Dailles and Nightlies- 2010: The Year We Make Contact

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

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

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

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

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

Current Film Review- Bohemian Rhapsody

        The main criteria for whether I review a film or not is "Is there enough for me to say on it?" and "Is there an interesting spin to it?" There are films I strongly like or dislike, but don't really write a review, because I can't really find anything to really say about the film in detail, or say something that hasn't already been said before. In the case of this film, it has gotten notoriety ... actually for most of its production history. With the conflicts between original actor Sasha Baron Cohen and the surviving members of Queen, to the further conflicts caused by the notorious instability and unreliability of director Bryan Singer, it was not really an easy transition to the screen. Not helped by the fact that early versions of the script downplayed Freddie Mercury's bisexuality and AIDS diagnosis (I'll get into that later.) With this extremely troubled production, it really is something of a surprise that this is as banal and unremarkable as it is.

       The film follows the life of Queen frontman Freddie Mercury (Rami Malek), from his origins as  Zanzibar-born Parsi immigrant Farrokh Bulsara joining a band named Smile with guitarist Brian May (Gwilym Lee) and drummer Roger Taylor (Ben Hardy) in Imperial College (later joined by bassist John Deacon ( Joseph Mazzello), to their rise under the new name Queen, to the seminal album A Night at the Opera (or rather, just "Bohemian Rhapsody"), eventually ending at their iconic performance at Live Aid in 1985. All the while, Mercury deals with various relationships, both romantic, including Mary Austin (Lucy Boynton), Paul Prenter (Allen Leech), and Jim Hutton (Aaron McCusker), and professional, with the other band members dealing with his more ostentatious, volatile nature.

       The hype is true: Rami Malek is absolutely fantastic in this role. He manages to get the accent down, he gets the stage presence so perfectly, it's a tad unnerving, and manages to imbue his performance with both loud rocker style and the quiet, nervous presence Mercury was reported to have in private. The physical resemblance also helps. If there is one reason to see this film, it's for his performance alone, especially during the Live Aid segment. That segment is also probably the best scene in the film, a near perfect recreation of the event, where we actually get to focus on Malek's performance as a musician and Queen playing music ....

      Which brings me to my first problem: there isn't really a full Queen song until the end. They play some of their iconic songs, sure, but not in full or they're background music. You'd think they'd focus on the various innovative, memorable songs that are still played and remembered today, but the film basically rushes through them, going from one to the other without really exploring them or having the decency to play the whole song! Even the titular song (while its production is explored in full) isn't played in its entirety. Seriously, in a Queen biopic, you'd think they'd play more Queen in it. The point about how they rush through their discography is really emblematic of the film's central problem. It is so standard and by-the-numbers that one can predict how it'll go even with the bare bones synopsis I provided. Filmmakers ought to be screened Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story before they make music biopics, because they haven't really learned to go beyond the tropes and plot structure that film satirized very acutely. This film is very Walk Hard in how its plot is structured and how it portrays its lead figure. It doesn't help that the other band members are cyphers that just don't have personalities and largely exist to just react to Mercury's antics. John Deacon especially, who barely gets anything to do. (This might be because Brian May and Roger Taylor are producers, so the filmmakers might not have wanted to offend them). The script for this is really overcompensating for the controversy centering around it, to the point of changing the sequence of events to fit it all in. I understand the controversy around straight-washing his bisexuality (and, to the film's credit, it does explore his complicated sexuality, but since the characters aside from him aren't fleshed out, it still doesn't fully work), but, since his AIDS diagnosis came years after Live Aid and they were always planning on ending its there, it does make sense that they wouldn't really cover it except for an after epilogue text(unless they were planning on ignoring it entirely, which is pretty bad). Minor spoiler, but the film moves his diagnosis to before Live Aid, and portrays his performance as some last testament. Also, the band broke up years before and Mercury gravels to them to reunite and Live Aid is their big comeback (something that never happened, and Queen had toured regularly in the years prior.). I understand that liberties need to be taken in order to make an entertaining story, but this level of revision seems only to exist as to get another cliche "musician is too difficult, band breaks up, band makes up" moment that feels like a scene straight out of Walk Hard, and again, feels like it's overcompensating for not dealing with it in the original drafts.

