(Corona-) Summer of Terror: Creature from the Black Lagoon

    The story of this film begins with, of all things, Citizen Kane. William Alland, a good friend of Orson Welles, played the role of the reporter investigating Kane in the film, making him the point of view character. At a party celebrating that film, he met Mexican cinematographer Gabriel Figueroa, who had worked with filmmakers like Howard Hawks and John Huston. Figueroa told the story of a fishman in the Amazon who would come to villages once a year, steal women, and vanish. The idea stuck with Alland as he became a major producer of science fiction films in the 50's, including It Came from Outer Space, with a script from Harry Essex (based on a story treatment by Ray Bradbury) and directed by actor-turned-director Jack Arnold. Alland eventually wrote down the idea, which was expanded into a treatment and later script by Maurice Zimm, Essex and Arthur Ross. The story mostly took its cues from Beauty and the Beast as well as King Kong. The creature's legendary costume was designed by Milicent Patrick, who had been one of the first female animators at Disney before coming to Universal as part of their special effects and make-up department. Unfortunately, her assistant Bud Westmore became jealous, and overshadowed her contributions to the Gil-Man design, obscuring her role for decades. Released in 1954, it is something of a staple for the science fiction horror genre. Guillermo del Toro released his riff on the film with The Shape of Water in 2017, earning the Academy Award in the process. 

      After an intro describing evolution, basically, the film opens with the discovery of a strange fossil in the Amazon. A large claw fossil to be exact. (They could resurrect it at Pewter City if they wanted.) The discoverer, Dr. Carl Maia (Antonio Moreno) soon brings in marine biologist Dr. David Reed (Richard Carlson), and persuades his boss, Mark Williams (Richard Denning) to tag along. Sure enough, a real fish creature is swimming around nearby, and takes a particular liking to David's girlfriend Kay Lawrence (Julie Adams), who is tagging along. 

      The "Gill-Man" has an excellent, very monstrous look to it, thanks to Patrick's design. It helps sell the creature as a real creature and not just a guy in a costume (which it still does appear to be). Ben Chapman also does very well conveying the physicality of the creature as a fish who learned how to walk upright, basically. The sets, especially the caves and parts of the jungle is very well done, and I did like that they did attempt (however tenuous) to tie this to the idea of evolution. I did like that they took the main emotional core of King Kong (the "Beauty and the Beast" aspect) and spun it around in a different setting

      Like many of these films, after a good first act and a great third act, it has a really slow second act. It just sort of builds a lot of tension and we don't see a lot of Gill-Man. I drifted during this part. Luckily, as I said, it manages to pick up during the third act and does its iconic scene , which still holds up. 

     The biggest film that hangs over this one is The Shape of Water. Del Toro discusssed how that film was inspired by his sympathy towards the monster in this film. Honestly, I do see it. The creature is ultimately sympathetic, like Frankenstein, but is besieged by colonial forces beyond its control. There's a certain tragedy to its death at the very end. For that alone, I recommend this film. That, and it's still a pretty fun film. 

     Alright, after three months and many cancellations, we're finally at the end of this with an unorthodox choice (and not technically originally a Universal film, but bare with me): Psycho.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- The Thing (1982)

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

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

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

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

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

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

   Happy Halloween, everyone
     

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Earth vs. the Flying Saucers

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

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

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

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

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

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

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre-- The Fly (1986)

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

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

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

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

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

     Alright, we continue on Friday with the first Scream. 

Masterpieces of Horror Theatre- The Fly (1958)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current Film Reviews- 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.  

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.

Current Film Reviews- Pokemon: Detective Pikachu

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dailles and Nightlies- Battleship

          This almost sounds like a parody, really. Now 7 years removed from it, it is sort of stunning that this film actually exists, and isn't something in the background of a Hollywood satire. A military sci-fi blockbuster based on the plotless game of Battleship. The one where you yell out a position, and it hits or misses (I'm guessing modern versions are a tie-in to the film? Haven't played it in a while) Someone actually conceived of this, and created the film with high quality effects, name actors, and military support. It is kind of astounding, and with the right combination, it might've actually worked. Unfortunately, for a concept this wonky, it is surprisingly dull and boring.

