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.  

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- Fast and Furious Presents: Hobbs and Shaw

     So, I've never seen a Fast and Furious film. I may have seen part of the second one years ago, but I've never seen any full film from the franchise, despite its increasing acclaim as an internationally, intersectionally minded blockbuster franchise. I just don't really know where to start, given that the continuity of the films is famously bizarre, and its shift from street racing to international spy thrillers equally such. So, given this, I decided to do this review with that mindset. Having not seen any of the Fast and Furious films, does this spin-off stand up as its own film to a non-fan such as myself, who isn't immersed in this particular franchise.

     A group of MI6 agents try to capture a device containing a virus that could wipe out most of mankind (sadly, it is not called "Thanoslite"), from the terrorist organization Eteon. However, an Eteon operative named Brixton Lore (Idris Elba), with superhuman abilities, comes out to retrieve their device. He kills all the agents, except Hattie Shaw (Vanessa Kirby) who injects the virus capsules into herself before fleeing. Brixton promptly frames her for the attack. The CIA then recruits Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) and Hattie's brother Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) to find Hattie and bring her to justice. Of course, Brixton is on the trail, and complications arise.

    First, the chemistry between Dwayne Johnson and Jason Stathem basically is the entire film. I've heard that they get on pretty well in real life, and it does show. I could just see them trash talking each other for a feature-length film. It helps especially during some of the sequences where they are forced to work together. Most of the other actors do fine in their roles (Idris Elba seems to be having fun in this). The actions sequences are spectacular, with elaborate set pieces and a lot of activity going on, making all of them exciting and fun . This could be attributed to director David Letch, who did similar large scale action scenes with John Wick, Atomic Blonde, and Deadpool 2 (Funnily enough, Ryan Reynolds plays a small role in the film). Best of all, there is no reliance on continuity, aside from some nods or subtle references (I don't know how much the two interacted before in the franchise, but they clearly have some history), and the big theme of family that has been through the franchise. It works as a standalone action film, with a lot of heart and sentimentality. 

     This was way too long. An hour and a half long story extended to nearly 2 hours and 15 minutes. It really starts to grind down in the second act, as the action sequences seem to go on too long. I know people don't really care about the story, and I don't really either in this case, but there are a number of continuity errors and plot holes that were a little distracting, even in a movie like this.

    So, I can't speak to whether fans of the franchise will enjoy this, but just as a fun action movie, I enjoyed it. I had a lot of fun, and there was a large amount of heart to this. I might actually check out the others in this series if they're all this fun and jovial. Even if you've never seen another one of these, I think one could watch this, and follow it with ease.  

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  

Coming to a Video Screen Near You- Under the Silver Lake

     Okay, I was looking forward to this one for a while, ever since I saw the trailer about two years ago, I think. I loved director David Robert Mitchell's previous feature It Follows, one of the best horror films of the last decade. It was scheduled for June, 2018 (the same day Jurassic World: Fallen Franchise was meant to come out). Perhaps because of this, it was then moved to December. And then to April. And when I remembered it was supposed to come, I found it that it had an incredibly limited release in New York and Los Angeles (damned coastal elite), and was just going straight to video. Given I've annoited myself reviewer of shit studios dump onto VOD, I decided to take a look, and see if it really deserves these delays, in the inaugural entry of my series now looking into these discards.

      Sam (Andrew Garfield) is a jobless voyeur living in Los Angeles who is obsessed with an alternative comic called Under the Silver Lake, written by Comic Fan (Patrick Fishler), which has some similarities to recent events. One day, he meets a young woman named Sarah (Riley Keough), living in his apartment complex. After they share a night of ...passion, one could call it, he wakes up to find that she and her roommates have completely vacated the premises. Sam, already a conspiracy theorist, slowly pieces together a larger conspiracy involving the murder of a millionaire (Chris Gann), a rock band, and several pieces of pop culture ephemera.

      First, the score is great. Disasterpiece (that's apparently what he's called), who did the iconic score for It Follows did the music for this, and it gives the film atmosphere. Punctuating moments, allowing the ambiance of a brightly lit scene to settle in, and just sounds great whenever it's on. I liked how parts of the conspiracy were constructed and how Sam was able to decode the messages. The Under the Silver Lake comics have nice animation that really capture the feel of an alternative horror comic like this. I like how, despite the darker undertones of the film, Los Angeles itself is shown in a bright, colorful manner that is somewhat reminiscent of films like La La Land, which is a nice contrast. After watching this, I do kind of want to visit LA again after seeing it.

