lecter, one he put behind bars. Red Dragon , released in 1981, was a critical and financial success, which drew the attention of Italian producer Dino De Laurentiis, known for films like Death Wish, Flash Gordon, and Blue Velvet.  De Laurentiis bought the rights, but after the flop of the Michael Cimino film Year of the Dragon, decided to change the name (for some reason) to Manhunter. Di Laurentiis originally wanted Blue Velvet director David Lynch to direct the film, which the latter declined. Eventually (apparently based on the similarity between his surname and the new title. No, I'm not kidding), Michael Mann, fresh off films like Thief and shows like Miami Vice, was given the director's chair. William Petersen, star of Mann's Thief and a good friend of the director, was given the Graham role. For the role of the Tooth Fairy,Tom Noonan, a stage and TV actor with a large physique, was given the role. Finally, in the role of Lecter (or Lektor in the script), Mann cast Scottish actor Brian Cox, who had impressed Mann in the play Rats in the Skull. Filmed somewhat guerrilla style, the film would have the actors trying to get into character a bit too much, struggling to leave them afterwards. The film was a dud on release in 1986, both financially and critically, but Mann's subtle directing and Petersen's performance allowed the film to gradually gain a cult following. Notably, its portrayal of a contemporary FBI investigation would inspire later work like The X-Files and CSI. The biggest influence from this film, of course, is Hannibal Lecter, who Harris would feature again in his next book,  The Silence of the Lambs.

      A serial killer named the Tooth Fairy (Tom Noonan), because of his bite marks on his victims, has been terrorizing families in Atlanta. Desperate, FBI agent Jack Crawford (Dennis Farina) approaches former agent Will Graham (William Petersen) with the case. Graham is reluctant, because a prior case had a traumatic effect on him, but he ultimately accepts. However, when the case stumps even him, he decides to take a drastic measure. He visits the killer whose crimes haunted him: the cannibal psychiatrist Dr. Hannibal Lektor (Brian Cox). The erudite Lektor shows his skill at evaluating the Tooth Fairy, and the Tooth Fairy takes notice. 

     This film is absolutely gorgeous. The way it's lighted, the way it's shot, the angles, the production design. It just looks so good, and it just keeps you intrigued just by the way it conveys its story. It's easily the best and most distinctive part of the film. The acting is always sublime, especially William Petersen, Dennis Farina, and in his brief role, Brian Cox. Cox plays a more informal, less unhinged Hannibal than Anthony Hopkins. His version seems more like an actual serial killer, in that he behaves more naturally and emotionally, and less in Hopkins' dark, emotionless monotone. One isn't necessarily better than the other, but they are very distinct performances of the same character. And Cox's works in the context which the story has to serve him. Finally, the action is sublime, as per usual from Michael Mann, who makes every moment seem interesting and intense.

   This may or may not be an actual flaw but this film is very information intensive. You have to pay attention to a lot to get an idea of what is happening. Usually, it's at least clear what is happening in which scene and how they relate to the story, but, especially for someone whose attention has been shot as of late, it made the film a bit hard to follow. I had to go back a few times just to figure out certain plot points. There's also some digressions and characters that ultimately felt unnecessary, but those don't distract too much. 

   I recommend this film as a decent crime thriller, though again, there's a lot you have to keep track of. For those familiar with the Anthony Hopkins version, it's a good alternative interpretation of the Hannibal Lecter character. For myself, I might finally check out the third adaptation of this book, Hannibal , finally. I've heard really good things. 

   So, I suppose I'd be remiss in not reviewing the next Hannibal Lecter film, Silence of the Lambs. 

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Body Bags

      Lucky me, not much history around for this. This was originally going to be a horror anthology TV series on Showtime, their attempt at aping the success of HBO's Tales from the Crypt. However, after filming three segments, they decided to just make this a standalone television film. John Carpenter had just come off the Chevy Chase comedy (yes, really) Memoirs of an Invisible Man, and Tobe Hopper had done several flops since directing the Stephen Spielberg produced Poltergeist. To continue the EC Comics host tradition, Carpenter himself is the host of the film's wraparound segments.  It was aired on Showtime on August 8th, 1993, to relatively positive critical reception.

