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

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

 Rick and Morty, Season 3

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

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

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

Stranger Things 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- In The Mouth of Madness

       The script for In the Mouth of Madness was originally written by Michael De Luca, then Vice President of Creative Development at New Line Cinema in the mid-1980's. One of the first directors he offered it to was John Carpenter... who rejected it, feeling the script needed more work. After Tony Randel (Hellbound: Hellraiser II, Fist of the North Star) and Mary Lambert (Pet Sematary) were briefly attached to the project, Carpenter finally came on board in 1992 after reading an improved version of the script, after finishing his work on the anthology film Body Bags. Carpenter (as he often does) did an uncredited rewrite of the script, along with novelist Evgenia Citkowitz. Carpenter felt he could use the film both as his way of exploring Lovecraftian themes and explore the hysteria that surrounded horror media(his included).Originally having a budget of $15 million, it was reduced to $10 million, and finally $8 million. New Zealander actor Sam Neill, whom Carpenter had worked with in the comedy film Memoirs of an Invisible Man , was cast as the lead, which would prove to be a casting coup, giving he was also the lead in Stephen Spielberg's Jurassic Park, which had been recently released. (Charlton Heston was also given a minor role). It was filmed in Ontario between August and October 1993. It released to mixed reviews, and disappointing box office ($8.9 million, Carpenter's lowest until 2001's Ghosts of Mars). Still, in recent years, it has gotten a critical reappraisal. Carpenter himself has stated this was the third in his "Apocalypse Trilogy" (The Thing and Prince of Darkness being the other two.)

       The film opens with John Trent (Sam Neill) being committed to an asylum. While in his room, he has a vision of a visitor, whom he recognizes, and asks if this was the end. The visitor then shows him a stranger vision. Later, a psychologist, Dr. Wrenn (David Warner) visits Trent, and Trent is able to recount his tale. Trent was an insurance fraud investigator, known for his thorough work, who is hired by publisher Jackson Harglow (Charlton Heston) to find missing author Sutter Cane (Jürgen Prochnow), a popular horror novelist whose work even exceeds Stephen King, and whose newest novel, In the Mouth Of Madness, is to be released. Trent deduces from the covers of the books that he must be in New Hampshire, in a town called Hobb's Lane not on any map. Cane is sent to find him, accompanied by Cane's editor Linda Styles (Julie Carmen). They find that Cane's fiction may be more than fiction. Then again, they also find reality a bit flimsy as well...

     This was a perfect Lovecraftian film. Very much in his themes and style, while not being a direct adaptation of one of his works. At first, it may seem to slowly lose coherence, but it actually makes sense when thought of in a Lovecraftian sense. To the character of John Trent, who has a worldview informed by his own rationalization of people's behavior (as shown when he exposes a fraudulent claim early in the film), who finds that reality is more flimsy than he thinks, and that his rationalization of the world is insufficient to explain the events around him. Slowly, his mind is destroyed by the knowledge that the reality he had clung to was just a facade, a playground for beings beyond his comprehension to play around with, changing the details at any moment. Cane is their agent, and he can also shape this reality to fit whatever their needs are. Sam Neill is especially good in conveying this growing unease and insanity. I liked the subtle references to Lovecraft and other cult figures (Quatermass and Stephen King, among others). The effects are good, and there are some incredibly creepy and terrifying ones. These all help create the atmosphere of incomprehensibility, and the fear of it. The disturbing imagery showing what lies beneath our reality once we bother to look. There is no rationalization for any of these, no real hope. Just one reality, with unseen players behind it.

    That said, some of the disturbing imagery was unnecessary.  It feels like it's there merely for the effect, and not really to advance the theme. It always remains grounded to the film itself and its universe, but sometimes, it felt excessive. There is also a "Enter Sandman" riff at the beginning and end, which are odd, and not reflective of the soundtrack as a whole. Very 90's, I must say.

      This was the best Lovecraft adaptation that actually wasn't by Lovecraft. It captures the essence of his stories perfectly, and provides a visualization of what the horror Lovecraft wrote about could look like. It is also a smart, legitimately scary horror film in its own right. I highly recommend any Lovecraft fans or horror fans to seek this film out. I don't think you'll be disappointed.

