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- The Thing (1982)

    Well, this is it both for this year, and this decade. So, to celebrate the end of era, I decided to go back to a film I did back when I was doing short versions of these on my Facebook page way back when. It has come to be one of my all time favorite horror movies. So, to close out the last Masterpiece of Horror Theatre review of the 2010's, here's John Carpenter's The Thing . (Apologies for the lateness. I haven't had a great couple weeks, and there is a lot to go into, especially the history, so I need a bit more time to process it all.)
     "Who Goes There" was first published in Astounding Science Fiction in 1938, written by the legendary editor of the magazine John W. Campbell (for context, he would go to discover authors like Robert Heinlein, Isaac Asimov, L. Sprague de Camp, Theodore Sturgeon etc., among other... stuff, shall we say). The story of a group of Antarctic scientists fighting off a strange shapeshifting alien was well-regarded, and in 1951, producer Howard Hawks and director Christian Nyby loosely adapted into the film The Thing from Another World, which is regarded as a classic in 50's science fiction. In 1976, producers David Foster and Lawrence Thurman proposed a close adaptation of the original novella to Universal. Universal acquired the remake rights from Wilbur Stark, who owned several RKO Pictures, and began searching for directors. John Carpenter, who was heavily influenced by Hawks as a director and a fan of the original (having featured it briefly in the original Halloween) was approached as early as 1976 (while fresh off the success of Assault on Precinct 13) , but had to wait until Halloween was a big hit. Even then, being a huge Howard Hawks fan, he was reluctant to approach the project until reading the novella and finding a new angle to explore the story. The screenplay went through several writers (including Texas Chainsaw creators Tobe Hopper and Kim Heinkel, the former of who was attached to direct before Carpenter), before actor and writer Bill Lancaster (son of Burt, and known at the time as the writer of The Bad News Bears) came on, writing something very close to the original novella. As with most of his films, Carpenter himself would make some rewrites to the script. Many of Carpenter's collaborators would return for this film. His The Fog cinematographer Dean Cudley would make his debut in a Hollywood feature with this. Special effects creator Rob Bottin, whom Carpenter also worked with on The Fog, would do the legendary special effects. Escape from New York star Kurt Russell would headline the movie, along with newcomer Keith David. Unlike much of his filmography, Carpenter did not score this film, instead giving the duties to Italian composer Ennio Morricone (known for his collaborations with Sergio Leone, another director Carpenter admired), whose synthesizer score would define the film for many people. Bottin would work incredibly hard to bring the unique of a strange, shapeshifting alien to life, often working incredibly long hours, using a 35 person crew (including legendary special effects creator Stan Winston to help with the dog design), and was even hospitalized for exhaustion. The film was shot in the fall 1981 in Alaska and British Columbia, with interiors filmed in the Universal lot. Released on June 25th, 1982, it was drowned financially among the many other famous films released that year, including ET: The Extra-Terrestrial (indeed, some associated with the film have blamed it and its more optimistic view of aliens for The Thing's failure), Blade Runner, Poltergeist, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Conan (1982 was a really good year for genre films). Not helping was savaging by critics, who were aghast at the fairly bloody nature of the effect. Carpenter himself was especially hurt by The Thing from Another World director Christian Nyby lambasting the film as too gory. However, eventually, the home video market and television would give the film a new, younger audience, who would adopt the film as a classic of the horror genre. Over time, it would come to be regarded as one of the greatest horror movies ever made and a major influence on many horror and science fiction media (you might've seen this film shown in Stranger Things), and many directors who were still frightened by it. The film has even become a tradition for scientists stationed on the seventh continent. At the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, it is screened every February to commemorate the beginning of winter in the South Pole. Carpenter himself would come to call this his favorite of the movies he's made and the first of the Apocalypse Trilogy (with Prince of Darkness and In the Mouth of Madness) . For my part, it is not only one of my favorite horror movies, but one of my favorite films, period.

     The film opens with an alien spacecraft crashing to Earth, so.... yeah, you know what you're getting into. Soon after, American scientists including MacReady (Kurt Russell), Blair (Wilford Brimley), Childs (Keith David), and Dr. Cooper (Richard Dysart) take at an Antarctic base witness a man on a helicopter (Larry Franco, one of the producers) chasing a sled dog across the snowy plains, trying to shoot it. When the helicopter crashes, they confront the man, who yells in Norwegian, while the dogs warms up to them. When the Norwegian shoots at them, he is killed by station commander Garry (Donald Moffat). The scientists take the dog in, while MacReady and Cooper go to the Norwegian station to investigate. They find it abandoned, with a mysterious block of ice carved out, a heavily disfigured frozen corpse, and the frozen body of a strange creature. Blair performs an autopsy of the creature, only to find it having regular human organs. The dog soon arouses the fear of the other dogs at the station kennel, which causes it to reveal itself to be some eldritch abombination that kills and absorbs the other dogs, before Childs is able to put it down. Blair also autospies the dog to find whatever took it over can make a perfect imitation. As they use the Norwegian data to track down a dig site to a large alien ship (estimated to be 10,000 years old), Blair also discovers that the alien cells can absorb, assimilate, and imitate any other cell. And when Bennings (Peter Maloney) is absorbed, it can be any one of the crew, and they would never know who it was until it was too late....

    I honestly don't know where to start with the great things about this film. I suppose I could start with my own personal favorite thing about the film: The production design. The settings used, whether the cold sterility of the base, the harsh Antarctic landscape or the devastated Norwegian base, help add to the atmosphere of isolation and paranoia. You feel just as lonely as the characters in the film, watching them handle an impossible situation and slowly devolving and turning on each other as they try to figure out who might be the alien. The fact that it is primarily set at the base, and thus it becomes intimately familiar to viewer, adds to this, as even this becomes untrustworthy and isolated as the film goes on. The special effects are simply some of the best put to film. The alien is incredibly well designed, with a unique, ever-changing look which instills a lot of fear just looking at it, and especially watching it transform from seemingly innocuous organisms and see it brutally kill the people on the base. There is one particular transformation towards the end that is seared in my mind due to both the look of the alien and the sheer intensity of the scene. Oh, yeah, the disturbing effects and the viciousness by which they are used make incredibly scary. It is horrifying seeing this creature put out of nowhere, especially after tense scenes of the crew arguing and fighting, and they go on long enough that they instill themselves into your mind. Ironically, these keep you invested in the film itself, as the scale of the threat is abundantly clear. It is a creature that can be any living thing, that can take on its form to the smallest cell and absorb it. It can be anyone, and if it escapes the uncolonized Antarctica back to civilization, mankind is doomed. Despite it being a strange being with motives beyond the comprehension of mankind, one of the other best things of the film is the fact that the scientists act like scientists. They investigate, they hypothesize, they test, and it helps them combat the creature to the best of their abilities, while still being human enough that they still don't know whether their colleagues have become a creature beyond their understanding. It helps keeps us invested in the characters, while still fearing for their safety. I would use the term "Lovecraftian" as many others have (indeed, many have speculated "Who Goes There" was written in part because of Lovecraft's At the Mountains of Madness) to describe the overall feeling of the film. The idea of a being that is completely beyond human comprehension and dumb fleshbags unable to deal with it or get any help from elsewhere to really combat really fits into the Lovecraftian Cosmicist worldview. It is a nice metaphor for the helplessness of mankind in the face of a dangerous, unknown universe (or fickle, mercurial people) and the lack of a loving god to help us against it. Finally, the score by Ennio Morricone is iconic, of course, helping cement the atmosphere of sheer helplessness in the face of a menace beyond knowing.

     Not much here on the other hand. Some parts can get a bit confusing if you're not paying attention, and sometimes you confuse the names of characters, but you can follow each character, their roles, and what happens pretty well regardless.

     So, like I said, this is probably one of my all-time favorite horror films. I've seen it a few times since that first Facebook review years ago, and I'll probably watch it again for many more years. It is a great film. Not just a great horror or a great science fiction film. A great film, that works on so many levels, and reveals something about humanity that it is uncomfortable and disturbing to ponder. It is mandatory viewing for horror and science fiction fans, of course, but even if you don't like these genres (or are squimish about blood), it is well-crafted, well-written and well-acted enough to be worth at least one view (again, it is fairly bloody, so be warned). It is always a pleasure to watch this film.