      NASA has managed to locate an exoplanet with the potential for life, and sends a signal to any potential life. But, this interesting development is sidetracked by the story of Alex Hopper (Taylor Kitsch), who, as brother Stone (Alexander Skarsgard, and yes, his name really is "Stone") helpfully exposits to the audience, is an unemployed slacker celebrating his birthday at a bar, where he attempts to impress Samantha (Brooklyn Decker), by stealing a chicken burrito from a nearby convenience store. He's tased pretty badly by the police, and while he is recovering, Stone once again helpfully explains that he wants Alex to join the Navy and that Samantha is the daughter of the Commander of the US Pacific Fleet Terrance Shane (Liam Neeson). Cut to 7 years later, and Alex is now a Tactical Action Officer on the USS John Paul Jones, and is preparing to ask Admiral Shane for his daughter's hand in marriage (why this is still a thing, I'm not sure. Seems terribly antiquated). However, he is on the verge of a discharge (for some reason that's never explicitly explained as far as I could discern). Samantha, meanwhile revealed to be a physical therapist is helping a double amputee, Lt. Col Mick Canales (Gregory D. Gadson, a real life Iraq veteran and double amputee, which is very cool) recover by taking a walk in the beautiful Hawaiian wilderness.  If you're wondering where the aliens come in, well, they land during a Navy game between the RIMPAC nations, and create a force field around the Hawaiian islands. Now, after Stone is killed, Alex, along with Petty Officer Cora Raikes (Rihanna. Yes, that one) and the commander of the Jones' sister ship Yugi Nagata (Tadanobu Asano) must fight the aliens from within, while Samantha, Mick, and a SETI scientist named Cal Zapata (Hamish Linklater) try to destroy the shields.

      There are a couple things that are competent about this film. It has two kind of interesting subplots that are more interesting than the main plot. One is the aforementioned story of real life double amputee Gregory Gadson fighting off aliens, which was generally very awesome whenever we got to see it. The other involves a group of veterans actually refurbishing the USS Missouri with the main characters to fight the aliens. Both of these could've made entertaining films in and of themselves, and didn't deserve to be attached to Battleship the movie. The acting was alright, with a surprising standout being Rihanna. (I want to see her in more films, she has only been in 6 films since this one). It is mildly entertaining how they shoehorn aspects of the game into the film, like the pegs and when they try to fire on the aliens using a grid.

     It is surprising how boring this film is. Battleship the movie should be some weird, glorious mess. This is just another blockbuster, with a few tangential connections to its origin. It's not fun, it's not really that absurd. If you've seen any alien invasion film with clear support from the United States armed forces, you've seen this. I really can't say much other than that. Beyond that, it's also clear that it is trying to take elements from the then-hottest blockbusters, especially the Transformers films from Michael Bay. Director Peter Berg (known for the original Friday Night Lights, which is likely why Taylor Kitsch is in this) is clearly attempting to ape Michael Bay's style , from the panning shots to the slow motion action. However, while Bay has turned this into something of a vulgar artform using his own openly iconoclastic mannerisms, Berg's imitation makes the film look even cheaper and more mundane by comparison (though at least Berg doesn't imitate Bay's political incorrectness, in the former's defense). It really says something that I was more confused here than by the Transformers films I've seen directed by Bay. Along with failing to get Bay, Berg also uses a lot of Spielbergian music cues and especially, JJ Abrams-esque lens flares, which make the film even harder to see. I'm probably making this Frankenstein's monster combination out to be interesting, but really, the combination of these elements make the film generic, and not terribly interesting in its own right.

