Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- The Final Girls

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

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

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

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

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

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

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- The People Under The Stairs

   In 1978, a pair of burglars broke into a Los Angeles home. When police investigated, they found the couple who owned the home had kept several children locked inside, never having seen the light. The story made enough of an impression on Wes Craven that he decided to make a film based around the premise of two burglars coming across a home where the children were kept in a dark basement. The main villains in the film were played by Everett McGill and Wendy Robie, who played a married couple on Twin Peaks. The house used in the film was the Thomas W. Phillips residence in Los Angeles. In a Fangoria interview, Craven said this was closer to his visceral horror flick The Hills Have Eyes, than other pictures had done up until them. With a modest $6 million dollar budget, it was a box office success, and widely regarded as one of Craven's finest.

   Poindexter "Fool" Williams (Brandon Adams) lives in a Los Angeles ghetto with his family, including sister Ruby (Kelly Jo Minter), who gave Poindexter the name "Fool," from tarot cards, and dying mother Mary (Connie Marie Brazelton). Sadly, they are about to evicted, because the mysterious owners of the complex, the Robesons (Everett McGill and Wendy Robie, referred to as Mommy and Daddy) want to demolish it and set up a wealthy condominium. The two are very abusive to their daughter Alice (AJ Langer). Ruby's friend Leroy (Ving Rhimes) gains an idea to rob the Robesons after finding out they own both a local liquor store and a lot of the apartments in the ghetto. Leroy coerces Fool into participating by pointing out the looming threat of eviction and his mother's cancer. They scope out the place, and when their associate Spencer (Jeremy Roberts) is able to get in, they sneak in as the family moves out for a bit. However, they soon find that the Robesons have a very dark secret. Something within their very walls and under their feet....

     I honestly don't know where to start, there's a lot to cover. I see what Craven means by how this was close to The Hills Have Eyes. However, I would also give say this was something of an urban riff on Texas Chainsaw. That film was, along with a visceral, violent horror film, a satire of the Nixon-era "Silent Majority", which at that time was represented by traditional, conservative white families, represented in that film by the cannibalistic, impoverished Sawyer clan. The Robeson's are also psychotic and cannibalistic, but they represent the other end of that spectrum, being very wealthy, secluded old money, but with the same amount of inbredding and corruption that degraded their minds over generations. Along with their child abuse and kidnapping, they also maliciously destroy the larger community around them by raising the rents of long-time residents and forcing them out to build office spaces and condos for "nice people" (their racism throughout the film makes it clear what they mean by that). There could be an entire essay about the film's portrayal of gentrification and its relationship to property and capitalism. The Robesons hoard all the money they gain from extorting their tenants, which seems to make them more corrupt and more greedy, even kidnapping children and holding them captive to try to satiate that greed. Of course, it isn't very subtle that these degraded old money cannibals also represent Reagan-era conservatism, with their strong Christianity and focus on "traditional values", which they impose on Alice. It really manages to bring all those ideas together and balances them out, managing to connect them all in a way that also serves the plot. And onto it as a horror film, it is incredibly. Very good jumpscares throughout, that stick with you. Very good tension building as Fool and Leroy try to explore and figure out what's happening. Very sympathetic heroes and very manical villains. Others have pointed out how the burglars are sympathetic here, and  the more evil is with the homeowners, as opposed to most movies in general (imagine Home Alone if Kevin was the villain....). Perfect lighting, with it enough dark to create atmosphere, but light enough to see. Incredible score. A great twist that you could not see coming. There's so much that just works.

    I honestly don't know if there are any flaws. Maybe that some scenes do go on a bit long (especially during the second act, as Fool and Alice try to flee the house, and the ending), and I had kind of wished they had gone a bit more into the effects the Robesons had on the ghetto, and how they destroyed by their renting practices.  It was just handled so well that it could've worked even more had it been explored beyond Fool's family.

