Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Red Dragon

         This was the third film in the trilogy of films with Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter, and the final time he would play the character. Dino De Laurentiis, who had the rights to the Lecter character, had given the rights to the name for free to Silence of the Lambs, because of the financial failure of Manhunter, but would return to produce the last film in the series, Hannibal and this one, effectively a remake of Manhunter. Brett... (oh, Jesus) Brett Ratner, fresh off Rush Hour 2 directed this (this time, not an insipid comedy). Edward Norton, who would use his salary to make The 25th Hour, was the new Will Graham. It was receive mixed reception and box office success, though not enough to apparently sustain interest in a prequel.

          Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) attends an orchestra performance, and later entertains some of the board (while getting rid of a flutist he disliked). FBI agent Will Graham (Ed Norton) comes over to discuss a serial killer called "The Chesapeake Ripper," who appears to be a cannibal, and who Graham has been consulting Lecter with. Of course, Graham puts two and two together, and Lecter and Graham do battle, before Lecter is subdued. However, Graham can't handle the encounter, and retires. A few years later, another serial killer, "The Tooth Fairy" (Ralph Fiennes) is on the loose. Jack Crawford (Harvey Keitel) recruits Graham back, and when they stall, Graham decides to look at the one source he has, aka Hannibal.

        Perhaps the most distinct and interesting part of this film is Ralph Fiennes. He manages to bring the character of Francis Dolarhyde to life better than Manhunter, with a more interesting performance, and a more menacing presence on screen. It's well worth watching the film for him and the way he portrays the character. It also fully emphasizes the connection to the Red Dragon painting to its fullest extent. Anthony Hopkins continues to do well as Hannibal, especially in the few scenes he has, managing to be menacing, but charming, as the character should.

     Ed Norton's terrible dyed hair is perhaps a symbol for the entire film in general. It appears to be closer to the book, but that's ultimately to its detriment. Manhunter mostly stuck to the important bits, and just cut all the unnecessary parts. Not only are the additions the worst part, they make the film a lot less interesting. A lot more is explained (again, to its detriment), and the film is just stretched. Ratner directs this in such a generic way, with all the marking of studio film. None of the tense moments of Manhunter. It's also just completely forgettable. Nothing stands out, especially with the generic directing and writing. 

    So, yeah, you want a really good adaptation of this book, watch Manhunter. I didn't hate the film, but it wasn't really one that worked, especially with a better adaptation around. Maybe if you want to compare the two, or just want to complete Hopkins performance as Lecter, it might be worth watching, but otherwise, definite skip. 

    So, finally caught to the schedule. To finish off at the right film, our penultimate film is a very different sort of horror film in Darkman.

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Silence of the Lambs

    The Silence of the Lambs, Harris' 1988 sequel to Red Dragon, was originally optioned by actor Gene Hackman and Orion Pictures, with Hackman starring in the role of Jack Crawford. Hackman would exit the film eventually (uncomfortable in violent roles after starring in the Civil Rights drama Mississippi Burning), but Orion covered all costs, confident in the film and the developing script from Ted Tally. Eventually, Jonathan Demme (known at the time for quirky films like Melvin and Howard, Swimming to Cambodia, and Married to the Mob) was chosen as director. Demme cast Anthony Hopkins as Lecter based on his performance in David Lynch's The Elephant Man. Jodie Foster was interested in the role of FBI agent Clarice Starling, but Demme didn't consider her until he had exhausted other actresses. Ted Levine (a friend of William Petersen and Michael Mann, the star and director of Manhunter) was cast as the villain Buffalo Bill. Filmed in Pennsylvania, the cast would research the FBI's Behavioral Science Unit and actual serial killers to study their roles. Released in 1991, it is, of course, one of the most iconic films ever made, and was the first horror film to win the Academy Award for Best Picture (indeed, the third film to win the Oscars for Best Picture,  Best Director (Demme), Best Actor (Hopkins as Lecter), Best Actress (Foster as Starling), and Best Adapted Screenplay (Tally, adapting Harris). The film would become a perennial favorite, and would make Hannibal Lector a household name. 

      Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster) is a trainee at the FBI Academy in Quantico, who is called by Jack Crawford (Scott Glenn) of the Behavioral Science Unit. He wants her to interview notorious cannibal serial killer Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins), stuck in a Baltimore asylum run by arrogant Dr. Fredrick Chilton (Anthony Heald). Lecter could give insight into the whereabouts of Buffalo Bill (Ted Levine), who has been kidnapping women and murdering them. Lecter gives some clues, which is useful as Catherine Martin (Brooke Smith), the daughter of a prominent US senator, is kidnapped by Bill, upping the stakes.

         The film is very well shot. That's the first thing that stood out to me when I watched this many years ago. It's well shot, a lot of interesting angles, an especially interesting climax with complete darkness and night vision goggles. It helps build the tense atmosphere of the film, while providing both the investigation and the scares with intense action. Anthony Hopkins is iconic as Hannibal. Again, not necessarily sure if his performance is better than Brian Cox's, but it's definitely the definitive version. A lot of his quirks and coldness shine through, and Hopkins makes the character work despite him not being in the film. Foster does well as the main character, carrying the film with her chemistry with Hopkins and her Southern accent is fine. The film is easier to follow and less confusing than Manhunter. 

      The biggest thing hanging over my head watching this was the transphobia. As a newly out trans person myself, I did look at this film in a new light, especially an excellent documentary on Netflix you should watch called Disclosure, about transgender representation in film. Even as a questioning person, I figured that the film does explain that Bill wasn't actually trans, but merely thought themselves trans (itself a faulty concept in retrospect), so the film had an out in that . Rewatching the film, I'm less convinced of that. The character has all the signifiers stereotypically attributed to trans or other LGBTQ people, and whether or not they were actually  trans, the portrayal does resemble the stigma of us being mentally ill, especially the idea of a serial killer making a suit. So, that aspect is probably the most uncomfortable part of watching this in the modern day, especially as it may have contributed to the aforementioned stigma. Also, after a rather deliberate first two acts, the film just rushes to an end. Clarice doesn't even find out Buffalo Bill's identity, and she stumbles on them by accident. 

    It's definitely a well-crafted, well-directed film with good cinematography and good acting all around. The main specter on this film is Buffalo Bill and the transphobia, so I wouldn't quite know if to recommend this film. Maybe check the facts, and see if you, as an individual would be comfortable seeing this film. 

    I suppose it's an impromptu trilogy now, because for my next review, I'm doing the second adaptation of Red Dragon.

