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. 

(Corona-) Summer of Terror- The Bride of Frankenstein

    The 1931 Frankenstein film was very different from Mary Shelley's novel, removing, among other changes, a subplot where the monster forces Dr. Frankenstein to make him a mate, which the latter complies with, until he doesn't. This would form the basis for the sequel to the film, which was conceived during the previews of the first film. Indeed, the ending was changed to have Dr. Frankenstein live specifically so that he could return for a sequel. Initially, however, James Whale didn't want to do a sequel, having had a falling out with Boris Karloff during the production of the film The Old Dark House and feeling that he had done all he could with the concept. Ultimately, he agreed to make the film in exchange for Universal backing his project One More River. Whale was dissatisfied by the scripts offered, including a treatment by Robert Florey, and gave the script to John L. Balderston. Balderston was the one who centered the film on the subplot, making it about the "Bride of Frankenstein" and even wrote a prologue with Mary Shelley herself. Whale, still dissatisfied, pushed the script to William J. Hurlbut and Edmund Pearson, who polished the final script. Karloff and Colin Clive returned, with Valerie Hobson replacing Mae Clarke in the role of Elizabeth Frankenstein. Whale's old friend Ernest Thesiger plays the villain Dr. Pretorius. In the titular role of the Bride was Elsa Lancaster. Born to a bohemian artistic family in London, Lancaster studied dance in Paris under Isadora Duncan, before returning to England and starting a number of venues to pursue theatre and cabaret. Eventually, she started appearing in small scale productions in Britain with her husband Charles Laughton, eventually accompanying him to Hollywood. Laughton managed to carve out a niche for himself, including in The Old Dark House. She had returned to London when Whale offered her the role. She based her signature hiss on swans in Regent's Park, London. Jack P. Pierce and Kenneth Strickfadden return in their roles, with Pierce's original make-up modified slightly to allow the monster to speak (an element Karloff was vehemently against).  Pierce also designed the Bride with Whale, basing it off the Egyptian queen Nefertiti. A very young Billy Barty was prominently featured before his scenes were cut. Released on April 20th, 1935, the film would garner critical acclaim, and is widely regarded as one of the greatest sequels ever made. 

    The film begins with a prologue featuring Lord Byron (Gavin Gordon), Percy Shelley (Douglas Walton), and Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley (Elsa Lancaster) stuck in Byron's villa in Switzerland during a thunderstorm in 1815. Byron and Shelley praise Mary's tale of Frankenstein, and ask that she continue with the story. She agrees, and begins the story: shortly after the events of the first film, Frankenstein (Boris Karloff) emerges from the wreckage of the windmill burned in the original and begins to wander. Meanwhile, Dr. Frankenstein (Colin Clive) recovers back in the village with his bride Elizabeth (Valerie Dobson) by his side. They're approached by Frankenstein's old teacher Dr. Pretorius (Ernest Thesiger), who really wants Frankenstein to help him with his own life creation experiments. Eventually, as Frankenstein tries to survive paranoid villagers (including befriending a hermit (OP Heggie)), Pretorius' begins his grandiose scheme: To create a bride. For the Monster. 

    Again, the highlight of the film is Karloff's performance. There's a lot more instances of his physicality and his innocence, conveyed well by Karloff's own movement. For all his opposition to the monster talking, he manages to do the voice well, making that aspect of the character as iconic as it is. Elsa Lancaster does well in her brief appearances as both Mary Shelley and the Bride. Her performance at the end is really good, especially at showing the fear that the creation has at the world around her. Her hissing is very precise, and she makes an impression even though she only appears in the last ten minutes. Dr. Pretorius is very fun in his giddiness, the way Claude Rains was in Invisible Man. I like that the film continues to show the monster as sympathetic, continually despised and misunderstood despite only making mistakes. It really makes the film tragic, as the monster is rejected by all aspects of society, including his creator, the villagers, and even the bride crafted specifically for him. There's been speculation of a queer subtext, given the director and some of the actors and the camp factor of the film. Personally, I think if there is such a subtext, it's in the Creature being besieged by a society that mistrusts and hates him, finding solace only in the relationship he forges with the Blind Hermit. 

    The opening is a little slow, and a bit confusing, especially when Dr. Pretorius arrives and shows the homunculi he created. While the make-up in this film is iconic, I kind of prefer the ones from the original. It looked a lot more natural and this makes Karloff's face look bloated. It doesn't feel right. 

     As with the first one, this is something of a quintessential American horror movie or even quintessential American film. Beyond the horror genre, this has been homaged or referenced so many times, that it's hard to not to at least know of its existence. Even Mel Brook's Young Frankenstein utilizes the imagery and menace that this film had pioneered. In that sense, it's almost required viewing for that reason. Helps that it is really, really good in its own right. 

    I feared this would happen. Yes, unfortunately, I have to take this into September. Like everyone else, it's just been a hard year for me, and writing these tends to be a more intensive form because of the research. Hopefully, I will be able to finish by mid-September. Anyway, next time, we will look at Werewolf of London. 