    I think this is one of my new favorite horror films. It really is truly something to behold, both managing to be biting social satire exploring the effects of gentrification, racism, and capitalism on the black community, and  a very terrifying horror film with some of the best scares and twists I've seen in a while. I highly recommend it to check out, especially if you like horror, but also for anyone wanting good fiction that explores this sorts of topics.

    Next week, it's Guillermo del Toro again, with The Devil's Backbone.

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Phantom of the Paradise

    This next film takes its inspiration from a variety of sources, including Gaston Leroux The Phantom of the Opera, Goethe's Faust, and Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Grey. Director Brian de Palma had already made a name in the industry by this time, primarily with small independent films (many of which starred a young up-and-comer named Robert De Niro), before garnering acclaim for Sisters in 1972. Singer-songwriter Paul Williams, who stars as the film's villain Swan, also scored the film. The film had a number of legal issues, including having to change the title from The Phantom to avoid confusion with the comic strip character of that name, and the inital name of the evil record company, Swan Song, due to Led Zeppelin's label having the same, which delay pre-production, such that it released in 1975, despite being completed in 1972 (Twilight Zone creator Rod Serling did narration for the film before his 1972 death). The film was a massive flop (except, oddly enough, in the city of Winnipeg in Manitoba, where it play continuous for 4 months), and was received with mixed reviews, though has gone through a critical reappraisal. After this film, De Palma was given the job of directing a film based on a bestseller from a new author. The author was Stephen King, and the book was Carrie.

     In search of a hot new thing to do in rock music to open his new extravagant music palace The Paradise, prolific producer Swan (Paul Williams) comes across a struggling singer-songwriter named Winslow Leach (William Finley) performing, and convinces his underling Philbin (George Memmoli) to sign Leach on, while secretly stealing his work from under him. So, Leach, while trying to talk to Swan, ends up getting kicked out of Death Records (owned by Swan), and tries to confront Swan at his house. There, he meets Phoenix (Jessica Harper), who, based on her lovely voice, he deems his muse. Ultimately, he attempts to crossdress to sneak, but it caught, and Swan frames him for drug dealing. He goes to prison and has his teeth removed and replaced with metal ones. He escapes in a delirious rage after learning his song is to open the Paradise. He breaks into Death Records, and tries to stop the printing of the record, but ends getting his face (and vocal cords) destroyed by the record press. He then jumps into the East River to avoid the police. Now donning a costume that looks vaguely like the Midnighter's costume from The Authority (ask your comic fan friend), he now seeks justice, but Swan convinces him to become resident songwriter, with his muse Phoenix even performing the songs. Of course, Swan has an agenda on his mind.

   The only other De Palma film I've seen is Scarface, and that showed his love of neon lights as a mood enhancer in full force. That particular aspect helps with providing a subtly alien atmosphere to the film. It is set in the bizarre, waywire world of the music industry, and the bright neon colors, from the sterile whites of Death Records' waiting room to the dark colors of the prison to the rainbow coloring of the Paradise, all help give the film a feeling of uneasiness much as the titular Phantom is experiencing as he navigates through a world hostile to him and what he represents. The more fantasy elements are well-handled. Very subtle with its Faust allusion and the depiction of the Devil. It gives the film its own distinct atmosphere, and makes it very memorable in terms of visuals. The music is very good. Going from 50's doo-wop to early 60's beach rock to 70's arena easily and with ease. Jessica Harper was a highlight, having an excellent voice and presence, and Paul Williams is a villain who relishes being evil and is having a great time. Finally, I do legitimately love the look of the Phantom. Just the way all the elements comes together really helps sell him as a victim of a capitalist machine uninterested in the authencity he brings to the table, but appropriating part of it.

    It took me a while to really get into this film, and that is primarily because of its tonal inconsistency. It goes from whimsical to comedic to scary back to whimsical in its first 40 minutes, and because of that, it's really hard to follow or keep up with. There's a lot of parodies and homages that tend to slow the film. Eventually, it stabilized, and that's when it started getting particularly good, but it really struggled to maintain that sort of interest for its first half.