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Manhunter

     Thomas Harris' first novel Black Sunday (a thriller partially inspired by the Munich Massacre in 1972) was a moderate success in 1975, helped by a 1977 film adaptation by John Frankenheimer. This of course, spurred him to write a second novel. He drew inspiration from his past: In 1963, as a Waco reporter, he had visited a Mexican prison to interview an American citizen, Dykes Askew Simmons  imprisoned for the murders of three people. He ended up interacting with a man named "Salazar", who saved Simmons after a guard shot him. Salazar unnerved Harris, especially with his fixation on Simmons' disfigured face and his crimes. Salazar, or as revealed later, Dr. Alfredo Ballí Treviño, was a former surgeon who was accused of killing and mutilating his close friend, and killing several hitchhikers (he was eventually released in 1981, and lived quietly until his death in 2009). Harris also took influence from the then-newly formed Behavioral Science Unit of the FBI, which had been interviewing imprisoned serial killers and creating profiles based on them to catch other serial killers (the recently departed Netflix series Mindhunter explored the origins of that unit). Eventually, he brought it together to tell the story of an FBI agent named Will Graham who tries to hunt a vicious serial killer named "The Tooth Fairy" by consulting another serial killer, Dr. Hannibal Lecter, one he put behind bars. Red Dragon , released in 1981, was a critical and financial success, which drew the attention of Italian producer Dino De Laurentiis, known for films like Death Wish, Flash Gordon, and Blue Velvet.  De Laurentiis bought the rights, but after the flop of the Michael Cimino film Year of the Dragon, decided to change the name (for some reason) to Manhunter. Di Laurentiis originally wanted Blue Velvet director David Lynch to direct the film, which the latter declined. Eventually (apparently based on the similarity between his surname and the new title. No, I'm not kidding), Michael Mann, fresh off films like Thief and shows like Miami Vice, was given the director's chair. William Petersen, star of Mann's Thief and a good friend of the director, was given the Graham role. For the role of the Tooth Fairy,Tom Noonan, a stage and TV actor with a large physique, was given the role. Finally, in the role of Lecter (or Lektor in the script), Mann cast Scottish actor Brian Cox, who had impressed Mann in the play Rats in the Skull. Filmed somewhat guerrilla style, the film would have the actors trying to get into character a bit too much, struggling to leave them afterwards. The film was a dud on release in 1986, both financially and critically, but Mann's subtle directing and Petersen's performance allowed the film to gradually gain a cult following. Notably, its portrayal of a contemporary FBI investigation would inspire later work like The X-Files and CSI. The biggest influence from this film, of course, is Hannibal Lecter, who Harris would feature again in his next book,  The Silence of the Lambs.

      A serial killer named the Tooth Fairy (Tom Noonan), because of his bite marks on his victims, has been terrorizing families in Atlanta. Desperate, FBI agent Jack Crawford (Dennis Farina) approaches former agent Will Graham (William Petersen) with the case. Graham is reluctant, because a prior case had a traumatic effect on him, but he ultimately accepts. However, when the case stumps even him, he decides to take a drastic measure. He visits the killer whose crimes haunted him: the cannibal psychiatrist Dr. Hannibal Lektor (Brian Cox). The erudite Lektor shows his skill at evaluating the Tooth Fairy, and the Tooth Fairy takes notice. 

     This film is absolutely gorgeous. The way it's lighted, the way it's shot, the angles, the production design. It just looks so good, and it just keeps you intrigued just by the way it conveys its story. It's easily the best and most distinctive part of the film. The acting is always sublime, especially William Petersen, Dennis Farina, and in his brief role, Brian Cox. Cox plays a more informal, less unhinged Hannibal than Anthony Hopkins. His version seems more like an actual serial killer, in that he behaves more naturally and emotionally, and less in Hopkins' dark, emotionless monotone. One isn't necessarily better than the other, but they are very distinct performances of the same character. And Cox's works in the context which the story has to serve him. Finally, the action is sublime, as per usual from Michael Mann, who makes every moment seem interesting and intense.

   This may or may not be an actual flaw but this film is very information intensive. You have to pay attention to a lot to get an idea of what is happening. Usually, it's at least clear what is happening in which scene and how they relate to the story, but, especially for someone whose attention has been shot as of late, it made the film a bit hard to follow. I had to go back a few times just to figure out certain plot points. There's also some digressions and characters that ultimately felt unnecessary, but those don't distract too much. 

   I recommend this film as a decent crime thriller, though again, there's a lot you have to keep track of. For those familiar with the Anthony Hopkins version, it's a good alternative interpretation of the Hannibal Lecter character. For myself, I might finally check out the third adaptation of this book, Hannibal , finally. I've heard really good things. 

   So, I suppose I'd be remiss in not reviewing the next Hannibal Lecter film, Silence of the Lambs. 