    I'm a huge Queen fan, so this being as boring and cliched as it is is disappointing, given how versatile and ecletic Queen was and the massive influence they've had on music. Even if you just want to hear Queen songs, they don't play a full one until the end, and the film is two hours! Just stay home and play those songs online. Still, Rami Malek's performance is good enough that I kind of recommend it if you're interested in seeing that. However, the rest of the film is just mediocre and really doesn't deserve his performance or the great Live Aid scene towards the end.

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Suspiria

      In my review of Dawn of the Dead, I mentioned Dario Argento, who had helped facilitate the creation of that film. Originally a film critic, Argento got his start in the Italian film industry when none other than Sergio Leone recruited him and fellow critic turned eventual director Bernardo Bertolucci to write the story to Once Upon a Time in the West. From there, he entered the giallo genre of Italian horror pioneered by directors like Mario Bava with The Bird with Crystal Plumage, starting off a prolific and influential career (many American slashers would take influence from the giallo genre from films like Bava's and Argento's). The particular idea for this film came from English writer Thomas de Quincey's 1845 collection of essays, Suspiria de Profundis, which included Levana and Our Ladies of Sorrow, an essay exploring the idea that there are three Sorrows (Tears, Sighs, and Darkness), much as there are three Fates. Argento took further influence from occult and witchcraft (notably the ideas of Rudolf Steiner) to construct the idea of Three "Mothers" that would embody these sorrows, and would write a trilogy exploring each, with Suspiria being about the Mother of Sighs. Argento's girlfriend Daria Nicolodi further helped with the development (eventually getting a co-screenwriter credit), both infusing influence from fairy tales like Snow White and her own personal stories (including her grandmother's experience at a music academy, and a dream which influenced the ending), which would create the setting of the film as a ballet academy in Germany. Argento originally intended for the film to star girls as young as 12 (to fit in with the fairy tale influences), but his father Salvatore, who produced the film, refused, feeling the violence, gory nature of the film would cause trouble with such young actresses. After the ages were increased, Daria was meant to play the lead, but again, the producers felt an American actress would help promote the film better. Thus, Jessica Harper was cast, based on her performance in Brian de Palma's Phantom of the Paradise. German and Italian actors rounded out the rest of the cast, including Udo Kier. Shot in De Paoli Studio in Rome, as well as additional shooting in Munich, most of the cast spoke in whatever their native language was, which was dubbed over in English or whatever language. Released in 1977, it would garner success critically and financially, both in the US and Italy. Argento would further explore the "Three Mothers" concept in two other films (Inferno and The Mother of Tears), which, with Suspiria, form the aptly named "Three Mothers" trilogy. And, of course, there is the remake coming up in a few weeks at the time of writing.

       Suzy Bannion (Jessica Harper) comes to Freiburg to attend the prestigious Tanz Dance Academy. Unfortunately for her, she has to deal with a downpour, especially when she is briefly turned away from the Academy's door. She catches a glimpse of a girl (Eva Axen), however, as she flees. The girl, Patricia Hingle, runs through the woods, and finds herself at the home of her friend Sara (  Stefania Casini), where she appears to be paranoid about something. Sure enough, she is attacked, and killed in a spectacular, violent manner. This starts off a chain of events, which sees Suzy descend into the strangeness of the Academy itself...

       The one thing that immediately stood out for me in this film was the colors. This has very distinct lighting that bathes the characters in every scene in a strange aura, which precludes the events as they happen. The way that Argento uses Reds and Blues especially helps give the film both a distinct look, and helps with the atmosphere. It is just gorgeous to look at, and shows the images in a sheer, unfettered manner. In some ways, it contrasts the first film I did this month, Night of the Living Dead, which utilized black-and-white to its fullest potential. This emphasizes color films, and uses colors and shadows to create tension.  The style of this film helps with enticing the viewer and pulling them in, along with helping set the mood for the story. You noted the short synopsis, and I really don't want to give anything away. This is the kind of film that needs to be seen. It cannot be conveyed properly through words. Not only with the visuals, but with the story itself. It needs to be viewed with as little context as possible to get the full extent of it. I'm serious, I don't want to spoil any of it. It needs to be seen to be believed.