     I think I kind of love this film. It took a bit while watching for it to click with me, but when it did, it was a fun, enthralling ride that keep me on my toes. If you like 70's music or Paul Williams, this is a must-watch. Really, it's a great musical, so I think most people will be able to get into it. Again, it takes a while to gain its footing, but when it does, it was a memorable experience.

    Next week, we return to the world of Ray Harryhausen with Earth vs. Flying Saucers

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Scream

     In August of 1990, a Shreveport, Louisiana man named Danny Rollings murdered 5 college students in Gainesville, Florida. The sheer grisly nature of the murders and the meticulousness by which they were committed caught national headlines. When the show Turning Point did an episode on the incident in 1994, it caught the attention of a struggling actor and screenwriter named Kevin Williamson. Williamson, then shopping around his script Killing Ms. Tingle (later Teaching Ms. Tingle, which was released in 1999 with Williamson himself as director), got inspired to write about a killer who stalks and taunts a young women in her home. Eventually, taking influence from his childhood love of slashers (especially the first Halloween), Williamson proceeded to add meta-elements alluding to the cliches of horror movies. Williamson's agent put the script, then titled Scary Movie, on sale in 1995, where it became the subject of a massive bidding war. Emerging victorious was Dimension Studios, a division of Miramax, owned by Harvey and Bob Weinstein. The Weinsteins, as per usual, made some changes to the script to increase the killings and give at least some of the killers motivations, but also remove some of the gorier moments. Wes Craven (already beginning to tire of the horror genre he had helped define for 20 years) read the script and had some interest, but was pre-occupied with a remake of The Haunting he was involved with. When that project fell apart (and star Drew Barrymore signed on), he subsequently accepted an offer by Bob Weinstein to helm the director's chair. At this time, the title was changed to Scream, an allusion to a song by Michael Jackson. Craven and Williamson resisted the change, marking one of several conflict they'd have with the Weinsteins during production (including whether to shoot in the US or Canada, a conflict that almost got Craven removed from the film). Ultimately, the film was shot in some California suburbs. For effects, the killer's mask was a 1991 design by Fun World, which was dubbed "Ghostface" before the debut of the film. The film used 50 gallons of fake blood. After further cuts to get an R rating, the film was finally released on December 20th, 1996 (meant to be for horror fans during the drought of the holiday season), and while the initial weekend earnings were disappointing, word of mouth made it a massive box office success. It was a critical success, but it was also embroiled in controversy due to some copycat murders and especially in the controversy over media violence after the Columbine Massacre.

    Teenager Casey Becker (Drew Barrymore) is idly making popcorn and preparing to watch a horror movie, when a mysterious caller (Roger L. Jackson) begins to pester her, asking her about various horror movies. The caller soon escalates the stakes, saying he's just outside, and showing Casey's boyfriend Steve Orth (Kevin Patrick Walls) tied up in his backyard. Eventually, the killer breaks in, and after a struggle, kills Becker and hangs her as a warning to others. The killings make local news, and in particular impacts Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) whose own mother was killed in a similar fashion only a year earlier, despite the killer, Cotton Weary (Liev Schreiber), on death row. While her father Neil (Lawrence Hecht) is out for work, Sidney is left home alone, her boyfriend Billy Loomis (Skeet Ulrich, and given the debt this has to Halloween, the name was likely intentional) sneaking in every now and again. The two pal around with friends Tatum Riley (Rose McGowan), Tatum's policeman brother Dewey (David Arquette),Stu Macher (Matthew Lillard, sadly not playing it in his Shaggy voice), and Randy Meeks (Jamie Kennedy, being obnoxious as per usual). One night, the killer targets Sidney in her home, but manages to evade him. As she is besieged by the media, including Gale Weathers (Courtney Cox), who wrote a sensationalist book about the murder of Sidney's mother, she must figure out who is trying to kill her, especially when the principal of the high school (Henry Winkler. Yes, the Fonz is in this) is killed.