    So, that concludes the Masterpiece of Horror Theatre for this year and this decade. I really hope you enjoy reading these as much as I enjoy writing them, and I hope it convinced you to seek out something new to watch for the Halloween season. I want to thank you all for reading these for all years, whether on Facebook or the Linkara rip-off videos I did also on Facebook, or on this blog, and I look forward to doing them again next year along with a very Summer of  Terror I plan for next year. I don't know what I have planned for November, but I hope you stay tuned for that. To close out, here's noted SF illustrator Wayne Barlowe doing a version of the creature from "Who Goes There"

   Happy Halloween, everyone
     

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- The Final Girls

      One of the screenwriters for the film, Joshua John Miller, was the son of Jason Miller, who was Father Karras in The Exorcist. Miller attributes the film's inspiration to watching his father die over and over on film, and the dissonance that invoked when his real father died in 2001. The film was ultimately optioned by Sony (after a brief period at New Line Cinema, who wanted to remove the emotional beats of the film), with screenplay by Miller and MA Fortin with director Todd Strauss-Schulson (whose biggest credit at that point was A Very Harold and Kumar 3D Christmas. and would go on to direct this year's Isn't It Romantic). Originally an R-Rating, the director was forced to cut it down in a PG-13, which he was ultimately satisfied with (I'll get to that). The film was shot in Louisiana in 2014, before it's October 9th, 2015 release to critical success.

       Max Cartwright (Taissa Farmiga, sister of Vera) is the daughter of Amanda (Malin Akerman), who played the role of Nancy in the first of the popular Camp Bloodbath film franchise in the 80's, before becoming typecast. After one failed audition, the two get into a severe car accident, where Amanda is killed. Three years later, Max is still dealing with the aftermath of the incident, when she, as well as friends Gertie (Alia Shawkat) and Chris (Alexander Ludwig), when Gertie's stepbrother Duncan (Thomas Middleditch) invites all of them to a screening of Camp Bloodbath. While obviously reluctant, she and her group acquiesce. At the screening, however, a fire emerges, and the group, now including Vicki (Nina Dobrev), are forced to go through the screen using the fake machete to escape. They find themselves in a forest, when the van from the film, driven by Kurt( Adam DeVine) drives by. When he drives by every 92 minutes, it confirms to Duncan they have, in fact, been teleported to the film Camp Bloodbath.

     I reviewed Scream a while, and it wasn't that positive, but I conceded it was likely because it was a film of its era. The tropes it was mocking have been dissected and reevaluated over the years, and it was a film of that 90's. Given this is closer, (and the director did list Scream as an influence), it understands the audience better to know these slasher tropes, and doesn't just regurgitate them to the audience. It helps that there is the strong emotional core of Max seeing a younger version of her deceased mother and trying to save her life. That is basically the driving force of the film and the main conduit by which the audience can invest in the characters. I do like that they play around with various elements of film, from runtime, to flashbacks to tropes to ADR. It really helps build the world of the movie, while making the process of making films seem surreal when you really consider it. Some cast highlights include Farmiga, Akerman, Middleditch (I haven't seen many Silicon Valley episodes, but he's always good), and especially Kurt Devine, who relishes the role of the prickish, horny slasher victim with zest. There are some good jokes at the expense of slashers and their 80's setting. Finally, the Friday the 13th is very thorough. The filmmakers clearly love that series, and having now seen that series, there's a lot of nods and references, especially to the first two, and the recreation is pretty great (especially an 80's recreation of the 50's)

    Some of the jokes did fall flat, mostly the ones that did deal with the same material Scream did, at least in the morality of slashers (i.e. people who have sex tend to murdered). Again, I think this very much is just that this particular cliche has explored, parodied, and dissected enough that pointing it out seem rote (though they do integrate it into the plot and the ending pretty well). It also kind of dragged towards the middle. I think that the sequel bait, while apt for slasher, left the film with a bit of unsatisfying ending. I do wish there was a sequel.

     So, yeah, this was decently funny, and a good homage to the slasher genre. If you enjoy slashers, than this is definitely worth checking out. Otherwise, I can't say you'll enjoy it, but there are some good jokes here and there.

    Alright, this was an unscheduled change, because I realized there weren't a lot of post-2000's horror in the docket. Anyway, since we're on slashers, next week will be one of the biggest influences on the genre, Mario Bava's Blood and Black Lace.

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre-- The Fly (1986)

     I don't think I've done a David Cronenberg film during the 6 years I've been doing this, and that's a huge blindspot, given his immense influence on the genre. Born in Toronto, he was inspired by college classmate David Secter's film Winter Keeps Us Warm to go into filmmaking, starting with small arthouse productions before going in partnership with fellow Canadian filmmaker Ivan Reitman, who produced his breakthrough 1975 film Shivers, the first to show his signature brand of body horror. By the 1980's, he had gotten more acclaim for surreal horror films like Videodrome, Scanners, and The Dead Zone. He was working on an early draft of Total Recall (adapted from Phillip K. Dick's story, "We Can Remember For You Wholesale") for producer Dino DeLaurentiis when he was approached to a remake of The Fly, which he had to turn down due to that prior commitment. The idea to remake The Fly originated from producer Kip Ohrman, who approached screenwriter Charles Edward Pogue (Psycho III, The Hounds of Baskerville) to write the project. Together with producer Stuart Cornfield, they pitched a remake idea to 20th Century Fox,  with the conceit that, unlike the original's sudden transformation, the remake would feature a gradual metamorphasis. Fox was impressed, but was unimpressed with Pogue's first draft. Cornfield was able to get Fox to distribute the film if they got a new producer. Mel Brooks (yes, that one) agreed to be that producer. (He produced a number of serious films, including David Lynch's Elephant Man, through his company Brooksfilms and kept his name off the credits so that people wouldn't expect a comedy, which he also did here). Eventually, Cronenberg left Total Recall over creative differences, and was able to accept the role as director, as well as completely rewriting Pogue's script, only keeping the element of gradual metamorphosis. A then-mostly unknown Jeff Goldblum was cast after many actors were approached or auditioned, in spite of the studio fearing that he couldn't carry a feature film by himself. Chris Walas, a special effects and make-up artist whose credits included Airplane, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and Gremlins, did the effects for the film, including the legendary transformation sequences. Released in 1986, the film would gross $40 million at the box office, and would garner critical acclaim, and even an Oscar for Best Make-Up. The film still holds a 92% on Rotten Tomatoes, and the tagline "Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid" is now a cultural touchstone.

      Scientist Seth Brundle (Jeff Goldblum) wants to impress journalist Ronnie Quaife (Geena Davis), so he shows her his newest project: a teleportation device. Brundle wants Quaife to remain silent on the issue, at least until he could test it appropriately. Quaife documents Brundle's experiments and eventually becomes romantically involved with Brundle, earning the ire of her jealous editor Stathis Borans (John Getz). After a failed experiment with a baboon and a successful one with the baboon's brother, Brundle decides to take the plunge himself, testing the device with himself inside. However, he doesn't seem to notice a fly coming into the other pod. And while he emerges fine, he starts to exhibit strange symptoms.....

     First, the special effects and production design of the film are stellar. Especially the teleportation and transformation sequences, and Goldblum's make-up. The pods look distinct, the computers look real. The dark corridors of the lab, lightened only by the lights of the teleportation or blue street lights, help set the mood of the film, especially at the end. The make-up and effects on Goldblum as he steadily transforms into a bizarre fly-human hybrid is very terrifying and visceral,, especially as it reaches its later stages. It is hard to watch because it is so disgusting (especially the skin). That in and of itself might've worked all to sell the horror on its own, but what really cements it is Goldblum's performance. Not only does he subtly show the personality changes the character goes through, but he shows a lot of physicality in his performance, making subtle changes to his gestures, movement, and voice as the transformation ramps up, and he has to deal with both wanting to change back and the increasing fly take-over of his mind and body. This kind of subtle acting shines through, even under the layers of make-up. I complained about the slow story in the original, but since this one has more of an emphasis on the gradual transformation, it works to build up the eventual monster, and the pain it causes both for Brundle and Quaife.  Finally, the score by Academy Award winner Howard Shore is very creepy and gives an impression

    If there was a problem, it's a bit too short. I feel more could've been done to show Goldblum's transformation before the physical changes become more and more prominent. The changes to his personality and physiology worked incredibly well, and I wish they had more scenes focusing on that, especially since it could showcase Goldblum's performance even more.

     I think I love this movie. It was so good, it's somewhat stunning. This movie is of course, something of a cultural milestone, but I didn't expect it to be this good and this powerful. This is quite a masterpiece, and I highly recommend to anyone, not just fans of horror and science fiction. Even if it is disgusting, the craftmanship is so well-done, it can be forgiven.

     Alright, we continue on Friday with the first Scream. 

Summer of Terror-Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child

    So, the idea of this, (originating from Leslie Bonham) was pitched for the second film, but rejected because of the pregnancy of one of the executives. Bonham got the chance to write the chance to write this as the fifth film for the franchise. However, the process of actually filming it was strenuous with director Stephen Hopkins having only four weeks to actually shot the movie and four weeks to edit. On top of this, the film was heavily cut down from its original vision to avoid an X-Rating, resulting in watered-down death and continuity errors. Released on August 11th, 1989 (about a year after the last one and apparently one of the last slasher films of the 80's), it was not only the lowest grossing of the franchise, but the most negatively reviewed up until this point. Even director Stephen Hopskins stated he was dissatisfied with the final result. Does it deserve this treatment? Let's take a look.