Summer of Terror-The Universal Monsters: The Invsible Man

     HG Wells' The Invisible Man was inspired in part by references to invisible men in a WS Gilbert poem and Plato's Republic. It, along with War of the Worlds and The Time Machine, would be seen as one of the classics from Wells. The film version began production as early as 1931, but ran into a number of production problems. The film had multiple treatments with wildly different takes on the story, including one set on Mars. RC Sheriff (who wrote Journey's End, which director James Whale had produced on stage in 1928) eventually found the original novel in a secondhand bookstore, and wrote the script around that. Even that had issues, as the script was helped by then-famed science fiction writer Phillip Wylie (later known for proto-superhero work Gladiator and When Worlds Collide, who integrated elements of his novel The Murderer Invisible into the script) and future Oscar winner Preston Sturges, who were then taken off the project. Director Cyril Gardner was replaced by the reliable James Whale. Originally, Boris Karloff and Colin Clive were considered for the role of the Invisible Man. However, Whale had a small falling out with Karloff and Clive declined, so the role went to a newcomer to film named Claude Rains. Rains, a British World War I veteran, had been a rising star on the London stage (thanks, in part, to him modifying his Cockney accent into a trans-Atlantic accent) , and had been an instructor in the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts, where John Gieglud and Laurence Olivier were his students. He had appeared in a silent film in 1920, but largely remained a theater actor and came to Broadway in 1928. In 1931, he was offered a screen test for an RKO picture called A Bill of Divorcement. While the screen test failed, James Whale happened to overhear it, and impressed by Rains' voice, hired him as the Invisible Man. Even still, production remained troubled, with a fire breaking out at one point, shutting down production. The Invisible Man effect was well-regarded in its time. Wires on set were used to display the invisible man running around, but the actual effect when Rains took off his mask was achieved through a special velvet black suit Rains wore against a velvet black background, which was combined with a location shot through a matte. Released in 1933, the film was Universal's biggest success after Frankenstein , and would launch Claude Rains into an incredibly illustrious film career. Wells himself would have mixed feelings on the film, commenting that while he enjoyed it, he didn't like that the scientist had gone insane from the process.

    A bandaged man (Claude Rains) walks into a hotel and asks for a room. It's revealed that this bandaged stranger is in fact, Dr. Jack Griffin, a scientist working for Dr. Cranley (Henry Travers, aka "Clarence" from It's a Wonderful Life), and engaged to Cranley's daughter Flora (Gloria Stuart). They, and Dr. Kemp (Willaim Harrigan) have concerns for Griffin, especially when they come across a dangerous formula in his collection. Sure enough, when the innskeeper (Forrester Harvey) tries to kick him out, Griffin dispatches him, and grandly reveals that he has gained the ability to become invisible. 

    So, the special effects hold up really well. The invisibility effect is extremely well-done in close up, and I was shocked when I read up on how it was done (hence why I noted it in the intro.) It also helps that the other invisibility effects are also well-done, making the character feel present even if you can't see him. Claude Rains does well in his de facto film debut, delivering the grand villainous monologues with energy and gusto that makes him very appealing to watch. Helps that he also has legitimate malice and menace to him that makes him a very real threat. I also liked that the film had some good intentional humor that was legitimately funny, but also felt more like fun than the relatively dour films prior to it. It also has a conclusion that feels like an actual conclusion, rather than feeling like something was cut out.

    Some parts, like the opening and some of the middle, were a bit confusing and hard to follow. I only learned from looking at the synopsis what a discovery in the middle of the film actually meant, and some of the extensive middle part felt confusing. Also, the way he's dispatched at the end was a bit anti-climatic, especially with his grandiose gesturing throughout the film.

    Pretty entertaining film overall, and an interesting companion piece to the very recent remake (if you managed to see it in theaters before... everything.) I'd say I prefer the new one a little more, but this is definitely worth a watch, if only for the insane monologues Claude Rains delivers and the incredible special effects. 

    Next up, the very  first sequel in the Universal Monsters franchise with The Bride of Frankenstein.

Coming to a Video Screen Near You- A Million Little Pieces

    I was severely disappointed by the fact this was dumped onto VOD like last week's salami, because I was actually fairly intrigued by this film. If you don't know, A Million Little Pieces was a 2003 novel by James Frey, ostensibly about his extensive drug use and experience in rehab. The book would garner critical acclaim and financial success, especially after Oprah put the book onto her Book Club list in 2005, and had Frey on as a guest. It then emerged from investigations that he had fabricated siginficant parts of the book, including his arrest records and involvement in several incidents described. His subsequent appearance on Oprah saw her eviscerate him on air, his "memoir" was reclassified as fiction, and Frey himself would become a punchline for defrauding people, and would fade into obscurity (popping up only to make a YA slave factory and apparently came up with the initial concept for Queen and Slim). Now, I myself don't remember any of this, because I was 8, but the story has intrigued me for a while. The idea of a fake memoir, someone embellishing or fabricating their own life and selling it successfully is an intriguing notion. I feel that it taps into so many intriguing aspects of memory, fiction vs. fact, people's perceptions of real and fake. In this era of misinformation and fake news running rampant across the internet with little rebuttal, telling the story of a man who made up a memoir and successfully pitched it to the American public might had some relevance and might've been a biting look into media hype and how mistruths can spread. Unfortunately, director Sam Taylor-Johnson and her husband and star of the film, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, decided to take the memoir as it was, and ignore all this interesting material for the most mundane telling of this story.

    Based on James Frey's "memoirs" of the same name, the story follows Frey (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) as he is forced to go into rehab in Minneapolis by his brother Bob (Charlie Hunnam, doing this horrible what I think is supposed to be a Boston accent) after an incident where . While he is initially reserved and in denial of his extensive drug and alcohol abuse (even as he deals with no drinks or even anesthesia) , through the acts of people like Leonard (Billy Bob Thorton), Miles Davis (not that one, he plays a clarinet) (Charles Parnell), Joanne (Juliette Lewis), and Lilly (Odessa Young), he learns to overcome his struggle, and yadda, yadda, yadda, you know the rest.

    There are parts of this movie that are actually quite well done. There's some very good shots down that are surprisingly evocative, especially a parallel shot at the beginning and end. Billy Bob Thorton and Charles Parnell are also very good for the stock roles they end up giving. Thorton in particular has some great emotional moments that are really gripping.