     The dubbing felt off. It gets distracting sometimes when the speaker is clearly ADR-ed in. It destroys the emersion that the silent moments so very carefully craft. I never felt that the characters weren't actually speaking to each other, but it always took me out of the film when a character's voice didn't match. There were also some confusing aspects to the film, particularly towards the beginning and end, that felt like more explanation or more time was needed to fully detail this.

      A couple days ago, I saw a Wired article that said something to the effect of "Don't watch the original Suspiria  before the remake." Of course, I disregarded this, given I've already replaced one of the planned films. Still, having not yet seen the remake, go watch this. Whether or not you are a horror fan, this is simply an excellently crafted, beautifully shot, and very shocking film that really stuns you in a very good way. This is an overall recommendation.

    So, that's it for this year. I hope you enjoyed this and the new Summer edition. I'm glad I'm back to choosing a diverse range of films to do, after doing more concentrated work for last year and the Summer of Terror. I really do enjoy watching these, and writing about these, and with the new Summer, I hope to watch more of the popular franchises that have come along over the years. Anyways, thanks for following all this month, and I don't know if I'll start November like this, but I'm planning on doing a "Dailles and Nightlies" on 2010, the sequel to 2001.   

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.

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Hellboy II: The Golden Army

     (Okay, a bit of explanation. I couldn't find Spirit of the Beehive online anywhere. I assumed it was on Hulu, but for some reason, it wasn't there. Since getting a DVD of it would take a couple days, I decided to make a last minute pass, and choose something that was more easily available. To compound manners, I twisted my foot over the weekend, and had to spent time recovering from that. With that out of the way).

      Not much history, as to be expected from a sequel. Guillermo del Toro had intended a trilogy with the character, and with the success of the first one, the sequel was to be released in 2006. However, Revolution Studios, which had produced the original, went bankrupt, and Columbia stepped in to distribute. After bouncing around a few ideas (including reinterpretations of classic monsters and elemental titans) and some stories from the comics to adapt, del Toro and Hellboy creator Mike Mignola wrote an original story. The film finally entered production after Pan's Labyrinth won many accolades. Released in 2008, the film was both financially and critically successful, and a third film was in development, before it faltered, and a reboot (currently slated for 2019 with Stranger Things' David Harbour in the lead role) was deemed necessary.

     On Christmas Day, 1955, Trevor Bruttenholm (the late John Hurt) tells his adoptive son Hellboy (Montse Ribe) about the legend of the Golden Army. How humans and elves went to war many years ago, and how the Golden Army was created by Goblin engineers for the elves to destroy humanity. However, the elf King Balor ( Roy Dotrice) sees the destruction wrought about by his new army, and how he created a pact with mankind. However, Prince Nuada (Luke Gross), who had tempted his father to creating the Golden Army, is dissatisfied with this, and leaves to be called back at some indeterminate time, while the Golden Army is sealed away with the elf crown being the key to opening it. Sure enough, in the present day, Nuada decides his time has come to destroy the humans, and retrieves their portion of the crown from an auction at a museum. He then kills Balor, and takes his portion, while his sister Nuala (Anne Walton) flees with the final portion. Hellboy (Ron Perlman) and fellow Bureau of Paranormal Research and Defense (BPRD) agents Liz Sherman (Selma Blair) and Abe Sapien (Doug Jones, now doing both voice and body) investigate the initial attack, and find themselves the victims of tooth fairies (which are not as innocuous as they sounds). They defeat them, but Hellboy is exposed for the first time to the public, prompting fallout with the higher ups, particularly BPRD head Tom Manning (Jeffrey Tambor). They take one tooth fairy, and have their new team leader, Johann Krauss (John Alexander and James Dodd for body, Seth MacFarlane (!) for the voice) a German whose body is now a strange ectoplamsa material contained in a suit, examine it. This leads them on a course that will intersect them with Nuala and then, having to stop Nuada from reviving the Golden Army.