      Alice (Lisa Wilcox) has finally settled down after the events of the last film and graduated high school. However, she is haunted by visions of the conception and birth of Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund) in an insane asylum. In the last one of these, she sees him getting resurrected in the church where she defeated him last movie, and he hints that he's found a way to get back. She tries to contact her boyfriend Dan (Danny .... Hassel), but Freddy gets him while he's en route. Alice faints, and finds out from nurse friend Yvonne (Kelly Jo Minter) that she is pregnant with Dan's child, which Alice realizes is Freddy's conduit to make his comeback.

      The dream sequences in this series just get better and better, and this easily has some of the best. Dark, surreal, scary, with some interesting twists and excellent visuals. It truly pushed the effects of the period while also looking great today. I don't really want to spoil some of these because these are some really original stuff.

     The best thing about this film is also its biggest drawback. The superb effects are in fact often on full display and are very clear. It's scary, but as it goes on and especially as it serves the often haphazard, ludicrous plot, the film really starts to come off as more campy, and that's where it really starts to fall apart. I tolerated Freddy Krueger's wisecracking persona, but here, it becomes unbearable, and it really diminishes his threat. A lot of the deaths are also way too over the top to invoke any real terror. In fact, a lot of them seem more like Looney Tunes gags than horror movie deaths. It also doesn't help the story is confusing and kind of ridiculous, with too many moving parts to take note of. I think a lot of these problems can be attributed to the cuts made, meaning some scenes are not in the film, and there are continuity errors here. So, maybe the uncut version is better.

    So, this is easily the weakest the series has gotten so far. Again, the effects are the probably the best of the whole series, so if you want to see that, it is a recommendation. However, there really is no reason to see this unless you want to see all of them.

    Alright, so we finish off the original continuity with Freddy's Dead (since I already did Freddy vs. Jason)

Summer of Terror- A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master

        The initial idea for this film from Wes Craven and partner Bruce Wagner involved dreams as a vehicle for time travel. This was rejected out of hand for the producers, who instead went with an idea from Brian Helgeland (recommended by Robert Englund himself, because Halgeland had written Englund's directorial debut 976-EVIL. Helgeland would go on to write LA Confidential) and brothers Ken and Jim Wheat (who would later write the ... Stepford Husbands. Well, they can't all be winners). Finnish director Renny Harlin (later known for Die Hard 2 and The Long Kiss Goodbye) got the job after pestering the producers for a while to get the job. Harlin would get inspiration from a Chinese ghost story and many of his own nightmares, though his initial vision for the film was cut down by the producers. Not helping was a then ongoing writer's strike, which forced Harlin and the actors to improvise many scenes. Patricia Arquette, seeking a wider range of roles, turned down a hefty offer to return to her role as Kristen Parker, which went to Tuesday Knight instead. The film had a budget of $14 million, the highest of the series thus far, and grossed $49 million, though with mixed reviews.

      After the deaths of Nancy Thompson and Freddy (Robert Englund) in the last one, Kristen (Tuesday Knight), Kincaid (Ken Sagoes), and Joey (Rodney Eastman) try to adjust back into normal life. However, Kristen is still haunted by him, and pulls the other two into her dreams frequently, where they have to calm her. In the meantime, Kristen has a new circle of associates, including boyfriend Rick (Andras Jones), his sister Alice (Lisa Wilcox), Sheila (Toy Newkirk), and Debbie (Brooke Theiss), while keeping in contact with Kincaid and Joey. However, lo and behold, Freddy's back, and he promptly dispatches Kincaid and Joey. Before he kills off Kristen (the last of the children whose parents had killed Freddy), she transfers her abilities to Alice. Now Alice and her friends must stop Freddy, who decides he likes this gig.

     This definitely has some of the best dream segments and scares of the franchise thus far. Very inventive, very scary, using a variety of interesting and disturbing imagery, ranging from the mundane gone wrong to the eldritch. There's a martial arts setting early in the film that's a particular highlight. The idea of Alice having the ability to absorb the abilities of her dead friends, along with bringing them into her dreams is an interesting conceit that works well overall. Robert Englund is, as ever, an excellent presence that manages to be slightly intimidating in his own way. I also like that this ends with a full on fight sequence.

     I'll admit, I wish that the survivors of the last film had been in it more, or had at least put up more of a fight against Freddy. Given that we had seen them fight off Freddy so effectively, it would've been nice to have them put up more of a fight. It also feels somewhat derivative of the last one in some parts, particularly how it involves a team-up and Freddy dispatches the main teens one by one. It manages to be distinct, but it is quite galling.

     So, this has some of the best sequences of the series, but also not really the strongest writing of them. That lands it at a solid okay. Not my favorite per se, but definitely worth watching just for some of these sequences.

     Next is The Dream Child.

Summer of Terror- A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors

   (Apologies for the lateness of this. I had an unexpected engagement and I couldn't finish the movie. This, however, might allow me to start writing these the day after, so that some time has passed. So, win?)

    So, as I discussed last time, Wes Craven didn't really want a franchise out of the first film. However, success of the second film convinced him the viability of it, and he returned to write the story for the film (with the intention of ending it as a trilogy). He originally conceived of a metanarrative, where the cast and crew making a new Nightmare were haunted by Freddy (ha! Unintentional pun, and yeah, this was reused for New Nightmare,which we'll look at soon enough), but the studio rejected it in favor of his other idea for the film, where a group of teens in an institution fight off Freddy with the help of Heather Langenkamp's (who returns for the film) Nancy Thompson. The script by Craven and Bruce Wagner was then re-written by director Chuck Russell (making his debut with the film) and his partner Frank Darabont (who would go on to write the Academy Award nominated film The Shashank Redemption ). Speaking of the Oscars, the film is also incidentally, the acting debut of future Academy Award winner Patricia Arquette. The filming was a tad arduous (full of long shoots and special effects mishaps, in part caused by a reduced budget for the film), but grossed $44 million on a $5 million budget, as well as mixed reviews.

    Kristen Parker (Patricia Arquette) is a young woman who, naturally, falls asleep on night, and has an encounter with Freddy (Robert Englund), who chases her around an abandoned house before slashing her wrists, which causes obvious concern to her mother (Brooke Bundy), who commits her to a psychiatric episode. There, her clear somniphobia causes her to resist the orderlies (including Max (Laurence Fishburne)) and attending physician Dr. Neil Gordon (Craig Wesson), before an intern therapist Nancy Thompson (Heather Langenkamp) manages to calm her by reciting part of Freddie's nursery rhyme. Thompson then meets Kristen's fellow patients, including Kincaid (Ken Sagoes), Phillip (Bradley Gregg), Jennifer (Penelope Sudrow), Taryn (Jennifer Rubin), and Joey (Rodney Eastman). Thompson and Gordon, however, have a different agenda in mind for them: being the last surviving children of Freddy's lynch mob, they hope to train them to battle him. And with Parker revealing a special ability to bring people into her dreams, they just might have a chance.

     I really like that they again focus and elaborate on another aspect of Freddie's actions. In the second one, it was specifically him trying to possess someone to come back. In this one, there is more of a focus on the psychological effects of Freddy's actions. The fear of sleep and dreams, how Freddie's actions can be interpreted as some sort of psychosis. The Dream Warrior aspect is also well-done, in assembling a team of people haunted by Freddy to control their dreams and use it to vanquish him once and for all. It was nice to see Nancy Thompson in a more mature role, using her own experience to help others. Each person is given enough time to really develop and make them full characters and not slasher fodder. I also like that they do delve into Freddy's backstory a little, and reveal a bit about why he ended up the way he did. Despite the apparently cut budget and some dated one (like a Harryhausen skeleton at the end), the effects are still great, and are quite terrifying to watching, particularly one involving tongues. While Freddy's wisecracking apparently wasn't seen as kosher by many people, it distinguishes him from silent killers, so I'll give him a pass, and he is threatening most of the time and still omnipresent. Finally, there's a funny gag with Dick Cavett and Zsa Zsa Gabor  (which was apparently unscripted, because Gabor didn't know what movie she was going to be in).

     Again, some dated special effects that look funny rather than horrifying today. I didn't like how they handled John Saxon's character (also returning), which seemed like a staunch departure from the way the character was in the first film. The ending was a tad confusing (which makes sense, given it was rewritten from a finale to the franchise written by Craven), and I sort of wish that the titular Dream Warriors had fought together, Avengers-style. Just a thought.

   Another win, and another very interesting, unique entry into the franchise. I'm curious as to what they'll do next. Anyway, recommendation, though watch the first one at least for some context into this one.

   Alright, Number 4: Dream Master . 