     As an anthology film, there are three segments to this film, each introduced by a delightfully morbid coroner (John Carpenter). Segment one, "The Gas Station", features a gas station near Haddonfield, Illinois (why yes, John Carpenter did direct this one!), where Anne (Alex Datcher) is going to work for the night shift, replacing Bill (Robert Carradine). However, she is frightened by reports of a lunatic who escaped the local asylum. And she's keeping an eye out for all patrons. The second segment, "Hair" (not the musical), deals with Richard Corbets (Stacey Keach) a middle aged dude scared of losing his hair. He soon learns of a treatment from a television ad (always a great source), promoted by Dr. Lock (ha!)(David Warner). He soon gets a full head of hair, but maybe it works too well. The final segment "Eye" has baseball player Brent Matthews (Mark Hamill) losing his eye in a car accident, dooming his career. He soon learns of an experimental treatment where he gets an eye transplant. From a dead person. A very bad dead person.

     First and foremost, Carpenter as the host is a lot of fun. He just has a lot of energy, and he delivers his sardonic, dark humor with a lot of glee and fun. It gives the film a lot of irreverence, which makes it stand out. I kind of want to see a whole series just to see Carpenter doing this bit so more. It's just a lot of fun seeing him and the segments are very funny. The segments themselves are all pretty good. The first one is a good short riff on Halloween with a twist. It reminds me a lot of the better moments of that film. The setting and paranoia also works. The second seems like it wouldn't really work, but in Carpenter's hands, it's a good comedy short, in the vein of a comedy Twilight Zone episode. The third one, directed by Tobe Hopper, is a pretty good short horror film (and it's always great to see or hear Mark Hamill in anything.) An interesting thing: a lot of cameos. Wes Craven and Sam Raimi appear in the first segment, Debbie Harry of Blondie in the second, and Roger Corman in the third. That's a lot of fun.

    I think the biggest complaint I have is that these feel too cinematic. Like, for stuff written to be essentially segments of an EC comic book based show, the length and scale feel too much like these should be their own separate films, and thus, paradoxically, they feel a bit too short to be satisfactory. Compared to something like Creepshow, which was theatrically released, and whose segments felt appropriate. Here, the production values feel too good, and thus it feels a bit disonent as a TV movie. I suppose if "it feels too good" is a criticism, then the film isn't that bad. 

   This was a delightfully morbid time. A lot of fun action and gore, John Carpenter hamming it up as a horror host, and just well-written segments. I highly recommend this as a good anthology film if you ever want one. It's definitely an underrated classic if there ever was one. 

    Alright, tomorrow, we look at Hannibal Lecter. No, not Silence of the Lambs. Rather his first film appearance. Manhunter.

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Last House on the Left

    A billion years ago, back in 2018, I did a summer retrospective on Friday the 13th films, and I briefly discussed Sean S. Cunningham, who was a director and producer on the series. To recap, in the late 60's, he was a Broadway producer and manager who decided to go into independent film. With film censorship loosening at the time thanks to the advent of the MPAA rating system in 1968, many had started to go into hitherto taboo territory. Among the avenues for this were "white coaters", which were films that used a medical education cover (i.e. a guy in a white coat at the beginning explaining how the film you're about to watch is educational) to basically make porn. Cunningham would make his first "white coater" with The Art of Marriage in 1970. Impressed by this success was 31-year old Wes Craven, a former schoolteacher turned film editor. Craven and Cunningham would work together on another white coater, Together, as a result of a deal with Hallmark (not that one) Releasing and notorious genre distributor American International Pictures. That film was a success, and Hallmark/AIP offered the pair a chance to make a bigger horror film. Craven decided to draw upon Igmar Bergman's 1960 film The Virgin Spring to write an incredibly dark script called Night of Vengeance, commenting on what Craven thought was how many films had glamorized or played down the impact of violence. After shooting began, however, the script was significantly toned down. Despite this, the filming proved upsetting enough for star Sandra Peabody to leave set temporarily, before they coaxed her back. Filmed "guerrilla style" in Cunningham's words, in New York and Connecticut, the film starred mostly D-List or first time actors. It would have significant problems with the MPAA. Craven constantly cut down the film, only for the dreaded "X" rating to come back. Finally, he just took a R rating stamp from a friend, and put it on the film. Craven assumed that the film would not be widely seen, much like many others he had edited under pseudonyms. However, the film would go on to have a wide release, and become extremely controversial due to its violence and dark themes. Many theaters would refuse to play the film, and critics (including future slasher opponent and guy who hung out at the Playboy Mansion apparently, Chicago Tribune critic Gene Siskel) lambasted the film and its violence. All of this is to say, it was a gigantic success, and would be considered a classic in retrospective. It would also (to his lifelong consternation) put Craven on the map as a horror director of note (in part because the film was so traumatic, they didn't want him to do anything else).

