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.

Reason for the Season- Twilight Zone (2019)

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


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

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

Dailles and Nightlies- 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.

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- 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.