End of the Year: Documentary Feature

   Often, I always consider putting documentaries onto the end of the year list. I always refrain from this, because I feel that comparing narrative films to documentaries would require a complicated system, due to their vastly differing nature. However, I still want to acknowledge the various documentaries that I have seen this year. And not just those released this year, but just ones I happened to watch for the first time this year. So, here are the documentaries I've seen this year. Not necessarily ones that came out this year, but ones I happen to have seen. These are going to be ordered by means of recommendation, meaning those I recommend the most will be closer to the top, while those I don't recommend will generally go below. So, without further ado....

Tower(2016)


This is the first one, because, of the docs that are going to be featured here, this is the one I recommend the most. This is an animated account of the events of the 1966 mass shooting at the University of Texas at Austin, from the perspective of some who had witnessed it, from students caught in the crossfire to policemen responding to it in real time. These accounts provide a unique perspective of the incident, and shows how confusing and horrifying this situation can be if you're in the middle of it. A good example of this is that for much of the documentary, many recall that they assumed there were two shooters (instead of the one). This documentary brings you directly into the mist of this situation, and shows you its tragedy, but also the heroism that some displayed even in the chaos. In this era of mass shootings, this is a must-watch.

Icarus (2017) 

   The story of how one man's investigation into doping in amateur bicycling and help he receives from a prominent Russian anti-doping doctor ended up with that man stumbling onto a massive doping conspiracy by the Russian government is an interesting thriller in and of itself, before you remember that it is a real, ongoing story. It is eye-opening as to how pervasive this really was, and disturbing how intricate it was planned out with. It is a great expose on this issue, and with recent actions by the Olympic Committee, it is still an ongoing story.

OJ:Made in America (2016)

   This is an excellent companion piece to The People v. OJ Simpson. Made for ESPN's 30 for 30, it doesn't just cover the trial, but also is a comprehensive look into OJ's entire career, from football to Hertz spokesman to film star. It looks at how he had effectively been accepted by white America by assimilating and declining to get involved with African American causes. This would prove ironic when race would play a large factor in his trial (set in the backdrop of the aftermath of the LA riots). It also shows his life post-trial, and how he gradually alienated everyone who had stuck by him, even during the trial. It shows how OJ's life and career occupied a unique position in the intersection of race, celebrity, and sports during the late 20th century, and all three came to affect his life and his murder trial. This is perhaps as comprehensive as you could get with a documentary.

Red Army (2014)

   If you've seen Icarus, the revelations in that might put a damper on this documentary about the Soviet national hockey team, especially since the focus, Viacheslav "Slava" Fetisov, was apparently chair of the World Anti-Doping Agency. Still, this is a fascinating look into the Red Army Hockey Club and Hockey in the USSR in general, as recounted by Slava and some of the players themselves. It looks into the infamous unbeatable team, and explores how they got to be that powerful. However, there are also dynamics with a brutal coach and a authoritarian government which looms over their shoulders and tries to limit their interactions with the Capitalist west. Even if you have no interest in hockey, it is still an interesting history documentary on a very popular sport in the USSR

Jodorowsky's Dune(2013)

   Earlier this year, I read a book called "Shock Value", about the 70's horror renaissance. It was a decent enough book, and provided some good information about some of the classics from this era. I bring this up, because the book focused primarily on Dan O'Bannon, writer of Alien, and his involvement with Alejandro Jodorowsky's ultimately doomed adaptation of Frank Hubert's Dune was chronicled briefly. I remembered that's the focus of this documentary, and decided to pick it up. I'm glad I did. It is an interesting look into the process of making a film like this, and how people are brought together to make a film, and how it eventually can peter out from one thing or another. O'Bannon, French comic artist Moebius, HR Giger, and even Salvadore Dali were all involved with this film during it's production.  In some way, despite never actually being made, it was influential in its own way, with the former three mentioned going on to create the Alien franchise. The designs Jodorowsky and Moebius created are alone good recommendations to see this film, but it is also a fascinating look into what might have been. And, while it might have been an unwatchable mess, I am interested in seeing what might have been with this film.