   So ends this years Masterpiece of Horror Theatre. Thank you for reading all these, and next time, I will do something a little different, and do a review of two TV seasons that came out recently. I'll hopefully get those out soon. 

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Day of the Dead

       Romero intended this to be the Gone with the Wind of zombie films. However, he had to scrap his original script when the budget was cut from 7 million down to 3.5 million. Even then, it went through three more revisions before the eventual shooting script was produced. The film was shot in Florida and Pennsylvania, with the former providing all above-ground shots, and latter all underground scenes. Because of budget, the cast and crew slept in the Pennsylvania mine it was shot in to avoid the cost of travel. Zombie extras were recruited from Pittsburgh natives, who got a copy of a newspaper from the film, $1, and a hat saying "I was a Zombie in Day of the Dead". Despite the production troubles, Romero stated this was his favorite of the Dead series. Despite relatively positive reviews, and good box office, this was the last time Romero worked with producer Richard Rubinstein as a director, and he later tried his hand at a studio picture with Monkey Shines, which I covered last time.

       The film is set (as Dawn of the Dead was) in the middle of a zombie apocalypse, and a military/research base is attempting to find how to stop the pandemic, by capturing zombies and researching them. Dr. Sarah Bowman (Lori Cardille) is part of a group of researchers at the base . Her associates include radio operator Bill McDermott (Jarlath Convoy), helicopter pilot John (Terry Anderson), fellow researchers Dr. Logan (Richard Liberty), and Dr. Ted (John Amplas, whose appearance here kind of makes this retrospective go full circle). They are guarded by a small contingency of soldiers, led by Major Cooper, and including Pvt. Steel(Gary Howard Klar) and  Pvt. Miguel Salazar (Anthony Dileo, Jr.), whom Lori has a relationship with . Major Cooper is killed off-screen (hence, no actor plays him in the film), and replaced by Captain Rhodes (Joseph Pilato). Rhodes is very hostile to the scientists, whom he feels aren't worth protecting as the zombie threat rises, and their research shows little. Dr. Logan, in turn, shows them a zombie he has been training named Bud (Sherman Howard), who is showing slow sentience. However, during one corraling of the zombie, Miguel is injured, and as Lori and Bill try to find morphine, they find that Dr. Logan has been doing shady things to get his results, which will only increase the tension between the soldiers and scientists.

     This isn't really a message film, in the way Night and Dawn were. It's not really satirizing or commenting on any phenomenon. (in a way, Dawn was a commentary on 80's consumerism, despite it being made in 1978). This is just a romp with zombies, and on that ground, it succeeds. This goes back to the traditional Dead formula of "characters trapped in location dealing with zombie hordes", which has proven effective in exploring tension. In this case, we see the characters, how they interact, and how those interactions pay off. Each character is identifiable, and there is moral grayness. While the military men are rough and war-like, the lead researcher Dr. Logan is doing underhanded things as well. The Savini effects, as with the other films, are very gory, very graphic, and incredibly good, and this film is possibly the best of those I've seen this month. I did like the little sub-plot with Bud, and the remnants of his intelligence. The climax is the best part, with a lot of action, and a lot of payoff.

    There are two dream sequences, which I've grown to loathe. It's only the two, so it's not like all the scares are those, but it is distracting. I  also feel the movie should've been longer. It feels short at only 100 minutes, and I feel more could've been done. The synopsis I provide is actually the first hour and 10 minutes of this film. It feels like there was meant to be more, but it was lost in the revisions. What is left isn't bad, but more needed to be there.

   Dawn was the better film, but this was still a solid entry, especially with its more action oriented approach. It also has enough zombies to satisfy. This would be fun romp to watch in a zombie marathon or if you want a good zombie film. It is also a great example of a Dead film, though I would watch Night and Dawn before this.