     First and foremost, Aaron Taylor-Johnson is awful in this. Just horrible. His line delivery is muddled and incoherent, his physicality seems distractingly unnatural, and during the vaunted scenes of drug use, this physicality really doesn't work with stumbling and bumbling anywhere. I can tell he's trying to capture the angst and agony going through this character as he tries to recover, but it really, really doesn't work to convey that. James Frey comes off a cypher wandering through life. What doesn't help is that the film itself is mostly a generic, middle-of -the-road story of addiction, that largely goes through the motions stipulated by other works of fiction (and yes, I do consider the "memoir" fiction), done better in other films. Other than those shots I mentioned, it's filmed generically, it's written generically with bland speeches about overcoming, and mostly, it's just... generic. Not especially good, not especially bad, just .... there. When compared to films like Beautiful Boy (based on an actual true story) or Ben is Back, both from last year, this film, with its after-school preachiness and ridiculous scenes, comes off really dated and absurd. Which might make it entertaining if it weren't so dull. I completely zoned out of large parts of this film because it was so monotonous and unengaging, with so many speeches about overcoming and not a lot of actual overcoming. Finally, and this is a real life criticism, but that the fact the memoir was a proven fraud, casts a shadow over this film. They acknowledge it briefly with a quote at the beginning, but like I said in the intro, instead of treating it like the story of a man who tricked millions of people, we instead get the full, largely fabricated account of the fake memoir, by extension endorsing it. If it had actually happened, a lot of the earlier flaws might've been forgiven, but this is all made-up and the fact that filmmakers don't seem to want to acknowledge it really undercuts the power of the film and any help it may give to other addicts.

    I read a bunch of interviews with Sam and Aaron Taylor-Johnson, and they seem very sincere in bringing this to the screen. The director, in particular, talked about people she had known who had struggled with addiction as a reason to make the film. I appreciate the reasons they had to go through with this project in spite of the controversy and years of production hell, but honestly, it's really hard not to think of it and the potentially more interesting story that might've been told around this book. At the end of the day, though, this was just mediocre. The fact of its very existence is probably much more interesting and thought-provoking than the film itself. It's not even bad in a particularly interesting way. It's bad in dullest manner. If you're interested, read up on the real story and especially The Smoking Gun's investigation into the inaccuracies and suspicious elements of the book, and see it with that mind. Otherwise, I can't quite think of a reason to see it. 

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Earth vs. the Flying Saucers

      In 1947, a businessman and pilot named Kenneth Arnold was flying near Mt. Rainier in Washington state when he came across a bunch of strange lights he compared to "saucers", among other things. The press would come to dub these objects "Flying Saucers". This sighting was one of many during the late 40's and 50's, when people around the world began to report seeing strange objects in the skies, which was soon attributed to beings from the stars. One of the biggest proponents of this was Marine aviator Maj. Donald Keyhoe, who wrote some bestsellers with information from official sources (though with differing interpretations of those sources and the eyewitnesses listed than either the Air Force or scientists probably would've) regarding the phenomenon. Of course, Hollywood smelt an opportunity, and made many alien invasion films during the period.With the (fairly dubious) prestige of Major Keyhoe, a film was made, "suggested" by his book, Flying Saucers from Outer Space. After going through titles like Attack of the Flying Saucers and Invasion of the Flying Saucers, the title Earth vs. the Flying Saucers just felt right, apparently. Ray Harryhausen did the effects for the film, and the producer was his regular one Charles Schneer. To help the film, Harryhausen sought the guidance of George Adamski (known for his... bizarre UFO sightings). The screenplay was written by Bernard Gordon (who had to take the alias Raymond T Marcus, due to being blacklisted), George Worthing Yates, and Curt Siodmak (known for writing The Wolf Man for Universal). Stock footage of the sinking of the HMS Barham and V-2 launches during World War II were among the effects used in the film to describe the alien attacks in the film. The film is regarded as something of a classic, with Tim Burton extensively homaging the film in Mars Attacks, but Harryhausen himself has admitted it was his least favorite of the films he had done.

      Flying saucers are everywhere, being seen by pilots, farmers, and all sorts of people. This includes Dr. Russell Marvin (Hugh Marlowe) and his wife Carol (Joan Taylor), who are driving to Project Skyhook, a military effort to launch satellites as the first shot in space exploration efforts (this was 1956, right before Sputnik). They decide to keep it secret, but is informed by Carol's father, General Hanley (Morris Ankrum) that many of the satellites have been fallen back to Earth, and the current launch goes disastrously. One of the flying saucers lands on Earth, and the occupants, after being attacked by the US military, attack back, and kidnap General Hanley. They subsequently reveal to Hanley (and later Marvin) that, after being encountered with hostility, they have decided to attack the Earth, and have mysterious designs for the sun. Now, it is a race to figure out what the aliens are going to do.

     The effects of the flying saucers are very well-done, while appearing very simply at first. It seems like it's just hung from a string, but if you look closely, you can see them being rotated very quickly. It gives them more of a realistic feeling, especially as they go around the sky, and very much when they land. The scene where the saucer is on the ground before the aliens attack was very tense primarily because of that effect and the weird distortion used for the force field. The alien suits are less than impressive (and phallic), but the make-up once they are unmasked is pretty good. The climax where various landmarks are destroyed with stop motion is practical effects is amazing, some of the best of the period that I've seen, I like the use of stock footage very subtly as an indication, especially the photo-negatives of sun (always good to see astronomical imagery) I also like that there is more of an international presence in the plot of the film (even if it focuses primarily on the US).

    The movie has something of a fast pace. It goes immediately from Dr. Marvin and Carol seeing the UFO to the UFO ruining the launch to the invasion starting. As a result, it gets a bit hard to follow, since you need to keep up with each and every detail in order to follow it. This especially applies to the ending, where the military has to deal with the aliens in Washington, but it doesn't really say how they are dealt with worldwide. I also wish the aliens had a better motivation, than just growing hostile immediately and wanting to rule the Earth. There's apparently a comic series that explores the film from their perspectives, so I might check that out. Also, for a film with this large a scale, it is way too short to really soak in the sheer terror of a menace to the entire planet.

   I kind of agree with Harryhausen that this is his weakest film. However, it's mostly in terms of plot. The effects are still top-notch, and I can see why the film became so iconic. If you like alien invasion film, science fiction films of the 50's, or the work of Ray Harryhausen, definitely give it a watch.