      I don't know where to start with how good this film is. It has great effects, an engaging story, great performances, great action, a larger sense of world building and mythology, some nice homages here and there (including references to the films of John Landis and Ray Harryhausen). Unlike the more mysterious original, this one has a more of an action-packed, urban fantasy feel to the proceedings, which actually works in that it still feels like it's in the universe of the original. It also has the character grow from the original, and grow throughout the film. The Golden Army itself was built up well, especially with their ability to regenerate, making their threat very clear, and forcing a unique solution beyond a direct confrontation.

     This is one of those films where every flaw I could think of actually works upon revisitation. I suppose the length.... nah, I'm kidding, it's 2 hours long. I think a little bit more backstory was needed for somethings. Like, if the elves were solely restricted to the British Isles and Ireland or were more worldwide, and a bit more on Johann Krauss and what happened to him (since he turns to the heroes side due to a tragedy in his life). It might've helped flesh out the story a bit more.

    I was harsh on the original Hellboy. I think I didn't really appreciate it for what it was, a fun romp with many different references and complex worldbuilding. I think this is better than the original, and a whole hearted recommendation to anyone who loves horror, urban fantasy, action, or del Toro films. Just, maybe watch the original first, however.

   We're at the home stretch, so Friday will see the modern classic American Psycho. 

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- The Blair Witch Project

      The found footage sub-genre of horror was said to have been started by the 1980 Italian feature Cannibal Holocaust, where it was used to satirize Italian media coverage of terrorist groups during the "Years of Lead". In 1998, The Last Broadcast, an American film, used the format to tell the story of the Jersey Devil. In 1993,   Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez, students at the University of Central Florida, had the idea of a fictional documentary on a mysterious paranormal phenomenon, based on their shared opinion that paranormal documentaries were scarier than traditional horror films. They decided to combine more traditional horror tropes from films like The Shining and Alien with documentaries like the series In Search of...(narrated by Leonard Nimoy, incidentally) and, probably the biggest influence, Charles Pierce's 1972 docudrama The Legend of Boggy Creek (about the Fouke monster, a bigfoot like creature in Arkansas). They formed Haxan films to produce it, and spend years refining the concept, using multiple influences, including mystics like Rasputin and Edward Kelly, the Salem Witch Trials, and Arthur Miller's The Crucible. Leads Heather Donahue, Michael C. Williams, and Joshua Leonard were hired through auditions in the Musical Theater Works in New York. Eventually, the film would begin principal photography in Maryland, which lasted 8 days until Halloween, 1997. The actors were unaware that the mythology of the Blair Witch was entirely fabricated by the directors, or that the townspeople they interviewed were planted. They also improvised, due to unexpected events the directors threw in. Over twenty hours of footage was shot, which was cut down to 2 and a half hour film, which was screened at the Sundance Film Festival. Hoping at least for a television run, the directors were likely surprised when Artisan Entertainment (known for films like Reservoir Dogs and Bad Lieutenant) purchased the film for $1.1 million. Sure enough, the film, with a budget of only $60,000, grossed $284 million at the box office. The fictional mythology and footage of the film was trumpeted as real during publicity, which is credited as helping the film. The film spawned off two sequels and a larger media franchise.

      The film starts with a disclaimer that the footage we are about to see was recovered from the woods after the mysterious disappearance of Heather Donahue, Michael Williams, and Joshua Leonard in the Maryland woods. Said footage shows them interviewing various citizens of the town of Blair, Maryland about a local legend called "The Blair Witch". They hear of 1940's child murderer Rustin Parr, and of a woman in the 1800's, Robin Weaver, who saw an old woman floating when she was lost in the woods. The documentarians head into the woods in search of the legend, but gradually become lost due to Mike throwing the map in the creek. As tensions rise between the three, they find a number of strange occurrances have been happening. Starting as twig snaps in the night, they escalate as the three travel through the woods.

       Martin Scorsese once observed that "cinema is a matter of what is in the frame and what's out [of the frame]". I think this film is the most apparent example of that within the horror genre. A lot of the actual scares are mostly off-camera. The characters clearly see it, and react to it viscerally, but we the audience don't see it ourselves. This actually intensifies the scares, since we aren't sure what is chasing them. Sometimes, it works to great effect to reveal things, such as one evocative scare towards the end where a bundle of sticks reveals the remains of one of the leads, or the final scene. It is more effective than I thought, especially with the lack of music and the subtlety of it. Similarly, the realism really works, with the characters acting as people might act in this scenario. I did like the early scenes with the weird sub-documentary look to it. It really makes it seem like a real thing.