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Last House on the Left

    A billion years ago, back in 2018, I did a summer retrospective on Friday the 13th films, and I briefly discussed Sean S. Cunningham, who was a director and producer on the series. To recap, in the late 60's, he was a Broadway producer and manager who decided to go into independent film. With film censorship loosening at the time thanks to the advent of the MPAA rating system in 1968, many had started to go into hitherto taboo territory. Among the avenues for this were "white coaters", which were films that used a medical education cover (i.e. a guy in a white coat at the beginning explaining how the film you're about to watch is educational) to basically make porn. Cunningham would make his first "white coater" with The Art of Marriage in 1970. Impressed by this success was 31-year old Wes Craven, a former schoolteacher turned film editor. Craven and Cunningham would work together on another white coater, Together, as a result of a deal with Hallmark (not that one) Releasing and notorious genre distributor American International Pictures. That film was a success, and Hallmark/AIP offered the pair a chance to make a bigger horror film. Craven decided to draw upon Igmar Bergman's 1960 film The Virgin Spring to write an incredibly dark script called Night of Vengeance, commenting on what Craven thought was how many films had glamorized or played down the impact of violence. After shooting began, however, the script was significantly toned down. Despite this, the filming proved upsetting enough for star Sandra Peabody to leave set temporarily, before they coaxed her back. Filmed "guerrilla style" in Cunningham's words, in New York and Connecticut, the film starred mostly D-List or first time actors. It would have significant problems with the MPAA. Craven constantly cut down the film, only for the dreaded "X" rating to come back. Finally, he just took a R rating stamp from a friend, and put it on the film. Craven assumed that the film would not be widely seen, much like many others he had edited under pseudonyms. However, the film would go on to have a wide release, and become extremely controversial due to its violence and dark themes. Many theaters would refuse to play the film, and critics (including future slasher opponent and guy who hung out at the Playboy Mansion apparently, Chicago Tribune critic Gene Siskel) lambasted the film and its violence. All of this is to say, it was a gigantic success, and would be considered a classic in retrospective. It would also (to his lifelong consternation) put Craven on the map as a horror director of note (in part because the film was so traumatic, they didn't want him to do anything else).

     On her seventeenth birthday, Mari Collingwood (Sandra Peabody) is attending a concert with friend Phyllis Stone (Lucy Grantham), despite her parents (Eleanor Shaw and Richard Towers) concerns about her friend. As they drive, they hear a report that four prisoners (Krug Stillo (David Hess), his son Junior (Marc Sheffler), Weasel (Fred Lincoln), and Sadie (Jeramie Rain)) who have escaped. They are eventually tricked into going into their apartment, and I probably should stop it there. 

    This is a very fascinating commentary on the culture of late 60's and early 70's. Specifically, the culture war, without explicitly noting the whole "hippies/squares" conflict. The villains are coded as hippies, even though they don't necessarily have the signifiers typically given to them. At the same time, the "square" parents, while sympathetic, ultimately devolve to their level of violence once the depravity of their crimes is fully understood. Perhaps a bit "both sides", but it's a nice time capsule of that particular period. Onto a bit more tangible stuff, I definitely see Craven purposely ramping the violence to make a point. The violence in this film is extensive and brutal, but it's never framed as cool or fantastic. In fact, this film is honestly hard to watch because the violence (especially the sexual violence) is very heavy handed, and it's really uncomfortable to watch. It's a good commentary on being desensitized to violence, especially in the wake of the Vietnam War being broadcast nationwide. It's definitely a very intense viewing experience, especially with some scenes I couldn't stomach. 

     For stuff that didn't work, mostly the tone was all over the place. A lot of stern, extremely serious moments were followed by very weirdly light-hearted moments of comedy with the criminals. It's more than a little jarring, and after the bruality, I wasn't really sure what to make of these moments. Were they a satire? A light relief? Whatever they were, it didn't really work out for me, but these moments are few and far between.

     This was a difficult viewing experience. I had to stop the film a few times because of how intense it got, especially towards the middle. If you could stomach some really disgusting stuff, this does have some very interesting commentary on the times it was made in, and feels like a fresh look at how we view violence as a society. It is a hard film to sit through though, and I wouldn't be surprised if people just decided it wasn't something for them. 

    Alright, now onto another director who got their start in the 70's (two in fact) is Body Bags.

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- God Told Me To.

