MC_Lovecraft Watches Lots of Movies!

Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982)
Tonight's feature was, indeed, Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982).

I'll be honest, I went into this one with fairly low expectations. I knew exactly two things about this movie before tonight: That it was completely unrelated to the plot of the first two movies, and that this was the first one not written by John Carpenter and Debra Hill. They do both return as producers, and Carpenter once more contributes his excellent score. With that in mind, I was quite pleasantly surprised by this movie. I have no idea why it was produced as a Halloween sequel, but it's not a bad movie on its own merits. Instead of a pure Slasher movie, this entry is a genuinely interesting (if very, very silly) Techno-Supernatural thriller, centered around a drunken, philandering Doctor Challis (Tom Atkins) and his somewhat distressingly young love interest Ellie (Stacey Nelkin) as they try to unravel the mystery of her father Harry's death just days before Halloween.

The movie begins with Harry (Al Berry, who played the ill-fated Dr. Gruber in the opening of Re-Animator!) running from a car full of men, clutching a pumpkin mask. He seeks refuge in a junkyard, only to be cornered and strangled by a silent, suited man. He manages to pin the man between two cars and make his escape, aided by the junkyard/gas station attendant (Essex Smith). Later that night, after he is brought ranting and raving into the hospital, another of the suited men shows up and murders him in his bed. Doctor Challis is (rightfully) disturbed by this, particularly after he watches the killer walk out to the parking lot, get into a car, and explode. It's a fairly strong opening.

I do want to mention that the opening credits sequence is very cool, and foreshadows the technothriller aspects of the plot, but it also includes a strobing light element at the end that is probably not smart to expose people to unprepared, so here's your warning.

Drunk doctors are in danger of becoming a theme in this franchise, because Doctor Challis has two character traits and that is one of them. The other is that he is super horny and will sexually harass and/or trade sexual favors with any number of his female coworkers, concurrently. It's not hard to see why he's divorced. Among his gal pals are a nurse, the coroner, and the ambiguously of-age Ellie (seriously, he doesn't ask how old she is until they have had sex several times, and while she implies that she is of legal age, she doesn't actually give him a straight answer. Their whole thing is kind of gross, very much not a Harold and Maude romance, more an old drunk taking advantage of a young woman's trauma response after the loss of her father).

We are introduced, through a serious of television and radio ads that play throughout the film, to Silver Shamrock, a local company that produces the most popular Halloween masks in the country, in exactly three styles, and not one more, which every kid in America is somehow totally fine with. Early on, in a bit that emphasizes that Challis is a loser who does not even have the respect of his children, they disdain his gift of cheap plastic masks, because their mother has already given them Silver Shamrock masks, which they proceed to put on and then stare into the television as it screams the Silver Shamrock jingle at them, counting down the days to Halloween. This advertisement is playing on every TV and radio in town, and presumably all across America, at all hours of the day and night, advertising not only the masks, but a Halloween Horrorthon with a special prize give-away on Halloween night.

As Challis and Ellie seek clues to her father's death, she brings him to Harry's joke/toy shop, and we learn that he stocks the Silver Shamrock masks in his store. In fact, he had been on a run to pick up the latest order from the factory before he turned up at the junkyard, so the duo decide to take a trip to the factory themselves. They do not make any kind of plan before or during their considerable drive, and they drive all the way up to the factory gates before realizing this and deciding to go do that first. They head over to the town's combination gas station and motel, and rent a room posing as a married couple.

We meet a whole handful of people all at once, including Buddy Kupfer (Ralph Strait), his Winnebago-riding, all-American nuclear family, and Marge (Garn Stephens) who is also in town to pick up her order of masks, all staying at the same motel. There is also a helpful bum (played by Jonathan Terry from Return of the Living Dead) who directs Challis' attention to the security cameras, and presumably the curfew they are both in violation of, before meeting his end at the hands of yet another suited man. The little town of Santa Mira, where the Silver Shamrock factory is located, seems to be entirely peopled with Irish immigrants brought in to work at the factory, and the bum was one of the displaced prior inhabitants. Finally we are introduced to Mr. Cochran (Dan O'Herlihey, from Robocop) the distinguished owner of the Silver Shamrock company, and practical joke enthusiast.

After Marge is killed by the trademark tag on one of the Silver Shamrock masks (with some excellently disgusting practical effects), in what Cochran describes as a 'misfire,' Challis and Ellie decide that they must investigate the factory (after having a bunch of gross sweaty sex first). Posing as buyers picking up a lost order, they make their way inside, and find the Kupfer family waiting inside as well, apparently to meet Mr. Cochran and receive a guided tour of the factory, on account of Buddy being the highest-selling mask salesman in America. Some quick thinking gets them both invited to the tour as well, and they follow Cochran onto the production floor. At the end of the tour the Kupfer kid begs for a mask, and Cochran swaps out the one he's asking for with one bearing the trademark tag, explaining that the one he wanted had not yet been through "final processing". It very much sounds like he's bullshitting the kid, especially when Buddy starts asking questions and he has to make something up about volatile chemicals and such, but then they walk down the hall and there actually is a room marked Final Processing, which just begs the question; why not lie? Why not say it needed a final layer of sealant, or even just say the tag is part of the mask's value, and that's why he gave him another mask, instead of actually directing their attention to the clearly nefarious happenings in 'Final Processing'? I don't know why this bothers me so much, but it does.

Eventually, Ellie finds evidence that Cochran was behind her father's death, but it is too late, a whole host of the silent, suited stranglers emerge from all around, and seize her and Challis both. Ellie is taken away somewhere separate from Challis, who is taken into Final Processing and given the big reveal, which is that Cochran stole part of Stonehenge somehow and brought it to California. He explains that he is doing some old-school Irish Samhain sacrifice, for the modern day, and demonstrates his plan on the Kupfer kid. When the kid wears his mask and watches a signal broadcast from the TV (the one being advertised constantly) his pumpkin mask is transformed into a real rotting gourd, and his head with it, bursting open and spilling forth snakes and insects which begin attacking the parents. It's a wonderful scene, with a very inventive effect, and it sets the stakes for Challis, because his kids are wearing those masks too. Cochran binds Challis to a chair and puts a mask on him, leaving him in front of a TV set to await his doom.

That would be a bummer, so Challis escapes right away, into the air ducts like a real 80's action hero, and to his credit, immediately tries to warn his ex-wife about the danger to their children. He's an unreliable, drunken liar so she doesn't hear him out, accusing him of jealousy and hanging up. Unable to save his kids that way, the doctor then tries to find Ellie and free her, as well as find a way to disrupt the broadcast. This leads him to a confrontation with Cochran that is bizarre and fantastic. There is a sacrificial circle for the (then) modern age, bridging the technological and the supernatural, and destroying Cochran's small army of what are by this point known to be weird clockwork/biotech/latex masked androids. Cochrane himself (or rather the fakest fake head in the history of fake heads) is lasered with beams of light projected by both the sacrificial circle and the Stonehenge stone, and it's ambiguous whether he is killed or if he has merely ascended to some higher form. He certainly doesn't seem surprised or unhappy at how things turn out for him.

Challis and Ellie make their escape from the factory, before Ellie reveals herself to be a robot doll thing too, although apparently a more sophisticated model than the others. I'm honestly not sure if she was meant to have been a robot all along, or if she was replaced while captive, because both are intelligible ways to read this movie, especially if you think Cochran was trying to manipulate Challis into coming to his town for some reason, a proposition made a little less of a stretch by how often Cochran mentions that he considers what he's doing a big practical joke, with Challis being one of its victims. In any case, they fight a grisly fight, and Ellie must be forcibly dismembered before she gives up the ghost. Challis proceeds into town, eventually running into the same junkyard as Harry did in the beginning of the film, with the station attendant even pointing out the similarity. He calls into the local broadcaster and tries to get them to stop the Silver Shamrock 9pm broadcast, and for a moment it seems that they aren't going to do it. Then the first channel goes off the air. Then the second. There are only three channels because the past was terrible, and a long moment stretches out, the tension mounting, and then, in a truly ballsy ending, the broadcast goes out, and we close in on Challis' face as he realizes that every child in America, including his own, has just been sacrificed in a massive techno-druidic bloodletting. End credits.

It's a great ending that I think makes up for some of the very questionable choices made in the script, and I applaud Tommy Lee Wallace for going through with it. I actually enjoyed this movie a good deal, not least because it felt very much like it could have been adapted from the script for an X-Files episode. A lot of the best episodes featured a theme of ancient terrors adapting for the technological age, and that's exactly what's at the core of this film. It never reaches the heights of the first two films, and has some significant lows, but I did like this movie. I'm going to give it a 3.5/5 and reiterate that it is very strange that this was produced as a Halloween sequel instead of its own thing. They even lampshade that fact by having the original movie playing on TVs throughout the film, to establish it as a completely separate universe.

Oh, also Dick Warlock does do stunts for this one too, even though The Shape is nowhere to be seen.
 
Last edited:
Ghostbusters (1984)
Apparently Halloweens 4-6 form something of a trilogy, so before I tackle that, I decided on a nice palate cleanser in the form of rewatching Ghostbusters (1984).

I don't have anything to say about this movie that hasn't been said before. It's great. Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis are just phenomenally funny people, and their script remains one of the most quotable of all time. Bill Murray is Bill Murray (more on that in a second). I always appreciate seeing Sigourney Weaver, and her portrayal of Zuul Dana is delicious. The real stars of the film for me though are the excellent effects, both practical and special. There are so many cool set pieces, and every ghoulie that we see has a distinct design and characterization to them (admittedly there aren't that many, but it's still great, the zombie cab driver cracks me up every time).

The plot follows Peter Venkman (Bill Murray), disgraced parapsychologist, and his colleagues Ray Stantz (Dan Aykroyd) and Egon Spengler (Harold Ramis) as they address a growing wave of supernatural phenomena in the New York area. Venkman is an asshole. Like, full stop. He's a gross, condescending creep who abuses any position of authority given to him to harass women as his first priority, at all times. Maybe the only real flaw in this movie is that it treats Venkman's behavior as cute because it's Bill Murray, which is harder and harder to swallow as the general consensus on Murray continues to shift over the years. I enjoy Bill Murray the most when his characters are handled by the film with the understanding that he is being an asshole, as in The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004), or Rushmore (1998), or really any Wes Anderson movie now that I think about it. He's very funny in Ghostbusters, in exactly the same way as he's funny in those movies, but this movie asks us to condone his behavior in a way that the others don't. That's all I'll say about the confluence of real-life Bill Murray and screen Bill Murray, because it's genuinely not that hard to enjoy this movie even if you know that he was probably a raging asshole the whole time they were making it.