     On her seventeenth birthday, Mari Collingwood (Sandra Peabody) is attending a concert with friend Phyllis Stone (Lucy Grantham), despite her parents (Eleanor Shaw and Richard Towers) concerns about her friend. As they drive, they hear a report that four prisoners (Krug Stillo (David Hess), his son Junior (Marc Sheffler), Weasel (Fred Lincoln), and Sadie (Jeramie Rain)) who have escaped. They are eventually tricked into going into their apartment, and I probably should stop it there. 

    This is a very fascinating commentary on the culture of late 60's and early 70's. Specifically, the culture war, without explicitly noting the whole "hippies/squares" conflict. The villains are coded as hippies, even though they don't necessarily have the signifiers typically given to them. At the same time, the "square" parents, while sympathetic, ultimately devolve to their level of violence once the depravity of their crimes is fully understood. Perhaps a bit "both sides", but it's a nice time capsule of that particular period. Onto a bit more tangible stuff, I definitely see Craven purposely ramping the violence to make a point. The violence in this film is extensive and brutal, but it's never framed as cool or fantastic. In fact, this film is honestly hard to watch because the violence (especially the sexual violence) is very heavy handed, and it's really uncomfortable to watch. It's a good commentary on being desensitized to violence, especially in the wake of the Vietnam War being broadcast nationwide. It's definitely a very intense viewing experience, especially with some scenes I couldn't stomach. 

     For stuff that didn't work, mostly the tone was all over the place. A lot of stern, extremely serious moments were followed by very weirdly light-hearted moments of comedy with the criminals. It's more than a little jarring, and after the bruality, I wasn't really sure what to make of these moments. Were they a satire? A light relief? Whatever they were, it didn't really work out for me, but these moments are few and far between.

     This was a difficult viewing experience. I had to stop the film a few times because of how intense it got, especially towards the middle. If you could stomach some really disgusting stuff, this does have some very interesting commentary on the times it was made in, and feels like a fresh look at how we view violence as a society. It is a hard film to sit through though, and I wouldn't be surprised if people just decided it wasn't something for them. 

    Alright, now onto another director who got their start in the 70's (two in fact) is Body Bags.

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- God Told Me To.

    I've talked a bit before about Larry Cohen. A TV writer in the 60's, he would rise to feature film prominence through Blaxploitation films like Black Caesar and Hell in Harlem, before aping the Exorcist in It's Alive in 1974. He originally got the idea for this film from considering the vengeful God of the Old Testament, with a healthy dose of Chariots of the Gods. Originally, Robert Forster was cast as the lead, but because of personal conflicts with Cohen, he was fired and replaced by Tony Lo Blacno. Legendary composer Bernard Herrmann (who had scored It's Alive), was to initially score the film, but after viewing a rough cut, he died (not because the film was bad, to be clear). Ultimately, the Hermann like score was done by Frank Cordell, and the film is dedicated to Herrmann's memory. The film was released to negative reviews, but would come to be seen as a cult classic in later years. It's also notable as the first film appearance of a young Andy Kaufman, a year before Taxi

       A mysterious force is compelling people to commit mass murder in New York City. A shooter on a water tower. Someone during the Police parade on St. Patrick's Day. A mass stabbing. A family killing. Detective Peter Nichols (Tony Lo Blanco) is on the case, and he learns that all the participants only said "God Told Me To", when asked for their motives. His investigation would take him into... strange territories. 

    Starting from the very first scene, this film really sets its intensity atmosphere very high. A very disturbing mass shooting is depicted, followed by a series of other crimes. It only rachets up from there, culminating in a bizarre alien plot and a lot of naked people bathed in light. The score helps this immensely, giving the scenes a sense of scale and reverence that gives the campier features of the film an air of seriousness. Tony Lo Blanco is a sympathetic protagonist whose journeys show how he himself, while not motivated by the voices, can be driven to acts that he can't quite comprehend. The alien cult is handled well. There are a ton of naked people and genitals to enhance the weirdness. Andy Kaufman is also there, briefly, if you're interested. 

    The film feels sometimes, like a television episode. Very stock filming, very cheap, very procedural like. It definitely feels like what happens when a lot of TV writers eventually go into film, but can't quite shake off the TV-ness of the production. It's a great episode of an anthology series, but I have trouble seeing it as a feature film, except for the nudity and violence. It's also a bit confusing and I had trouble following parts of it, especially towards the end. 

     I enjoyed the film, but I'm not necessarily enamored of it. Perhaps other viewings, when my mind isn't as addled by anxiety, should eventually turn me more into a fan. For now, it's a good Halloween viewing, and a good example of religious and science fiction horror, and I recommend it as a good obscure pick for Halloween night. 

     Alright, tomorrow, we get into the mix with Wes Craven's first film, Last House on the Left.