      I'll say first that Andrew Garfield just wasn't the right person to play this role. I know others praise his performance, but it's just didn't click for me. I think he is too subdued. This character is supposed to be more nuts and crazed, but he is too relaxed and too stoner-y to pull it off. A couple reviewers said he was a stoner, so that might be why, but I didn't quite get the performance and it didn't click with me. The conspiracy is well-thought out, but it feels like there are little stakes in it. There's no sense of real urgency or importance to it. It feels more like an elaborate treasure hunt made for a primetime game show. When it culminates in the revelation, it a.) feels incredibly underwhelming, and b.) leaves several loose plot threads out to dangle in the wind. Maybe this was the intention, but I never got invested in this character journey. There is a lot of gratuitous nudity, sex, and butt shots, of all things, and maybe there is some They Live-commentary there, but it just felt awkward (and a bit off-putting) to watch. It is also way too long for the plot, with so many digressions and needless elements.   

     There were interesting elements to this film, and I was drawn by those. However, a lot of it just felt tedious, especially its use of pop culture brownie-point, like The Long Goodbye as written by Max Landis. I don't really think a theater experience would've enhanced this much. That said, if you are intrigued by the synopsis or the look, I'd say rent it and see what you might think of it. 

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- American Psycho

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current Film Review- Searching

     I recently reread my Unfriended review in potential preparation for watching the sequel (which I ended up not watching), and I found that I was harsh on the film. Not to say I've grown to like Unfriended over the years, but I feel that my criticisms weren't great,often devolved into mindless ranting about unrelated topics, instead of a full analysis. I'm particularly ashamed of implying that the filmmakers had done the computer screen conceit in an attempt for nebulous concept of "artistic pretentiousness" (as if that were a bad thing), and comparing It Follows, instead of just talking about the film on its own merits.  I've grown since then, and if I were to do a reevaluation of the film, I might be inclined to be fairer towards it, especially since it was fairly unique and I should've acknowledged that better instead of dismissing it. Especially since I've now seen this film, which shows that this is definitely something that isn't just a gimmick.

     David Kim (John Cho) has had a distant relationship with his daughter Margot (Michelle La) since the death of his wife Pamela (Sara Sohn). He has a brief interaction with her one night during a study group, which ends with her abruptly disconnecting. While he is asleep, she tries to call him three times. She then doesn't come home the next evening. He then learns that she hasn't been taking her piano lessons in the past few months, and she had skipped school. Eventually, he is forced to file a missing person's report with the police, where he meets Detective Rosemary Vick (Debra Messing). As David unravels the events that occurred the night his daughter went missing, he learns that he didn't know his daughter the way he thought he did.

     First and foremost, this film is exhilarating. I had to catch my breath a couple times during the film. This has some massive twists that you won't see coming, and will keep you on your feet (so to speak). I can't say any more than that without spoilers, and I do not want to spoil this for you. This film is very effective and engrossing in its presentation, and you will be shocked watching this. John Cho delivers a great performance, able to display the emotions of a man grappling with missing a loved ones, and dealing with the revelations. The one thing this film has over Unfriended is that it actually feels more like using a computer screen. In that, it zooms into the various parts of the screen during the actions on it, and it moves across various screens while Cho is trying glean information. We not only see the Apple screen in the trailer, but even the old Windows screen from the early 2000's (the one I used to use back then). All of which serves the plot, and creates an innovative way to tell a long-told story.

    I understand that it was necessary for the plot, and it would've been distracting if they hadn't put it in there, but the product placement seemed off to me. Google and Apple factor heavily into the computers, but other sites like Tumblr and Youtube play a role (thought the former is the source of a funny joke). Not to say it felt like a commercial, but it did get occasionally distracting. To be fair, there is never a moment where they overly praise the item, just use it as a tool to push the plot and there are competing companies in here (the aforementioned Google, Apple, and Microsoft). I also felt that the internet connection could've gone out on occasion, just to increase the realism.