Ray and Egon are true believers, and serious men of science in contrast to Venkman's lazy skepticism. After they collectively experience their first confirmed supernatural phenomenon they are all generally on the same page about the existence of the ghosts, though Venkman continues to offer sardonic one liners during each encounter because that is his primary function in the script. The three men go into business together after Venkman is expelled from the university where he works (presumably for all manner of unethical relations with students, given the ESP 'trial' we see him administering at the beginning of the film) and set up shop in an abandoned fire station. They hire a delightful receptionist played by Annie Potts, and eventually add Winston Zeddmore (Ernie Hudson, who I last saw in Leviathan) to help them run the place, and swiftly go about taking calls.

Sigourney Weaver plays Dana, a woman who's very apartment rests at the nexus of dark forces marshalled by Gozer the Gozerian, an ancient Sumerian demigod. Rick Moranis plays Louis, Dana's obnoxious chatterbox of a neghbor. He is so ridiculous, and one of the absolute funniest scenes in the movie depicts a party that he's hosting, in which he roams around obliviously airing out everyone's dirty laundry and essentially calling them rubes to their faces (before being chased out of the room by a gargoyle dog thing). Dana good-naturedly humors him throughout the film, and she is the client around whom the plot revolves. She initially seeks out the Ghostbusters after spectral activity in her apartment causes eggs to go flying and a bizarre portal to open in the back of her refrigerator (where she first hears the name 'Zuul'). Venkman agrees to investigate for purely prurient reasons, and snarks at her the entire time as though he doesn't actually believe in the supernatural, when he very much does.

Over a period of weeks or months, the Ghostbusters take on dozens of cases, and develop a level of fame and notoriety. We get to see some of these early jobs, and they are whirlwinds of physical comedy, great effects, and deadpan snark from everyone. I think this sequence is what paved the way for the cartoons, and I would have enjoyed a live-action Ghostbusters series that was played like an action-comedy X-Files, where they responded to different kinds of hauntings and apparitions each week. I'm aware that that's exactly what the cartoons were, but the movie has a level of slightly more adult comedy (and not just in crassness, some of the best jokes in this movie just flew over my head as a kid because I had no context for them) that I think would have been easier to sell to adults in live-action.

The excellently hateable William Atherton plays a stiff-necked EPA investigator with an axe to grind, and he serves as the closest thing to an antagonist in the film, at least until Gozer is released. It is his attempt to shut down the Ghostbusters that ends up releasing their vault of captured spectres, setting up the conditions for Gozer's return. Zuul Dana and Rick Moranis turn into gargoyles, and Gozer appears in the form of an adrogynous woman with kind of a David Bowie vibe going on. The boys in grey do battle with the Gozerian, but to no avail, and it demands to know what form it shall take to destroy them. We all know what happens next. Something I thought was neat is that in an earlier scene Dana has a bag of Stay-Puft marshmallows on the counter, next to the exploding eggs, so they are established as an in-universe brand prior to Ray summoning the 100-ft Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man to terrorize Central Park.

This is just a fun, hilarious movie. I wrote down like three pages of quotes to work into this write-up, but honestly you should just go watch it for yourself, even if you've seen it before (especially if you've seen it before, there are so many fun little details and I notice new ones every time). 4.5/5 stars, because Bill Murray can be a dick, but only if we acknowledge that he is one, and otherwise this is a perfect movie.
 
Halloween IV: The Return of Michael Myers (1988)
Last night I resumed my Halloween-athon with Halloween IV: The Return of Michael Myers (1988).

I never watched most of these higher-numbered sequels when I was a kid, so this is uncharted territory for me. This film sought (as it says on the tin) to return Michael Myers to the franchise after fans were left confused and angry by his absence from the last installment. Apparently, John Carpenter and Debra Hill were originally attached to this and intended to produce 4 as a ghost story, but when Moustapha Akkad demanded that Michael return in the flesh, they left the project and sold their stake in the series. That's a real shame, because I would have loved to see more of Carpenter's vision for the series.

What this film ended up being is a soft-reboot of the series, following the plot of the first movie beat by beat, with a slight twist here and there to keep it from being a straight remake. Despite having been completely incinerated in a massive fireball, with visual confirmation of Michael's body being reduced to ashes, both he and Dr. Loomis reappear in this film with some minor cosmetic burns, and in Loomis' case, a limp. I guess a little of Michael's supernatural durability rubbed off on him. Not Laurie though. She's dead as a door-nail, off-screen (I think they said it was a car crash, but this movie cares so little about Laurie that they may not have even explained the cause), and the focus has shifted to her young daughter, Jamie (Danielle Harris).

Once again Michael is being transferred between facilities (instead of dumped into a pit filled with wet cement, for some reason), on the eve of the tenth anniversary of his worst crimes. The orderlies in the ambulance let slip that Michael has a niece, and he immediately awakens from his ten-year coma to go do something about that. Jamie is being raised by the Carruthers, and has a step-sister named Rachel (Ellie Cornell). Rachel will basically be this movie's Laurie, with the standout difference being that she can kind of talk to boys. Michael repeats his original routine pretty much exactly; killing a mechanic for his overalls and robbing the hardware store for his mask (which they are still selling, in the town where the murders occurred, ten years later. Yikes.)

Jamie mostly slots into the story where Tommy and Lindsey were in the original. She is relentlessly bullied by kids at school for her relationship to the 'Bogeyman', and is supposed to be watched by Rachel while their parents are off at a Halloween party. The one interesting thing about her character is that she seems equally drawn to and repulsed by Michael's story. She is too scared to go trick-or-treating, but changes her mind after being bullied, and asks to go buy a costume. The one she chooses is instantly recognizable as the clown costume that young Michael was wearing when he killed Judith back in 1963. As she tries on the mask she sees herself as Michael, and then sees Michael bearing down on her, ready to kill. It turns out to be a dream, or vision, but Michael really is either inside or just outside the store, at that moment, waiting to grab his Shatner mask. If you watch movies at all, or just have a basic understanding of foreshadowing, it's blindingly obvious at this point where the movie is going, even if I want it not to.

The plot unfolds just like it did the first time, more or less, with Michael bumping off a few more folks on-screen this time, and Loomis running around with a different Sheriff. There's also a mob of angry bar patrons who decide to go lynch Michael when they hear he's escaped, which is kind of fun. Overall though, it just feels far, far too similar to the original. They even recreate the original score almost exactly, rather than punch it up as in II, or create a new composition as in III.

The big 'twist' ending comes after Michael has been blown away by a redneck firing squad (which will surely keep him down this time...), and Jamie briefly touches his hand. Loomis is finally ready to breathe a sigh of relief when Jamie puts on her clown mask, proceeds up the stairs, and murders Rachel with a pair of scissors. We end on a close-in push on Loomis' face as he just howls "No! No! No!" over and over, as he realizes that whatever inhuman evil it was that animated Michael long beyond his limits, has passed into Jamie.

I'll be honest, I was bored most of the time I was watching this. Once I realized just how much it was going to retread the original, it was hard to stay focused. It's not badly made, and most of the elements that made the original great are here, intact, but there is nothing new or interesting about this installment. It really feels like Moustapha Akkad was trying to pull a fast one here, relaunching the franchise without its originators by just copying what they had made to the best of his ability. If Donald Pleasence hadn't returned for this, it would feel very much like a made-for-TV adaptation of the original movie, and his presence can only elevate the film so far.

I'll give this one 3/5 stars. I was tempted to go lower, but the film is not poorly made on a technical level. If the direct references to a prior film were removed, this would be an okay (but not great) remake of Halloween, and I do fundamentally like the Halloween formula. I am curious to see where it goes from here. If Jamie actually returns in full The Shape mode, I will be very pleased, but I'm not expecting it to happen. Speaking of The Shape, it is portrayed in this one by George P. Wilbur, and (no disrespect to him, he's had a long successful career in stunt work) it's just lacking something. At first I thought Michael was too visible most of the time, but in the original he stands in full sunlight, completely exposed a few times, and it's still scary. In this one he just lacks the presence necessary to be scary while completely silent, and it noticeably detracts from the experience. So yeah, I don't recommend this one unless you are a fellow completionist and your brain won't let you skip it. On to the next!
 
Friday the 13th (1980)
In recognition of this IRL Friday the 13th falling during Spooky Season, tonight I watched Friday the 13th (1980).

I've seen this one a couple of times, but always in the context of a Halloween party or something, so this is the first time I actually learned the characters' names, which was nice. This was the first movie to try and replicate the success of Halloween, and it really kicked off the 80s Slasher boom. There are recognizable elements from prior horror classics as well, Psycho most notably, that make it clear there is more going on under the hood of this film than its reputation might suggest. That said, the plot is paper-thin, only about half the characters have even a single actual personality trait, and there is a recurring theme of casual racism towards native Americans, so it's not exactly a masterpiece either.

The movie begins on Friday the 13th, 1958, with a bunch of camp counselors hanging out singing christian folk songs to each-other, as teenagers are wont to do any time they are left unsupervised. A pair of somewhat less godbothering members of the group slip off to make whoopie in one of the cabins, only to be brutally slain in a sequence shot from the killer's perspective, concealing their identity. Until the climax of the film all of the kills will be shot this way, or otherwise obscured in such a way as to preserve the 'twist' of the killer's identity.

Annie (Robbi Morgan), Alice (Adrienne King), Bill (Harry Crosby), Ned (Mark Nelson), Jack (Kevin Bacon, in one of his very first appearances), Brenda (Laurie Bertram), and Marcie (Jeannine Taylor) arrive at the camp years later (in "Present Day" which becomes increasingly hilarious the farther we get from whatever 'present' is depicted in a film) as it is being renovated and reopened by Steve, a man who is 30% porn-stache and 60% jorts. The counselors-to-be are warned off by local doom-sayer, Ralph, whose depiction of a Cassandra-like prophetic weirdo inspired a whole horror genre stock character that still gets some mileage these days.