   Tomorrow, we return to Wes Craven with his 1991 cult classic The People Under the Stairs.

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. 

Masterpieces of Horror Theatre- The Fly (1958)

       It's that time of year again! Yes, boils and ghouls, it's the annual Masterpieces of Horror Theatre, where we look at horror film past and present. And to begin the last one of these for the 2010's, we will discuss both the seminal 1958 horror film the Fly and its 1985 remake. (Just as a reminder, I don't spoil anything in the synopsis, but I do in the benefits/flaws sections.)

       French-British writer George Langelaan had an interesting life, serving as a spy during World War II, helping the French resistance, escaping a Nazi death camp, participating in the Normandy invasion, and being friends with occultist Aleister Crowley, among other things. However, his biggest legacy was his short horror story "The Fly", first published in Playboy magazine in 1957. The story of a scientist who becomes a monstrous hybrid of man and fly during a mishap with his teleportation device was noticed by Kurt Neumann, a German born director who had been working in Hollywood since the early 30's, focusing on B-movie pictures. He showed the story to Robert Lippert, the head of 20th Century Fox's subsidiary Regal Pictures, who decided to make the feature. While Lippert was initially announced as lead producer, Fox, fearing the repercussions of Lippert's then-conflict with the Screen Actor's Guild over residuals, replaced him with Neumann (who also directs the film) and made the film an official Fox release instead of a Regal one (though Lippert would remain an uncredited producer, and Regal, known for their low budget production style, would handle much of the film.) Screenwriter James Clavell (later a prolific screenwriter and director, known also for The Great Escape) stayed close to the original short story, only changing some elements. Fox boasted in publicity material that much of the equipment used in the film was army or air force surplus loaned to them. Make-up artist Ben Nye made a 20 pound fly head for actor Al Hedison (who would later go by his middle name David, and would be cast as James Bond BFF Felix Leiter in the 70's and 80's), which Nye would remain very proud of. Multiple sources list different budgets for the film, with one going as high as $495,000. Regardless, the film was a smash financially when it was released in July of 1958 (though Neumann would sadly not live to see it, having died a month later.) Though the critical reception was decidedly mixed upon release, it has come to be seen as a classic in the genre.

      At a Montreal laboratory, a night watchman (Torben Meyer) witnesses scientist Andre Delambre (Al or David Hedison, whichever works) crushed under a press, and his wife Helene (Patricia Owens) fleeing the scene. While Helene confesses the murder to Andre's brother François (Vincent Price), she becomes more erratic when interrogated by François and Inspector Charas (Herbert Marshall), and obsessed with flies, in particular a white headed fly. François knows how happy the couple and their child Phillippe (Charles Herbert) were, and in a bid to get the truth, claims to have the white headed fly, which prompts Helene to divulge the true circumstances of his death. Largely, how his tireless pursuit for an effective teleportation machine ultimately isolated him from his family, and lead him to a very... small place.

    First and foremost, this is a very immaculate production design. The house that serves as the primary setting, the laboratory, the outdoors, all of it looks great, and very appealing to the eye, which helps keep the viewer watching. This extends to the two big special effects of the film. The fly costume looks great, very terrifying to watch whenever it's on screen, especially the head and the claw arms. Apparently Hedison disliked the make-up, but it honestly works to make his performance a lot more physical, showing the angst as he struggles with his mind slipping and his grotesque appearance. The second big effect is Hedison's head in the fly's body, which, while only on screen for a moment, is quite terrifying, and leads to a horrific final scene. The terror is still present, even some 60 years later, and it is quite disturbing, especially since a lot of it is off screen. It is very suspenseful at times, particularly when Delambre is fully revealed as a monstrous hybrid.

     I could tell that this was particularly close to the source material, and that works against the film. The long build-up would likely work better in a short story, but the film drags a little as it goes into Andre slowly becoming estranged from his family and acting strangely, and Helene's obsession with the flies and where it leads. It's only an 1 hour and 33 minutes, so it doesn't get too tedious, but it does feel the mystery of it did need to be shortened a little. It is, after all, called The Fly, and people won't be confused by the infusion of a monster called the Fly.

     Right as I was watching the scene where the Fly monster is revealed, an actual fly landed outside my window. That was a funny little anecdote about the film. Anyway, this was pretty good and still very scary, despite being 60 years old with 60 year old effects. It was still very scary and somewhat depressing to watch, especially towards the end. I highly recommend it to horror fans and fans of old science fiction films all the same.

    So, tomorrow, I will take a look at David Cronenberg's version of these events.   

Current Film Reviews- The Goldfinch

     Hey, an Ansel Elgort feature that is being released in theaters.  Despite having now designated myself as his nemesis (which would mean something if he was aware of my existence), I didn't know whether or not to review this film. That is, until its debut at the Toronto International Film Festival, where it was scorched by critics. I knew the book was controversial when it won a Pulitzer, but even that didn't prepare me for the savaging this film got. And then and there, I decided to do this review. I'll say this: it didn't disappoint.

    Based on Donna Tartt's 2013 Pulitzer Prize winning novel of the same name, The Goldfinch tells the story of the life of Theodore Decker (Oakes Fegley  as a child; Ansel Elgort as an adult), who survives a terrorist attack on MoMA, which takes the life of his mother (Hailey Wist). However, as he stumbles through the wreckage, he comes across the mortally wounded Welty Blackwell (Robert Joy), who entrusts him with Carel Fabritus' 1654 painting The Goldfinch. Decker keeps the painting with him, as he journeys through life. From staying with family friend Samantha Barbour (Nicole Kidman) and her family, including his best friend Andy (Ryan Foust), and apprenticing with Backwell's partner James Hobart (Jeffrey Wright) as well as meeting Blackwell's niece Pippa (Aimee Laurence as a child; Ashleigh Cummings as an adult) before his deadbeat father (Luke Wilson, being very Luke Wilson-y) drags him to Las Vegas, where he befriends Ukranian expatriate Boris (Finn Wolfhard as a child, Aneurin Barnard as an adult). Through it all, he still has the painting, seemingly.