  (Note: realized I forgot to put this when first published)
    So ends our retrospective on the career of George A. Romero. He was a giant in the genre, and one of its most influential creators. He effectively created the modern zombie and he was able to use the creatures to explore various issues. However, as shown with these films, even without the zombies, he was still an effective horror director, knowing how to use characters to build the horror, and explore the dark issues that lies within all of us. He knew that horror was the best tool of social self-examination. His presence will be sorely missed. RIP.

We end this year's Masterpiece with an entry from John Carpenter, In the Mouth of Madness. 

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Monkey Shines

     Not much history on this film I could find. Monkey Shines was a 1983 novel by British author and entrepreneur Michael Stewart. It was apparently one of those paperback animal thriller fiction novels, as far as I can tell. Orion Pictures bought the rights to the film. George Romero, dealing with various difficulties and compromises during the production of Day of the Dead, decided to make this his first studio picture, while still having his trademarks (filmed in Pittsburgh, for instance). However, this apparently turned out badly, as Orion would tack on both a happy and shocker ending against Romero's wishes. After this bombed ($5.4 million on a 7 million budget), he returned to independent filmmaking. That's basically all I could find.

       Allan Mann (Jason Beghe) is a college athlete, who, while jogging one day, is hit by a truck. While he survives the accident, the surgery has rendered him paralyzed. Stuck in a wheelchair, he grows increasingly despondent, affecting his relationship with his mother Dorothy (Joyce Van Patten), girlfriend Linda (Janine Turner), and hospital appointed nurse Maryanne (Christine Forrest). Seeing his pain, his friend Geoffrey (John Pankow), a research assistant specializing in injecting human brain samples into monkeys, gives him one of his helper monkeys Ella (Boo, a male capuchin monkey) to make his life easier. Melanie (Kate McNeil), a helper monkey specialist, helps him, and the two gradually grow closer. However, he and Ella have a much stronger bond, and it is making him a little more aggressive. But is it him, or could it have something to do with Ella....

      This was an interesting premise for a film. I admit, "Helper Monkey" is not something I was aware of, but they do exist, and are apparently very helpful. (A disclaimer in front of the film explains this). I could see how, given Monkeys have opposable thumbs.  They make good use out of the abilities of the monkey in the film, and it is creative. I admit, I was not expecting a horror film about a "helper monkey.", but it turned out well. I was invested in the film, its character (who are all very well-drawn), and the story it was telling. I also liked that the main character gained self-awareness early on, and is actively trying to combat the monkey, while still confined. It also was scary in parts.

     I'm going to sound like a hipster, but I felt the larger, glossier studio cinematography of the film makes the action a bit silly. This sort of action would work better in a lower budget picture, like Romero's earlier work, but it comes off ridiculous and over the top here. Especially the end, which I won't spoil, but if I told you what happened, you might not believe me. It also feels like a lot could've been cut out (there's a brief odd subplot about Geoffrey and his boss about the ethics of animal testing, which adds nothing to the film, and feels like it's there only to have political themes.) On that point, I felt more could've been done with how Allan's life was changed by his paralysis. It is addressed, but I felt it could've been explored in greater detail.

    I liked this fine, but as you could tell, I had trouble talking about this. There really isn't much to say here. It's a film about a killer Capuchin monkey, based on what I think is an airport "animal horror" paperback. I can't really think of anything else to say. If you want a mildly entertaining film to watch, or are interested in the premise of a helper monkey going bananas (pun intended), this should satisfy you. If you want a terrifying experience, watch one of Romero's earlier films, or watch  Rise of the Planet of the Apes, which has a similar idea now that I think about it.

     Next week, we finish the Romero retrospective with Day of the Dead. 