The gore in this movie is fairly inventive, if clearly low-budget. Tom Savini worked on a lot of the effects, and his fingerprints are most obvious in the excellent scene where Kevin Bacon has an arrow shoved through his throat from underneath his bed. Once the identity of the killer is revealed some of the kills feel a little implausibe in hindsight (such as Bill being lifted fully off of the ground and impaled with multiple arrows) but it's not hard to justify including fun practical effects in every kill when you're making a Slahser film, no matter how much or little sense it makes.

I like this movie. This and the first sequel codified about a billion 80s horror movie tropes, so they can feel a little over-played when watching them today, but that's more Seinfeld Effect than a real criticism of the films. My biggest actual gripe with this movie is that the ending is absolutely terrible. There are two places where the film could have cut to credits and been fantastic. When Alice is discovered adrift on the canoe by the police, the morning of the 14th, the film could have ended and been a solid, if not very meaty, horror narrative. The second option would have been to keep the next few seconds and end on Jason pulling Alice into the lake, which mkaes zero sense but is a fantastic shocker ending. Instead, the film does both and then takes us to a hospital scene where it is immediately revealed that Alice is just fine, and maybe she just dreamed Jason, or maybe not, but either way she's going to be okay. I hate cop-out endings in horror films. You've already brutally murdered 80% of the cast, you don't need to give us a happily-ever-after (even if Alice is concerned that Jason may still be alive).

I'm going to give this one a 3.5/5. I considered bumping it up to 4/5 considering the legacy this film has, but I try to only give stars based on an individual film's merits, and this one is just okay. It is occasionally quite good, and then for long stretches it's kind of boring. The reveal that the killer is a little old lady who may or may not share her head with her dead son is genuinely great and surprising, and it would have been completely sufficiently scary without throwing all the logic out the window at the very end, but even that doesn't completely spoil what is an extremely 'okay' film in my final evaluation.
 
What a coincidence, I'm currently in the middle of watching Friday the 13th 4
I was going to watch the first two or three today but after work the power was out and by the time it came back I only had enough time to watch the first and get the review up while it was still the 13th. I've only ever seen 1, 2, and Jason X. Are any of the rest worth watching?
 
I was going to watch the first two or three today but after work the power was out and by the time it came back I only had enough time to watch the first and get the review up while it was still the 13th. I've only ever seen 1, 2, and Jason X. Are any of the rest worth watching?
4 definitely is i'd say. as for the rest, can't say. Haven't seen them recently enough (or at all in some cases)
 
Us (2019)
It's been a hectic couple of weeks and I haven't had much time to sit down and just watch a movie, but I snuck one in today, watching Us (2019) for the first time.

Jordan Peele's follow up to 2017's Get Out is a more pure horror film, which works for and against it at times. Every element of the design, costuming, music, and dialogue is meticulously crafted, and the film drips with visual references, but the plot is considerably thinner than Get Out's, being based almost entirely on a spooky idea Peele had as a young man riding subway. As a horror film, this isn't so much of a problem, the plot that is there does the job of setting up and delivering on solid scares and an overall atmosphere of paranoid dread. The very deliberate design creates the expectation that some grand reveal is being set up (again, as with Get Out's reveal of the Sunken Place) but the answers to most of the movie's questions are actually given to us in the opening text and TV segment (with a cheeky VHS of C.H.U.D. next to the screen) or at least heavily alluded to well before we actually meet the baddies. There are some obvious themes of privelege and the obfuscated costs of American prosperity that go pretty much unexplored once raised, and I wonder how much of the social commentary got left on the cutting room floor in the pursuit of a more 'conventional' horror film.

The cast all do fine work, particularly Lupita Nyong'o as Adelaide Wilson. Winston Duke plays Adelaide's husband Gabe and leans hard into 'loud dickhead dad' pretty much the whole way through. Their two kids Jason (Evan Alex) and Zora (Shahedi Wright Joseph) are both great, and I loved Jason's mask (both of them, actually). Tim Heidecker and Elizabeth Moss (Who I can only ever remember from Girl, Interrupted, even though she's been in tons of other stuff) appear as friends of the Wilsons, and generally do a good job of being insufferable enough that their inevitable deaths are fun to watch, but otherwise don't really do a whole lot in the film.

The plot itself follows Adelaide, first as a young girl who wanders into a terrifying carnival attraction at the board walk as a child, where she encounters a mysterious doppelganger of herself, and then as an adult and mother of two children of her own. The Wilsons are taking a vacation at their summer home, which is apparently just up the road from the Santa Cruz beach where Adelaide had her childhood experience. Almost as soon as they arrive, there are oddities afoot. A man that Adelaide recognizes from her childhood is seen dead, and then later seemingly alive again. There is a huge amount of doubled imagery, from the Bible verse on the man's sign: Jeremiah 11:11, to Josh and Kitty's (Heidecker and Moss) twin daughters, and a young Adelaide arranging toy animals into pairs in a sandbox.

After a trip to the very same beach and boardwalk from her childhood (during which Jason briefly disappears near the same carnival attraction) Adelaide is ready to bounce. Tensions are running high, and eventually she explains what happened to her to Gabe (it was at this point that I was 100% certain of the film's "twist" ending for a number of reasons, all excellently communicated through the framing of the scene, the delivery of the dialogue, and indeed, some of the things Adelaide says before she tells Gabe what happened). That night a family of four appears in the driveway and begins to terrorize the Wilson family.

This one is relatively recent compared to most of the films I review, so I will stop there to avoid any further spoilers. I will say that the explanation given for the events of the plot is kind of disappointing. It's creepy and weird, but also doesn't make any sense once you think about it for more than a moment, even allowing for some serious movie logic. The lack of a really solid narrative base for the action is probably the weakest element of the film, and probably should have been cut altogether in favor of leaving the origin of the baddies unexplained (Or expanded into something with some meat, leaning back into the socio-thriller elements of Get Out).

It's a good horror movie, definitely worth watching, but I would go into it aware that Peele was not trying to replicate the success of Get Out so much as to create a more traditional horror film while still having something to say. In that light, I'm giving Us 4/5 stars. I liked this movie, but there's not much to recommend a repeat viewing other than trying to spot all the visual references and doubled motifs, and I can't justify giving a movie I don't really want to see again more than 4 stars.
 
Friday the 13th Part 2 (1981)
Tonight I watched Friday the 13th: Part 2 (1981).

This is a very solid follow up to the original, despite beginning with an interminably long recap of the first film's ending. Alice (Adrienne King) is recovering at home, two months after the massacre at Camp Crystal Lake, when an anonymous stranger appears to stalk her through the house. One ice-pick later and our Final Girl is gone, less than ten minutes into the movie. It's a slightly clunky opening, but it gets us where it needs to, and establishes a theme of regularly-paced jump scares and fake-outs that will continue throughout the film (and the franchise).

Five years later, Paul (John Furey) is a Camp Counselor at Camp Counselor Camp, where he teaches Camp Counselors to Counsel Campers. He has chosen to do this at a location on the same lake as Camp Crystal Lake (the lake is not called Crystal Lake, it has a Native American name that is shown on some maps, but I couldn't make it out) despite apparently knowing all of the details of the massacre, including the fact that Alice was killed two months later. His assistant, Ginny (Amy Steel, who did a great job in this, it's a little odd that she never had a really big role in anything again, despite working consistently for most of the last forty years) is far more concerned about the possibility of a murderous Jason roaming the woods, and uses her Child Psychologist training to construct a pretty accurate profile of the killer (She does drop the R-slur once in this scene, which is upsetting, although the word was still widely used in a clinical sense at the time this movie was made, and given the degree to which Ginny's psychology background becomes important, I think that was the intended reading, rather than her just casually belittling the disabled) while getting sauced at the local New Jersey Honkeytonk and Casino.

The rest of the Camp Counselors in training (although not really, because they're all experienced counselors, I genuinely don't understand what the concept of Paul's program is, other than Adult Camp) are a mix of fairly one-note but fun characters. I particularly enjoyed the flirting between Vickie (Lauren-Marie Taylor) and wheelchair-bound Mark (Tom McBride). Ted (Stuart Charno) is a confident weirdo, and although the film doesn't really point this out, he survives the movie by being an alcoholic, staying out to drink after hours against Paul's orders, and never returning to the camp. Come to think of it, there were a bunch of other counselors in the back of his truck that also all survived. I guess the moral of this one is don't have sex, but do drink excessive quantities of alcohol.

Walt Gorney returns as Crazy Ralph, and Betsy Palmer appears in some excellent special effects sequences as Mrs. Voorhees (as well as the too-long opening recap/dream sequence), lending some additional continuity with the first film. Apparently this series, like Halloween, was originally envisioned as a horror anthology that would center around the concept of Friday the 13th, but unlike Halloween, no entry without Jason was ever created, and in fact Sean Cunningham left the project after it was decided that the follow-up would be a direct sequel. Steve Milner, who was a producer on the first film, stepped into the role of Director, and did a solid job, in my opinion.

The kills in this installment are varied and interesting, with the violence earning the film an X rating until 48 seconds of footage were cut to bring it down to an R, mostly from a scene in which two young lovers are impaled with a prop spear (the fact that one of the lovers turned out to be 16 at the time of shooting, something that had apparently not been known to the crew at the time, also led to some cuts). The practical effects aren't quite as impressive, and I'm pretty sure Tom Savini didn't return for this one, so that tracks. On the other hand, the camera work is excellent in this installment. Much of the tension is created by the tight framing of shots around the characters (primarily the young women) and the deliberately voyeuristic way in which the camera follows and pushes in on them, seeming to draw us into their space while excluding everything in the periphery, ensuring that a scare could arrive from any direction and we would never see it coming.

The final sequence, beginning when Ginny discovers Jason's shack in the woods, is terrific. Her child psychology background pays off in a creepy and inventive way, and she never feels like a helpless damsel in distress, instead fighting back with an arsenal including a chainsaw and the machete that Alice used to behead Mrs. Voorhees five years prior. The actual ending is kind of frustratingly ambiguous, much like the first film, although given the fact that a series was now very much the goal, I suppose they were just trying to keep as many options on the table as possible.

Overall, I give this movie 4/5 stars. Despite being a little lackluster in a few areas, I think this is a slight improvement on the original, and a more complete film in general. It is a little weird to think that this series, which is still essentially a Hicksploitation slasher franchise at this point, would one day get a sequel where Jason kills people in space, but the seeds of that character and the tone of the series that led to that place, are detectable here, in their infancy, for both good and ill.
 