       This is going to be a very negative review,  but I'm obliged to at least point out things that work. There are some flashes where young Theo and his friends are having fun or enjoying each other's company which work and are actually mildly interesting. There's a shot here and there that kind of works. Occasionally, it gets bizarrely melodramatic, or overly serious enough to be unintentionally funny.

     The film this most reminded me of was M. Night Shyamalan's The Happening. Stiff acting all around; pretentious, absurd themes and dialogue; weird, out-of-place cartoon characters in otherwise stern serious work. This feels like a very bad late period Shyamalan movie (ironically, his own movie this year is actually better), and all the flaws that entails. It's a shame, because the director, John Crowley, did Brooklyn , which has the bright lighting, but had a charm and warmth to it, that this film severely needs. It takes itself way too seriously, with its themes of terrorism, abuse, the value of art, antiques, family but it never focuses on one theme long enough for any of it to matter or for it to have a coherent message. Like I said, sometimes, it's untentionally funny sometimes, it gets so melodramatic and offbeat. Bigger than that, though, is that the film is just boring. There is no narrative structure to it, so it's very hard to tell when it's going to end, and it just keeps going. It just goes on with dull acting and painfully boring dialogue. I almost fell asleep watching this a couple times. It crosses the threshold into terrible with its crushing length. 2 and a half hours! Virtually nothing happens in this, and it takes that long to tell this story.

     If I hadn't gotten a literal headache watching Godzilla:King of Monsters, this probably would be the worst movie I've seen this year. I struggle to find things that really work about this film. I considered just getting up and walking out, I was so un-invested in this film. It is simply terrible, and I can't think of any reason to see it. Even if the accidental humor intrigues you, it is so few and far between to really make this worth 2 and half hours, and it's mostly tedium in between. I was worried that I wouldn't have enough to write this before I saw the film. Now, I think I have too much, because there might be stuff I've forgotten!

   Anyway, thanks for reading, and join me on the 28th, for the start of my annual horror review, beginning with the 1958 version of The Fly.

Current Film Reviews- Pokemon: Detective Pikachu

        Back when I successfully turned my October horror reviews from short reviews done on my Facebook to full reviews here, I experimented with other sorts of review series to do. One of those was "Pokecember", where I did reviews of the Pokemon movies every December. Since they reliably come out each year with the anime, I could hypothetically do it for a while. I successfully finished off the six films before the Advanced Generation, but after Jirachi Wish Maker, it tapered off. I was in Freshman year of college, and a lot of stuff got in the way of doing another. Ultimately, I never picked it back up, but have since started other series to pick up the slack for slow months. However, with this film bringing Pokemon back into the public consciousness, I might bring it back this December, so watch out for that.

     Based on the 2018 video game of the same name (part of the multimillion dollar franchise created by Satoshi Taijiri), the film follows Tim Goodman (Justice Smith), who gave up his dreams of being a Pokemon trainer in favor of being an insurance adjuster. He is forced to go to the non-region specific Ryme City, founded by billionaire Howard Clifford (Bill Nighy) as a place where humans and Pokemon can interact peacefully, without any of that battling nonsense, when his policeman father is reported dead from a severe car accident. However, while searching his father's apartment, he finds a Pikachu (Ryan Reynolds), who talks! And has his father's hat, meaning he was his father's companion. This leads to the conclusion that his father might still alive. This leads Tim and the Pikachu to become an unlikely team to investigate his death, with the help of intrepid reporter Lucy Stevens (Kathryn Newton) and her Psyduck, and eventually unravel a conspiracy involving Clifford's organization and the legendary Pokemon Mewtwo.

     I loved that the Pokemon are the right amount of realistic. They look like they exist in the real world, and their presence against living breathing humans isn't jarring. However, they still look like their game counterparts, and still have the traits of them. (The designs were apparently helped by  This sufficient level of realism really cements the respect the makers of this film have for the material. They take it seriously enough that it never becomes too camp or dumb (like some of the weaker anime movies tend to get), but it still has the right amount of fun, humor, and absurdity that the franchise has always had. The filmmakers were not embarrassed by the source material, and use its creativity and wonderful creatures to build a new story and setting to explore underappreciated parts of the franchise (like how Pokemon are integrated into human society). As a lifelong fan, I really appreciated all the little nods and references they make throughout and all the cameos that I can name, but I feel that it is still accessible to a general audience, especially the target audience of children. All that aside, this was just fun to watch. A real thrill that keeps you interested and intrigued throughout, it manages to use the standard three act hero's journey to great effect. I especially liked the twists (no spoilers), and how they are generally built up as you see the film, and makes you reconsider what you saw before. It also had one hell of an exciting climax.

    I had a massive problem with the pacing of the film. It feels like it goes too fast at parts, especially in establishing the relationship between Pikachu and Tim. They just start investigating the crime almost immediately after meeting. I wish a little bit more time had spent on their relationship, and how it grows throughout the film. Not to say there wasn't any time dedicated to this, but that there needed to be a little more time to allow it to be cemented. There are also parts that are underexplained, and feel like they are shown in cut scenes. It makes for an occasionally confusing viewing experience. I think they were hoping the viewer is intelligent to figure, but a little explanation.

    As I said, I am a big fan of Pokemon, so my opinion of this film is colored by that. Normally, the flaws that are in this would lower its reputation, but I was so enthralled by the world they create and how well they managed to make the Pokemon world feel like a real place, I choose to ignore those and just sit back for the ride. And really, when the good stuff is that good, I can easily forgive the small things. So, yeah, this is a definite recommendation for Pokemon fans. If you aren't (which is likely), I think it works well enough in its own right, but I also largely would recommend it for kids, who'll enjoy it. I should know, if this came out when I was a kid, this would've been my stuff.