Summer of Terror- A Nightmare on Elm Street, Part II: Freddy's Revenge

     Despite the success of the first film, Wes Craven refused to return to direct a sequel, not wanting to have a franchise. So, the duties for this film went instead to Jack Sholder, who directed the slasher Alone in the Dark (unrelated to the game series). The idea for the film came from Leslie Bonham, who had initially pitched a pregnancy plot homaging Rosemary's Baby, before switching to a demonic possession. After attempting to replace Robert Englund, it was realized that it just didn't work without his iconic performance. The screenwriter, David Chaskin, added more focus between the male lead, Jesse, and his girlfriend. He also added a homoerotic subtext to the film, particularly in showing the main character as a closeted gay man dealing with repressed feelings. The actor, Mark Patton (himself closeted at the time) resented this and Chaskin for many years. Released on November 1st, 1985, the film grossed over $30 million on $3 million budget, and received mixed reviews.

     Five years after the first film, the Walsh family has moved to the now named Springwood, into the old home of the Thompsons. Sure enough, the son, Jesse (Mark Patton) starts to have strange visions of Freddie Krueger (Robert Englund), following him, terrorizing him. Eventually, he and his girlfriend Lisa Webber (Kim Myers) find the diary of Nancy from the first film, learning of her experiences. Soon, there are a number of strange events occurring throughout the Walsh house, and Jesse is told to kill by Freddy. And as he struggles, he slowly succumbs to that command.

    Despite Craven not being at the helm, Sholder does a competent job, managing to capture the feel of the first film, with its ominous atmosphere and bright lights, while putting his own spin. That, and the unique plot of Freddy trying to seize control of a person in the real world, make this feel a lot different than the first. It has different scares, a different plot, different characters. It feels almost like an entirely different franchise, connected to the first only by Freddie's presence and the prominence of dreams. I did enjoy the ways they portray Krueger slowly taking over Jesse's body, even having Freddy jump out face-hugger style towards the hour mark. While it is very distinct from the first one in many ways, it manages to retain one of the key elements of the first that worked best: defeating Freddie through sheer willpower and overcoming fear. Finally, the scenes have even bigger scares and even bigger stakes, which is appropriate for the film.

    Like the last one, it feels too short, and a lot could've been elaborated on or explored, including Jesse's relationship to his family and his new schoolmates. It also has the cliche criticism of second act problems, where it drags a bit and it stops for a bit, (though that has some good scenes of Jesse's descent). Copying the first's ending was a bit much, especially since the rest was very distinct from the first.

      If I hadn't read about it, I probably wouldn't have picked up on the famous gay subtext of this film, but having read it, it does contextualize a lot of the film, especially how Jesse's internal rage was manipulated. So, as an artifact, it is pretty interesting and I suppose it can be recommended for academic purposes? Otherwise, pretty good horror movie, would recommend to people who liked the first one.

     Alrighty, tomorrow is Dream Warriors.

Summer of Terror- A Nightmare on Elm Street

    Alright, with the relative success of last year's Summer of Terror, I figure I might as well continue with the most logical successor: The Nightmare on Elm Street series. I've heard, on the whole, this series has a more consistent quality than the Friday the 13th series. Plus, there are fewer films to review. I would've done this back in June, but I've been busy. Anyway, let's start at the beginning with 1984's A Nightmare on Elm Street.

(Reminder, I will not put spoilers in the synopsis, but if needed, I will put certain spoilers in the critique, so be warned)

      I've discussed Wes Craven and his seminal work in horror genre in a couple of these. Born into a staunch Baptist family in Cleveland, Craven became an English instructor, both on the high school and university levels, following his graduation from John Hopskins, before eventually going into filmmaking. He would do some very low-budget, X-rated feature under pseudonyms before finally hitting it big with the visceral horror film The Last House on the Left, and following it up with the also visceral The Hills Have Eyes. He would do several more films in the early 80's, Deadly Blessing, an adaptation of the DC Comics character Swamp Thing (that film inspired Alan Moore's celebrated run, among others), and a sequel to The Hills Have Eyes. He was almost destitute due to the failure of the former two, before coming up with the idea for Nightmare. Its conception had a number of origins. An old vagrant that Craven had seen as a child. A horror parody his students at Clarkson University produced on Elm Street, Postdam, New York A number of sleep related deaths amongst Southeast Asian refugees. The Gary Wright song "Dream Weaver". The DC comics character Plastic Man. The fact that red and green are the two most contrasting colors to the human retina. All of these elements were put into the character of Freddie Krueger, named for a childhood bully of Craven's. After finishing the script in 1981, shortly after the production of  Swamp Thing, and shopped it to several studios, before film distributor New Line Cinema (then just starting film productions through some films by John Waters) agreed to produce (though money troubles would cause the budget to inflate from $700,000 to $1.1 million). Craven was determined to make a great movie villain. Inspired by the masked killers of the time, he made Krueger heavily disfigured as his "mask", and considered having a stuntman play him, like Jason. However, after several screen tests, it was decided that an actual actor was needed. He was also changed from a child molester to a child killer due to a number of child molestation stories popping up in the news at the time. Robert Englund (at one point, considered for the role of Han Solo and having played a large role in the show V) was soon cast, and put into heavy make-up, coming to embody the role for the rest of the franchise. After actor Charlie Sheen passed up the role of Glen, other actors were considered and auditioned. Eventually, Craven's daughter picked out an actor accompanying a friend to their audition from a headshot, and Craven cast a young Johnny Depp in the role. Filmed in and around Los Angeles, it would use 500 gallons of fake blood and other extensive special effects (including an oatmeal-glue mix for the melting staircase scene, and of course, Freddy's glove, made with steak knives). Released on November 9th, 1984, the film make $1.2 million on its opening weekend,and $25 million over its run in theaters. The success would push New Line into the mainstream, making it "The House that Freddy Built". It has come to be seen as one of the greatest horror films ever made.

      In an Everytown, USA, high schooler Tina Grey (Amanda Wyss) is chased in a dream by a mysterious disfigured man with claws (Robert Englund). When she awakened, there are tears in her nightgown. While her boyfriend Rod Lane (Nick Corri) is unsympathetic, her friends Nancy Thompson (Heather Langenkamp) and her boyfriend Glen Lantz (Johnny Depp) comfort her. Sure enough, the next night, while Rod and Tina are sleeping together, Tina is again hounded by the man, who catches up, and kills brutally. Rod witnesses her body being torn under the sheets, and flees. He is subsequently accused by Nancy's father, Police Lieutenant Donald (John Saxon) of her murder. However, Nancy is unsure, and she herself is pursued in her dreams by the man, now calling himself Freddy. She would soon find herself in a seemingly unwinnable situation, all while learning stunning truths about her mother (Ronee Blakely) and the other parents on Elm Street.

     I did this film back when these were short Facebook reviews. I remember not liking it, feeling it was too cheesy and weird. Now watching some 5 or 6 years later, I definitely didn't give it its due credit. The atmosphere of this film is amazing. It is all pervasive, slowly invading even the most calm settings around, and it seems never-ending. This is helped by Freddy's reliance on dreams, which means the characters are always going to encounter him because of the need to sleep. It makes for some great, inventive scares, and the creeping sense that follows you as you and the characters try to determine his next move. There is some great, iconic imagery, especially the boileroom, which is shot in a dream-like quality. I appreciate that Freddy himself is distinguished from other slasher by his facial scares and his lively personality, as well as supernatural abilities. He is a great villain, constantly around, and even when things seem safe, he pops back up. The way he's defeated is especially clever, using the logic established in the film and personal growth to slowly diminish his power. I like that some scenes are indefinite as to whether they're dreams or not.

    If I had one criticism, it is too short. A lot happens, but it is wrapped up very neatly. It might've been nice to explore the community a little, Freddy's crimes in life, how the dream world works, but the film is only 90-some minutes. I also feel that it lags in certain parts, especially the scenes where they try to determine the cause of Nancy's problems, and I wish they had gone a little more into how Freddy got to be a supernatural ghost, but perhaps they explain it in the sequels.

   I was way off about this movie. This was actually pretty good, and this time around, I enjoyed it a fair bit. I recommend it to horror fans or thriller fans as well, or for historical purposes to see the origin of a horror icon. It does pique my interest in the sequels as well.

      Speaking of which, join me tomorrow for Freddy's Revenge.
     

Reason for the Season- Twilight Zone (2019)

    A couple years ago, I did a piece on this very blog lamenting that science fiction anthologies were not as common (relegated to season long anthologies at that time). In that piece, I mentioned that they shouldn't do another *Twilight Zone*, because there were at least two others before it. Well, they went and did it anyway, so that's why I decided to review it: to see if this lives up to any of the previous incarnations and to see how the anthology format holds up now. Just a reminder, these are more free-form, stream of consciousness than my typical reviews, and I include spoilers with abandon.  Also, I want to make this an official series, so there's a title. (Get it? Because TV series are organized into seasons and... you get it.)