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Creepshow

      From 1944 to 1955, EC was the biggest name in comics. Founded as an educational comic company by comic book pioneer and DC co-founder Maxwell Gaines, the company found its calling when Gaines' son Bill turned it into a genre powerhouse The biggest of its titles were his horror and crime comics, most famously Tales from the Crypt, The Vault of Horror, The Haunt of Fear, and CrimeSuspence Stories. Despite the overwhelming popularity of these books (and others like Weird Science), their brutal depiction of crime and violence caused controversy, and eventually, activists like Dr. Fredric Wertham even got the Senate Subcommittee on Crime involved. The Comics Code Authority was formed in the aftermath, with rules cartered specifically to prevent EC from publishing their most famous books. They were left with their humor comic, Tales to Drive You MAD, which is still around today, though you may know it by the name it took after becoming a magazine in 1955: Mad Magazine.  Despite being so short-lived, EC proved to have staying power in popular culture. You may have recognized some of the titles I mentioned earlier from movies and TV shows, and those were adapted from or influenced by EC. Similarly, an entire generation of children grew up with the books, including artists inspired by their style. Two of those were George Romero and Stephen King. Friends for a while (King making a cameo in Romero's 1981 film Knightriders), they decided to use their shared affection for old EC horror books to make a film. King  already had two major film adaptations of his wrk at that point (Brian De Palma's Carrie and Stanley Kubrick's The Shining), but this was the first screenplay he wrote, adapting two of his stories ("Weeds" and "The Crate"), and wrote original material for the film. Veteran EC artist Jack Kamen did the in-film comic artwork (which delighted me when I found out, because I noted that inbetween scenes with the comic and some filmed scenes resembled his art style most of the EC artists I have knowledge of), as well as the cover of the Creepshow tie-in comic (though Swamp Thing co-creator Bernie Wrightson did the art for the book itself). The film was shot in an empty all-girls school near Pittsburgh. It made $21 million on a $8 million, and has a cult following to this, spawning two sequels.

      The film is an anthology, exploring different stories with different casts. The framing device has Billy (Joe King, son of Stephen and later known as author Joe Hill) being chastised by his father Stan (Tom Adkins, playing every father from every 80's metal video) for reading the horror comic Creepshow. After Stan throws the book away, Billy fantasizes of the undead host of the book (apparently named "The Creep") coming to his window, and he starts the film off by retrieving the comic from the trash, and giving us the tales within it. The first story, "Father's Day", sees a wealthy Grantham family, including Sylvia (Carrie Nye), Richard (Warner Shook), Cass (Elizabeth Regan), and Cass' husband Hank Blaine (Ed Harris) waiting for their aunt Bedelia (Viveca Lindfors) to arrive. Several years earlier, Bedelia killed her father Nathan (Jon Lormer) on Father's Day in the culmination of years of anger at him for his demanding and demeaning nature. Thus, every Father's day, Bedelia stops at his grave to continue her anger. However, this Father's Day, Nathan might have his cake (and eat it too. I made that joke a lot during this segment.). The next segment is "The Lonesome Death of Jody Verrill", which sees the title character (Stephen King. Yep, that one), an incompetent farmer, discovering a meteor. While trying to keep it to make money, it breaks, and starts to spread plant-like aliens around. Including on Verill himself. "Something to Tide You Over" sees wealthy Richard (Leslie Nielsen) take vengeance on his cheating wife Becky (Gaylen Ross) and her lover Harry (Ted Danson), by burying them on the beach, and having the high tide drown them. However, he finds that some people are just durable. "The Crate" has a college custodian (Don Keefer) find a crate with the label "Arctic Expedition, 1834". He calls upon Professor Stanley (Fritz Weaver) to see and open the crate. What they find is quite hungry. Finally, in "They're Creeping Up on You," which sees ruthless businessman Upson Pratt (EG Marshall) trying to maintain a sterile apartment, whilst cockroaches seem to keep popping. As he makes cutthroat deals, the cockroaches keep coming. And coming. And Coming.

    I loved the style of this film. The animated scene transitions  make you feel like you're reading an old Comic book, ads and all, and give you a sense on how the film feels. The film is also shot to emulate a comic book panel. Not just shots that show comic panels directly, but the way the film is lit and shot resembles the way old comic books would emphasize actions where reality couldn't. I think my complete enjoyment of this film can from that style, how it so captured the feeling of reading old EC books (I myself own a collection of EC Weird Science issues), and how much fun it could inspire. I love superheroes movies, but very rarely do they invoke the spirit of the comics they originated from the way this film does for horror comics. Similarity, it is legitimately terrifying. Each segment has a terrifying moment, one which jumped me out of my seat. The more comic book inspired look of the film actually made some scenes scarier than they would've been. The last segment, especially if you hate cockroaches, like I do, will haunt you. The effects helps, with surprisingly realistic resurrected dead (which still look very much like ones from old horror comics), and some good creature designs. The acting all around is good, with Stephen King of all people giving a strong comic performance. Each segment works as it's own story, and each hold up.