  Next on the docket, I explore the reputation of Ishtar in another Dailles and Nightlies  

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.   

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Suspiria

      In my review of Dawn of the Dead, I mentioned Dario Argento, who had helped facilitate the creation of that film. Originally a film critic, Argento got his start in the Italian film industry when none other than Sergio Leone recruited him and fellow critic turned eventual director Bernardo Bertolucci to write the story to Once Upon a Time in the West. From there, he entered the giallo genre of Italian horror pioneered by directors like Mario Bava with The Bird with Crystal Plumage, starting off a prolific and influential career (many American slashers would take influence from the giallo genre from films like Bava's and Argento's). The particular idea for this film came from English writer Thomas de Quincey's 1845 collection of essays, Suspiria de Profundis, which included Levana and Our Ladies of Sorrow, an essay exploring the idea that there are three Sorrows (Tears, Sighs, and Darkness), much as there are three Fates. Argento took further influence from occult and witchcraft (notably the ideas of Rudolf Steiner) to construct the idea of Three "Mothers" that would embody these sorrows, and would write a trilogy exploring each, with Suspiria being about the Mother of Sighs. Argento's girlfriend Daria Nicolodi further helped with the development (eventually getting a co-screenwriter credit), both infusing influence from fairy tales like Snow White and her own personal stories (including her grandmother's experience at a music academy, and a dream which influenced the ending), which would create the setting of the film as a ballet academy in Germany. Argento originally intended for the film to star girls as young as 12 (to fit in with the fairy tale influences), but his father Salvatore, who produced the film, refused, feeling the violence, gory nature of the film would cause trouble with such young actresses. After the ages were increased, Daria was meant to play the lead, but again, the producers felt an American actress would help promote the film better. Thus, Jessica Harper was cast, based on her performance in Brian de Palma's Phantom of the Paradise. German and Italian actors rounded out the rest of the cast, including Udo Kier. Shot in De Paoli Studio in Rome, as well as additional shooting in Munich, most of the cast spoke in whatever their native language was, which was dubbed over in English or whatever language. Released in 1977, it would garner success critically and financially, both in the US and Italy. Argento would further explore the "Three Mothers" concept in two other films (Inferno and The Mother of Tears), which, with Suspiria, form the aptly named "Three Mothers" trilogy. And, of course, there is the remake coming up in a few weeks at the time of writing.

       Suzy Bannion (Jessica Harper) comes to Freiburg to attend the prestigious Tanz Dance Academy. Unfortunately for her, she has to deal with a downpour, especially when she is briefly turned away from the Academy's door. She catches a glimpse of a girl (Eva Axen), however, as she flees. The girl, Patricia Hingle, runs through the woods, and finds herself at the home of her friend Sara (  Stefania Casini), where she appears to be paranoid about something. Sure enough, she is attacked, and killed in a spectacular, violent manner. This starts off a chain of events, which sees Suzy descend into the strangeness of the Academy itself...

       The one thing that immediately stood out for me in this film was the colors. This has very distinct lighting that bathes the characters in every scene in a strange aura, which precludes the events as they happen. The way that Argento uses Reds and Blues especially helps give the film both a distinct look, and helps with the atmosphere. It is just gorgeous to look at, and shows the images in a sheer, unfettered manner. In some ways, it contrasts the first film I did this month, Night of the Living Dead, which utilized black-and-white to its fullest potential. This emphasizes color films, and uses colors and shadows to create tension.  The style of this film helps with enticing the viewer and pulling them in, along with helping set the mood for the story. You noted the short synopsis, and I really don't want to give anything away. This is the kind of film that needs to be seen. It cannot be conveyed properly through words. Not only with the visuals, but with the story itself. It needs to be viewed with as little context as possible to get the full extent of it. I'm serious, I don't want to spoil any of it. It needs to be seen to be believed.

     The dubbing felt off. It gets distracting sometimes when the speaker is clearly ADR-ed in. It destroys the emersion that the silent moments so very carefully craft. I never felt that the characters weren't actually speaking to each other, but it always took me out of the film when a character's voice didn't match. There were also some confusing aspects to the film, particularly towards the beginning and end, that felt like more explanation or more time was needed to fully detail this.

      A couple days ago, I saw a Wired article that said something to the effect of "Don't watch the original Suspiria  before the remake." Of course, I disregarded this, given I've already replaced one of the planned films. Still, having not yet seen the remake, go watch this. Whether or not you are a horror fan, this is simply an excellently crafted, beautifully shot, and very shocking film that really stuns you in a very good way. This is an overall recommendation.

    So, that's it for this year. I hope you enjoyed this and the new Summer edition. I'm glad I'm back to choosing a diverse range of films to do, after doing more concentrated work for last year and the Summer of Terror. I really do enjoy watching these, and writing about these, and with the new Summer, I hope to watch more of the popular franchises that have come along over the years. Anyways, thanks for following all this month, and I don't know if I'll start November like this, but I'm planning on doing a "Dailles and Nightlies" on 2010, the sequel to 2001.   

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Hellboy II: The Golden Army

     (Okay, a bit of explanation. I couldn't find Spirit of the Beehive online anywhere. I assumed it was on Hulu, but for some reason, it wasn't there. Since getting a DVD of it would take a couple days, I decided to make a last minute pass, and choose something that was more easily available. To compound manners, I twisted my foot over the weekend, and had to spent time recovering from that. With that out of the way).

      Not much history, as to be expected from a sequel. Guillermo del Toro had intended a trilogy with the character, and with the success of the first one, the sequel was to be released in 2006. However, Revolution Studios, which had produced the original, went bankrupt, and Columbia stepped in to distribute. After bouncing around a few ideas (including reinterpretations of classic monsters and elemental titans) and some stories from the comics to adapt, del Toro and Hellboy creator Mike Mignola wrote an original story. The film finally entered production after Pan's Labyrinth won many accolades. Released in 2008, the film was both financially and critically successful, and a third film was in development, before it faltered, and a reboot (currently slated for 2019 with Stranger Things' David Harbour in the lead role) was deemed necessary.