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- The Mummy (2017)

 On to the first proper review for this year.... and oh, God, I have to actually go into the history of this, aren't I? I'll make it quick. I find corporate bullshit like this far less interesting to write about. 

   So, as many of you know, Boris Karloff's The Mummy spawned a reboot in 1999, starring Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz. It was an action adventure film rather than a straight forward horror film, but it was successful enough to spawn two sequels and a number of spin-offs. However, as it gradually lost steam, Universal decided that a reboot was necessary, cancelling a fourth film with Fraser. They announced the reboot in 2012, and following the example of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, it was decided that it would be the centerpiece of a new "Cinematic Universe". After cycling through writers and directors, eventually, hack screenwriter Alex Kurtzmann (whose credits read like a cinematic rap sheet) was tapped to lead the "Dark Universe" and eventually to direct the new Mummy. However, he would be one of many screenwriters, including frequent partner and fellow hack Robert Orci and (of all people) David Koepp, writer of Jurassic Park, Spider-Man,... Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit,.... Mortdecai.... Anyway, Tom Cruise was cast, and by most accounts, took over production, controlled every part of it, and basically made himself the bigger star over the titular mummy (played by Algerian French actress Sofia Boutella, cast after her star turning role in Kingsman.) The film was a gigantic flop, and brought the end to the nascent "Dark Universe". The next film, a remake of The Invisible Man, was unconnected to the Dark Universe, perhaps for the better. 

    So, in this film about ancient Egypt, we start in England. During the 13th Century. During a funeral for a crusader. Then to modern day London where Dr. Jekyll (Russell Crowe, and yes, it means exactly what you think it means) digs up the corpse. What has to do with the rest of the film, I'm not sure, but then we get the story of Princess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella), her bloodlust on her way to power, her deal with the God of "Death" Set (Set was actually the god of deserts, Osiris was the god of death. How do you screw up such a basic piece of research?) and how she was mummified alive and transported to Iraq. There, her tomb is uncovered by Nick Morton (Tom Cruise) and Chris Vail (Jake Johnson, whose presence is extremely distracting), a pair of ... I'm actually not entirely sure, deserters? special ops?... anyway, they report it to their commanding officer (Courtney B. Vance) and by extension, archeologist Jennifer Halsey (Annabelle Wallis). They excauvate the ruins, and unleash the titular mummy, who decides to... again, not clear on this, but apparently it motivates her to unleash supernatural wackiness upon the world. 

   Good stuff, good stuff.... Sofia Boutella is always a compelling presence, and for the limited role she's given here, she does the very best she can (you want a good performance, watch the first Kingsman or Atomic Blonde for that). Tom Cruise is... Tom Cruise, for good or ill. Russell Crowe is mildly entertaining, since he's just decided to go hammy with the role. 

    This was very badly written, for the first really glaringly awful thing. The plot changes at least three times over the course of the film, and even then, it's really hard to tell what's going on. Why any of this is happening, what any of it signifies, and why should the audience care. I was baffled throughout this film, wondering what the hell was going on. The motivations of the titular Mummy are the biggest flaw, in that she doesn't have any. Her original plan was laid out and foiled in the opening, so her resurrection makes little sense, and she has no reason to do anything. Why does she conjure this supernatural menace? What's her endgoal? The ending is terrible, too, especially its non-climax and bizarre resolution that doesn't explain anything. I suppose it was meant to set up the "Dark Universe", but it was poorly done. As was the SHIELD counterpart Prodigium, which was deeply uninteresting and puts the film's pacing to a stonecold halt. As an intro to the "Dark Universe", it's really bad, and makes you actively avoid any future installments if they're this blatantly commericial. It also has terrible special effects combined with terrible cinematography. The result is a blur of action just vomited onto the screen, especially the action scenes, which are incomprehensible. 

    This was bad. Really, really bad. Bad in a distinctly uninteresting, completely predictable kind of way. There's no ironic enjoyment or unintentional fun. It's really dull and boring when it doesn't actively insult your intelligence. Frankly, you're better off watching the recent Invisible Man remake over this, since that worked on a individual level. This should probably be only seen as an example of how not to make a cinematic universe. (well, this and the DCEU.)

    Onto stuff I actually have interest in, we return to Larry Cohen next time with Because God Told Me To.

(Corona-) Summer of Terror/Masterpiece of Horror: Psycho

    This summer has been rough for everyone on Earth. It was definitely rough for me. I unfortunately didn't plan out this series very well, admittedly, and the anxiety just got very overwhelming (Seasonal depression has also reared its head). However, I do feel like finishing off the Universal Monsters. However, this went into October. As I laid in bed, suddenly, an idea came: Why not do a transitionary phase here. 