    This is one of the best films of the year. I left the theater stunned and excited at what I just viewed. This was breathtaking in its scope, and how it utilizes its use of computer screen to its fullest potential. Now, I want to see more of these, just to see if they could take it any further. This gets my unequivocal endorsement, in that I recommend it to anyone who has the time. 

Current Film Reviews- The Equalizer II

       The first R-rated film I ever watched in theaters was 2014's The Equalizer, a remake of the popular 80's TV series and starring Denzel Washington in the lead role. That distinction would imply some sort of affection or fondness for the film, but I actually barely remember anything about it. I'm not even entirely sure what it was about. I know it had to do with Washington's character fighting off Russian mobsters and the climax took place in a home goods store, but that's about it. Honestly, there isn't much context that is needed for this. Even though I couldn't remember the first one, I could follow this fine.

       Set an indeterminate amount of time after the original, Robert McCall (Denzel Washington) is now a Lyft driver, who continues to do the occasional job on the side. We start in Turkey, where he saves a young girl, after her Turkish father kidnapped her from her American mother. Despite the brutality and efficiency with which he does these jobs, he still has a very friendly relationship with the people around him. After his apartment complex is vandalized, he strikes a mentorship with Miles Whittaker (Ashton Saunders), an aspiring artist. He, however, is thrust back in action when his former CIA associate and friend Susan Plummer (Melissa Leo) is killed in Brussels. He soon finds himself investigating a conspiracy to take him and others affiliated with him down, and he must stop it at any cost.

     What really elevates this from B-list action schlock is Denzel Washington's performance. He really sells this character, both as a brutal enforcer and a friendly guy helping his neighbors. There are some legitimately great scenes of him either dealing with the situation or simply interacting with Ashton Saunder's Miles Whittaker. He is really the reason this film (and for that matter, the first one) are at least somewhat compelling. The action helps, often being both exciting and slightly terrifying. It was a satisfying experience, at the very least. It provides what it is selling, Denzel Washington beating up crooks while giving life lessons.

      I normally don't really quibble with plot holes, because honestly, I don't notice that much whilst watching a film, but I pretty sure this had a number of loose ends. Without spoilers, I still wasn't sure what the main villain's motivation was, or how he got his associates.  I also wasn't entirely sure why Melissa Leo was in Brussels. I know it had to do with a murder there, but I don't think they ever explain who that character was or why he was specifically murdered.  It doesn't help that this film has a real pacing issue, with the main plot sidetracked to deal with Washington going about his everyday life. I didn't know when this film was ending, since it doesn't feel like it was building up to something.

      I didn't hate this, just like I didn't hate the first one. It gives what the first one gave, some decent actions and some nice character stuff from Denzel Washington. However, the first one at least had the distinction of being the first R-rated film I ever saw. I'm probably not going to remember that I ever saw this. Honestly, a better version of this, at least in regards to action, is Upgrade, which came out about a month ago. If you want a fun action thriller with a hard edge, I honestly recommend that. If you liked the first one, you'll probably like this, and if you didn't, this isn't really an improvement. Just seeing here thinking, I'm already beginning to forget about this film. 

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre's Summer of Terror- Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter

          By 1983, the slasher genre that had been popularized by films like Halloween and the original Friday the 13th was waning in popularity, and with diminished returns on the last film, producer Frank Manusco, Jr. decided to end the series. The director this time was Joseph Zito, then known for the slasher film, The Prowler, (and later known for Chuck Norris vehicles Missing in Action and Invasion USA), who was to write the film, but decided he was better at directing, so secretly used his writing salary to hire Barry Cohen to write the film. This one has people you've heard of in it, namely Corey Feldman and Crispin Glover. The production was troubled, namely due to Zito's callousness and him forcing the actors to perform dangerous stunts by themselves. It eventually got to the point that the Jason for the film, veteran stuntman Ted White (who had doubled for Clark Gable and John Wayne during the course of his career) threatened to walk off the film because of it. Feldman maintained a bratty persona to deal with Zito's direction. White would go uncredited, due to his combative relationship with Zito. Like before, it wasn't a hit with critics (especially Siskel and Ebert), but  a financial success, and they decided not to end it (which is why I've got  7 more of these to go.)