    I've talked a bit before about Larry Cohen. A TV writer in the 60's, he would rise to feature film prominence through Blaxploitation films like Black Caesar and Hell in Harlem, before aping the Exorcist in It's Alive in 1974. He originally got the idea for this film from considering the vengeful God of the Old Testament, with a healthy dose of Chariots of the Gods. Originally, Robert Forster was cast as the lead, but because of personal conflicts with Cohen, he was fired and replaced by Tony Lo Blacno. Legendary composer Bernard Herrmann (who had scored It's Alive), was to initially score the film, but after viewing a rough cut, he died (not because the film was bad, to be clear). Ultimately, the Hermann like score was done by Frank Cordell, and the film is dedicated to Herrmann's memory. The film was released to negative reviews, but would come to be seen as a cult classic in later years. It's also notable as the first film appearance of a young Andy Kaufman, a year before Taxi

       A mysterious force is compelling people to commit mass murder in New York City. A shooter on a water tower. Someone during the Police parade on St. Patrick's Day. A mass stabbing. A family killing. Detective Peter Nichols (Tony Lo Blanco) is on the case, and he learns that all the participants only said "God Told Me To", when asked for their motives. His investigation would take him into... strange territories. 

    Starting from the very first scene, this film really sets its intensity atmosphere very high. A very disturbing mass shooting is depicted, followed by a series of other crimes. It only rachets up from there, culminating in a bizarre alien plot and a lot of naked people bathed in light. The score helps this immensely, giving the scenes a sense of scale and reverence that gives the campier features of the film an air of seriousness. Tony Lo Blanco is a sympathetic protagonist whose journeys show how he himself, while not motivated by the voices, can be driven to acts that he can't quite comprehend. The alien cult is handled well. There are a ton of naked people and genitals to enhance the weirdness. Andy Kaufman is also there, briefly, if you're interested. 

    The film feels sometimes, like a television episode. Very stock filming, very cheap, very procedural like. It definitely feels like what happens when a lot of TV writers eventually go into film, but can't quite shake off the TV-ness of the production. It's a great episode of an anthology series, but I have trouble seeing it as a feature film, except for the nudity and violence. It's also a bit confusing and I had trouble following parts of it, especially towards the end. 

     I enjoyed the film, but I'm not necessarily enamored of it. Perhaps other viewings, when my mind isn't as addled by anxiety, should eventually turn me more into a fan. For now, it's a good Halloween viewing, and a good example of religious and science fiction horror, and I recommend it as a good obscure pick for Halloween night. 

     Alright, tomorrow, we get into the mix with Wes Craven's first film, Last House on the Left.

(Corona-) Summer of Terror/Masterpiece of Horror: Psycho

    This summer has been rough for everyone on Earth. It was definitely rough for me. I unfortunately didn't plan out this series very well, admittedly, and the anxiety just got very overwhelming (Seasonal depression has also reared its head). However, I do feel like finishing off the Universal Monsters. However, this went into October. As I laid in bed, suddenly, an idea came: Why not do a transitionary phase here. 