     It took four goddamn days to write this. Battleship the movie should not be this hard to write about, but the film is that uninteresting. I had a hard time describing the synopsis, because literally very little of note actually happens. I really don't recommend this to anyone, except maybe battleship enthusiasts with its accuracy and how it uses military strategies from what I've read, though maybe there are errors. I don't know. This was a lot tougher than I originally imagined.
        

Dailles and Nightlies- 2010: The Year We Make Contact

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

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

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

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

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

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Re-Animator

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

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Frankenstein Conquers the World

      I talked a bit about Willis O'Brien (best known as the special effects director of the original King Kong) last time, and this film is, in a sense, bourne from him as well. In 1961, he came up with a proposal for a film called King Kong meets Frankenstein, which is exactly what reads: King Kong fighting a massive version of Frankenstein's Monster in San Francisco. He eventually sold the idea to producer John Beck who shopped it around to various studio (including Kong rights holders Universal and RKO), before getting interest from Japanese studio Toho. Toho had wanted to make a King Kong film for a while, but eventually changed Frankenstein's Monster into Toho's own monster, Godzilla. Thus, King Kong v. Godzilla was made and released in 1962. They returned to the large Frankenstein's monster concept for a proposed sequel, Frankenstein vs. Godzilla, where Frankenstein's monster would be irradiated and grow to giant-size, prompting a fight with the Big-G. Eventually, Toho dropped Godzilla. Eventually, they would enter with American production company Henry G. Saperstein Enterprises (previously animation studio UPA) to produce the film. This new American involvement prompted the creation of a new monster called Baragon to replace Godzilla (and Godzilla actor Haruo Nakajima plays him), and allowed American actor Nick Adams (notable for his friendship with James Dean and Elvis Presley) to star. The titular Frankenstein was played by Koji Furuhata, who got the role through an open audition. Ishiro Honda, the director of the first Godzilla and some others in the series, directed, and Eiji Tsuburaya did the effects as he did with other Kaiju films.Originally, Frankenstein was to fight a giant octopus in a callback to King Kong vs. Godzilla, which was filmed but this was ultimately chucked from final release, due to Saperstein being dissatisfied with it.  Honda stated that this was one of several alternate endings filmed. The film had Nick Adams speaking English, while his cast mate spoke Japanese, and dubbing each other for each release. Released as Frankenstein vs. Baragon in Japan and Frankenstein Conquers the World in the US, it was enough of a success to prompt a sequel, War of the Gargantuas in the US.

        During the final days of World War II, Dr. Risendorf (Peter Mann) finds his experiments disrupted by an SS officer and goons, who steal a chest over the Doctor's protests. The chest is transported by U-Boat to their allies in Imperial Japan. The chest is revealed to hold the heart of Frankenstein's Monster, which cannot be destroyed and can be used for presumably stem-cell sorts of activities. The researchers are in Hiroshima, however. 15 years later, Doctors James Bowen (Nick Adams), Seigo Togami (Kumi Mizuno) and Ken'Ichiro Kawaji (Tadao Takashima) are alerted to the presence of a strange child (Sumio Nakao) roaming the streets of Hiroshima. They take him in, where they note that he has a strange resistance to radiation and a massive appetite. Sure enough, the child grows more and more, breaking from any cage he's in. Eventually, after investigation, they learn that the child was likely grown from the irradiated heart of Frankenstein. The aged Risendorf suggests cutting off a limp to test this. However, the child escapes and rampages through Japan. Meanwhile, Kawai (Yoshio Tsuchiya), who brought the heart to Hiroshima and now works for an oil company, witnesses Baragon (Haruo Nakajima) emerge. Baragon also rampages, which is blamed on Frankenstein (over the objections of Bowen and Togami). Now the researchers must race to capture Frankenstein before more harm comes to him or anyone else.

        First, I really like the fight scenes in this. They are sufficiently long, they never overstay their welcome, and they end rather satisfyingly. Originally, it seems that Baragon and Frankenstein are unrelated, just to build up the final fight. However, I do like that they do integrate the two, such that they are related in more than the fact they are giant monsters. I liked the Frankenstein's Monster itself. It was distinct from previous interpretations, but still recognizable. The make-up is well done, and both actors do well in adopting the more animalistic mannerisms that is supposed to have. Finally, the concept is very creative, with radiation prompting a full creature to form from a regenerating heart. It seems sort of like a Marvel comics character.