     On Christmas Day, 1955, Trevor Bruttenholm (the late John Hurt) tells his adoptive son Hellboy (Montse Ribe) about the legend of the Golden Army. How humans and elves went to war many years ago, and how the Golden Army was created by Goblin engineers for the elves to destroy humanity. However, the elf King Balor ( Roy Dotrice) sees the destruction wrought about by his new army, and how he created a pact with mankind. However, Prince Nuada (Luke Gross), who had tempted his father to creating the Golden Army, is dissatisfied with this, and leaves to be called back at some indeterminate time, while the Golden Army is sealed away with the elf crown being the key to opening it. Sure enough, in the present day, Nuada decides his time has come to destroy the humans, and retrieves their portion of the crown from an auction at a museum. He then kills Balor, and takes his portion, while his sister Nuala (Anne Walton) flees with the final portion. Hellboy (Ron Perlman) and fellow Bureau of Paranormal Research and Defense (BPRD) agents Liz Sherman (Selma Blair) and Abe Sapien (Doug Jones, now doing both voice and body) investigate the initial attack, and find themselves the victims of tooth fairies (which are not as innocuous as they sounds). They defeat them, but Hellboy is exposed for the first time to the public, prompting fallout with the higher ups, particularly BPRD head Tom Manning (Jeffrey Tambor). They take one tooth fairy, and have their new team leader, Johann Krauss (John Alexander and James Dodd for body, Seth MacFarlane (!) for the voice) a German whose body is now a strange ectoplamsa material contained in a suit, examine it. This leads them on a course that will intersect them with Nuala and then, having to stop Nuada from reviving the Golden Army.

      I don't know where to start with how good this film is. It has great effects, an engaging story, great performances, great action, a larger sense of world building and mythology, some nice homages here and there (including references to the films of John Landis and Ray Harryhausen). Unlike the more mysterious original, this one has a more of an action-packed, urban fantasy feel to the proceedings, which actually works in that it still feels like it's in the universe of the original. It also has the character grow from the original, and grow throughout the film. The Golden Army itself was built up well, especially with their ability to regenerate, making their threat very clear, and forcing a unique solution beyond a direct confrontation.

     This is one of those films where every flaw I could think of actually works upon revisitation. I suppose the length.... nah, I'm kidding, it's 2 hours long. I think a little bit more backstory was needed for somethings. Like, if the elves were solely restricted to the British Isles and Ireland or were more worldwide, and a bit more on Johann Krauss and what happened to him (since he turns to the heroes side due to a tragedy in his life). It might've helped flesh out the story a bit more.

    I was harsh on the original Hellboy. I think I didn't really appreciate it for what it was, a fun romp with many different references and complex worldbuilding. I think this is better than the original, and a whole hearted recommendation to anyone who loves horror, urban fantasy, action, or del Toro films. Just, maybe watch the original first, however.

   We're at the home stretch, so Friday will see the modern classic American Psycho. 

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. 

Current Film Review: A Wrinkle in Time

         It's rare I'm blindsided by something like this. Sure, I read and watched the reviews, which said that this ranged from disappointed to terrible. However, this truly was... I don't know how to describe it. I could not have imagined something like this. It was not good, but it was not good in a very interesting, creative way. It was fascinating in its weirdness and, perhaps because of that, I was invested in it. It is still severely flawed, but it's interesting. A lot of reviews say that this will probably become a classic for kids today, the same way something like Neverending Story or Hook was for my generation. I tend to agree. I bet that in 10-20 years, this film will be regarded by some as a classic.

        Based on the seminal young adult novel by Madeleine d'Engle, the film follows Meg Murry (Storm Reid), a young woman in Los Angeles, who lives with her mother, Dr. Kate Murry (Gugu Mbatha-Raw) and younger brother Charles Wallace (Deric McCabe) (who is constantly referred to by his full title for whatever reason). She has become more temperamental and rebellious after the disappearance of her father, astrophysicist Dr. Alex Murry (Chris Pine). One night, Meg and her mother find Charles Wallace playing with a strange woman, who introduces herself as Mrs. Whatsit (Reese Witherspoon), who foreshadows events to come. After another encounter with Mrs. Who (Mindy Kaling), Meg and her new companion Calvin (Levi Miller) note the strange behavior of Charles Wallace. Finally, Mrs. Whatsit and Mrs. Who unite with their leader, Mrs. Which (Oprah Winfrey), who explain their appearance: They want to help find where Meg's father is. Soon, Meg, Calvin and Charles Wallace are brought on a literal intergalactic journey, where they confront their inadequacies and the power of love (I think, something like that)

       This was creative and interesting to look at. It has a wide color palette, and utilizes a diverse range of settings and backdrops to give a more whimsical atmosphere. It has a number of interesting (if underexplained; I'll get to that) ideas, and visuals to convey these ideas.  It's very nice to look at, and very unusual for a blockbuster. The performances mostly work, and the actors appear very invested in the material. It has some emotional scenes and some occasionally funny moments. Like I said, a kid now might be very charmed and enchanted by the scenes in this, even if I was mostly uninvested in them.

    The biggest problem with this is that it is underexplained. So many confusing things happen in this. Some ideas are brought up, and never mentioned again. Some ideas just come out of nowhere, and you're left confused as to how the sequence of events eventually led to this moment. I certainly was left at times wondering why things happened, and how things were resolved. It feels like stuff was cut from this that would've clarified and fully explained the events that occurred. That hypothesis is supported by the fact that a prominent part of trailer is not in the film, suggesting scenes were cut from this. The characters also feel underdeveloped and react to things in a manner normal people don't. Mrs. Whatsit's first appearance in their home is mostly shown as if a nosy neighbor had stopped by, and not a mysterious woman had just broken into their house. At no point do the characters ever question what's happening or think that they are dreaming. Finally, the villain of the story is underdeveloped. Once again, probably something that was cut, since there is a scene at the end that suggests that the villain's defeat was part of a larger philosophical battle, or something. This film left me baffled as to what it was trying to do.