    Okay, like I said last time, this film is a lot more of a stretch to be on here, namely in that it technically originally wasn't even a Universal film. Let's go back a bit though. In 1957, a Wisconsin handyman named Ed Gein was arrested for the murders of two women living nearby. A search of his place revealed that items made from various parts of the human body, including skin lamps and shrunken heads. At the time, this was unknown to horror writer Robert Bloch, despite living only 57 miles away. A correspondent and friend of HP Lovecraft, Bloch started out in that style and genre before the advent of the atomic age caused him to switch instead to psychological horror. He wrote a story about a man isolated from civilization in a motel who has an overbearing mother and kills multiple women. When he heard about Gein, he was disturbed to learn the parallels. Nevertheless, the book would be a big commerical success, and it would reach acclaimed director Alfred Hitchcock, fresh off hit North by Northwest through his assistant. Hitchcock, very impressed, chose this project over several others, including an adaptation of Casino Royale, and even bought up all the copies he could of the novel to prevent the twist from being revealed. However, Hitchcock saw resistance from tradition backer Paramount, so he shot the film on a low budget, using the crew from his television show in the Universal Studios lot (part of the reason I decided to include it here), and shooting the film in black and white. Joseph Stefano (later the co-creator of the 60's Sci-fi anthology series The Outer Limits) wrote the screenplay. Starring in the film were Vera Miles (who had appeared in several Hitchcock productions beforehand), John Gavin  (who starred in the critical success Spartacus that same year), Janet Leigh (who had starred opposite Charlton Heston in Orson Welles' A Touch of Evil) and as the unsuspecting killer Norman Bates, relatively unknown supporting actor Anthony Perkins was cast on account of his boyish charm. Hitchcock regular Bernard Hermann would do the iconic score. Entire books and even films have been made about the production of this movie, so not too much more detail here, but the film was fairly controversial upon its release in 1960, as the Production Code was dying due to an influx of racy European films. It was also extremely successful, with audiences shocked by the big twist of the film. It has gone on to become one of the most iconic films of all time, and is something of the prototype for modern horror as we know. Also, despite Paramount releasing the films, the rights were ultimately sold to Universal, so it does count. 

     Marion Crane (Janet Leigh), a secretary in a real estate company in Phoenix, Arizona finds herself in hot water when she steals some money from a client, to pay for a home for her and boyfriend Sam Loomis (John Gavin). She flees to California, and eventually, comes across a motel run by the mysterious Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins), who has a close relationship to his mother.... (You know what, you probably already know how the rest goes, so, yeah.)

      It's hard to really discuss this film, because it is  monumental in the history of film. Everyone knows the central twist, everyone knows the plot, the music cues, the shower scene. Given this film has been studied, dissected, and parodied so many times since 1960, does it still hold up as its own film? Yeah, it definitely does. It helps that it constantly keeps you on your toes, changing its focus multiple times to throw you off. First a standard Hitchcockian thriller, than a proto-slasher, then a murder mystery. The film does a good job of hiding all the necessary elements, especially with its now iconic twist. (NORMAN BATES WAS DRESSING AS HIS MOTHER WHEN HE COMMITS THE MURDERS, in case you don't know). Anthony Perkins shy, delightfully charming, but ultimately psychaotic presence also helps to cement the character as a new kind of monster, less supernatural, but no less menacing. He is easily the most interesting part of the score. And the things to praise about this film have been noted. Hermann's score, Russell's cinematography. 

     The film does spend a lot more time than I thought was needed on the investigative part. Maybe it is the fact that the twist is very well known now, but the audience might've been able to piece together part of the twist towards the middle of the third act. Also, the subplot about the private investigator could've been cut, but does serve an important plot driver, so eh. 

     Even though you probably know how the film goes, I still recommend seeing it, if only to see the various techniques used both narratively and cinematically. It is still a fascinating film, and it is still very scary when it needs to be. I very highly recommend it as a piece of horror history, and just film history. 

    I was going to end this with an overall look at the Universal Monsters, but I'm really tired and just want to end this, so I'll make it brief here. Needless to say, they have had an incredible influence not only on the horror genre on film, but on the general culture. Most people, even if they've never actually seen any of these films, have a good understanding of them. And despite the presence of more contemporary monsters in films like this and Targets, they still have a presence in the culture, whether through the various Hammer remakes in the 50's and 60's, or the severely botched Mummy remake from 2017. 

  Speaking of..... Tune in tomorrow for a review of that.