          I might as well place a madlibs for this one. Jason (Ted White), after his alleged death in the last one, gets up and wanders the morgue and kills the nurses. Meanwhile, a group of teenagers come to Crystal Lake, and settle in a vacation home. Jason begins a-killing. To be fair, there is a new element in this film in the form of the Jarvis family, including the mother(Joan Freeman), Trish (Kimberly Beck), and Travis (Corey Feldman), who the teens briefly meet. Trish and Travis later meet a hitchhiker Rob (E. Erich Anderson), who has a particular mission in Crystal Lake.

          I'll say this about the film, I like that they add more elements to this to spruce up the formula. There is the element of the brother and sister, and Rob, who is revealed to be avenging the death of his sister (Sandra Dier from the last film). The way Travis finally dispatches Jason is clever and adds a little more menace to a character other than Jason.

        I'm running out of things to say about these films. This was tedious, it follows the same structure as the last two, it got a little absurd. Even the good stuff is starting to get tiring. There really isn't anything in this one I didn't already say about the other two.

       Was it bad? No, I daresay it was better than the last one, but it is basically a functional product. It does its job at fundamental level, and has little more to offer beyond that. It is basically unexceptional, is what I'm saying. So, if you want to marathon these films or want a horror movie to have fun with, I'd say give it a watch, just don't expect a great film.

Current Film Reviews: American Animals

           There are two reasons I haven't done any reviews in the past two months. One is simply I was busy with finals and the like at school, and immediately after, I went on vacation. So, with all that, I couldn't really write anything. Another major factor is that I couldn't really find anything to say about certain films. I considered Deadpool as a potential candidate, but I realized that detailing the plot would involve big spoilers. I considered Upgrade, but I couldn't quite muster much material for a full review, nor did Hotel Artemis. So, given it's been two months, I'll just do a review of a film I saw a couple days ago, that I don't have much material for, and might be out of theaters at this point.

           This film is based on the real life 2004 robbery of rare books at Transylvania University in Kentucky, done in a docudrama style, with the real participants interviewed along with a dramatization of the events.  Spencer Reinhard (Barry Keoghan) and Warren Lipka (Evan Peters) decide to abandon their hum-drum lives and commit a robbery of the rare books collection at their university in Kentucky, which includes the original folios of John James Audubon's Birds of America (estimated at $12 million) as well as other rare books. After Warren secures a buyer in the Netherlands, they recruit acquaintances Chas Allen (Blake Jenner) and Eric Borsuk to help, planning an elaborate heist to extract the books and gain the money. However, they find that committing a robbery is far easier in the movies, than it is in real life.

          I thought of two films watching this: Richard Linklater's Bernie and I, Tonya. The former because of its docudrama style (though this, unlike Bernie, uses mostly the real participants in interviews), and dark themes, and I, Tonya due to its focus on unreliable narrators and uncertain events. Both work to make a very fractured narrative, and not in a bad way. It helps builds to the unstable nature of the robbery itself, and how people tend to recall minor events differently, when compared to more intense one. The film is concise, with everything inside building to some sort of theme or contributing to the plot. Everything always builds the plot, or deals with the theme. The interviews help give more insight into the minds of the characters, and helps make this event more real. Going off that, it also deconstructs heist movies, as their plans for the heist slowly go awry thanks to different factors, and their overestimation of their capacity. Thus, it goes horribly wrong during their final heist. It gets hard to watch.

     The first half drags a little. I understand that it builds up, but it sort of drops us into the action, with no real exposition, other than the interviews. It never really establishes itself in a satisfactory manner, and thus, the build-up feels off constantly. It manages to re-adjust itself once they begin to actually plan the heist, but it should probably have been a bit longer. The interview/dramatization ratio decreases towards the second half. Whilst this allows us to absorb the magnitude of their failure, I honestly would've liked some commentary on what actually happened during it.

     Like I said, not much material I could gain from this. Overall, though, this is a recommendation. It's probably out of theaters, but if it's still playing or coming on DVD or home video, I'd say seek this out for fans of Indie films or heist films or true crime. 

    Next time, I will delve into Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, and something a little different.