Carpenter and Hill's idea was that the Halloween series should be an anthology, with every entry telling a different story. Unfortunately, they made Halloween 2 first and wound up pushing against everyone's established expectations when they made 3.
Oh I'm aware, I think I make mention of that in my latest review, and I've definitely discussed the production of the Halloween franchise in a little more depth over on RPG.net where the thread is a little more active. Apparently Friday the 13th was also meant to be an anthology series (in fact the original plan is essentially a complete rip-off of the Halloween concept, just with a different spooky 'holiday') but once again the power of a marketable franchise villain proved too strong.
 
In the end, I didn't manage to finish my Halloween series marathon before the end of Spooky Month. I did, however, accomplish my secondary goal of watching Nosferatu (1922), Dracula (1931), and Dracula (1958) this very evening (or rather, I just finished Nosferatu, and am typing this as my beleaguered DVD player revs back up to play the first of tonight's Draculas). I'll have a write-up of all three films posted tomorrow. Until then, Happy Halloween!
 
Dracula Triple-Bill: Nosferatu (1922), Dracula (1931), and Dracula (1958)
I have had a strong interest in Vampires and Vampire-adjacent media for pretty much my entire life. From Buffy to True Blood to The Lost Boys, there was no shortage of the stuff, which made it a very easy thing to fixate on. I eventually picked up Bram Stoker's Dracula as a teenager, and with it, the Ur-Vampire-narrative (well, if we kind of ignore Camilla, and The Vampyr, but much like many other famous monsters, it was a popular adaptation that really cemented the features of fictional Vampire lore). So, this month I found myself re-reading Dracula and pondering what makes for a good vampire story. To that end I decided to watch (arguably) the three most influential adaptations of the story for film ever made, beginning with the 1922 silent film Nosferatu, proceeding to the 1931 Dracula (The English version, although I have heard that the Spanish film released the same year is considered by some to be the superior of the two. I certainly intend to watch it as well, but for my purposes the Lugosi film is definitely the more iconic), and rounding out the experience with the 1958 Dracula/Horror of Dracula with Christopher Lee.

I had not seen any of these films prior to this occasion, although I had seen several scenes from each in isolation over the years, in other media, in film classes, and in YouTube video essays. Each is a striking work of cinematography, with wildly differing takes on the central narrative, and an evolving sense of Mythos surrounding the characters with each successive film. I will address each film separately, and then conclude with some additional thoughts below.



Nosferatu: A symphony of Horror (1922) was produced as an unauthorized adaptation of the 1897 novel for a local German audience, and alters both the names of the characters and substantial portions of the narrative, which did not prevent Bram Stoker's estate from suing F.W. Murnau and nearly succeeding in having every copy of the film destroyed. Most of the original film reels were destroyed, and the fact that the film did not become lost media is only due to the work of dedicated preservationists.

In this take on the tale, Dracula is nowhere to be found, and instead we are treated to the hideously ratlike Count Orlok (Max Schreck). Similarly, Johnathan Harker becomes Hutter (Gustav von Wangenheim) and the Mina character is his wife Ellen (Greta Schroder). There is a very Renfield-like character named Knock, who is actually Hutter's boss, and who seems to be colluding with Graf Orlok from the very beginning, exchanging letters in some arcane cypher reminiscent of Alchemical texts. There is an 'owner of ships' named Harding (Georg H Schnell) who mostly fits into the place of Arthur Holmwood, with his sister becoming Lucy.

Much like his counterpart in the novel, Hutter is dispatched to Orlok's castle to sell him a house. On the way he encounters fearful peasants who try to warn him away, and we are treated to a very cool shot of a Striped Hyena that is apparently meant to be a Werewolf. Hutter laughs away the peasants' warnings, and physically disrespects a handy guidebook to the supernatural that he finds in his quarters. There's kind of a theme of his being comically disdainful of the danger he is in, even after witnessing some seriously spooky shit. This is probably the most book-accurate portrayal in that manner, because Johnathan in the novel is also very much not aware of what kind of story he's in until far too late.

Much of the information in the film is given to us via title cards, because this is a silent film, but also through other epistolary storytelling devices such as excerpts from books, newspapers, and diaries, which both plays to the strengths of the medium at the time, and harkens to the novel's own use of those methods.

One of the coolest things in this film is the way that Orlok's vampiric gifts are depicted. He is possessed of massive strength and speed, hauling around great boxes of earth single-handedly. It's mostly accomplished by just speeding up the film, but combined with Schreck's inhuman portrayal, it gives Orlok a suitably unsettling mien. Likewise, the cinematography is crude but often surprisingly effective. Transistions from day to night are accomplished by way of colored filters, and there are even some spooky in-camera effects depicting a ghostly Orlok.

The largest thematic departure from the novel is that this movie characterizes the Vampire as the harbinger of Plague. He rests in the grave-dirt of plague victims, and his coming is heralded by swarms of rats. Even the costuming/makeup for Orlok gives him a pinched, buck-toothed, rattish appearance. In the novel Dracula commands legions of vermin, but in this work he is one himself. The arrival of the Count is marked by the coming of a deadly plague, which grips the town and sees the graveyards swell with the anemic dead.

There is a Van Helsing-like character in Professor Bulwer (John Gottowt) who, along with Hutter and Harding, seeks to end the plague. They don't actually accomplish very much to be honest, other than investigating the ship upon which Orlok arrived. In the end Orlok is defeated not by the gang of vampire hunters, but by Ellen, who tricks Orlok into drinking from her long enough to be caught by the rising sun and turned into smoke. Most of the vampire-hunting efforts in the film are actually directed at Orlok's minion, Knock, and the fact that he moved in next-door to Hutter in the first place renders the 'mystery' element of the film kind of pointless. Nonetheless, this is a shockingly effective film, and there are elements that are recognizable as being influential in films made today, just over a hundred years later.

Overall I am rating Nosferatu 4/5 stars.



Dracula (1931), starring Bela Lugosi as the titular monster, was based on an earlier stage adaptation of the novel. I haven't read that play, so I don't know how closely the film follows it, but it definitely starts with a fairly large departure from the novel.

To begin with, instead of Johnathan Harker travelling to see the Count, instead it is Mr. Renfield (Dwight Frye), although he is still a real-estate agent in this version. He's also an American, so maybe a touch of Quincy Morris thrown in as well? Harker (David Manners, a Canadian) does eventually show up, but not until Drac has already made his way to London. The obligatory chorus of warnings from the local peasants goes ignored, although Renfield does accept a crucifix before he ventures on to the castle.

We get our first glimpse of the Count as his wild carriage arrives to ferry Renfield along the last leg of the journey. Then he turns into the first of many incredibly cheap-looking rubber bats, so that he can fly ahead of the carriage and be waiting for Renfield at the castle. We are treated to some great animal footage, including some Armadillos (which are my favorite animal), which are native only to Central and South America and parts of the American Southwest, and some possums (also not native to Transylvania) that I think we are meant to interpret as particularly large rats or maybe a very small Werewolf.

Once Renfield makes it to the castle and meets Dracula properly, things continue at a fairly rapid pace. Drac is extremely unsubtle about hinting that he is a vampire at literally all times. There is a pretty well-known tumblr screenshot that makes the rounds every few months pointing out how a lot of the humor in the novel Dracula is derived from the fact that the characters don't know that they are in the most famous piece of gothic literature of all time, and this movie embodies that to a tee. I think the post even mentions the bit where Lugosi pours Renfield a glass of Red, and then looms over him, saying "I never drink... Wine" which is just as ridiculous on screen as it sounds.

We briefly see Dracula's wives as they come to torment Renfield, and by the next time we see him, he is a completely changed creature, fully the madman from the novel. There is a great miniature of the Vesta, the ship carrying Drac to his new home, and we get some title-card exposition that harkens back to Nosferatu.

This Dracula is much more proactive in his pursuits than most of the other depictions, we see him striding about London, introducing himself to Dr. Seward (Herbert Bunston), Mina Seward (Helen Chandler), Lucy (Frances Dade), and Johnathan Harker, at the theater. Lucy and Mina discuss his charms or lack thereof, and by the next night, Lucy is found dead, exsanguinated beyond the ability of a transfusion to revive her.

Renfield and his caretaker at the asylum, Martin (Charles Gerrard) provide some alternately comic and creepy back-and-forth, as Renfield progresses in his zoophagic behavior, as in the novel. An analysis of the madman's blood is conducted by Dr. Van Helsing (Edward Van Sloan), and it is quickly established that they are dealing with a vampire. There are some other cool elements to the investigation, particularly that Dracula does not cast a reflection in a mirror, but the cast are pretty on-board with the idea of vampires without much cajoling in this version. We also get to see Dracula make use of one of his most famous powers, that of Mesmerism, pretty heavily. Interestingly the ability seems to operate on Jedi Mind Trick rules, and the strong-willed Van Helsing is able to resist it outright (with some effort on his part), which compels Dracula to physically attack him.

The rest of the film plays out similarly (if greatly abridged) to the novel, with Mina falling under Dracula's thrall, and Van Helsing's hunters trying to save her. My favorite bit of dialogue in the film comes in a scene where Martin is trying to shoot Dracula in bat-form, and Van Helsing tells him to save his bullets. A maid remarks that Van Helsing is crazy and Martin replies "They're all crazy. All crazy except me and you. Sometimes I have my doubts about you." and then he backs into the bushes, clutching his rifle close. It's great.

I have to say that the ending of this one is pretty anticlimactic. Drac is even killed off-screen, although we get to hear it happen. Overall this is probably the weakest of the Dracula adaptations that I watched, but the performances by Lugosi and Frye are legitimately great. The visual aesthetic of Dracula as the refined, sensuous gentleman is very much taking shape in this film, and for a lot of people Bela Lugosi IS Dracula, for all intents and purposes. Certainly no Spirit Halloween store would ever dream of opening its doors without a rack full of cheap tuxedo-shaped-objects and widows-peak caps with names like 'The Count' and 'Count Vampirula'. I think I have to give this film 3.5/5 stars. A suitably climactic ending would have done a lot to elevate that score, but as it is, the film just kind of peters out and you're left deeply underwhelmed by the supposedly fearsome monster.



The last of the adaptations I watched was Dracula/Horror of Dracula (1958).

I was very excited for this one, given that it stars Christopher Lee as the titular Vampire, and Peter Cushing as Van Helsing. I was, overall, not disappointed. Lee and Cushing are both so young in this, and they each bring a sense of urgency and vitality to the film that distinguishes it from its more languid and atmospheric precursors.