     I felt the segments should've been of roughly same length. Like I said, none of them are bad, but some feel longer than they should be. Those segments did have a payoff, but it took a while, and some scenes could've been cut. Also, to keep with the atmosphere, I felt the horror host ought to have been narrating film, instead of a background figure flipping the pages, using some sort of snearky dialogue. It's fine as is, but having an active horror host would've helped.

    I honestly loved this film. It is a joyride of fear and euphoria, simultaneously fun and terrifying. This is a great homage to EC Comics and their output, but holds up on its own as an individual horror film. I highly recommend this for horror fans as a fun nighttime romp, or for a brief Halloween scare.

Next film is Monkey Shine.  

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Martin

   In honor of the late George A. Romero, I'm going to review four of his films for the next few entries. However, except for the final one, I'm going to focus on some of his non-Zombie film, to show some underappreciated parts of his filmography. We start with his own favorite of the films he made, Martin.     

    After Night of the Living Dead, George A. Romero had trouble following up on its success. He had attempted a romantic comedy immediately after, There Will Always Be Vanilla (which Romero considered his worst, and is not well-regarded today) in 1971. Later, in 1973, he returned to horror with Season of the Witch (not to be confused with the Halloween sequel), which is also not-well regarded, and science-fiction horror The Crazies, which has come to be seen as a cult classic, neither of which was successful. By 1977, he was in very serious debt. However, he refused to declare bankruptcy, because he didn't want to dishonor those who had stood by him. Impressed, friend and investor Richard Rubinstein joined forces to help Romero get out of  debt, forming the production company "Laurel Entertainment". This was their first effort in that company. Filmed, like his previous films, in the Pittsburgh area, it stars many associates of Romero in supporting roles, including his future wife Christine Forrest. The script changed from a literal vampire trying to survive the modern day to someone who may or may not be a vampire struggling with urges, after John Amplas was hired. Tom Savini, a friend of Romero, not only did the effects for this film, but also did the stunts and even plays a minor role in the film. This would start the very fruitful collaboration between the two over the years. Originally 2 hours and 45 minutes, it eventually cut down to an hour and 35 for wide release. The 165 minute cut has been lost to history. Moderately successful ($100,000 made on a $80,000 dollar budget), Romero would only get out of debt later on, when he returned to the zombie genre with Dawn of the Dead, with Rubinstein's help.

     The film opens with the title character (John Amplas) on a train, sneaking into a woman's room, and very viscerally attacking her when she emerges from her bathroom, injecting her with a strange substance. After a very graphic and very harrowing struggle between the woman and Martin, the substance is revealed to be a sedative, and she is knocked unconscious. Martin then uses a switchblade to cut her skin and suck her blood. He arrives in Pittsburgh to his granduncle Cuda (Lincoln Maazel), who is taking care of him after the death of his parents. However, Cuda himself believes that he is actually an 80-year old vampire, and tries to restrain him, using seemingly traditional methods. However, Martin dismisses these as mere fiction. Martin also meets his cousin Christina (Christine... Forrest), who is more sympathetic and concerned that Cuda is ignoring Martin's illness in favor of him being a literal vampire. As Martin works in Cuda's shop, he has various interactions with people in his new neighborhood, including Abbie Santini (Elyane Nadeau), whom he grows close to. However, even as he maintains a low-key persona, his urges continue to rise, and with those, fantasies that pop up, which warp his mind. Soon, those fantasies may consume him.