       Once again, I feel that this might become a sort of classic when elementary and middle school teachers put it on during  recess or breaks, or if they are studying the book itself in school.  And, honestly, while I didn't like per se, I don't hate either. It is far too interesting and creative for me to really dislike. While it is very flawed, as I have detailed, I recommend this, especially if you are young and interested in seeing this.  Probably as a matinee, though, there are probably better movies out now.

      Next time, I will be tackling the nostalgia fest of Ready Player One. 

Current Film Review: A Futile and Stupid Gesture

      About two years ago, I watched a documentary called Drunk, Stoned, Brilliant, Dead, a look into the National Lampoon magazine during its rise and height during the 60's and 70's. It was interesting, if a bit self-congratulatory, seeing how this magazine came to influence a lot of the comedy of the late 20th Century. It's influence can be seen from its lucrative film licensing to its prominent writers and editors (PJ O'Rourke, John Hughes, Al Jean and Mike Reiss of The Simpsons), to the number of its talent that would go on to help create Saturday Night Live. However, the documentary had very "greatest hits" feel, looking only at the best of it, and never its low points (aside from a brief mention of Disco Beavers from Outer Space) . My particular criticism is that doesn't explore the end of the Lampoon to any degree. It just blames it Christian conservatives, and not (based on my reading), a decreasing reader base and a consortium of businesses that simply took the brand (applying to a number of sub-par, "found on a Blockbuster shelf" films), and neglecting the magazine. Still, it was interesting and enjoyable enough that I was exciting for Netflix's biopic of Doug Kenney, the founder of the Lampoon. Though, the time in which the film gestated took a while, and there was no real release date until about a month ago. Now that I've seen it, it was enjoyable overall, but not necessarily a great or even particularly good film. Let me tell you why.

     Based on Josh Karp's biography of the same name, the film tells the true story of Douglas C. Kenney (Will Forte) from the perspective of an hypothetical older Kenney (Martin Mull), who didn't die in 1980 (That's not a spoiler. You can find that fact in about five seconds) . As a Harvard freshman from Chagrin Falls, Ohio, he befriends a fellow student, Henry Beard (Domhnall Gleeson). Together, the two become the lead editor of Harvard's humor magazine The Harvard Lampoon, and release a very successful parody of Lord of the Rings (Bored of the Rings). However, Doug finds his after-college prospects daunting, so he comes up with the idea of a nationwide version of the Harvard Lampoon. After convincing Beard to come on board, they shop around the idea of a humor magazine, until they sign a deal with publisher Matty Simmons (Matt Walsh). They assemble a team of writers and editors, including Michael O'Donoghue (Thomas Lennon), Anne Beatts (Natasha Lyonne),  Tony Hendra (Matt Lucas), and PJ O'Rourke (Nelson Franklin). While having a shaky start, the magazine becomes incredibly successful, and eventually spawns a radio show, starring such talent as Gilda Radner (Jackie Tohn), Bill Murray (Jon Daly), John Belushi (John Gemberling), and Chevy Chase (Joel McHale) (Like I said, a lot of the talent went on to work for SNL). However, in spite of his massive success, Kenney finds that his own personal vices are growing. Incapable of handling those vices and success and work only compounding them, he finds himself at odds with the people closest to him, and his own personal state is deteriorating.

      The film has a couple of good points. The main cast does well, with Forte, Gleeson, and McHale as particular stand-outs. McHale does a good impression of 70's era Chevy Chase (probably helped by the two of them working on Community together). It had some very funny moments, particularly in its metatexual nature. The older Kenney often breaks the fourth wall and discusses the events in meta sense, (and even lists the various parts of the film that weren't true at one point). There was also the interesting gambit where in place of the typical biopic looks into the protagonists deteriorating state, are a bunch of sketches reminiscent of the Lampoon's dark humor streak. Some of these work well, some less so, but it is ambitious and unexpected.  The behind-the-scenes stuff was interesting, if a bit un-detailed. The dramatic moments work well (especially how it makes Kenney's death a mystery, much how it is in real life), along with the comedic ones

    Remember how I said that this was greatest hits? Yeah, it just mostly drives through the most notable moments of Kenney's tenure at the Lampoon, but with little to no look into how they were formulated or the real production behind them. We get only a very brief mention of Bored of the Rings towards the beginning, the radio show and many of the most parodies are only glanced at, and most notably, the production of Animal House and Caddyshack are skimmed over. Key moments, and they are barely explored. None of the memorable scenes or jokes are shown. Also skimmed over were a lot of the famous faces. Aside from Chevy Chase (which is likely because of his major role), most of the other writers, editors, and actors are not given much development, and kind of disappear towards the third act. While each of the original writers are given little introductions, they end up underdeveloped. Some of the other major players (PJ O'Rourke, Ivan Reitman, Harold Ramis, Lorne Michaels) are given little to no introduction.  A lot of the later SNL actors come off more as impressions than real performances of these people, especially John Belushi. Another big problem was that the film would vary wildly from standard biopic about famous figure and their accomplish, and a strange, surreal dark comedy. Parts from both work at times (as I said earlier), but when put together, come off haphazardly and feel a bit off as a result.

      Despite the less-than-satisfying way the film handles its subject, this was fairly enjoyable and fun for the most part. If you have a Netflix account, and are interested by what I have written, or are interested in the comedic that would influence the many comedies of the past 50 years, I recommend this. It's only an hour and a half anyway, so no real investment of time is necessary.

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Monkey Shines

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

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

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

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

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

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

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Creepshow

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

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

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

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

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

Next film is Monkey Shine.