     First and foremost, Wes Craven remains a very effective director of horror. He uses tracking shots, subtle blocking, and lighting to make the kills and attacks even scarier and more effective. It helps to make it effective as a slasher, and keep the viewer interested. The mystery of Ghostface does provide a compelling impetus for the plot, and it does pay off with a good twist that is well explained (and does tie into slasher tropes of all types.) Some of the kills are pretty creative, and some of the jokes funny.

     Perhaps the metaness of the film was fresh in 1996, because the slasher boom of the 80's was starting to subside by then, but a lot of the tropes satirized is so spelled out that it comes off as tedious. Characters will literally stop and explain horror movies and their tropes and how it relates to the plot. It ruins any of the meta subtext working or even the scariness itself working in its own right. Sometimes, they'll explain movies, despite them being well-known or at least somewhat known. At one point, they describe the film The Howling. There's the famous scene of Jamie Kennedy describing horror tropes, which completely stops the movie cold. This is a big enough problem, given the whole film is centered on this aspect, but it also doesn't help that Ghostface is just not very intimidating as a villain. His phone voice sounds like I do at 6 AM, when I've got 2 hours of sleep, and he runs around like he forgot his keys. Sometimes, his deaths are entirely accidental, and he just runs with it. I thought he was going to be like a Wile E. Coyote type using gadgets, and he kind of is, only Wile E. Coyote mostly used inventions, and didn't alternate techniques.

    This is a very 90's movie, with a very 90's sense of postmodernism and irony lathered all over it like barbeque sauce on a pair of ribs. In this case, it's a good period piece for that particular point in time, and how a horror movie used it to comment on its predecessors. So, even if I didn't necessarily care for the film, it works to give what was the new horror of the 90's. So, if you're interested in 90's films, it might be some good viewing. Otherwise, I can't say this was a particular good slasher or a good deconstruction. A lot of it was just too blunt or tedious to really work.

  Tomorrow, we look at Brian de Palma's reinterpretation of the Phantom of the Opera with Phantom of the Paradise.  

Dailles and Nightlies- Ishtar

    There's an old Gary Larson Far Side cartoon called "Hell's Video Store." The entire joke is that the titular store is stocked with copies of the 1987 flop Ishtar, starring Warren Beatty and Dustin Hoffman and directed by Elaine May. Larson later apologized for the cartoon when he actually saw the film and enjoyed it. That entire story seems to encapsulate the reputation of this film over the years. A massive critical and financial flop, it was for years lampooned as one of the worst films ever made. However, over the years, it has come to be seen as an unfairly maligned classic. Directors like Quentin Tarantino, Edgar Wright and Martin Scorsese have listed it as one of their favorites, and many critics have praised it to the moon. (Nathan Rabin's review for the AV Club salviates over the film the way a dog does to a large steak) And here I am, left to wonder, "This film? This mediocre tripe has invoked strong reactions from people?" I mean, yeah, that statement implies I didn't like it, but it's not the worst thing I've seen. It is just another forgettable comedy. I wish I could say that viewing it a second time might've given more insight, but it hasn't.

     Chuck Clarke (Dustin Hoffman) and Lyle Rogers (Warren Beatty) are struggling New York musicians near the end of their line. Despite their lack of talent (which the film will remind you of constantly), the two convince agent Marty Freed (Jack Weston) to book them in a hotel in Morocco. Meanwhile, in the neighboring country of Ishtar, a map is found foretelling the coming of two messengers that will cause change in the region. The map is taken by rebel Shirra (Isabelle Adjani), who runs into Clarke when he and Rogers land at their airport. Clarke gives her his passport to help her out, which forces him to remain in Ishtar, while Rogers is forced to go back to their gig. Clarke's actions gain the attention of CIA agent Jim Harrison (Charles Grodin), who is advising the Emir (Aharon Ipalé) against leftist guerillas in the region. Harrison plans to use the two hapless musicians as pawns in this struggle, but they prove hard to control.