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- Blood and Black Lace

        In the aftermath of World War II, the Italian film industry went through something of a renaissance with the advent of democracy. Movements like neorealism emerged under filmmakers like Federico Fellini and Roberto Rossellini and Hollywood productions flocked to the scenic Italy to make Sword-and-Sandal epics (the center being the Cinecitta Studio in Rome, sometimes called "Hollywood on the Tiber"). In this climate, genre films began to sneak their way in. Leading the charge was Mario Bava. A longtime figure in special effects and cameras since the time of Mussolini, he became a prolific cinematographer of some renown during the late 40's and early 50's, before getting his chance at directing an uncredited segment in 1954's Ulysses. Later in 1956, when director Richard Freda left the vampire film I vampiri due to a dispute with the producers, he stepped as an uncredited director to finish the film. He would do the same for several other films, including Italy's first science fiction film The Day the Sky Exploded, either ghost- or co-directing films. Finally, in 1960, he would make his solo directorial debut with the gothic horror film The Mask of the Demon, which was translated in the United States as Black Sunday by American International Pictures. After a few historical epics, he would direct The Girl Who Knew Too Much and Black Sabbath (which, yes, was the namesake of the band), both of which would help launch the giallo genre of Italian horror-murder thrillers. Because of the success he had with these films and this burgeoning genre, he was given creative freedom on the film. Already tired of the more murder mystery oriented direction of the other films, he took more emphasis on the killings part of the equation. The film, a West German co-production, was filmed in Rome over the course of 6 weeks. Because the dialogue (when translated into English to appeal to that audience) sounded stilted, actress Mary Arden rewrote it as they filmed. An original dub with the actors reprising themselves was rejected by the American distributors, who instead took a dub with the male voices by prominent voice actor Paul Frees. A moderate financial success in Italy and the US, it received mixed reviews in the US press. It has come to be seen as a classic of the giallo genre, and a big influence on the slasher genre.

      At a fashion house in Italy, a model Isabella (Francesca Ungaro) is killed by a mysterious person in a black coat and mask. She is found in a closet by the head of the fashion house, Countess Christina Como (Eva Bartok). Soon, Inspector Sylvester (Thomas Reiner) is sent to investigate, interviewing many of the people associated with the fashion house, including manager Max Morlan (Cameron Mitchell). However, another model Nicole (Arianna Gorinni) found Isabella's diary, and the killer is soon after her as well..

      This has incredible lighting and colors to it. It both emphasizes the rather bright colors and hues that populate the settings that the film takes place in, and the dark shadows underneath. Many great scenes have a distinct color to them which helps set up the mood of the scene, and builds up the inevitable killing. It gives the film a unique look. Even the clothes are bright, and stand out amongst the shadows that are all over the film. (I suppose, since it is a film about fashion, it makes sense). Especially the killer wearing all black. Along with this distinct look, the special effects are superb, with many scars and burns and injuries looking disturbingly realistic. This helps make the killing scenes a lot of more impact, especially the most disturbing ones, including when the killer shoves someone into a burning light. And, having been used to the slasher format of the 80's, the murder-mystery was intriguing and it keeps the viewer engaged with the film to figure out what happen.

    This isn't really the fault of the filmmakers, since their dub was overwritten, but it sounded off most of the time. Maybe because Paul Frees (a very talented voice actor, mind you, who I've enjoyed in many 60's era animated production) does get the timbre right for the characters. I also got a bit lost during parts of the movie, but I could still follow most of it coherently.

     This was an interesting film, and you can see the strong influence it had on slashers, especially the idea of a masked, silent killer slowly moving their way through victims. I highly recommend it for fans of slashers as well as Italian films, since this is very firmly Italian in setting and sensibility.

    So, to close out this year of Masterpiece, we will look at one of my favorite films: John Carpenter's The Thing.

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- The People Under The Stairs

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

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

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

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

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

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

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Phantom of the Paradise

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

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

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

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

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

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

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Scream

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

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

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

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

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

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

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre-- The Fly (1986)

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

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

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

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

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

     Alright, we continue on Friday with the first Scream. 

Masterpieces of Horror Theatre- The Fly (1958)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current Film Reviews- The Goldfinch

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current Film Reviews- 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.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- American Psycho

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current Film Review- Searching

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

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

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

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

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

Current Film Reviews- The Equalizer II

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

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

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

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

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