    Okay, of the three version of this show, this is easily worst. I've said this for weeks as it has been released. For a long time, I regarded the 2002 version as the weakest one. Even that had some highlights and some good episodes (especially the sequel to "It's a Good Life," with Bill Mumy himself). This, however, has the weakest set of episodes so far. And it starts off fine. The Comedian episode with Kumail Nanjiani was pretty good, with a Twilight Zone-esque twist and very universal themes. It goes downhill from that almost immediately with the second episode, a very loose remake of Nightmare at 20,000 Feet called Nightmare at 30,000 Feet, which had... a podcast, I think, and Adam Scott running an airplane. Honestly, I don't remember a lot of it, and that's the problem with a lot of these. They don't really have those clincher moments that the standard Twilight Zone episodes do. Like, take the classic episode *Time Enough at Last*, of course about a dude who just wants to read, but is constantly distracted by the people in his life. At the very end, he has the time to read all the books he wants, since everyone else was wiped out by the apocalypse, but just he is about to, he breaks his glasses. That is a very iconic and very memorable moment. That is largely absent from this new incarnation, and in its place is... attempting to comment on modern social issues. Like, in the least subtle manner possible. The worst offender is "The Wunderkund", about John Cho as a political advisor who gets an 11-year old elected President. It is very clearly about Trump, and it is so painful to watch. Like, imagine all those hacky Trump jokes from like, Jimmy Kimmel and Bill Maher, and make them into a *Twilight Zone* episode and here's what we've got. "Not All Men" could've been interesting exploration of toxic masculinity, but doesn't really demonstrate that and has an ending that just contradicts itself. "Point of Origin" could've been as biting as an episode of the original, with a focus on the current immigration crisis. Again, though, it doesn't really explore these issues or really makes a point about them. It's just "yep. This is happening." People have defended (correctly) that the Twilight Zone from the 60's was political, but it always felt complete, and further more, held up as stories in their own right with universal themes. "The Monsters are Due on Maple Street" could be held as a commentary on McCarthyism and the Red Scare, but could be seen as a simple story about mass hysteria and the dangers of paranoia. Hell, the 2002 one had an update that was pretty good, while also commenting on the hysteria following 9/11. A lot of these, beside being unsubtle, are just not really good or memorable. Okay, there is one, and it's the best one of this season "Replay". There is a strong undercurrent about police brutality and racism, but it never feels too attached to that. Instead, it has more of an overriding theme about changing the past and trying to build a future. That makes it work a lot better, since it combines contemporary themes with more universal ideals. Aside from that, it just isn't very memorable. I've heard "Six Degrees of Freedom," was touted as a highlight, but I didn't care for it, especially the end. I can't tell you anything that happens in "A Traveler" or "Blue Scorpion". The very last episode of the season "Blurryman" is also pretty mediocre for the most part, though its message about how people ought to explore and expand art in all different directions and explore new ideas and worlds, and that something can be both good art and good entertainment was decently handled in the closing narration (the episode leading up to it was decidedly less adept at this message). That narration reminded me a lot of how Rod Serling, a long suffering TV writer who had scripts regularly censored by sponsors for their too-close-for-comfort stories, was able to use SF/Fantasy to explore contemporary themes and new ideas. (They might've also taken influence from the old Tower of Terror ride in Disney California Adventure with their TZ homages) The thing with this is that it has potentially good ideas and has a stellar cast and crew. Thus, none of it is really bad per se, but at that point, it just doesn't reach the level of being good. It's solid mediocrity, and that's probably the worst part. It just doesn't evoke an emotion within you. I'll probably never see any of these episodes again, and I've rewatched plenty of the *Twilight Zone* from all its incarnations. It is revived for a second season, and hopefully, it does get a lot better, because I do see potential in this series, if they can look at what didn't work for people and fix it, this could be a great show. Finally, Jordan Peele does a decent job as narrator. I honestly preferred Forrest Whittaker during his short stint, or even the unseen narrator from the second season of 80's series. 

Well, with that out of the way, join me in a little bit as this year sees the next Summer of Terror with the Nightmare on Elm Street series.

Dailles and Nightlies- 2010: The Year We Make Contact

   2001: A Space Odyssey is my all-time favorite film. I've said this on this site multiple times, and will probably bring it up whenever it feels appropriate. I see the film at least once every year, I've read the book, I've read the sequel books, and I've read everything I could on the production of this film and its novel. So, it was a pretty good year for me when it became its 50th anniversary. With the attention given to the film due to this, I decided, with the inauguration of this new series, to spotlight its lesser known sequel. Arthur C. Clarke (co-writer of the original film, and the author of the book) wrote 2010:Odyssey Two specifically as a sequel to the film's continuity (i.e. changing Saturn in the book to Jupiter in the film). Stanley Kubrick declined directing, so Peter Hyams (known for Capricorn One and Outland) took over those duties, (having to start over with effects due to Kubrick destroying the original props), and was released to mixed critical and financial success in 1984. So, yeah, in honor of its 50th anniversary, we take a look at its underappreciated sequel.

     In 2010, 9 years after the Discovery shut down in Jupiter's orbit, Heywood Floyd (Roy Scheider, taking over the role William Sylvester played in the first one) took the fall for the events, and is mostly working in the Very Large Array. He is approached by Dimitri Moiseyevitch (Dana Elcar), a representative of the Soviet space program (remember, this was made in 1984), who hopes to recruit him for a Jupiter mission they're planning with their ship  Alexei Leonov (named for the first human to conduct a spacewalk). They hope to investigate the events that lead to the shutdown of the Discovery , the malfunction of its computer HAL-9000 (Douglas Rain), and the disappearance of Dave Bowman (Keir Dullea). Most significantly, they hope to examine the large monolith the Discovery was sent to investigate (as revealed in the climax of the first film). Despite rising tensions between the US and USSR under a conservative president (who cut funding to Floyd's agency while they were planning their own Discovery Two to investigate) and an incident in Central America, Floyd agrees, and manages to get approval for him, Walter Curnow (John Lithgow), the designer of the Discovery and Dr. Chandra (Bob Balaban), HAL's creator, to travel with the Leonov. They find themselves with already tense relations with the crew, including Captain Tanya Kirbuk (Helen Mirren), who is concurrently a major with the Soviet Air Force; Dr. Vladimir Rudenko (Saveliy Kramarov), the ship's doctor; and Irina Yakunina( Natasha Schneider), the ship's nutritionist. As they enter Jupiter orbit, they find strange signals coming from Jupiter's moon Europa. After prodding from Floyd, they investigate further, only for a strange light to emerge. This only harkens the strange events that may or may not explain what happened to the Discovery, Dave Bowman, and HAL-9000.

      This could've easily just been a Kubrick knock-off, a way to just imitate his style without any sort of consideration as to why that style is effective or making it work in its own way. While there are a couple Kubrick style shots and homages in the film (including an amusing one where he and Arthur C. Clarke are the US President and Soviet Premier on a Time magazine cover), Hyams largely does his own style, making it very distinct from the original and not overly reliant on it. I do like the more modern, 80's feel to the film, which, while unable to top the timeless period-ness of the original, is an interesting enough in its own right. The effects are superb, especially considering that they had to largely remake a lot of them from the originals. It keeps up with the original in those terms. It largely keeps to the events of the book (though my favorite scene in the book, where Dave Bowman is shown the floating gasbags of Jupiter, and oceanic creatures of Europa by the monolith beings, isn't in the film).

     Which probably leads me to my first problem with the film (and the book): the ending, where it is revealed the monolith beings want to create a new sun using the monoliths to create enough mass. It makes sense, given what has been stated in the plot and gives a good climax. However, it stretches belief and feels a bit odd in an otherwise realistic film. Another book-related problem was the explanation of HAL's malfunction. It is revealed that he was torn between the original mission orders and orders given to keep the Monolith secret. It feels like a disappointment given the scale of his malfunction, and felt like something else was missing from this, but the film decides to just leave it there.

      This is definitely not as good as the original, but most films in general aren't. However, I do think it is a good sequel in spite of that, and just a good standalone film, and does improve on the book by adding the Cold War tension to it. If you like the original, you'll like this, or appreciate it. Even if you don't like it, this is distinct enough from it that you might enjoy it. Definitely see 2001 first, though, if you haven't already. It is a far better film, for sure. However, this is a nice underappreciated film, and especially a study of Cold War tensions in film.   

Current Film Review- Bohemian Rhapsody

        The main criteria for whether I review a film or not is "Is there enough for me to say on it?" and "Is there an interesting spin to it?" There are films I strongly like or dislike, but don't really write a review, because I can't really find anything to really say about the film in detail, or say something that hasn't already been said before. In the case of this film, it has gotten notoriety ... actually for most of its production history. With the conflicts between original actor Sasha Baron Cohen and the surviving members of Queen, to the further conflicts caused by the notorious instability and unreliability of director Bryan Singer, it was not really an easy transition to the screen. Not helped by the fact that early versions of the script downplayed Freddie Mercury's bisexuality and AIDS diagnosis (I'll get into that later.) With this extremely troubled production, it really is something of a surprise that this is as banal and unremarkable as it is.