     This is not directly the film's fault, but the translation felt off. Like, it seems very curt and to the point, and doesn't seem to translate the full sentence. This could just be how the film was. I also found the ending to be underwhelming, when Frankenstein is just put into a large pit and presumably dies. It feels like there should be more. Apparently, a lot of this film was cut down, so that could be the reason.

     This was a pretty good monster movie, and probably a good Kaiju film (as someone who hasn't seen many Kaiju films). I recommend it on those grounds, or just some fun 60's era B-movie action. It was never boring and always entertaining, while never going into outright cheesy. Certainly see why this is a cult classic.

    Next week, we take a look at the Lovecraft adaptation Re-Animator. 

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- The Beast from 20000 Fathoms

     "The Beast from 20000 Fathoms" was a short story by Ray Bradbury originally published in the Saturday Evening Post in 1951. The basic story is about a sea serpent attracted every night by the sound of a lighthouse fog horn that resembles its mating call. Ray Harryhausen (Bradbury's friend from their time as friends of sci-fi superfan Forrest Ackerman) saw the similarities between the short story and a film he was working on called "Monster from Beneath the Sea", particularly one scene at a light house, after Bradbury pointed it out. Given Bradbury's reputation, producers Hal Chester and Jack Dietz bought the rights to the short story, changed the name, and added "Suggested by the Saturday Evening Post story by Ray Bradbury" into the credits. (Bradbury would change the name of the short story to "The Fog Horn"). The original film itself was more or less inspired by King Kong, with Dietz and Chester getting Harryhausen (who was the apprentice of Willis O'Brien, the special effects director of that film) to do the effects. The creature used was based off an illustration used in the original Saturday Evening Post, as well as the illustrations of early Paleoartist Charles R. Knight (whom Harryhausen admitted was a massive influence). The creatures (a quadripedal archosaur) was originally going to breathe fire, but due to budget limitations, this was scaled back. Ultimately, Warner Brothers would buy the distribution of the film, and replaced the original score by Michael Michelet with something more "dramatic" by David Buttolph. It was a massive box office success, and would spark off the giant atomic monster craze of the 1950's.

      "Operation Experiment" (real original name there) is an atomic test being conducted by the US government in the Arctic. After a successful detonation, the radar operators find something strange emerging from the test range. When investigators, including physicist Dr. Tom Nesbitt (Paul Christian) come to area to investigate the event, they see a strange four legged creature walking around in the snow. Nesbitt is injured, and he is dismissed as insane after describing the creature. He is sent to a psychiatric ward, where he learns that a strange sea creature has been attacking fishermen. He tries to convince paleontologist Dr. Elson (Cecil Kellaway), who also dismisses him. Elson's assistant Lee (Paula Raymond) is sympathetic, and after another attack, she convinces Nesbitt to identify the creature. Sure enough, he finds it to be Rhedosaurus, a creature from the Mesozoic. With another account, he and Lee convinces Dr. Elson. Now, as the creatures destroys lighthouses and ships, they must work with the military to put a stop to it.

     The best  part of this film is the creature attack scenes. It shows a stunning amount of technical acumen, from the creature to the sets it destroys to the way it integrates this footage into the scenes of people running, or the military trying to bring it down. It creates some truly excellent scenes. The Rhedosaur itself is very well designed, showing both classical dinosaur design with a menacing design. The texture was especially impressive. Despite it's jerky movement, it feels like a real animal walking around. I like that the characters are fairly rational in dealing with the creature, dealing a reasonable amount of skepticism until it is undeniable.