This version of the tale restores Johnathan Harker (John Van Eyssen) to his role as a visitor to Castle Dracula, although this time he comes with the pretext of serving as a librarian for the Count. We soon learn that Johnathan already knows the truth of Dracula's nature, and has come with the explicit intent to destroy him. His plans are complicated by the presence of a young woman who claims to be held captive by the count. This nameless girl is, of course, one of Dracula's vampire brides, and she attempts to feed on Johnathan, only to be interrupted by the arrival of the Count, in all his hissing, bared-fang glory. Unfortunately for Johnathan, the Count decides to make a meal of him himself.

As a side-note, in the scene where Dracula shows Harker to his rooms, you can visibly see the actors' breath fogging in the cold air. I guess it was just really cold on set, but along with the fact that both Dracula and his bride are visibly breathing in their coffins, it contributes to this film's depictions of more 'alive' undead than the other films.

Harker recovers in his rooms the next day, only to discover the raw bite-marks on his throat. Knowing that he is now cursed to transform into vampire-spawn upon his death, he sets out to accomplish the count's destruction before the next nightfall. In the tomb he discovers both of the creatures, and drives a stake into the heart of Dracula's bride, killing her, but alerting Drac to his presence. When the bride dies, she rapidly ages into a mummified corpse, which is very cool. Dracula flees the tomb, instead of just attacking Johnathan, purely so that he can immediately return and make another dramatic entrance. I'm not complaining, it's fantastic, but it is also very silly.

The film then shifts perspective to our main protagonist, Van Helsing. Helsing is following in Harker's footsteps, after having recieved his letter, and finds himself in the village below Dracula's castle. Some chit-chat with the locals secures him Johnathan's diary, which had been found stashed at the crossroads. Once caught-up on the goings on at the castle, Van Helsing rushes over to find his imperiled friend. Alas, Dracula's coffin passes him on the road, and by the time Van Helsing makes it to the castle, all that can be done for Johnathan is to drive a stake through his heart.

Returning to Karlstadt (which fills in for London, to allow for the much condensed travel times in this adaptation) Van Helsing brings the news of Harker's death to Arthur (Michael Gough) and Mina Holmwood (Melissa Stribling), although he demurrs at first as to the details. We are introduced to Harker's fiance (and Arthur's sister), Lucy (Carol Marsh), who has been bedridden and sickly for the past few days, and quickly discover that Dracula already has her in his sway.

This film makes it much more explicit that the process of being drained by Dracula is intoxicating, and that his victims crave his bite. Apparently there was considerable controversy at the time over just how sexy Christopher Lee's monster was, and it's not hard to see why. Each of the women who fall under his sway are visibly attracted and repelled in equal measure, lusting for and fearing Dracula at the same time.

Lucy meets her inescapable fate after a maid removes the garlic flowers which Van Helsing has strung about her chambers. Not to worry though, as she returns by night to lure a little girl away for a quick snack. Van Helsing and Arthur are compelled to destroy her before she causes any further harm, and Helsing explains to Arthur that Dracula is seeking revenge for his own murdered Bride.

There is some discussion of Vampire Lore, and we learn that in this version Dracula cannot transform into animal shape. We see him transfix people with his stare a couple of times, but it is unclear if this is supposed to be the Mesmerism that was leaned into so heavily in the Lugosi portrayal, or simply the force of Dracula's presence. Crucifixes both burn and repel the vampire, and the monsters must rest in their native soil. The soil bit is less of an issue than it usually is, because Karlstadt is apparently a quick ride up the road from Transylvania, and Drac can nip home for a sleep if he needs to.

Mina naturally becomes the next focus of the Count's predation, and the boys fail to protect her on the first night. Van Helsing administers a transfusion of blood from Arthur to his wife (and Cushing does a remarkably believable job with the IVs and instruments; he makes a very convincing doctor) and then tells him to go drink some alcohol, which is fun. There is a bit of detective work as they work out where Dracula has stashed his coffin, and the movie's most effective moment of dread comes when it is revealed that he has somehow hidden it away in the very cellar below their feet.

The final confrontation with Dracula begins with a somewhat comic chase sequence, including a pretty funny gag involving the border guard. Dracula comes across as unprepared for the fight runs around in a genuine panic, much altered from his self-possessed bearing earlier in the film. In the end, Van Helsing manages to drive him into the sunlight, and let me tell you, the practical effects they pulled off for his death scene, way back in 1958, are fucking Awesome. Drac crumbles into a dusty, smoking skeleton, as the flesh melts and runs from his face. The version I watched includes additional footage that was cut from the original release, and restored from a Japanese print in 2012, which depicts Lee gouging at his own (wax-covered) flesh, leaving bloody rents with his fingers. It is so fucking gnarly, and I love it.

I greatly enjoyed this film, and I will absolutely make time to watch its many sequels at some point. I would love to know how they explain Dracula's survival given just how complete his on-screen destruction is. I'm pretty sure one of the sequels is a Shaw-Brothers kung-fu flick too, so that's got to be an experience. Overall I am giving Dracula/Horror of Dracula 5/5 stars. It's not a perfect film, but none of its flaws are glaring enough to detract from the experience, and the performances by Cushing and Lee are just so incredibly entertaining that I can't bring myself to deduct even a half star.



All three of these films were a blast to watch. I was most surprised by how loosely they each treated the source material, although in the case of Nosferatu, the actual plot was close enough that they were sued despite changing all the names of the characters. In each one of them characters are combined, split, and shuffled into eachothers' roles, but there is a recongnizable through-line from the novel to the screen with each of them.

I was most disappointed by the complete lack of the character Quincy Morris from the novel, who is a genuine Cowboy from Texas who spends the whole book being just the most adorable gentleman and trying repeatedly to shoot Dracula in the face. This was almost made up for by the unexpected appearance of the armadillos in Dracula '31, but overall these films lacked the odd fixation with America that Stoker had in his original work.

Lugosi's Dracula is probably the closest to the version I picture in my head while reading the book, although none of the adaptations include, like, his single defining physical trait, being his enormous, drooping mustaches. I think Lee could have pulled it off, but his portrayal leaned more into the young and vital than the stately and refined, so the smooth face works fairly well. Orlok could have used some whiskers, and I don't think it would have detracted from his rattish look, although he is certainly creepy enough without them.

I think it's kind of neat that the lore about what powers the vampires have is a little different in each film. Lee's portrayal is definitely the least supernaturally empowered, although I would be shocked if he didn't pick up a few tricks in some of the subsequent films. The evolution of the effects used to portray those powers, and the destruction of the monsters, was also very cool to see. Lee's death scene in particular would not have looked out of place in films made decades later, and is truly a credit to the skill of the filmmakers. The fact that this was produced by Hammer makes it all the more impressive how well done some of the effects are.

I would heartily recommend each and all of these films, particularly as a marathon viewing, to all the Vampire appreciators out there. If you have already seen them, what did you think? What is your favorite vampire film of all time? What the fuck was up with those Bunnicula books, and why did they give me nightmares until I was a teenager? Find out next time on Tales From the Cr- I mean, uh, This Thread.
 
Godzilla: Minus-One (2023)
Lo! I return from the dead! I went to go see Godzilla: Minus One with some friends today.

First off, this is the best human drama we have ever gotten out of a Godzilla movie, in any era. I actually learned the characters names and remembered them! In most Godzilla films the human cast is at best a device to break up the action and suggest stakes to the main conflict between Big G and the military/monster of the day. In G:MO there is a clear and focused narrative following Koichi, a Kamikaze pilot who fails to complete his sortie in the last days of WWII, and the family that forms around him as he learns to keep on living despite feeling as though he is still trapped in the war. I shed actual tears at more than one point. In even the very best Godzilla films I always find myself itching to get back to the 'real' parts of the movie when the human drama overstays it's welcome. Not here. The characters are likeable and interesting, while feeling very real and grounded (with the slight exception of the goofy professor stereotype, but his performance is good, so it doesn't really detract from the film).

Second, Big G is looking phenomenal. The CGI is just a little rough around the edges in some places, but the design of Godzilla himself is very classic while still feeling modern. The depiction of his Atomic Breath is quite literally breathtaking. I won't spoil it because it's so good, but the physicality of Godzilla's rampage makes him feel like a walking natural disaster, which is exactly how it should be.

The plot of the film bends itself over backwards a little bit to justify the complete absence of the American occupation force, but honestly it's fine. The story that they were trying to tell is very particularly Japanese and the post-war setting is very important to the theme; the men at the center of the story had all previously defined themselves by their role in the war, and then in the aftermath of the war, and only in coming together as family and friends do they begin to live lives of real purpose and meaning. If the focus had been shared with American GIs swooping in to save the day I think the message would have been much harder to get through.

Overall I think that Shin Godzilla still edges this one out for 'Best Godzilla Movie Ever' in my opinion, but I'll reiterate that I have never enjoyed the human-centric part of a Godzilla movie anywhere near as much as I did in this one, and I imagine that that will contribute significantly to its rewatchability. 5/5 stars, any points that I would knock off for sub-par CGI or a moderately ahistorical WWII narrative are absolutely offset by SSSSKKRREEEEEEEOOOOOONNNNNNNKKKKKK
 
Futureworld (1976)
On a whim, a buddy and I watched Futureworld (1976) last night.

This sequel to 1973's Westworld completely fails to capture the magic of that film. Stilted and boring from the get-go, and taking place almost entirely in cramped, behind-the-scenes areas of the Delos park, there is very little of Futureworld itself on display in the movie. None of the original cast or production team returned for the sequel, apart from a dream sequence featuring Yul Brynner, and I think the composer of the score for the first film also returned.

Peter Fonda and Blythe Danner play journalists sent to cover the re-opening of Delos after the events of the first film. The park has been renovated and expanded to three times its original size, not that we actually get to see any of it beyond brief cutaways and clips shown on the monitors in the control room set, and the robot hosts have been replaced with newer, supposedly fail-safe models. We are told over and over by Delos representatives that these new robots 'can't fail'. They make it very clear that there are basically no safety protocols in place, because the robots are better now, and could totally never start killing people again, and our characters never once push back against this line of argument.