       The film follows the life of Queen frontman Freddie Mercury (Rami Malek), from his origins as  Zanzibar-born Parsi immigrant Farrokh Bulsara joining a band named Smile with guitarist Brian May (Gwilym Lee) and drummer Roger Taylor (Ben Hardy) in Imperial College (later joined by bassist John Deacon ( Joseph Mazzello), to their rise under the new name Queen, to the seminal album A Night at the Opera (or rather, just "Bohemian Rhapsody"), eventually ending at their iconic performance at Live Aid in 1985. All the while, Mercury deals with various relationships, both romantic, including Mary Austin (Lucy Boynton), Paul Prenter (Allen Leech), and Jim Hutton (Aaron McCusker), and professional, with the other band members dealing with his more ostentatious, volatile nature.

       The hype is true: Rami Malek is absolutely fantastic in this role. He manages to get the accent down, he gets the stage presence so perfectly, it's a tad unnerving, and manages to imbue his performance with both loud rocker style and the quiet, nervous presence Mercury was reported to have in private. The physical resemblance also helps. If there is one reason to see this film, it's for his performance alone, especially during the Live Aid segment. That segment is also probably the best scene in the film, a near perfect recreation of the event, where we actually get to focus on Malek's performance as a musician and Queen playing music ....

      Which brings me to my first problem: there isn't really a full Queen song until the end. They play some of their iconic songs, sure, but not in full or they're background music. You'd think they'd focus on the various innovative, memorable songs that are still played and remembered today, but the film basically rushes through them, going from one to the other without really exploring them or having the decency to play the whole song! Even the titular song (while its production is explored in full) isn't played in its entirety. Seriously, in a Queen biopic, you'd think they'd play more Queen in it. The point about how they rush through their discography is really emblematic of the film's central problem. It is so standard and by-the-numbers that one can predict how it'll go even with the bare bones synopsis I provided. Filmmakers ought to be screened Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story before they make music biopics, because they haven't really learned to go beyond the tropes and plot structure that film satirized very acutely. This film is very Walk Hard in how its plot is structured and how it portrays its lead figure. It doesn't help that the other band members are cyphers that just don't have personalities and largely exist to just react to Mercury's antics. John Deacon especially, who barely gets anything to do. (This might be because Brian May and Roger Taylor are producers, so the filmmakers might not have wanted to offend them). The script for this is really overcompensating for the controversy centering around it, to the point of changing the sequence of events to fit it all in. I understand the controversy around straight-washing his bisexuality (and, to the film's credit, it does explore his complicated sexuality, but since the characters aside from him aren't fleshed out, it still doesn't fully work), but, since his AIDS diagnosis came years after Live Aid and they were always planning on ending its there, it does make sense that they wouldn't really cover it except for an after epilogue text(unless they were planning on ignoring it entirely, which is pretty bad). Minor spoiler, but the film moves his diagnosis to before Live Aid, and portrays his performance as some last testament. Also, the band broke up years before and Mercury gravels to them to reunite and Live Aid is their big comeback (something that never happened, and Queen had toured regularly in the years prior.). I understand that liberties need to be taken in order to make an entertaining story, but this level of revision seems only to exist as to get another cliche "musician is too difficult, band breaks up, band makes up" moment that feels like a scene straight out of Walk Hard, and again, feels like it's overcompensating for not dealing with it in the original drafts.

    I'm a huge Queen fan, so this being as boring and cliched as it is is disappointing, given how versatile and ecletic Queen was and the massive influence they've had on music. Even if you just want to hear Queen songs, they don't play a full one until the end, and the film is two hours! Just stay home and play those songs online. Still, Rami Malek's performance is good enough that I kind of recommend it if you're interested in seeing that. However, the rest of the film is just mediocre and really doesn't deserve his performance or the great Live Aid scene towards the end.

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- American Psycho

       Bret Eaton Ellis' American Psycho was released in 1991, towards the end of the 80's culturally in the US (with the collapse of the USSR and the election of Bill Clinton on the horizon). Having explored the culture of dissatisfied teens in Less than Zero and The Rules of Attraction, American Psycho explored the "yuppie" subculture of wealthy young people on Wall Street, through the lens of Patrick Bateman, secretly a psychotic murderer, and would explore the excesses of consumerism and capitalism. The book was ... controversial after its publication, with some taking issue with Bateman's misogyny and the violence. The controversy didn't deter Hollywood, with producer Edward R. Pressman buying the rights with Johnny Depp in mind for the lead in 1992. After Stuart Gordon fell through, David Cronenberg was attached to direct, with a script by Ellis himself.  Eventually, this fell apart due Ellis' dissatisfaction with where Cronenberg wanted to take the film. The film went around, at one point being considered for a TV series for NBC, before eventually ending up with another Canadian director Mary Harron (known for her film on Valerie Solarias, I Shot Andy Warhol (if you wanted to know who she was)), working from a script she wrote with frequent collaborator Guinevere Turner. Controversy still followed the film, due to the book's reputation and especially due to the Columbine massacre. Many tried to stop the film's production through various means, and many fashion labels and some artists (including Whitney Houston) refused to have their products shown. Christian Bale (ironically the stepson of famed feminist Gloria Steinem, a staunch critic of the book and the production, who would later urge Leonardo DiCaprio when he was attached to back out) was given the lead, with Willem Defoe, Reese Witherspoon, and Jared Leto in supporting roles. Emerging Canadian film company Lionsgate would purchase the film, though pushing for Edward Norton or Leonardo DiCaprio in the lead. Harron briefly left when Lionsgate replaced Bale with DiCaprio, and Oliver Stone replaced her. However, when this fell apart both Harron and Bale returned. Bale primarily channeled Tom Cruise in the role (ironically, given Cruise was a minor character in the book), and studied the book extensively to prepare for the role.  Released in Sundance to polarized reactions, it would receive positive reviews and good box office. Ellis was decided ... mixed on the film, let's just say.

      In 1987, Patrick Bateman (Christian Bale) lives a very meticulous life as a Wall Street investment banker. He has an extensive morning routine to keep his face fresh, he has what we in our modern era might call a playlist of 80's pop to listen to, and he dines with his fiancee Evelyn (Reese Witherspoon) and their vapid friends, including Paul Allen (Jared Leto, and yes, that name is a bit of an odd choice). This all hides his nature as a sociopath and murderer. When Allen displays a better business card than his, Bateman takes out his rage by killing a homeless man (the late Reg E. Cathey) and his dog. Bateman then lures Allen to his apartment, where he lectures Allen on Huey Lewis and the News, before axe-murdering him. This sends Bateman on a spiral, as he is interviewed by police detective Donald Kimball (Willem Defoe)

       I think that this film walks a very fine line. Its various observations, in any other hands, would've seemed too preachy or obvious, and might've come off too comedic to be truly satirical (if that makes any sense). However, director Harron manages to make it obvious, but natural enough that the viewer can believe what the characters are saying, and also glean the messages at hand. How Bateman's feels alienated by a world as meaningless and cold as 1980's Wall Street, and that just fuels his own rage. Christian Bale is a true standout, giving, I think, a better performance than even his turn as Batman in Christopher Nolan's trilogy. He captures both Bateman's yuppie outer self talking to his peers, and him as a depraved individual indulging in his murderous delusions, as well as his mental decline.  I read that Ellis' biggest complaint was that the unreliable narrator aspect of the book wasn't conveyed properly. I disagree. If anything, the unreliable narrator was the best part, keeping the viewer in the dark as to whether Bateman is just imaging the increasingly out there moments that happen to him. The contrast between the very ornate places Bateman inhabits and the very gory violence he inflicts cements the film's themes.

    I felt that some parts were left unresolved or unexplained. Like the character of Kimball sort of disappears at the end, and Allen is implied to be still alive. Or the fact that Bateman is mistaken for various other people. Maybe these are better explained in the book, but they feel like they don't go anywhere or really fit within the film.

      I had wanted to read the book before doing this review, since I had seen the film before, and had hoped to get a new perspective on it. Life got in the way of that, however. That said, this is a true modern classic of the genre, a satirical piece that takes on the culture of the Reagan era and all its truly emotionless, money-driven culture, and holds specific relevance today, if you catch my meaning. A definite watch for fans and non-fans alike.

Tomorrow, I close out this year, in honor of its remake, with Dario Argento's Suspiria.