     This is surprisingly short, at only 80 minutes. It conveys most of the action and plot well during this period, but I feel more should've been there. Maybe the creature rampaging through the country, or more planning against it, but it feels a little too short as is. I feel that maybe show a little sympathy for the creature might've helped, especially seeing it writhing in pain at the end. The film clearly shows it as a great "the monster is gone" moment, but it is a bit difficult to watch, and maybe more of an acknowledgment of it.

     This was a very good monster movie, with all the good ingredients (good monster, good effects, good characters). If you like monster movies or stop motion monsters, this is likely the premiere example of the genre. Even if you don't, it's just a fun film to watch, with some excellent scenes of destruction. Certainly one of the best monster movies I've seen thus far.

     We continue looking into monster movies with Frankenstein Conquers the World.

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Night of the Living Dead (1990)

          I mentioned last time the original went into the public domain due to a mishap regarding the title card and the copyright notice. Sadly, this, and a lengthy legal battle with the distributor, meant Romero himself did not profit much off the original. He feared, given this, that a remake would be made without his involvement (indeed, a spiritual successor was made in 1985, Return of the Living Dead, with the involvement of screenwriter John Russo, and several unofficial sequels were made). So, when Menachem Golan (formerly of Cannon Films, and now the head of "21 Century Film Corporation") had interest in remaking the film, Romero, Russo, and original producer Russell Steiner signed on.  Tom Savini, who I've mentioned numerous times, was chosen to direct. Romero had hoped he could do the effects for the original, but he had been drafted to fight in the Vietnam War. After years of working together, Romero encouraged Savini to direct the remake. Romero was still heavily involved, rewriting the original screenplay he wrote in the 60's, and even ghostdirecting some scenes. When he was off-set, however, Savini would clash with the producers on a regular basis. This led to an unpleasant experience for him, especially since his ideas were vetoed. Like the original, the film was shot in and around Pittsburgh, though, obviously, with the prestige now attached to this project, extras from as far away as Kentucky were recruited. In the lead roles of Ben and Barbara were Tony Todd and Patricia Tallman(the latter was Savini's college acquaintance). With a much higher budget of $4.2 million, it managed to make a profit, but was savaged by critics, with Siskel and Ebert putting it on their worst of the year list. However, it would eventually see renewed interest on home video, and today stands at a 68% on Rotten Tomatoes.

      The plot remains unchanged. Barbara (Patricia Tallman) and Johnny (Bill Moseley. Yes, that Bill Moseley) are visiting their father's grave, when Barbara is attacked by a mysterious assailant with pale skin. She escapes while Johnny fights him off, but finds more figures with severe scars and pale skin following her. She eventually finds a farmhouse, which is also infested by these creatures. However, Ben (Tony Todd) comes in, and they fight them off together. As they contemplate their situation, they met other survivors Harry and Helen Cooper (Tom Towles and McKee Anderson) with child Sarah (Heather Mazur), and Tom (William Butler) and Judy (Katie Finneran). They find that these "ghouls" have infested the place, and they struggle to survive the night.

     The impression I had from reading this was that it was mostly a straight remake of the original, with the original script. That is not true. It has some distinct differences, which work in its favor as a remake. It modernizes the film, it explains some aspects, it fleshes out some of the characters. This makes the film distinct enough from the original to be considered its own product, along with implementing the themes of the later Dead films, which show humans as just inherently flawed as the unthinking zombies. At the same time, despite being in color, Savini manages to emulate the way the original used shadows and spacing as the main focus, and was able to create an experience similar to watching the original. While the ending doesn't have as much shock as the original, it is still satisfying, with the full extent of the events weighing on the characters.

     The main problem I have with the film is largely that its leads feel too .... Action movie. The original mostly kept the characters as competent, but realistically, and were largely powerless when the situation went south for them. However, here, they regularly beat zombies in such a manner that stretches imagination. It ruins the emersion for me. Like I said, the ending didn't have as much impact now, since the lead survives and joins the vigilantes. Also, one of the characters (who was unambiguously hostiles) is killed in what seems to be a moralistic choice.