Fonda's character, Chuck, is relentlessly misogynistic (as is the rest of the male cast, but he gets the most screen time) to the point that I thought it was being played for humor, but on reflection I think this movie is just deeply, deeply sexist. Blythe Danner is cast as a bubbly, overly-credulous tv-personality, who must constantly be reigned in by the serious and competent men surrounding her. She also has an extremely long sex-dream sequence featuring Yul Brynner's gunslinger character from the first film, that serves no purpose whatsoever beyond showing us Yul Brynner (who does not show up again after this, rendering any foreshadowing element completely moot, and the whole sequence deeply weird and bad). Did I mention that the sex-dream is being broadcast for Danner's male colleague (and a whole audience of strangers) to watch? Because it was, and this is supposed to be one of the primary attractions of Futureworld.

I'll be honest, I faded in and out of this one on the back half. The plot unfolds with our heroes investigating the mysterious death of a former Delos employee by sneaking through miles of conduit-cramped passageways and interviewing the first human they encountered. Their sleuthing eventually uncovers a plot, not by the human executives of Delos, but by their most advanced creations, to replace key members of society all around the world with cloned dopplegangers loyal to Delos and their new robot society. Some shenanigans occur and the heroes manage to escape the park (by boarding a monorail that Delos absolutely has full control over, but that's neither here nor there...) to presumably spread the word that the robot uprising is already underway.

Overall this is an extremely weak sequel that feels like it went out of its way not to engage with the central escapist fantasy of the first film, wanting to present a more straight-laced techno-thriller gumshoe story. That on its own could have been fine, but the final film is just dreadfully boring, with none of the excitement and wonder promised by the premise of a 300% larger Delos park. The practical effects are a major downgrade as well, which is never good for a sequel, and particularly bad given that Westworld wasn't exactly an effects tour-de-force in the first place.

I'm going to give this one 2/5 stars. I laughed a fair bit, but not at any of the jokes in this film. I would only recommend this one if you are a Westworld superfan and you want to see it for completeness' sake.
 
High Fidelity (2000)
I'm on an unplanned Covid Vacation right now, so I felt like watching one of my all time favorite comfort films from when I was a kid: High Fidelity (2000).

This is a weird movie to watch as an adult. I remember Rob (John Cusack) being an asshole, but I don't think I was old enough the last time I watched this movie to understand how genuinely cruel and selfish he is throughout the entire thing. It was definitely a deliberate exploration of a particular kind of male insecurity, and that aspect is done very, very well, but the redemption that Rob gets at the end of the film is wholly unearned. He does absolutely nothing to change his behavior, or his attitude towards women, and his love interest, Laura (Iben Hjelje) is reduced to a prize for character development that never actually happens.

It was easy to identify with Rob as a lonely, awkward teenager who viewed girls as almost divine, rather than, y'know, as People. But I did grow out of that mindset, and I did it long before I reached Rob's nebulous thirties, which makes it much weirder to watch a film where a grown man bemoans at length that all women are fickle, unknowable creatures, and seems to genuinely believe it.

That having been said, there is a lot to love in this movie, and a lot that is just kind of strange. The professed music tastes of Rob, Dick (Todd Louiso), and Barry (Jack Black), are so eclectic as to be incoherent. You cannot tell me that a man who would throw a fit over hearing Belle and Sebastian would rock a Yanni shirt for any reason. That eclecticism is an asset though, because nearly every scene is loaded with great music either as part of the soundtrack, or as part of the conversation. This movie and Empire Records (1995) probably did more together than anything else to kickstart my own interest in music.

The scene where Rob and the boys smash Laura's new boyfriend's head with an a/c unit is also deeply cathartic for me due to an unfortunate resemblance between the character of Ian/Ray (Tim Robbins) and my father, even if it's only a dream sequence. Honestly the movie is full of great comedic moments and the interplay between the record shop boys is great, which makes the decision to cast an unknown-in-America Dutch actress for the role of (Chicagoan) Laura all the more perplexing.

I'm sure that Iben Hjelje is a fine actress (she has an impressive filmography in the Netherlands) but in this film she speaks with an extremely distracting accent and struggles through some line deliveries in a way that makes me almost suspect her scenes were intentionally edited in a such a way as to make Rob seem more charismatic and sympathetic than Laura, despite her character being objectively correct in her analysis of him as a stunted man-child with a long history of using and abusing women, including herself. Honestly, half of Rob's dialogue in this movie is just him trying to gaslight Laura into staying, and yet there are (numerous) moments where it feels like the movie wants us to go "Yeah! Why won't that bitch take him back?"

And that's kind of the rub. Because she does take him back, after everything, not because of any act, gesture, or transformation that Rob has undergone, but because she is simply 'too tired' not too. It feels like a betrayal of the few thoughtful and interesting moments in the film where characters do take Rob to task for the awful, thoughtless shit that he does. The fact that we only ever get Rob's perspective on anything that happens means that there's no satisfying explanation on Laura's end for why she does what she does, either. It's honestly very Manic-Pixie-Dream-Girl, but with the Manic-Pixie element severely curtailed.

So is this a good movie? I guess that depends. It's certainly entertaining. The jokes mostly hold up, and the performances by most of the cast are great. Jack Black sings Marvin Gaye for pete's sake. I would say that this is an important movie, as unlikely as that sounds, as a demonstration of how a slick script, charismatic actors, and a banging soundtrack can make even the most objectionable messaging palatable for audiences. It certainly worked on teenage me.

I'm going to give this one 3.5/5 stars. It would not have taken much work to produce a version of this film where Rob learns his lesson and actually changes for the better, or doesn't, and loses the girl, but this movie wants to have it's unchanging nihilistic asshole protagonist and its happy ending too. While a part of me regrets that my rose-colored perception of this movie is lost forever, I'm happy to discover that it's not an unwatchable film by any means. Just... questionable.
 
Gone in 60 Seconds (1974) and Gone in Sixty Seconds (2000)
I'm still getting over Covid, so I felt like a mindless Double Feature tonight, and settled on watching Gone in 60 Seconds (1974), which I have never seen before, and Gone in 60 Seconds (2000) which I saw in theaters but have not seen since, and have no strong memories of.

H.B. Halicki wrote, produced, directed, and starred in what may be the perfect car movie. Admittedly I am not very well versed in the genre, but this is a film that outdid the absurdly over-the-top car chase at the end of Blues Brothers four years before that film came out. Jake and Elwood only managed to completely total 60 vehicles in their flick, to Halicki's 127 (93 in the chase sequence alone!).

The plot is paper-thin, and the characters even thinner, but it could not matter less. Halicki plays Maindrian Pace, an insurance investigator by day, and a high-end car thief also mostly by day. Pace and his gang are contracted to steal 50 cars by the end of the week, and the first bit of the movie shows us them doing exactly that. There's fun banter among the gang as they ply their trade, and we learn about Pace's rule that they only boost cars that are insured (presumably because they don't want to soak a poor stranger, just get paid).

The jokes mostly land, and there are a number of great physical gags, including a live tiger in the back seat of one of the gang's target cars. The real star attraction though, obviously, is the 40-minute chase sequence, absolutely packed with insane stunts, crashes, and a few very real accidents. At one point in the chase, during a high-speed freeway portion, Halicki clips a light pole and spins out, in an incredibly dramatic crash that was entirely unplanned. Apparently there were three weeks of real time between when he hit the pole and when the chase seems to almost seamlessly pick back up again, as Halicki recovered from his injuries.

The various cars on display are gorgeous. In my opinion a good looking car ought to have plenty of curves and, ideally, fins, and this was the era when that aesthetic was king. Overall, style is what drives this film, and it delivers in spades, from the vehicles, to the wardrobe (in the opening sequence, Pace has six different pairs of sunglasses lined up on his dashboard), to the incredible stunt work. There isn't much more to say about this flick; it's a single glorious action sequence, with all the regular movie elements working just well enough to support it's existence. I'm going to knock off a half-star for the predictable racism and give this one 4.5/5 stars. Now to watch the Nicolas Cage version, I'm sure it's just as good!




The 2000 remake of H.B. Halicki's triumphant love letter to the muscle car manages to be both less interesting and more racist, while stapling on an unnecessary plot, rudimentary CGI, and an entire Nicolas Cage.

This is not an unwatchable film by any means. Delroy Lindo and a very young Timothy Olyphant are great as the cop partners tasked with taking down Memphis Raines (Nicolas Cage), and most of the time they were on screen I was having a good time. Raines' gang is larger and more diverse in this version, and includes his younger brother, Kip (Giovanni Ribisi, who I believe is medically incapable of not doing that thing with his eyebrows) as well as a girl (Angelina Jolie, who's hair is so fucking ugly in this movie that she narrowly lost a worst hair in hollywood award, only because Battlefield Earth came out the same year), so that Raines can have a sex obje- I mean love interest. The cars are also mostly cool classics, although there's a Hummer in there which was an unpleasant blast from the past.

Mostly this movie just looks bad, in a very specific early 2000s kind of way. The opening credits feature photographs with the cast's faces crudely photoshopped onto them. Scenes randomly have these heavy color filters applied and then removed inconsistently. Everyone is dressed like an asshole (Timothy Olyphant is wearing two dress shirts, one on top of another, for most of the film). There is also a reliance on CGI instead of practical effects throughout, which is both stupid for a remake of a stunt-movie and a poor choice specifically in the year 2000 given the state of the technology.

The movie needed a dastardly villain, apparently, and provided it in the form of a scenery chewing Christopher Eccleston, pre-Doctor Who. I don't mind his character, to be honest. The idea that the stakes needed to be raised for people to take this remake seriously is, and I can't state this enough, very, very silly. But if they were set on doing it, they could have done far worse than a psychopathic carpenter who threatens a man by building him a personalized coffin. That's just plain fun. It doesn't make any fucking sense, and particularly feels disorientingly weird in a movie about how cool cars are, but it's certainly a memorable character.

The worst part of this movie, apart from the abundance of lazy, racist stereotypes, is the jump at the end of the chase sequence. In the 1974 film Halicki actually jumps the Mustang, Eleanor, 30ft into the air, and clears 128ft before landing, without any mechanical assistance (like the catapults used to launch stunt cars today). In the 2000 movie they just use a green screen and CGI. It sucks.

I am going to be generous and give this movie 2/5 stars. There's a scene where Nicolas Cage attempts foreplay by grunting car words into Angelina Jolie's ear while she's straddling a gearshift, and it's the worst thing that happened in the early 2000s. Yes, including that other thing.
 