    There's two kind of good gags in the films. Towards the middle, there's a somewhat funny gag where two CIA agents are identifying other intelligence agents. Both times, it was the only laugh I got from this film. The second is one of the songs has a funny line ("If you say you play the accordion, you can never play in a rock and roll band"). Beatty and Hoffman have decent chemistry and work well as close friends. Charles Grodin's constantly beleaguered CIA agent is kind of charming, especially at the end. The climax is fine.

     The overriding problem with this film is that it isn't funny. A lot of comedies aren't funny, but this is one of those comedies that is sort of aggressive about its unfunniness. A joke doesn't land? It just keeps repeating it, no matter the diminishing returns. There are jokes about the Cold War, the region, the ugly Americans Clarke and Rogers, but again, none of those are funny. I wish I could talk about some of those gags, but that leads into another problem: because it's unfunny pretty much throughout its runtime, it's also boring. Nothing really happens until the end. I saw the movie a few days ago, and I can't really tell you anything that happens in it. It's also very easy to get distracted during that time.

   This was apparently meant as an homage to the 40's Road to... films starring Bing Crosby and Bob Hope. I don't know how. Yeah, it's two everymen in a foreign land, but stuff happened in the Road to.. movies. Also, those were funny. If you want an actually funny, memorable homage to those films that also has Cold War themes, just watch Spies Like Us. I really don't know if you really need to see this. Maybe as a curiosity, but there really isn't much to it.

Current Film Review- Long Shot

     I have two stories about this movie. One was that when I read about it a few months ago, it was called Flarsky (in reference to Seth Rogen's character). Long Shot is frankly a better title. Anyway, I watched this film after a class on Monday. I went to the bathroom in the other building, and saw they were having a free screening on campus in 13 minutes. Given I had nothing else to do, I went to watch it. What did I think?

       Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogen) is a journalist at an online outlet known for his progressive stances and aggressive demeanor. However, when right-wing mogul Parker Whembley (Andy Serkis) buys out his employer, Flarsky angrily quits. His pal Lance (O'Shea Jackson Jr. Ice-T's son, btw) decides to take him to a high class party where Boyz II Men are playing. Also at this party is US Secretary of State Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron), who is running for president on a specific environmental agenda. Flarsky has a particular connection to Field, as the latter was Flarsky's babysitter, and there was an awkward incident between the two (watch the film, I won't describe it). Field, against the advice of her staffer Maggie Millikin (June Diane Raphael) decides to hire Flarsky as a speechwriter for her campaign. So begins a gradual journey as the two navigate politics and romance.

      The thing that most stood out to me was the chemistry between Theron and Rogen. The two manage to be both convincing and charming as the main couple in this romantic comedy, and their relationship and how it develops helps really anchor this film. Along with the main two leads, the side performances are also enjoyable, particularly Serkis, Raphael, Bob Odenkirk (possibly playing himself as President of the US), and Ravi Patel as Field's other staffer. I do like there is something of an actual political message in this film, as opposed to just using politics as basically a hook. There is a recurring conflict in the film between Flarsky uncompromising idealism and Field's more pragmatic politicking, and it does play into the romantic comedy plot of the film. Finally, I appreciate that this film had a style and flair to it. A lot of comedies today rely heavily on improvising (a lot of Seth Rogen films, too), and not having a more stylized look or feel to them. I appreciated that there was a style to this. Finally, it's funny. I laughed pretty consistently throughout the film, and I laughed hard at the jokes.