      I liked this. Obviously, it wasn't as good as the original, but it managed to capture what worked about the original, whilst doing its own thing. So, I'd recommend it to those who like the original, or those who like zombie movies.

       Next time, we go to another classic, this time of monster movies with The Beast from 20000 Fathoms.

Current Film Review- Ready Player One

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

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

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

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

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

Current Film Review: A Wrinkle in Time

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current Film Review: Justice League

    You know, I had higher expectations for this film. Wonder Woman was good, and Joss Whedon was brought in help with the reshoots, following an incredibly tragic death in director Zac Synder's family. Whilst the trailers weren't impressive, it didn't seem like the disasters that Man of Steel, Batman V. Superman, and Suicide Squad turned out to be. Maybe they were starting to get the idea. Maybe this would continue the streak Wonder Woman started. Maybe they could create a viable cinematic universe. After seeing the film.... Let's get this over with.

       Based on the DC team created by Gardner Fox, we start immediately after the events of BvS. While the world is in shock following Superman's (Henry Cavill) death, Batman (Ben Affleck) is seeing strange creature appear across the world, and trying to assemble a league of heroes with Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) to try to protect the Earth from impending threats. This includes Arthur Curry, alias Aquaman (Jason Mamoa); Barry Allen, alias Flash (Ezra Miller); and Vic Stone, alias Cyborg (Ray Fisher).  Sure enough, Steppenwolf (Ciarán Hinds), a member of the New Gods (Jack Kirby's group of powerful beings in the DC universe) and commander from Apokolips (in the comics, the realm dominated by Darkseid), comes to Earth to gain the three Motherboxes, which he had previously fought a war on Earth with the power, only for an allaince of humans, Amazons, Atlantians, Green Lanterns, what have you, and which have reactivated with Superman's death. Now, Batman and Wonder Woman must assemble the League and stop Steppenwolf from gaining the three Motherboxes. They may even get some help from beyond the gra.... Okay why do I have to treat that like it's a spoiler. It was obvious this was going to happen, but...

        Good things: Ben Affleck and Gal Gadot (as they were in the last film), Ray Fisher as Cyborg, Ezra Miller (in parts) as the Flash, decent McGuffin, creative creature design, some decent fight scenes, some good jokes (likely the product of Whedon), a decent enough homage to a classic comic in one of the, oh yeah, there are two after-credit scenes for this. Some nice nods to the DCU.

       The main problems with this film are the same problems with Batman v. Superman and Suicide Squad. Like BvS, it is boring, a slog that drags on too long with its portentous alleged grandiosity. Despite the use of iconic characters and settings from a shared universe with large history, it just doesn't click on screen, with its action scenes simply not illiciting excitement and its character moments either clearly cut down, or pretentious. The overuse of CGI doesn't help in the former's case. It resembles a DC video game at times. Not even a modern one. One that might have been on the Playstation 2. Which brings me to the Suicide Squad comparison, which involves very heavy studio interference. It is abundantly clear this was hacked up by the studio after Whedon finished the reshoots and editing. Like Suicide Squad, this makes the film very haphazard, going from a sequel very much fitting in the universe of the previous films, to an Avengers-style character romp. It's jarring, and the retouched shots, like the bad CGI, create a very ugly looking film. It looks low budget, which is not a criticism that should not be for a film that cost $300 million to make.

       This was not as bad as Batman v. Superman or Suicide Squad. That's not an endorsement, given that this was merely bad, as opposed to inconceivably awful. If you, for whatever reason, liked the other DCEU films, you might like this. If you didn't, but Wonder Woman got your hopes up, well, it turned out how you expected. I really don't have much else to say. This was like cold, stale oatmeal. It was bad in a generic, forgettable fashion.

     I am going to do a double feature, because I want to share with you something that I had found. A film that has technically has been released for several weeks on the internet, but is only now getting reviews ahead of it's theatrical release. The November Criminals. Never heard of it? Well, let us take a look into it.