     The main problem with the film is that it lulls towards the middle, with the characters largely screaming at each other and walking in the woods. This really doesn't add much, and admittedly, a lot of this review was written while that part was happening, because I felt nothing of note was going on. It is also fairly short. I know that there is a longer cut somewhere, and maybe that has more scares and mythology, but I would rather not watch a film of just walking for 2 hours.

      I enjoyed this more than I thought I would. It was effective, it never actually showed what was haunting the people (unlike other films of this particular genre), and it has a surprising sense of folklore and mythology. Plus, it just feels like a real documentary. So, this is a recommendation, though bare in mind it is very boring towards the middle.

    Tomorrow, I deal with the Spanish film Spirit of the Beehive.

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Q: The Winged Serpent

        Before I discuss this, I will briefly discuss its writer and director Larry Cohen. Originally a TV writer and creator of shows like Coronet Blue and The Invaders, he would transition to directing in the 70's, and would have a smash with It's Alive, a horror film about a killer newborn, and followed by God Told Me To, a science fiction thriller about mass killings. The film mostly originated from Cohen's desire to see a King Kong style monster movie for the Chrysler Building (which he had admired in terms of design), and figured the Aztec god Quetzelcoatl (described as a feathered serpent in most accounts) would do as the big bad. After getting fired off another project, he decided to move ahead with this idea He was able to get big stars like David Carradine (who he had served with in the army), Richard Roundtree, and Michael Moriarty to sign on (a young Bruce Willis auditioned, but was ultimately rejected by Cohen). After multiple rejections, the film was able to be shot on location in the Chrysler building, and the special effects team of Randy Cook (who would later win three Academy Awards for his work on Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy) and Dave Allen was contracted to make the stop motion creature based on Cohen's designs. The film was released in 1982 to mixed critical reception, but relative box office success and later cult classic status.

       Something is picking off people in New York! From a window cleaner to sunbathers to just people standing on rooftops, someone-or something is killing off many New Yorkers. Investigating this strange turn of events are Detective Shepard (David Carradine) and Sergeant Powell (Richard Roundtree). Wow, two Die Hard references in two reviews!). The former soon finds a connection between the seemingly ritualistic killings and ancient Aztec sacrifices. Sure enough, a cult has brought back the god Quetzelcoatl back through human sacrifices, who is now killing multiple people. Eventually, Shepard deduces what is happening, and needs to find their hideout. Luckily, small time criminal and part musician Jimmy Quinn (Michael Moriarty) came across a strange lair while escaping a botched robbery, with a large egg in the center.

         The creature design was very well done, as was the stop-motion. At first I was a bit iffy on it, due to the fact the viewer doesn't see much of it, but once it can be shown in its full glory, it is very impressive in its scale. I like that it combines the look of a bird and a dragon, a more realistic look for a being shown in Aztec paintings as a serpent with wings. The stop motion is well done, and as a bit of an homage to King Kong, the stop motion is supplemented by larger effects for its head during the climax. Many people bring up Michael Moriarty as the highlight, but honestly, Carradine was the best actor for me. He brought an edge and seriousness to the character that makes him more credible as he realizes the true nature of what's happening.

       The main problem with the film is mostly its length. The first 40 minutes could be condensed easily into 20 or even 10. Most of what happens could easily just fit into 10 minutes without losing anything significant. It would've worked better had the build-up been shorter, since more of the film could be focused on the creature itself and the attempts to stop it. As is, it meanders a lot, with the creatures various killings, Shepard investigating, and Quinn getting into trouble with his fellow robbers. This is not just restricted to the first 40 minutes. Most of the film has filler to it to pad out the run time. Had they leaned in more to the creature, it might've helped cut down much of the filler.

       This felt more like an extended television episode of an anthology show or an action show than it did a feature film. Not to say it was bad. It was entertaining and interesting enough to have kept me watching. If you want a film to watch in the background or just want to see some monster shenanigans, I recommend this. Honestly, though, it was a bit of a disappointment.

     Next week, we move to one of the most influential horror films of the modern era: The Blair Witch Project