The Farthest: Voyagers in Space (2017)

Released on PBS to honor the 40th anniversary of the launch of the Voyagers, this is a comprehensive look into the program, exploring its origin, how it was build, the composition of the Golden Record, and its eventual launch. It explores how scientists and engineers were able to overcome obstacles and problems during the production of the two crafts, and be able to launch this craft. It also explores how it made its various scientific discovers, and the sacrifices in other areas to make those. This is a fitting enough documentary to explaining the continuing endurance of the crafts after 40 years, and how they became the first man-made objects to leave the Solar System. The usual great PBS science documentary.
Sembene!(2015)

    I had really no knowledge of the subject of this documentary aside from a short skim on his Wikipedia page when I came across it, nor did I have any familiarity with African cinema in general. It certainly was enlightening in that regard, and I learned a lot about both subjects. This documentary on the radical Senegalese filmmaker Ousmane Sembene is in part an examination of his filmography, and his friend and biographer Samba Gadjigo trying to contemplate Sembene's legacy and their own personal friendship. It is a fascinating look into a man whose work captured the attitudes and problems facing post-colonial Africa, as well as a look into a region that is often neglected in world cinema. If you're interested in either, I do recommend seeing this film.

Five Came Back (2017)

   Netflix's much vaunted WWII documentary sees several filmmakers (among them Steven Spielberg, Francis Ford Coppola, and Guillermo del Toro), discuss other filmmakers (William Wyler, John Huston, and Frank Capra for the three listed) participation in the "Motion Picture Unit" of the US Army during World War II. It explores each of the filmmakers, what their careers were up to that point,  how they added their own unique perspective and experiences during their service, and how it affected each of them after the war had ended. Whilst the "famous directors talking famous director" is a bit gimmicky, the actual stories are each unique and interesting in their own way, and sort of encapsulate the American experience on both fronts. If you're into World War II, this'll provide a less explored topic in most histories of the war.
June 17th, 1994 (2010)

Another 30 for 30 about OJ, though this takes a completely different route. It intersects coverage of OJ's chase in his Bronco on the titular date with other sports events happening that day. These range from Golf master Arnold Palmer's final round at the US Open, New Yorkers celebrating the victory of the Rangers in the Stanley Cup, and the Game 5 of the NBA Finals between the Houston Rockets and the New York Knicks. This admittedly odd conceit actually works well in terms of juxtaposition, showing the relative tranquility of Palmer's round or jubilation at the Ranger ticker tape parade with the tension from Simpson's chase. It especially works when the clips start to interact, with newscasters (including Bob Costas) at the NBA finals determining how to cover the OJ chase in the midst of the game. A fascinating and effective experimental documentary, I certainly do have the inclination to watch it again.

Exporting Raymond (2010)

    This was the last doc I saw this year (having only seen it hours ago). It looks at Everyone Love Raymond creator Phil Rosenthal's attempts to adapt the show for Russian audiences, and the enormous difficulties that he faces. He finds that some themes that he thought universal were actually quite hard to translate in some culture, but other themes and ideas (especially the persistence and interference of network executives) are actually universal. It's a good look into how television shows like this are produced in Russia, and how shows like Raymond are adapted for non-American audiences. Just as someone interested in how American ideas are adapted by non-American cultures, that was probably the best part.

An American in Madras (2013)

    Despite being half-Tamil myself and both my parents having come from Tamil Nadu, I have little knowledge of Kollywood, or Tamil film industry. That was perhaps why this was more of a personal enlightenment. Ellis R Dugan was an American filmmaker who found himself in India, and worked in Tamil Nadu for over 15 years, directing many very popular films with some of the biggest Tamil stars. When I watched the film with my mother, while many of the films had been before her birth, and she didn't know Dugan by name, she had recognized a lot of the actors and the songs. (The former because a lot of them ended up becoming political figures in the state). It was a nice look into a part of the history of what is essentially my ancestral region, and a little bit more on the history of Kollywood. Even you aren't Indian or Tamil, it still is pretty interesting story about an American making films in a foreign country.