      This follows the beats of a romantic comedy pretty dogmatically. It is really easy to see where the plot is going and how the journeys will lead. This isn't too much of a problem, but maybe a little bit more of a surprise might've helped keep the film more interesting and provocative, which is what they are likely aiming for. The ending was a bit too neat, and simultaneously with not much actual resolution. A bit more of a tie-up with the other characters might've worked.

     I enjoyed this movie. I laughed consistently. That makes it a general recommendation in my book. If you like comedies or political comedies, this is one of the better examples of it, and it uses politics as a sub-message than just a setting for a romantic comedy. That said, it's probably one I won't revisit in the future, so bare in mind that it is mostly just entertainment. 

Dailies and Nightlies- Down with Love

         Two things prompted my review of this (well, three, if you count the Valentine's Day tie-in). A while ago, I was reading through the comments section of an old (meaning several year old) news article in film news, and one commentor lamented that Edgar Wright was passed over for the "director of Bring It On" (Peyton Reed) for Ant-Man (because the article was another celebrity (Simon Pegg, incidentally) whining about the decline of cinema or whatever). That comment stuck with me primarily for the way it was framed. The commentor refers to Bring It On, a film with a very specific cultural prominence as a film about cheerleading, and contrasts it with Edgar Wright, with the implication that the comparison is self-evident. According to the Googles, Bring It On has a 63% on Rotten Tomatoes, meaning a decent number of people seemed to enjoy it. The implication from the comment was that Reed was wrong for the role of director of Ant-Man because he directed more feminine movies. Now, I love Edgar Wright very much (indeed, he's a favorite of mine), but it's hard to deny that he generally focuses on topics that generally appeal to the more male dominated film nerd culture. Anyway, that comment stuck with me, and prompted me to look into Peyton Reed's filmography, and found this one, which seemed to be very beloved in many circles. The second is shorter, but also involves Reed and Marvel. Reed apparently pitched Fox a 60's era Fantastic Four script, and I do like to speculate on what might've been, and the actual 60's era film that he directed seemed like a good start.

          In Camelot-era New York, the new sensation in the literary world is Barbara Novak (Rene Zellweger), who has the radical idea of having sexual relations without necessarily a romantic one. (remember, early 60's). Her shot to fame, helped by editor Vikki Heller (Sarah Paulson), prompts womanizing reporter Catcher Block (Ewan McGregor) and his editor Peter McMannus (David Hyde Pierce) to do an investigation hoping to expose Novak and her liberating ways. But... complications arise, and from the title, I suppose you know where this is going.

        I'm not terribly familiar with the Rock Hudson/Doris Day comedies this was meant to pay homage to, but even I could see how intricately they recreated just a sixties film. From the long animated opening to the large elaborate sets to the very bright color scheme to the transitions and split shots, it resembles an early 60's film aesthetically to an admirably meticulous degree. Simultaneously, it still has modern innovations that work seamlessly, with the more jarring datedness of 60's films ironed out, allowing the viewer to focus more on the film itself and not any of the agedness. Aside from the aesthetic, there are a number of very good gags and jokes in here. I was laughing pretty consistently throughout the film at all the clever visual gags, subtle nods, and wordplay, which were all quite charming in their own way, and helped ease the viewer more into this world that the film created, which is helped by the actors, who fit into their 60's archetypes well. Especially David Hyde Pierce as a hapless Tony Randall sort.

       My biggest problem with the film is that the plot kind of sputters out towards the middle, and it never really recaptures its momentum afterwards. I can pinpoint this problem to when it begins to shift gears about its message, which I won't spoil, but needless to say, the attempt to balance old-fashioned and modern sensibilities ends more towards the former, and it is a bit odd that they decided to go this particular direction. Another, more minor one is that they do a gag about people doing innocuous things but sounding sexual whilst doing it. It's funny once or twice, but they do the gag several times, which was a bit tiresome, and a tad awkward (also, this is a very common joke).

      I enjoyed this feature. Granted, I couldn't fully get into it, but I had a good time watching, regardless, and if you enjoy these sorts of romantic comedies or period pieces, I recommend it. Think of it as a light-hearted predecessor to Mad Men. 