    Okay, like I said last time, this film is a lot more of a stretch to be on here, namely in that it technically originally wasn't even a Universal film. Let's go back a bit though. In 1957, a Wisconsin handyman named Ed Gein was arrested for the murders of two women living nearby. A search of his place revealed that items made from various parts of the human body, including skin lamps and shrunken heads. At the time, this was unknown to horror writer Robert Bloch, despite living only 57 miles away. A correspondent and friend of HP Lovecraft, Bloch started out in that style and genre before the advent of the atomic age caused him to switch instead to psychological horror. He wrote a story about a man isolated from civilization in a motel who has an overbearing mother and kills multiple women. When he heard about Gein, he was disturbed to learn the parallels. Nevertheless, the book would be a big commerical success, and it would reach acclaimed director Alfred Hitchcock, fresh off hit North by Northwest through his assistant. Hitchcock, very impressed, chose this project over several others, including an adaptation of Casino Royale, and even bought up all the copies he could of the novel to prevent the twist from being revealed. However, Hitchcock saw resistance from tradition backer Paramount, so he shot the film on a low budget, using the crew from his television show in the Universal Studios lot (part of the reason I decided to include it here), and shooting the film in black and white. Joseph Stefano (later the co-creator of the 60's Sci-fi anthology series The Outer Limits) wrote the screenplay. Starring in the film were Vera Miles (who had appeared in several Hitchcock productions beforehand), John Gavin  (who starred in the critical success Spartacus that same year), Janet Leigh (who had starred opposite Charlton Heston in Orson Welles' A Touch of Evil) and as the unsuspecting killer Norman Bates, relatively unknown supporting actor Anthony Perkins was cast on account of his boyish charm. Hitchcock regular Bernard Hermann would do the iconic score. Entire books and even films have been made about the production of this movie, so not too much more detail here, but the film was fairly controversial upon its release in 1960, as the Production Code was dying due to an influx of racy European films. It was also extremely successful, with audiences shocked by the big twist of the film. It has gone on to become one of the most iconic films of all time, and is something of the prototype for modern horror as we know. Also, despite Paramount releasing the films, the rights were ultimately sold to Universal, so it does count. 

     Marion Crane (Janet Leigh), a secretary in a real estate company in Phoenix, Arizona finds herself in hot water when she steals some money from a client, to pay for a home for her and boyfriend Sam Loomis (John Gavin). She flees to California, and eventually, comes across a motel run by the mysterious Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins), who has a close relationship to his mother.... (You know what, you probably already know how the rest goes, so, yeah.)

      It's hard to really discuss this film, because it is  monumental in the history of film. Everyone knows the central twist, everyone knows the plot, the music cues, the shower scene. Given this film has been studied, dissected, and parodied so many times since 1960, does it still hold up as its own film? Yeah, it definitely does. It helps that it constantly keeps you on your toes, changing its focus multiple times to throw you off. First a standard Hitchcockian thriller, than a proto-slasher, then a murder mystery. The film does a good job of hiding all the necessary elements, especially with its now iconic twist. (NORMAN BATES WAS DRESSING AS HIS MOTHER WHEN HE COMMITS THE MURDERS, in case you don't know). Anthony Perkins shy, delightfully charming, but ultimately psychaotic presence also helps to cement the character as a new kind of monster, less supernatural, but no less menacing. He is easily the most interesting part of the score. And the things to praise about this film have been noted. Hermann's score, Russell's cinematography. 

     The film does spend a lot more time than I thought was needed on the investigative part. Maybe it is the fact that the twist is very well known now, but the audience might've been able to piece together part of the twist towards the middle of the third act. Also, the subplot about the private investigator could've been cut, but does serve an important plot driver, so eh. 

     Even though you probably know how the film goes, I still recommend seeing it, if only to see the various techniques used both narratively and cinematically. It is still a fascinating film, and it is still very scary when it needs to be. I very highly recommend it as a piece of horror history, and just film history. 

    I was going to end this with an overall look at the Universal Monsters, but I'm really tired and just want to end this, so I'll make it brief here. Needless to say, they have had an incredible influence not only on the horror genre on film, but on the general culture. Most people, even if they've never actually seen any of these films, have a good understanding of them. And despite the presence of more contemporary monsters in films like this and Targets, they still have a presence in the culture, whether through the various Hammer remakes in the 50's and 60's, or the severely botched Mummy remake from 2017. 

  Speaking of..... Tune in tomorrow for a review of that.