     

The Lovers and the Despot (2017)

I wrote an entire review about a book I read on this exact topic (The kidnapping of South Korean director Shin Sang-Ok and his actress wife Choi Eun-hee by Kim Jong-Il), so I knew the story of this pretty well. While it was nice to hear Choi describe her experience, along with friends and associates, the doc's leading problem is a lack of details. Even if I didn't know this story, that part would've still bothered me. There is little on the films made by Shin during their captivity, or any details on how Kim Jong-Il was, or why he kidnapped them. Granted, yes, it can't be as detailed as a book, but the lack of substantive detail  is apparent. Still, if you want the basics of this strange story, I think this'll do nicely. 

Ghosts of Ole Miss (2012)

   Another 30 for 30 (spoiler, the next is also a 30 for 30) dealing with the successful Football season for the University of Mississippi team in 1962, which corresponded with the riots surrounding James Meredith's enrollment into the University (the first African American to do so). It is an decent enough recounting of both events from many of the participants (including Meredith himself), but aside from one instance of Meredith not being able to attend a Football game, the two don't really interact in a significant way. It feels like just two events that just happened to be around the same time, and the filmmaker is trying to derive some meaning from that, rather than treat it like a coincidence. Maybe if perspective was exchanged on the issues, it could've worked, but it felt off as is.

The U (2009)

    The final 30 for 30 for this year, this is about the University of Miami's football team during the 80's, and how it went from an underfunded operation to a very successful team. It was also ostensibly using that to explore Miami during the 80's, and how the team became an icon, but in practice, it mostly focuses on the team and its successes and failures. That is fine, but I felt the occasional intersections of Miami culture was a bit superfluous. It was just me, it is perfectly serviceable and accessible to a non-sports fan.
Lost in La Mancha (2002)

This is close to the bottom, because I couldn't finish it. Unlike the surreal, detailed, and fascinating look into an unmade film like Dune above, this look into the making of Terry Gilliam's unfinished adaptation of Don Quixote (called The Man Who Killed Don Quixote) was not particularly interesting. It was intended as a making-of feature, which it feels most like, but that works best for a film that's actually finished. It works significantly less knowing that the film isn't finished. Maybe the part I didn't see would've been actually had some intrigue, with production ultimately stalling the film until this year (editing was finished on the film just last month), but the beginning was not promising. Who knows, maybe if the finished film is good, I'll go back to this.

Voyeur (2017)

    I'll admit, there was one primary reason I watched this: the events depicted (Gerald Foos, owner of the Manor House Motel, spying on his guests through a system of fake vents) happened near where I grew up.  The motel is demolished now, but I easily could've driven by it at some point. So, imagine my surprise when it turned out to be more about famed journalist Gay Talese writing first a New Yorker article and then a book on Foos. That should've been a sort of interesting look at how these sorts of articles are written, but this feels off. That might be because it seems to play devil's advocate on Foos (the only reason he isn't being prosecuted for what he did is the statue of limitations), which doesn't exactly put Talese himself in the best light. It probably wasn't intended by the creators, but comes off that way to the viewers. Also, it doesn't really much actual fact-checking aside from one episode where Talese is confronted by a Washington Post reporter, who challenges the account, which is resolved quickly off-screen, but highlights that little fact-checking was shown on screen. As a result, it feels  insular and fishy, and even if all of it was true, it still probably should've acknowledged Foos' behavior more as creepy and, you know, illegal. That is probably the main reason it is the lowest one in terms of recommendation.

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

So, yeah, all the documentaries I saw this year. I hope you  seek out some of these, and join me in the next few days as I rank the films of 2017.

Current Film Reviews: November Criminals

    There is one, and only one reason I decided to watch this film. Despite the fact it has been available on demand for a few weeks, only now have reviews appeared. My sister has surmised that it was because it wasn't out in theaters. That is likely true, but it seemed odd that no one was talking about a film that has technically already been released. I mean, you could buy or rent this film, and watch it beginning to end. The trailers were savaged for their seeming portrayal of a typical white savior narrative (which, having watched the film, it is, spoiler), but only now have two actual reviews come up in preparation for the release date next week. This, despite widespread availability since Nov. 7, apparently made so little of an impression on the culture. And I could see why.