Last edited:
The Public Enemy (1931)
I've been watching The Sopranos for the first time (we didn't get HBO until a few years later, when I got hooked on Rome instead) and it's hilarious how much the gangsters in the show just sit around talking about fictional gangster movies. It was in that spirit that I decided to watch The Public Enemy (1931).

I am beginning to really love pre-code cinema. James Cagney is a force of nature in this film. The way his face contorts; grinning, sneering, and spitting venom at the world, is a delight to behold. Edward Woods does a fine turn as Matt Doyle, the loyal sidekick and partner in crime to Cagney's Tom Powers, and Leslie Fenton is a pomaded dreamboat as Samuel 'Nails' Nathan.

Framed as a cautionary tale of Urban Crime, the film follows Tom and Matt as they grow up on the mean streets of Chicago, fall in with the local criminal element, and eventually make names for themselves as gangsters in their own right. While Matt finds a girl and mostly sticks with Tom out of a sense of friendship and camaraderie, Tom openly lusts for power and the status that being a big-time gangster can bring him. Eventually his violent impulses begin leaving bodies behind, and his chickens come home to roost.

I really liked this movie. It's a fun little criminal drama that is elevated by James Cagney's iconic performance. If you have any interest in gangster movies you should definitely check it out. I'm going to give it 4/5 stars. The racism that is present is predictable, given when the film was made and what it's about, but there are moments where it feels unnecessarily mean-spirited in a way that even the open violence between white characters doesn't, and that's worth a star off the score, I think. Otherwise this is yet another great example of how interesting and sophisticated pre-code Hollywood films could be.
 
The Brides of Dracula (1960)
Tonight I watched the second installment in the Hammer Dracula series, The Brides of Dracula (1960).

This sequel follows Marianne (Yvonne Monlaur), a young woman traveling through Transylvania on her way to take up a teaching position at a girls' school, as well as Dr. Van Helsing (Peter Cushing), who has returned to the land of the vampires to investigate a mysterious illness. Notably, Dracula (Christopher Lee) is not actually in this film, making it one of only two in the series that did not feature Lee's iconic vampire (although there's another one where he hated his dialogue so much he refused to speak his lines, so he's in the movie, technically, but he never speaks).

Marianne is stranded in a rural village when her carriage takes off without her, until the Baroness Meinster (Martita Hunt) takes pity on her and invites her to overnight at her castle. Within the castle Marianne discovers that the Baroness has imprisoned her son (David Peel), chaining him up in a disused wing of the house. When she decides to free the young man she unwittingly releases an undead monstrosity upon the young women of the village.

This movie sets itself apart from the original film a little by introducing a broader occult angle. The vampiric Baron Meinster is cared for and aided in his predation by a servant (Freda Jackson) who belongs to a cult of the undead; humans who serve their undead masters during the daylight hours. This helps explain why there are more vampires after the destruction of Dracula, and sets up a possible avenue for his eventual return.

Overall I enjoyed this movie. It could probably have been released as a stand-alone feature unconnected with the larger Dracula franchise, but I feel that it benefited from the involvement of Dr. Van Helsing, which made it feel more like an episodic adventure serial centered on the adventures of the good doctor. That said, there weren't any real stand-out moments for me. I was never quite bored, but I was also never as engaged with this one as I was with the original film. I'm going to call it a 3.5/5 stars, a solid installment but nothing to write home about.
 
Godzilla/Gojira (1954)
It's never a bad time to watch Godzilla (1954), so that's what I did today.

I cannot overstate the grip this movie had on me as a child. There was a period of three or four years where I could reliably be expected to answer any form of the question 'what do you want to be when you grow up?' with "Godzilla." It was inconceivable to me that, once the possibility had been raised, there could be any other answer. What kind of person would look out upon a universe including Godzilla and set their sights any lower?

The very first time I watched this movie was on a roll-away tv set that my parents had set up for me on the upstairs landing, while they had guests over for dinner downstairs. I think it was Halloween, either 1996 or 1997, but I'm not sure. One of the local stations was playing a Godzilla marathon all night long, and I stayed up far beyond my bedtime, transfixed to the screen. I chewed through the original film (although it was probably the Americanized 'King of the Monsters' version, in retrospect), Mothra vs Godzilla, and Son of Godzilla, before falling asleep during one of the films with King Ghidorah (probably Destroy All Monsters). I had never seen anything like it before, and when the 1998 Roland Emmerich film came out I forced my parents to take me to see it in theaters twice (and you best believe we rented a copy from Blockbuster on a monthly basis). Godzilla is, almost more so than actual Star Wars, my Star Wars.

Probably the most consistent criticism of the Godzilla franchise as a whole is the weakness of the human drama in most of the films, compared with the spectacle of seeing Godzilla and the whole menagerie of other Kaiju, giant robots, and alien invaders laying waste to Tokyo. The 1954 film doesn't completely evade this pitfall, but the human characters are genuinely interesting to watch, and the focus tends to be on the collective reaction of groups, rather than the minutiae of individual character storylines. The exception to this is the conflict between Dr. Serizawa (Akihiko Hirata) and Emiko Yamane (Momoko Kochi) over the use of his creation; the Oxygen Destroyer. Hirata plays Serizawa like a tortured super-villain, complete with a mysterious eyepatch and secret laboratory, in a role which embodies the larger theme of reckless scientific advancement risking both personal and global destruction. It's gripping stuff, and in the best moments I can feel echoes of what Takashi Yamazaki would do with the story decades later in Minus One.

One of the most iconic elements of the original film is the score. Akira Ikufube apparently accepted the role of composer for the film immediately upon learning that it would star a giant monster, and his enthusiasm is reflected in the titanic feeling of Godzilla's theme, or the "Self Defense March" as it was originally titled. There is just something about the heavy brass and strings that resonates with Godzilla's visual design in a way that feels greater than the sum of its parts. Apparently the music was recorded live at the same time as the foley production of Godzilla's footsteps, making them a part of the orchestra in a way that I am too ignorant about music to really appreciate, but which must surely have contributed in some way to the magic of the final product.

Personally, my favorite aspect of the film has to be the miniature work. The suit itself is fantastic, but all of the those miniature buildings, cars, boats, etc. must have been a blast to design and put together. If I had all the money in the world I might just spend my time building whole cities in miniature (and then rampaging through them in an elaborate rubber suit). A lot of the effects are pretty rough by today's standards, but the sheer variety of techniques employed in this movie is something to behold, and there are elements (like Big G's back spikes glowing as he fires his atomic breathe) that remain iconic features of the series today. Seriously, being a Toho propmaker is up there for me in terms of 'ultimate dream jobs'.

There are a lot of reasons to love this film. From the purely surface-level spectacle, to the surprisingly deep political and historical context in which the film was produced (the Daigo Fukuryu Maru incident had just recently occurred, and the threat of atomic annihilation was very real to the Japanese in a way that it has never been for any other people, at any other time and place on Earth), to the buffet of technical delights involved in its creation, this is a singular masterpiece of film. For all the highs and lows of the sequels that would follow, Godzilla fully deserves the position it holds in the cultural pantheon. I'm rating this film 5/5 stars, but just know that this is one of those films that really transcends the utility of a numerical score. It's too important to reduce to a number. If, for any reason, you have never seen the original 1954 film, you should set about correcting that grievous oversight immediately.
 
The Station Agent (2003)
Long before he was Tyrion Lannister, Peter Dinklage starred in a beautiful little film called The Station Agent (2003). I rented this one from Netflix years and years ago, and this is my first rewatch since then.

This movie tells the story of three beautiful weirdos as they navigate feelings of isolation, community, loss, and love in the gorgeous New Jersey countryside. Dinklage plays Fin, a quiet young man with a train fixation who inherits a disused train depot from the owner of his miniature railroad shop. Upon taking ownership of the station, Fin is beset by the persistent, and unwanted, friendly advances of Joe (Bobby Cannavale) and Olivia (the wonderful Patricia Clarkson), two of the locals.

For the first half of the film, Dinklage barely speaks, and yet his physical performance and the delivery of his terse replies to the considerably more loquacious characters that surround him are a masterclass in doing more with less. Joe, on the other hand, is a pure extrovert relentlessly dedicated to dragging Fin out of his shell. Yet his approach is surprisingly considerate of Fin's feelings and interests; rather than insisting that Fin accompany him to the local bar or come play softball with the local rednecks, Joe jumps feet-first into Fin's trainspotting hobby. Olivia, a scatterbrained artist grieving the loss of her son, crashes into Fin's life with just as much fanfare, and the trio of oddballs find themselves drawn to one another despite very stark personality differences.

This is a deeply emotional film, and there are a number of moments that cut to the bone despite, or maybe because of, the overall very low-stakes drama of the movie. Patricia Clarkson's performance as Olivia in particular is just so good, as she careens between a free-flowing bohemian vibe and moments of unglamorous, painful humanity.

One thing I need to note is that, while Fin is subjected to constant harassment by strangers because of his dwarfism, the film doesn't let that become the central narrative challenge. It is simply depicted as the reality that he deals with, and it informs many of the choices he makes as a character, without crowding out the other aspects of his life and personality. He's not a loner (just) because he's a dwarf, he's a loner because he's an introvert who likes trains. It's a minor point, but one I think is important. Nearly all of the characters in this film are allowed a lot of space to spill out of their archetypes and they feel very grounded as a result.

The setting of the film, Newfoundland, New Jersey, does a lot to set the tone. Most of the shots are filled with lush greenery, flaking paint, and the kind of small-town Americana flavor that instantly brings me back to my own childhood as a latchkey kid roaming the woods of Texas. I would honestly move to the town depicted in this film in a heartbeat if I could also roll back the clock to 2003 and just not have a phone, like Fin. That may be a bit of a rose-tinted look at rural New Jersey, but my only experience of the state is this film, Garden State (2004), and The Sopranos, which all make it look a lot more appealing (in a washed-out, early 2000s kind of way) than I would have expected, given how people talk about the place.

A number of the supporting roles are filled by faces that I always enjoy seeing. Richard Kind plays an estate agent, Joe Lo Truglio a local redneck, and John Slattery appears as Olivia's estranged husband. There really isn't a poor performance in the whole flick, and it's a small enough film that every part has time to shine.