     The best film I can compare this to is a film I watched recently, Attack the Block, which actually came out in 2011 (and stars a pre-Star Wars John Boyega). Both films are low-budgets genre pieces, that are able to use great filmmaking techniques and effects to hid their low budget origins. This film is very rugged and grainy, but is able to make up for it, by utilizing not only good effects, but good editing, inserting sometimes gothic scenery into the proceedings to help create the feel of this character's mindset. The film can be seen as something of a retroactive deconstruction of the whole "loner is secretly a supernatural creature" trope seen in modern fiction like Twilight. Martin is very much how that character comes off in real life, and it is not pleasant at all. Romero spends a lot of time with Martin, showing his everyday life and how he interacts with the rest of the world, and he is seen as a low-key, shy sort of person. This only amplifies the horror of what he does, showing how he represses these feelings, and how horrific that release can be. He is not a sympathetic character at all, but Romero knows to show those scenes of him interacting in everyday life, in order to emphasize the horrific nature of his crimes and his deluded fantasies. It's all in the tagline on the film's poster "He Could Be the Boy Next Door". Despite being a horrible psychopath, he can show the fascade of normal. Martin is by no-means the only well-developed character. Each characters is very well-defined. Cuda in particular, may seem harsh in his treatment of Martin, but after seeing Martin's crimes, you can see that Cuda's fears are well-founded. Chrstina is the only really sympathetic character, but even she has some flaws down the road. The film has good effects (much like the last film I covered, which was also Tom Savini), and it makes good use of its setting. The sort of urban decay that is happening in the neighborhood is not emphasized, but you can see it all over, and it provides a interesting setting to contrast with the gothic nature of Martin's fantasies. Another deconstruction is the sort of religious resolution that was popular with films like The Exorcist. While the color portions aren't bad, the black-and-white portions were especially well-done, and I would like to see the extended version, which was entirely in black-and-white.

    I'll admit, some scenes in this were difficult to watch, because of their nature. I won't go into it, but there are very disturbing scenes in this, and I did feel uncomfortable watching it. It didn't offend me, because those scenes were obviously framed to be horrific and uncomfortable in the worst way, but it did make me feel quesy. This is just a warning to anyone who is interested: there are some scenes that are disturbing, and I would exercise caution while watching it. Otherwise, my main complaint would be length. It was cut down extensively, and many parts feel that way. There is a heavy narration element, which explains the character's feelings instead of showing them, and that sort of ruins the film. I feel the feelings he has or actions that happened were shown in the longer cut. The ending also feels a little abrupt, like there was meant to be more to it, but they just simply ended it there, with no reactions. Sometimes that works, but it also can feel curt and unneeded.

   Like I said, this film is disturbing in some scenes, and if you want to see it, my big warning is just exercise some caution and discretion while watching it, and know there are scenes you might want to skip over on whatever player you have it on. This film was not as good as Night of the Living Dead or Dawn of the Dead, but it is a solid late-70's horror film, with some excellent editing and narrative structure. It is grainy and b-movie like, but it uses that to create a truly chilling experience. If you liked the Living Dead, this could be a watch.Just, bear what I had to say in mind.

    Next time, we look at Romero and Stephen King's homage to EC horror comics, Creepshow. 

Masterpieces of Horror Theatre- Friday the 13th

        Sean S. Cunningham was a theater director, who went into film production in the late 60's. After directing and producing several low budget films, he hit gold when he produced The Last House on the Left in 1972, directed by a young discovery of his named Wes Craven. He went on to direct several other films through the 70's, all comedies, though none of them to success of Last House. Then, in 1978, a little film called Halloween came out. It became not only the 10th highest grossing film of that year, but the highest grossing independent film made up until that point. Cunningham wanted to seize on that success, by making his "own version", to put it charitably. Victor Miller, a playwright whom Cunningham had previously worked with one of those aforementioned comedies, a Bad News Bears rip-off called Here Come the Tigers , consciously made the decision to follow Halloween's example, churning out a script in two weeks. Originally named A Long Night at Camp Blood, Cunningham saw the title Friday the 13th as a more striking title, and, before the script was even finished, put an ad with that title, which did manage to get some of his old investors to cover the film's budget. (A reference to the date was later inserted at the request of Cunningham) Famed horror special effects maestro Tom Savini provided the effects for the film. With the exception of actors like Kevin Bacon (who had made his first appearance in 1978's Animal House) and veteran actress Betsy Palmer, the cast was mostly unknown.  It was filmed on an actual, functioning campground in New Jersey, Camp No-Be-Bo-Sco, which is still around today. Upon release, it was savaged by critics. Gene Siskel, critic for the Chicago Tribune and the other half of Siskel & Ebert, hated the film so much, he put the addresses of both Charles Bludhorn (owner of Paramount, the distributor of the film) and Betsy Palmer in his review for people to complain. (Amusingly, the latter address was apparently wrong). Though, this may have only boosted sales, since it made nearly 110x it's original budget, and started off one of horror's most well-known franchises.