     Based on the book by Sam Munson, we follow the story of Addison Schacht (Ansel Elgort), who we see dropping off his application for the University of Chicago with his female companion Phoebe or "Digger" (Chloe Grace Moretz), with 22 pages in response to the question "What are your best and worst qualities?" I don't know why that was particular germane to the rest of the film, but we continue as they travel to their favorite hotspot in Washington DC. There, Addison and Digger met their friend, Kevin Broadus (Jared Kemp). When they leave, however, someone walks into the coffee shop, and kills Kevin. Addison hears a brief remark about this being gang-related, and, deciding that nobody is paying attention to this story because of this (despite the extensive coverage on the news and the police investigation, and the fact that a detective later tells him they don't know if it is gang related, and apparently haven't heard testimony from any of his other friends), decides to investigates his death. This  investigation ... doesn't actually go very far, but it apparently brings him and Digger into the brink of danger. Apparently.  (the danger is not that apparent)


     This film is.... in focus. You can tell what is happening. Chloe Moretz and David Straithairn (who plays Addison's dad) are decent in their performances. It was coherent in terms of narrative and cinematography. I don't really know what else is okay.

     Where do I start? Well, you could tell by my larger than normal snark in the synopsis that the plot isn't that good, primarily relying on "show, don't tell", (because based only on what they show, the plot would not be able to happen otherwise), and relies on contrives and the main character not thinking for 5 minutes. It could've worked if (Spoiler) He decided that it was not his place to investigate, and try to handle the grief in a way that he could understand that some things he can't control, like was implied with how he deals with his deceased mother. But no, he manages to solve it (accidentally, because, once again, he doesn't think), and it turns out well for him.  Oh, yeah, and that U. Chicago application is completely tangential to the proceedings. I heard that was the center of the entire book. I feel like it should've been something that the events of the film could've built up to.(Spoilers) Ansel Elgort decides to piss away the goodwill he received for Baby Driver by giving a non-committed performance full of "dull surprise" expressions. He and Chloe Moretz have no chemistry, and their attempts at romance are painful to watch. It's only an hour and 25 minutes, but it feels so much longer, with the tedium of him tepidly investigating and constantly (and rightly) being told not to. Simultaneously, because of the latter, it feels like nothing really happens until the final act. Nothing was accomplished by Addison, except when he stumbles on it. There are shots in the film that, in theory, should work, but are so mangled, they become unintentionally funny. The director is competent, having helmed a pretty good retelling of the making of Psycho in 2012's Hitchcock , but here, when it's not interesting shots done wrong, it's mostly generic looking and feeling.  As for the white savior narrative, yeah, while some of those complaints are exaggerated (one of them from the The Mary Sue claimed that Addison gave Kevin a book in the trailer because that is what a white person does to uplift a black person in a white man's burden narrative. In the actual film, they're exchanging books, with Addison giving Kevin the Aeneid, and Kevin giving Addison a James Baldwin book), but their basic complaint is true. Kevin is a driving force for Addison, less in the sense of a friend trying to honor a friend, as the movie seems to think, but as a way for Addison to self-actualize through the experience. This line from the Mary Sue article I linked is particularly prescient: "That friend is played by Jared Kemp, who is billed so low on IMDB it’s hard to imagine he’s more than a featured extra in his own story." That is very, very true. The character of Kevin Broadus appears in the film just as much as he does in the trailer, despite his centrality to the plot. We don't see or know much about him from observation, except how Addison is affected by his death, and his own friendship. Once again, it is less about the black person killed than how his white friend was affected by it. It leads to a larger problem with the film. None of the characters are well-developed. That whole "show, don't tell" problem is very apparent, where we are told things about characters, instead of them being shown. As a result, the events hold little interest, because these character don't resonate, and what happens to them doesn't really have any impact on the viewer.

      Based on the fact it was released on video on-demand before theaters, I was expecting some sort of complete disaster. A fascinatingly bad film with A-list talent (the way Suburbicon was a couple months ago) that Sony clearly thought a dud, and wanted some money back on. This is not it. Oh, it's certainly a dud, but it's not interestingly bad. It's just boring and awful, to the effect of a really bad TV movie. I certainly cannot think of any reason to see this, especially in the theater. If you're still interested, it's still available on Google services, so just watch it there. But don't watch it. This was fun, though. Exposing an obscure film , despite finding it terrible.

Current Film Review: Justice League

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.