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

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

 Rick and Morty, Season 3

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

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

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

Stranger Things 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Texas Chainsaw Massacre II

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Theatre of Blood

      Not much I could say on the history of this film. Vincent Price apparently did this movie to show his considerable Shakespearean abilities (having started out doing Shakespeare on Orson Welles' Mercury Theater in the 1930's.) He was offered the project by his friend and former agent, Sam Jeffe. Sure enough, it became a personal favorite of Price's among his filmography. It was notable for having been shot entirely on location, with the Putney Hippodome and the Kensal Green Cemetery in London being primary shooting locations, as opposed to studio locations. Many West-End Actors were secured to star in this film. To produce the murders, over six gallons of fake blood was used. Price was introduced to his future wife Carol Browne through his co-star Diana Rigg (most famous for her role as "Emma Peel" on the British television show The Avengers, no, not related to that one. Co-star Ian Hendry also starred in The Avengers. ). The film now has a 72% on Rotten Tomatoes, and now has a stage adaptation, with Jim Broadbent and Riggs' daughter Rachel Sterling in the lead roles.

      Stage actor Edward Lionheart (Vincent Price) considers himself one of the greatest Shakespearean actors of the modern era. Thus, when he is snubbed for a "Critic's Award", and promptly acts out, humiliating himself, he decides to enact vengeance on the critics who had given him poor reviews and had taken his award from his clutches. Helping him in this endeavor is his daughter Edwina (Diana Rigg), who adopts a disguise using a fake mustache and beard, who assists him in faking his suicide, and getting in contact with a group of vagrants on the Thames, who become his "stage players." Once he has murdered three of the critics, one of them, Peregrine Devlin (Ian Hendry) figures out the murders are themed around the Shakespeare plays that Lionheart has performed in, and teams up with Police Inspector Boot (Milo O'Shea) to figure out the murders, and hopefully stop Lionheart.

     Vincent Price is this movie. He simply has a large presence around the entire film. While he is deliberately overacting, it is legitimately great to watch, and he is incredibly charismatic, delivering a certain demented glee when performing these murders. It's clear he is having a lot of the fun  He also delivers Shakespearean monologues in a way that would actually work in a real Shakespeare play. He really could've done very well in an actual Shakespeare movie. He basically towers over all the other actors in the feature, though most of them do fine. This also had a very interesting and creative idea for a serial murder film. Reenacting many Shakespeare's own murder scenes, or reinterpreting certain scenes, (like a metaphoric line in The Merchant of Venice). It's mostly uses black comedy and absurdity over actual horror to portray these murders.

     That said, it isn't particularly scary. It's quite gory, though, and sometimes disturbing, but never actually scary. I would've preferred some more actual scares, making the murder of the critics have more impact. As is, some of them are simply too silly to really take that seriously. There are also the occasional plotholes and contrivances to get the plot going. There's also no mystery to the whole affair. We know basically from the beginning that Lionheart is the murderer, and thus, Devlin and Boot's investigation has no suspense. Similarly, the fact that the Lionheart's bearded assistant is his daughter is treated as a big twist towards the end, but you could figure it out just through sheer logic. This mostly kills any suspense the film may have had.

     This was a fun, jaunty sort of ramp, one made so Vincent Price could belt out Shakespearean monologues, while also committing murders. I had a lot of fun watching it, despite it not really being a particularly deep film. This would be a good, fun Halloween watch, to just watch and have a good time. It's also for those who like the violence in Shakespeare plays (as opposed to the monologue, the classic dialogue, the themes...)

Next time, we conclude this year's Masterpiece with a film I've been avoiding for the past few years, but will finally confront: The Exorcist.   