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Q: The Winged Serpent

        Before I discuss this, I will briefly discuss its writer and director Larry Cohen. Originally a TV writer and creator of shows like Coronet Blue and The Invaders, he would transition to directing in the 70's, and would have a smash with It's Alive, a horror film about a killer newborn, and followed by God Told Me To, a science fiction thriller about mass killings. The film mostly originated from Cohen's desire to see a King Kong style monster movie for the Chrysler Building (which he had admired in terms of design), and figured the Aztec god Quetzelcoatl (described as a feathered serpent in most accounts) would do as the big bad. After getting fired off another project, he decided to move ahead with this idea He was able to get big stars like David Carradine (who he had served with in the army), Richard Roundtree, and Michael Moriarty to sign on (a young Bruce Willis auditioned, but was ultimately rejected by Cohen). After multiple rejections, the film was able to be shot on location in the Chrysler building, and the special effects team of Randy Cook (who would later win three Academy Awards for his work on Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy) and Dave Allen was contracted to make the stop motion creature based on Cohen's designs. The film was released in 1982 to mixed critical reception, but relative box office success and later cult classic status.

       Something is picking off people in New York! From a window cleaner to sunbathers to just people standing on rooftops, someone-or something is killing off many New Yorkers. Investigating this strange turn of events are Detective Shepard (David Carradine) and Sergeant Powell (Richard Roundtree). Wow, two Die Hard references in two reviews!). The former soon finds a connection between the seemingly ritualistic killings and ancient Aztec sacrifices. Sure enough, a cult has brought back the god Quetzelcoatl back through human sacrifices, who is now killing multiple people. Eventually, Shepard deduces what is happening, and needs to find their hideout. Luckily, small time criminal and part musician Jimmy Quinn (Michael Moriarty) came across a strange lair while escaping a botched robbery, with a large egg in the center.

         The creature design was very well done, as was the stop-motion. At first I was a bit iffy on it, due to the fact the viewer doesn't see much of it, but once it can be shown in its full glory, it is very impressive in its scale. I like that it combines the look of a bird and a dragon, a more realistic look for a being shown in Aztec paintings as a serpent with wings. The stop motion is well done, and as a bit of an homage to King Kong, the stop motion is supplemented by larger effects for its head during the climax. Many people bring up Michael Moriarty as the highlight, but honestly, Carradine was the best actor for me. He brought an edge and seriousness to the character that makes him more credible as he realizes the true nature of what's happening.

       The main problem with the film is mostly its length. The first 40 minutes could be condensed easily into 20 or even 10. Most of what happens could easily just fit into 10 minutes without losing anything significant. It would've worked better had the build-up been shorter, since more of the film could be focused on the creature itself and the attempts to stop it. As is, it meanders a lot, with the creatures various killings, Shepard investigating, and Quinn getting into trouble with his fellow robbers. This is not just restricted to the first 40 minutes. Most of the film has filler to it to pad out the run time. Had they leaned in more to the creature, it might've helped cut down much of the filler.

       This felt more like an extended television episode of an anthology show or an action show than it did a feature film. Not to say it was bad. It was entertaining and interesting enough to have kept me watching. If you want a film to watch in the background or just want to see some monster shenanigans, I recommend this. Honestly, though, it was a bit of a disappointment.

     Next week, we move to one of the most influential horror films of the modern era: The Blair Witch Project

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Re-Animator

      HP Lovecraft "Herbert West-Reanimator" was originally published in Home Brew (a small fanzine run by a friend) in 1922. Centering on the titular character resurrecting the dead (as well as a satire of Mary Shelly's Frankenstein), Lovecraft was dissatisfied with it, having only done it for money. (Reading the story makes that clear, with how much of it seems to have been written on auto-pilot), and is generally considered one of his worst. Accordingly, unlike many of Lovecraft's other story, it was not republished at first. Chicago playwright Stuart Gordon first came across the story after a discussion with friends lamenting the number of Dracula movies and not a lot of Frankenstein ones, whereupon a friend recommended it. Gordon had been a fan of Lovecraft for years and after reading, decided to try to adapt it: first on stage, then as a TV pilot. Originally wanting to emulate Lovecraft's setting, they ultimately decided to update to modern day Chicago for budgetary concerns, and later expanded it to an hour. Eventually, special effects director Bob Greenberg (known for John Carpenter's Dark Star) convinced him to make it into a feature film, and introduced him to producer Brian Yuzna, which allowed the production to move to Hollywood. Special effects director John Naulin would use both morgue shoots and books on forensic pathology to help make many of effects used as bodies and make-up in the film, using 25 gallons of fake blood in the process.  The cast would themselves spend time in a morgue and insane asylum to fully prepare for their roles in the film. The film was largely shot over 18 days, with Richard Band composing the score over three weeks (having to spend money due to overtime). It was released to financial success and critical acclaim, and continues to be a cult classic, though Lovecraft fans (despite the story being considered one of his weakest) are split on it.
     Herbert West (Jeffrey Combs), a medical student is kicked out of the Swiss institution he was studying at, after a mishap with his Professor Hans Gruber (sadly, not Alan Rickman, but Al Berry) ends with Gruber walking and acting strangely while bleeding out of his eyes. He moves into Miskatonic Medical School, where he bonds with Dan Cain (Bruce Abbot), and clashes with Dr.Carl Hill (David Gale), whom West accuses of plagiarism. Cain is dating Megan (Barbara Crampton), the daughter of Miskatonic Dean Alan Halsey (Robert Sampson). Cain allows West to room with him, over Megan's objections, where he conducts strange experiments. Sure enough, one day, Megan discovers their cat in West's fridge. West says the cat had died due to an accident, but Cain and Megan are skeptical. Then, Cain finds West attempting to find the cat and seeing him kill it, even though it was explicitly dead earlier. Cain is upset, before West reveals a formula that brings the cat back to life. Megan is understandably horrified, and her father subsequently bans Cain and West from campus. Undeterred, they sneak into the campus morgue (do medical schools have those?) at night to test the formula on humans. The dean hears about it, and tries to stop them, only to be killed by a corpse they were able to resurrect. Hill hears about it, and now wants to hear their secret....
     This film is pure schlock. How is this a good thing? Well, it's shlock, but it decides to fully embrace it. It is a messy, gore-filled, supernatural enfused B-movie, and it is incredibly fun, helped by great effects that make it as disgusting and revolting as needed Not to mention, it is incredibly earnest. The acting and writing take every moment very seriously. It takes Lovecraft's worst story, excises a lot of it, and leaves the bare bones story to play around with. Probably the best way to adapt material like that. It is very entertaining, in the way it was intended. I like that the villain, previously shown as a bit of a snobby, cantankerous fellow, to become a depraved monster, unhinged by traditional morality, after his own death and West resurrecting ....his head. No, really, West resurrects his head after beheading him, and it is still able to control his body. Once again, this is a hell of a lot of fun, and I really enjoyed watching it.
      There was a couple of minor problems following the narrative. Mostly, sometimes things happen off-set or just not explained, and some scenes were a bit hard to follow. Similarly, it is quite short at only 86 minutes. I feel more could've been explored.
     It might be hasty to say this, but I think this is one of my new favorite horror films. I really loved the experience of watching it, and it is truly an underrated classic, like I've heard from many sources. This is a true Halloween movie, with various horror elements put together to make a great viewing experience. As such, I highly recommend to horror fans of any stripes.
    Tomorrow, we go back to gods and monsters with Q-The Winged Serpent.

Current Film Review- Ready Player One

      In a sense, I've been preparing for this very review for over a year. I read the book in order to fully immerse myself into this particular mythos, and to adequately critique this particular work on the basis of adaptation. Now, I wasn't really a fan of the book (and about a year after reading, I've forgotten large swathes of it), but even after finishing it, I did see the potential for a decent film adaptation. Yeah, the book was pretty mediocre, but Steven Spielberg has taken mediocre books, (like, say, an airport novel about a shark attacking a beach town or a technothriller about an amusement park filled with genetically engineered dinosaurs), and turned them into some of the greatest thrillers ever made. So, despite my own misgivings on the source material, I did see the potential in this particular film. Now having seen it, it definitely is not among Spielberg's best, but it is still overall fun and enjoyable on itself, and despite myself, I had a good time watching it.

        Based on Ernest Cline's novel of the same name( which is the "Holy Grail of Pop Culture", whatever that means), the book is set 37 years in the future. The world is in shambles after a series of named (though unspecified) incidents, and most people decide to retreat into a large video game system called "OASIS", where people, in their avatar forms, live their lives effectively online, using some sort of VR system mixed with motion sensors, it seems. However, most people spend their time in one particular pursuit. The architect of this system, James Halliday (Mark Rylance), has strategically placed three easter eggs (in the form of keys), throughout the OASIS, and whoever can locate and use these three keys can gain his fortune of 500 billion dollars and control over the OASIS itself. Wade Watts (Tye Sheridan), aka Parzival (after the knight who discovered the Holy Grail) is one of those so-called "Gunters", who hunt down clues, using Hallidays disturbingly large collection of 80's trivia and memorabilia to help find these clues. He is joined by his friends Aech (I'd give the name of the person who plays Aech here, but it's kind of a spoiler, so I won't), Daito (Win Morisaki), and Sho (Phillip Zhao). During the race challenge for the first key, he also meets Artemis (Olivia Cooke), who he begins to have affection for. Parzival's luck changes when he looks closer at the original clue for the first key, and manages to win his way into becoming the first person to win the key. This prompts a frenzy as the search restarts after being moribund for so long. However, Parzival's success also attracts the attention of IOI, a large tech corporation of some kind, led by Nolan Sorrento (Ben Mendelsohn), who keeps a series of indentured servants called "Sixers" around to help find the keys, to give IOI control over the OASIS, whereupon they'll turn it into a massive ad space. Now, as Parzival, Artemis, and co. try to find the other keys, they also must prevent IOI from gaining them first, thus attaining complete control over OASIS.