     The film opens in Camp Crystal Lake in 1958, with two camp counselors (Willie Adams, Debra S. Hayes) having some "alone time", being murdered by an unseen assailant. Twenty years later, Steven Christy (Peter Brouwer) is attempting to reopen the camp, despite the rumors that it is haunted due to a number of strange occurrences happening at the camp over the years, including a young boy drowning in 1957. One of the counselors he brought in, Anne (Robbi Morgan) is undeterred by local warnings about the camp, but is killed on her way to the camp, once again by an unseen assailant. The assailant then observes as the other counselors. We watch as Alice (Adrienne King), Bill (Harry Crosby), Jack (Kevin Bacon), Marcie (Jeannine Taylor), Brenda (Laurie Bartram), and Ned (Mark Nelson), settle in for some down time before the children arrive. However, they are warned by Ralph (Walt Gorney), that the campgrounds are haunted, and indeed, they are soon targeted for the next curse...

     The effects for this film are great. As mentioned, Tom Savini, who was behind the make-up for many of George Romero's films, did the effects here, and they are very effective. It looks realistic, at least to me, and it helps increase the terror of those scenes. There are a number of good scares in this, and even some decent jumpscares. I'm going to spoil the ending for this, because I need to talk about this. However, given that my previous attempts at color-coding haven't gone over well, what I'll do is add two large bold Spoiler tags in front and at the end to indicate where a spoiler begins and ends. Ready? (Spoiler) Jason is not the killer in this movie. I know, I didn't even know this until several months ago. He's mentioned, and his drowning drives the real villain of this film, Pamela Voorhees (Betsy Palmer). Palmer only took the role for money, deriding the script, but on screen, she actually is an intimidating presence, and she is legitimately menacing. Her warped mindset (where Jason seems to talk to her mentally) is incredibly creepy in and of itself. Not to say Jason doesn't appear at all. In fact, one of those jumpscares I mentioned is him jumping out of the lake at the very end to attack Alice, the last survivor. (Spoiler). Finally, the score is good, especially when scenes need to be spruced by a little terror.

     Remember in the intro, when I said the filmmakers purposely ripped off Halloween. Yeah, it's obvious watching this. It rips off Halloween in so many places. The most notable is the fact the camera serves as the killer's eyes, which is cool when it's used sparingly, like in  Halloween, but they use so many times here that the effect wears off, and it becomes dull. In fact, the movie takes the wrong elements of Halloween to rip off. It takes mostly superficial elements, like some of the kills and the camera shots, but not the way Halloween built up both Michael Myers and the tension that he evoked. This film has no real build-up for its villain and tension in any of scenes, which leads to my second problem. You notice how the synopsis of this was actually short and light on content. Aside from stuff that would spoil the film, there really isn't that much plot. It is mostly aimless and tedious, and most of it isn't particularly scary. I would've been fine that it had ripped off Halloween, had it been consistently scary or had a more condensed plot, such that the scares would have impact. As is, it just sort of rambles, until the third act.

     I wasn't terribly fond of this. I didn't hate it, because it had technical chops and the acting was decent. However, it felt like very much like the knock-off of Halloween that it was intended as. Still, if you liked the technical aspects of horror films, this is a very good example, or if you just want a quick watch for Halloween. I might do the sequel next year, see if they improved. So, yeah, happy Friday the 13th, everyone.

    Next, we begin the retrospective of the late George A. Romero with Martin, his personal favorite of his films.