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Shaun of the Dead

        Many of you probably know Edgar Wright as the director of films like, well this one, Hot Fuzz, The World's End, and perhaps his most well-known Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. Visually stunning and interesting pictures, which also showcase excellent physical comedy. Wright actually got his start co-creating the British sitcom Spaced, with future frequent collaborator (and best thing about the Star Trek reboot) Simon Pegg and Jessica Stevenson, both of whom star as two strangers who pretend to be a couple to rent a flat (a British term for apartment). In the episode Art (aired October 8th, 1999), Pegg's character Tim, after consuming some amphetamines, hallucinates about actually killing zombies while playing Resident Evil 2. That's really the entire genesis of the film. Wright and Pegg realized they had a shared affinity for the classic Romero zombie flicks, and decided to create a parody/homage to the genre, starring Pegg and fellow Spaced co-star Nick Frost. It stars Stevenson in a minor role, and many other British TV actors (including Martin Freeman in a cameo). Wright had to take several TV directing jobs (and had to borrow money from friends), while shopping the concept (then called Tea Time of the Dead) to several studios. After securing a studio, filming commenced between May and July 2003. Released in 2004, it not only garnered critical acclaimed (listeners of BBC1 listed this as their second favorite film), but George A. Romero himself was so impressed that he cast Wright and Pegg as zombies in 2005's Land of the Dead. This film would be the first of the Cornetto trilogy (named for the Cornetto ice cream, which is featured in all three films. In this one, Shaun uses it to get over a hangover, a reference to how Wright himself once got over a hangover.)

       Shaun (Simon Pegg) is a 28 year old electronics salesman, having relationship problems with his girlfriend Liz (Kate Ashfield). The two spend every date at Shaun's favorite pub, the Winchester, with Shaun slothish friend Ed (Nick Frost). Liz is forced to bring her two friends, David (Dylan Moran) and Dianne (Lucy Davis), to make up for this. He also has a sordid relationship with his step-father Phillip (Bill Nighy) Shaun promises Liz that he'll pick a much fancier restaurant their next date. However, after a particularly harsh day at work, he fails to get the reservation, and Liz breaks up with him. After a failed attempt to win her back, Shaun and Ed spend the night at the Winchester, and get very drunk. Drunk enough, that they don't notice the developing zombie apocalypse that Shaun had failed to notice earlier has become full-on. After Shaun and Ed fight off two zombies in their backyard, Shaun resolves to save both his mother (Penelope Wilson) and Liz, and wait out the crisis at the Winchester. Things don't go as planned.

        As an Edgar Wright feature, you can expect very active cinematography. Every shot is dynamic and there are several subtle gags focused entirely on physical elements. The visual gags are very good, and gained a small laugh every time. Not that the dialogue is not also funny. Really, all a comedy needs to be is funny, and this is very funny. Not as funny as Hot Fuzz or The World's End, but still a solid comedy. One particular stand-out scene is when they take on a zombie to Queen's Don't Stop Me Now.  Similarly, the build-up to the zombie apocalypse was very good. Shaun almost has that moment, when he realizes the world has changed... but keeps getting interrupted. Simon Pegg is, well, he's always good, as is Nick Frost,  and both usually have excellent chemistry in any movie they're in. The other actors do well in this.

    Honestly, not much is wrong with the film. Sometimes, the gags fall flat, or they repeat jokes that weren't really funny to begin with, but there are enough better gags that those don't run the film. It isn't as in your face as Hot Fuzz or Scott Pilgrim, and that's a flaw, because it would've been funnier had it taken more advantage of visual jokes. There are funny visuals, but there should've been more and more apparent.

   As you could tell, there isn't much I could say about this, other than, "Really Good, really funny" If you like visual comedies, or you enjoyed Wright's other works, or want a good zombie parody, or just want a really good film, check this one out. And while you're at it, watch the rest of the Cornetto Trilogy (I consider Hot Fuzz the funniest movie I have ever seen, and The World's End is pretty good as well).

Next time, we go back to the underrated Quatermass franchise with Quatermass II.