This is just a good-looking film overall as well. It was shot on 16mm film and there is something about film grain against a blue sky on a sunny day that has an extremely specific and compelling feeling to it. It's almost baked-in nostalgia; when I think about walking along the tracks in my own hometown that grain creeps into the memories and it feels just like watching this film.

I really cannot recommend this movie strongly enough. It is very funny, although not quite a comedy, and it treats it's subjects kindly, for lack of a better word. This is a film that believes in people, without having illusions about them, and I think that may be the most powerful thing about it. I'm giving it 5/5 stars, I genuinely cannot think of a single flaw.

Edit: Something else that I think is great about this movie is that it fully acknowledges how hot Peter Dinklage is. He's not bad looking now, but back in the day that man was a fucking smokeshow, and he attracts a believable level of female attention from the characters in this film.
 
Last edited:
Society of the Snow (2023)
Tonight, on my boss' recommendation, I watched Society of the Snow (2023).

Holy shit, this is the most stressful film I've watched in a long time. If it weren't based on a true story, this would be the most terrifying environmental horror story ever put to film, but the fact that everything that you see happen on screen really happened to the 1972 Uruguayan Old Christians rugby club (and their friends) escalates every horrifying moment to a level that I found genuinely hard to sit through. In any less masterful hands this could have turned into a miserable slog through the deepest depths of human suffering, but J.A. Bayona threads the needle, unfolding for us the harrowing events of the 'Miracle of the Andes' without losing sight of the courageous, unbelievable people at its' center, and the commitment to one another that kept 16 of them alive for over seventy days in some of the most inhospitable territory on Earth.

This movie is amazingly well put-together. Every shot is chosen with purpose, whether to recreate one of the moments the actual members of Old Christians documented on the cameras they had with them, or to drive home a particular aspect of their predicament. Artful feels like the right word. As difficult as it was at times to keep watching, there is startling beauty in nearly every scene, from the spectacle of the Andes themselves to the meticulously constructed sets for the plane wreckage.

Being a Spanish production, I was not familiar with any of the cast, but they turned in superb performances, every one of them. The narrator and point-of-view character for most of the film is Numa Turcatti (Enzo Vogrincic), a friend of the team, not even a rugby player himself, who had tagged along on the trip for the chance to see Chile for the first time. His perspective grounds the film in the internal experience, and primes us to look deeper at each of the young people on that plane, with the same kind of eyes that he saw them with.

Roberto Canassa (Matias Recalt) and Nando Parrado (Agustin Pardella), two of the Uruguayan players, serve as the secondary protagonists, and it is they who crossed over the glacial mountain peak upon which their plane had originally crashed, without climbing gear, and hiked for ten days into Chile before finding help. Their persistence in the face of utterly hopeless odds saved 14 of their fellow passengers, and this film gives that moment the heroic weight that it deserves, while simultanously never once letting either the audiences or the men on the screen forget just what they have lost and endured to get to that point.

It is a truly bittersweet ending, made all the more so by the fact that it is not really an ending at all. Those men survived their ordeal, and that meant that they had to keep on living with the things that they had seen and done. The film does not do us the favor of imagining that these men rode off into a glorious sunset and lived happily ever after. But they did live, and the film tells us that actually, that really is what matters. That you live, so that you can keep going. For all of those who can't.

This is obviously worth 5/5 stars, and I am going to need to watch something much, much lighter before I go to bed, or I am going to have fucked up dreams tonight.
 
Incoming Threadmarks
I'm not sure if anyone is 'watching' this thread, but tomorrow I plan on going through and making each review (or block of reviews, in a couple of cases) its own Threadmark, for ease of navigation. I don't want to spam anyone with ~45 notifications about the new threadmarks, so you may want to adjust your settings until I've finished, if that will bother you. I will probably begin making the changes around Noon tomorrow, to give folks time to see this message.

Edit: The Great Threadmarking has been completed. Thank you for your patience.
 
Last edited:
Predator (1987)
Well, this is usually when I would be doing my yearly rewatch of Groundhog Day, but in in recognition of Carl Weathers' passing today, I decided to watch Predator (1987) instead.

This is a good movie wearing the skin of a terrible movie as a disguise. I'm not the first to make the observation, I'm sure, but Predator works so well because it walks and talks like a grotesquely macho military action flick, when it's really a by-the-numbers slasher film under the hood, complete with an Arnold-shaped 'Final Girl'.

Our team of ragtag badasses, led by Dutch (Arnold Schwarzenegger) and CIA G-man Dillon (Carl Weathers) are dropped into the South American jungle to rescue a kidnapped government official. That plot wraps up about twenty minutes into the film in what would be the (gratuitously) explosive climax of a normal action flick. Then the tone of the film shifts radically and all of these macho, alpha-male commando badass stereotypes are reduced to paranoid terror as the titular Predator begins its hunt.

The kills are gory and exciting, with each one ratcheting up the tension in accordance with a predictable but satisfying horror movie formula, until our heroes begin cracking under the pressure, one by one. Mac (Bill Duke) is particularly fun to watch, and his meltdown in the aftermath of Blaine's (former governor of Minnesota, Jesse 'the Body' Ventura) death is so over-the-top that I am convinced it is meant to be read as the grief of a lover. The homo-eroticism isn't exactly subtle, and it fits with overall subversion of action-movie tropes to have the only romance in the film be an unspoken one between two ridiculously hyper-masculine caricatures.

The performances are mostly solid; Dutch and Dillon's simmering rivalry feels very natural given that they are both walking biceps with faces, and Jesse Ventura is relentlessly quotable (although the homophobic slur kind of sours me on the otherwise hilarious "sexual tyrannosaurus" line). Shane Black, Richard Chaves, and Sonny Landham round out the team as Hawkins, Poncho, and Billy respectively. I kept getting Hawkins and Poncho confused at first, so I was pleased when one of them died and simplified things.

The effects are a mixed bag. The practical effects are very good, ranging from massive pyrotechnics, to grisly gore effects, and an iconic creature design for the Predator itself. The VFX on the other hand have aged poorly. The infra-red vision gives the impression that the Predator is essentially blind with or without it; it's always an incomprehensible jumble of colors with only the red blobs of body heat being recognizable at all. Likewise the 'camouflage' effect is just terrible, and both are used far too often for how bad they look.

There are also a handful of inconsistencies that will probably bother nobody except ridiculous nerds like me, like the fact that the Predator's blaster blows huge holes through multiple people until it is turned on Arnie, who tanks one blast to the chest and one to the side without so much as a scratch. It's established as this hyper-lethal weapon and then just... doesn't kill him. Twice. It's weird. On that same level of nitpicking, the mud trick really shouldn't have worked. Your body heat would seep through within moments unless you were encased in inches of cold mud, and there are patches of visible skin all over Arnie. Okay, I'm done sucking the fun out of this one.

This really is a fun movie. It's cleverer than it looks at first glance, but, y'know, not that clever. Carl Weathers gets a few moments to really shine, which was nice to see, and it is otherwise an extremely entertaining popcorn flick with a few solid tricks up its sleeve. I'm going to call it 3.5/5 stars. I would make it 4 just for Carl, but I've got to knock off a half star for the way Ventura delivers that slur with his whole chest. It makes it a little awkward to watch with friends these days.
 
Nightbeast (1982)
I've watched a run of very good movies lately and I felt like it was time for some good old-fashioned trash, so today I watched Nightbeast (1982).

When I was 15 my friends and I made a horror movie together in which 50%+ of the dialogue was us shouting "Jesus Christ" while running around in the dark and smearing fake blood on eachother. This movie feels like the grown-up version of that, in the best possible way. The writing and performances are hilariously inept, but everything is presented so earnestly that you cannot help but have a good time. The above-average practical effects do a lot to elevate this one as well, and even the comparatively cheap and awful VFX used for the Beast's laser gun disintegrations are more charmingly bad than actually detrimental to the viewing experience.

The titular Nightbeast is a decent creature costume with exactly zero further characterization. He just crashes on Earth and immediately gets to killing people, sometimes eating them, for no readily apparent reason. He doesn't speak and no attempts on the part of the townsfolk are ever made to communicate (or really even to interact in any way) with the Beast. That's okay though because any time the Beast is on-screen something entertaining is happening, whereas the human characters are more of a mixed bag.

Jamie (Jamie Lambert) and Sheriff Cinder (Tom Griffith) are our primary leads, with Deputy Lisa (Karin Kardian) and the town's doctor (who operates out of her home) Ruth (Anne Frith) rounding out the posse. There is a secondary antagonist in the form of a weirdly schlubby looking biker named Drago (Don Leifert) who assaults and murders Jamie's love interest in the scene in which she first appears. This marks the first, but not the last, instance of weird, deeply unsexy nudity in this film. There are also two child-actors at the beginning of the film that I was convinced were going to be the protagonists right up until they were unceremoniously vaporized (along with an entire car) by the Beast, which really set the tone once I had processed what was happening.

The mayor of the little town where Nightbeast is rampaging is played by Dick Dyszel, the host of a local D.C. area Horror program called Creature Feature, and while I'm sure his part was fun for fans of the show it adds very little to the already painfully thin plot of the film. I did enjoy his bubbly 'assistant' Mary Jane (Eleanor Herman) though; her character was much closer to the fun, lighthearted sleaze that I enjoy than the other women in this film who were made to awkwardly strip for the camera in the two worst scenes of the film.

The first is the aforementioned murder of Suzie (Monica Neff), Jamie's love interest. The second is a truly bizarre sex-scene between Sheriff Cinder and his deputy, Lisa. The only way that I can describe it is that it feels like a deleted scene from 'The Room' was accidentally inserted into the middle of an unrelated creature feature. There is even an "Oh Hi." The Sheriff also has a huge bloody gash in his leg that conveniently clears up in seconds so that they can bone.

With all that being said, I really enjoyed the practical effects all the way through. The film opens with a great miniature spaceship crash sequence that involved way more pyrotechnics than I was expecting, something that is mirrored in the finale. There are dismemberments, disembowlments, and a decapitation featuring a fantastic fake head. I wish that there were more wide shots of the monster; what we get is almost entirely tight close-ups of the mask or claws, but I imagine that there were probably issues with how it looked in motion or something.

I'm going to give Nightbeast 2.5/5 stars. The parts that I liked, I really liked, but this is definitely one of those movies that flirts with the line between so-bad-it's-good and just actually bad. I would check this one out if you appreciate good gore effects, or if you were a fan of local-broadcast horror television in the 80s.
 
Back
Top