       First and foremost, this film looks gorgeous. For a fully CGI world, it just pops out, especially in terms of color. It is very bright and distinct, managing to pump a lot of detail into various shots. It is incredibly pleasant to look at, and manages to invokes the feel of what the OASIS is meant to be. In effect, a large scale CGI MMORPG.  Even during the various action scenes, the film largely remains coherent in terms of visuals. Speaking of action, it is a lot of fun to watch, and sometimes very creative, especially during the climax. I was honestly enthralled and absorbed by a lot of these action scenes. I also thought the film managed to fix some of the issues I had with the book (some, I used there, as I'll explain later.) The plot feels a lot less flabby and directionless, and the characters are much more fleshed out, or at the very least, somewhat compelling or interesting in some way. The story also does actually use its setting to deploy some commentary.  It's not particularly deep or revelatory, but its presence is an immediate upgrade from the book, where the implications of its various parts isn't really considered to any significant degree. I also got a better sense of the dystopia that was there, even if, like in the book, it isn't explained very well. It also removes a lot of the more problematic elements of the book, and makes the main character a lot less of an unsufferable know-it-all(probably my biggest problems with the book)

     Like I said, the film fixes several of the books problem, but a couple remain. The exposition at beginning was very reminiscent of the exposition, and much like that, it doesn't work. It feels like a case of  "tell, not show". The dialogue also got a little cringy at times, especially during Parzival's and Arthemis' relationship, or some of Sorrento's interactions. The interworkings of this future, the OASIS, and IOI aren't explained very well, and I got confused sometimes trying to figure it out. The references, like in the book, got a little bit on my nerves. Some works, like Kim Newman's Anno Dracula series or Alan Moore's League of Extraordinary Gentlemen , manage to integrate references in such a way that either drives the plot, or is just interesting salad dressing. The references in this and its source material just feel gratuitous and even a tad absurd. I'll give the film version, Spielberg changes a lot of them, and some of them are decent enough tributes to friends of his (Robert Zemeckis and Stanley Kubrick among them). Overall, though, it still feels a bit pander-ish, and it weakens the film's ability to stand on its merits.

      Despite the flaws of the film (which are more apparent once you've seen it), I enjoyed this picture. Unlike the slog of a book it came from, this managed to invoke a sense of fun and excitement, and I was invested. It was (ironically) a fun retreat, where I could just sit and enjoy what's happenng on the screen. It certainly did make a better film than it did a book. If you like the book, you may enjoy this, though bear in mind, a lot has been changed, especially in terms of plot. If you hated the book, you might either appreciate the changes, or still dislike it, because the basic structure is still present. If you've never read it, I think it will make enough sense for you to follow it, though even I, someone who has read the book, got lost at times, so don't feel bad if you do. 

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.

Nostalgia

  Recently, I have gotten back into the animated television show "Ed, Edd, 'n' Eddy." My favorite show as a kid (and one of my  favorite shows of all time). It is better than I remember. I now get the sometimes subtle jokes that the show deploys. I also appreciate the slapstick, and the loose, wild animation.  However, I suppose that part of my newfound enjoyment of the show stems, in part, from an inherent sense of nostalgia. Nostalgia is an emotion many humans have, whether they know it or not. All humans feel an appreciation or a longing for the past. Because they are dissatisfied with the present, or they simply want to reflect on a time that was simpler (in their eyes).Nosalgia is a natural feeling to have. Why point this out? Well, I hope it mitigates the  response that I might get from this article.
      Recently, there has been a boom in 80's-90's nostalgia. There are entire websites and tv shows dedicated to the culture of these two cultures, and appreciation of them. ABC's "The Goldbergs" is a show that completely emmerses itself in 80's nostalgia. Buzzfeed has daily lists dedicated to the topic. Definitely, the internet has given us a whole new culture of old. This is of course nothing new. The 70's and 80's worshiped the 50's and 60's. The 90's had an affinity for the 60's and 70's. Now, it is the 80's and 90's that the disgruntled older masses have decided to latch on. Of course, there is no inherent problem in occasionally indulging your childhood likes and dislikes. However, if I were to leave it at that, there would be no use for this article.
   If internet nerds were merely expressing their love of their childhood, that's one thing. However, constantly proclaiming that your childhood is superior to anyone else's childhood is whole different matter entirely. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the point of this article. The people who will constantly degrade the present, and put divinity towards their childhood. Rational people are irritated by this. However, they infest every part of the internet. They will constantly say "Why, the 90's were BETTER. I mean we had (this) and (that), which is much better than the crap of today." You would see this comment at times on Youtube or Facebook. Now, before you chastise me for trying respond to irrelevant peoples who have no bearing on society whatsoever, I write this as a counterpoint to the mainstream nostalgia obsession, as well as this trolls.
      Were the 90's better? Well, you can't really answer that. Every historical era is flawed in one way or the other. One can find several things that would dampen 50's-60's. The 80's and 90's were no different. Yes, the Eighties had Star Wars, ET, and Back to the Future. It also had Troll 2, Heaven's Gate, Howard the Duck, and Mommie Dearest. You may have great music acts, too numerous to count, I will admit, but you also have equal amount of terrible music. It may not have cell phones, but it did AIDS, and crack, lots of it. The 90's also have flaws. Think of all of the Direct to Video films that Disney and other companies spewed out every year of the decade.  While there were many good video games from, there were also a lot really bad ones, many from the Giants Nintendo and Sega. This one fellow on Youtube said that we had less terror problems. Yeah, so Waco, the WTC bombing, the bombings at the Atlanta Olympics, Osama Bin Laden's 1998 attack on the Tanzanian Embassy all of a sudden don't count. And there were more obscure acts of terrorism that occurred during the decade. (When I confronted the guy, he claimed that "Waco wasn't terrorism (which I suppose is debatable), and that they caught Ramzi Yousef in 5 years (Why this matters, and how this makes the incident not count as terrorism is beyond me). I could go on, but then, I'd go into personal preference, which might compromise the piece.
     If you enjoyed something as a child, and you just like the show just due to that reason, that's fine. For the EE'n'E example above, I know that there might be people who will criticize that show for reasons that I'm sure are valid. However, I would like to challenge the idea that all nostalgic things are "good." I will take the example of Pokemon, particularly the first generation. A lot of people will tell you that they like only the first generations, and the other generations are "inferior." (I loathe such persons passionately, but that is neither here or now). Was the First Generation the best? In my opinion, no. The region is boring, the story is lackluster, the graphics really haven't aged well in 17 years. It was revolutionary in 1996, I am certain, and it was the first, so they had no precedent to work off of. However, that was 1996. In modern times, the games of generation 1 haven't held up. And that's not even going into the Pokemon, which are very childish, and very simple. (And don't tell me that is part of their charm. Yes, I suppose there is an appeal of sorts to simple Pokemon. There are simple Pokemon in every generation, yet people seem to loathe them too. So, why do you excuse the First generation for having a blob, a rock with arms, and a pokeball, but than proceed to heap hate onto Trubbish or Vanilluxe) I only like 5 or 6 pokemon from this particular generation. I freely admit this could be bias. I didn't grow up on Generation 1. I got into Pokemon in generations 2 and 3, and I prefer them, because that's what I grew up on, so perhaps I've fallen into the same mindset as the ones I condemn, but you see my point. (Further, I do understand if many find faults in later generations. I myself wasn't all impressed with Gen VI's lineup, but this isn't out of nostalgia, and more out of critical examination)  Nostalgia is not a marker of quality. Just because you played and/or watched something in the past does not make it the greatest ever. That is simply personal taste, and that is not quantitative.
       Do I get nostalgic? Well, not much. Sometimes, I watch Cartoon Network's current line-up, and I think of the shows that I grew up watching on the network. However, I don't bemoan that the network has somehow declined in recent years. It simply has different shows now, shows that are being watched by a generation not older than when I was watching it. These are their nostalgic shows, and they will forever cherish them, much as I, and the targets of this article, cherish our childhood memories. Nostalgia is not an inherently bad thing. However, when you are obsessed with the past and its supposed perfection, you ignore what was wrong with yesterday, and what is good about today, or what will be good for the future. The past is the past, and continually insisting that it was untarnished is not helpful in securing a good present or future. In the end, you must let go of the past if you want to have a bright future. Nostalgia is something that we will all have. However, if you let your nostalgia consume your being, you'll always be stuck in the past.