crystallogic Reviews

Kindred (2022)

Too cluttered and padded -- reflects a problem I've noticed with many modern book/TV adaptations

[5/10 · 7 January 2023]

I recently read the novel on which this show is based, and had no idea there was an adaptation just coming out. I was a bit apprehensive but open-minded enough, I think. I already felt like an 8-episode TV show was maybe a bit too much, but, well, they didn't even finish the story, and they added a whole lot of convolution to pad out the runtime. This could have been a really wonderful two-hour movie. Longer isn't better, often, and one of the great things about Kindred (the book) is that it is such a tight, economical narrative.

I read through a few of the user reviews and I actually disagree with a few of the negative comments, while still finding the series to be a rather frustrating experience. Dana in the book doesn't always express her feelings about the things she's witnessing and, sometimes, taking part in. That's part of Butler's genius you see. She doesn't tell you what you are supposed to think. The makers of the show seem to be acknowledging that, but at the same time, don't respect the source material enough to keep it tight and compact. Most of the extra stuff they've added just isn't that great and feels like an attempt to add drama to a story that's intended to be very spare and direct. I understand fully that an adaptation should be free to do something that the source material didn't, but I found the book to be very impactful and powerful and while others who didn't read it might not have a problem with the show, it feels diminished by their attempt to make it "bigger". They obviously want a second season, too.

I think the first two episodes are mostly fine. The changes make some sense, as in the book, Butler throws you right in to Dana's vertigo and travel to the past right fromt eh start, which gives you the same feeling of displacement that she herself feels. The show didn't really want to do that, and so provided us some background: the kind of stuff Butler saved for later in the book, and it's done quite differently here as well, but in a way which I think could at least be made to work well. I noticed right off that the performances were good, and as usual with a modern show with some budget put into it, the acting quality remains solid throughout. Unfortunately, as is more often the case with today's genre TV, where things fall down is the writing. Episode three is where they really start diverting from Octavia Butler's story and, if it's not quite fair to say the wheels fall off, the wagon starts to feel unbalanced. Even though Butler's book is short and economical, it feels closer to the source of the pain (there being slavery in her own family's fairlyr ecent past) and relevant questions of identity and complicity than this overstuffed, lengthy TV narrative from 2022.

Nevertheless, the series is well-intentioned enough and has considerable tension. If you don't know the book, it probably won't bother you too much. But i have to stress that I'm not necessarily a stickler for novels over other story media and it just feels frustrating to me that the core of this sharp and poignant story is going to be lost in a sprawling drama series. The decisions to change the relationship of the two leads, add in more family ties and so many other characters in general, create some unintentionally goofy drama with Dana's neighbour -- all of it just feels like justification for making this longer, and in my opinion that kind of sucks. It's unfortunately the nature of television to try and hook viewers in and keep them watching week after week, or bingeing if they prefer. And I guess right there we've found the reason I consider myself more of a movie person. A successful TV show from the uS never "wants to" end, and an unsuccessful one might be cancelled before it ends. And by "success" here, of course, I mean profitable.

Hell of the Living Dead (1980)

Stupid doomy fun!

[7/10 · 5 December 2019]

An oddly polarising movie that some have a great deal of inexcusable fondness for while others deplore it as being a rip-off of other films, not just story-wise but literally, containing big gobbets-worth of inexplicable stock footage and a score that's stolen from several movies featuring Goblin and some other sources I can't identify. Yes, it's a very unoriginal work, being as it is a kind of mish-mash of elements of both the Fulci Zombi and the Romero one (AKA Dawn of the Dead, of course). But it also combines things in a way that, I don't think, you'd ever seen up til then, and which almost mirrors the plots of many more recent pictures about chemical-undead. The commandos in the jungle blasting away even calls The Predator to mind, which was still seven years away in 1980. Look, I'm not saying this is some lost groundbreaking classic, but seemingly stumbling upon it by accident, the movie in question does combine things in a way that predates others that some would consider more laudable.

And you know, if you like this sort of thing, I guarantee you will be entertained by this movie. The horror elements still work well enough but the movie is also worth many laughs; most probably not as "unintentional" as you might think. It takes the time to slow down for a "mondo" interlude in the middle full of inexplicable and geographically misplaced stock footage, topless women gyrating and random obviously non-digetic "tribal" music. There is hilarious "tough-talking" dialogue from all characters throughout the movie, and you might be surprised at just what a likeable bunch o' dicks our four commandos are. Plus, the female reporter has got some steel and sass even if she becomes a screamer at the first opportunity. She can also do a menacing info-dump to rival the best of 'em!

And really, the situation as decited is quite horrible. You watch with a sinking heart (admit it, you do!) as our heroes are slowly knocked off one by one. The undead shamble and grasp and croak, and the makeup is actually good and varied. Amid the flailing around and stealing, the filmmakers on occasion hit on real tension, and the fate of our benighted heroes actually does pack a punch! There is an earnest and completely ham-fisted attempt at social consciousness -- but hey, this trash's filthy little heart is in the right place! The opening scene in the Science Station is great, with everything quickly spiraling out of control and the final words of the professor properly ominous and dramatic.

Yes folks, despite what many might perceive as awkward shortcomings, I just have to admit there's a lot right about this flick. It knows what it is and just embraces mayhem and eccentricity to an extent where an audience just has to go along with it or else give up in disgust. It even manages to achieve some creepy atmosphere in a few places, with the undead seeming a genuine threat, even if it is partially because our soldier buddies have a tendency to lose their frickin' minds! Yes yes, not the most disciplined boys around, these fellows, but can I blame them? No indeed! Also, because the movie is such a scatter-brained affair, I guarantee if you have this on at 3 in the morning and a friend zonked out on your couch they will wake up with a start, wondering where the hell they've ended up! Is this a good movie? Hell no! it's a ?great? movie -- greatly entertaining, stupid, doomy, with unexpected comic relief character moments, blood 'n' guts, nudity, a Goblin hodge-podge score (feel the horror as the "Quiet Drops" theme from Beyond the Darkness is used in the most inappropriate and unflattering context!), a Message and loads of dumb stock nature footage that doesn't belong anywhere near the Philipines or Papua new Guinea or wherever this really is all happening! And we get an epilogue in some "safe" western city that may be less "eerie" but makes more actual sense than the one in Fuulci's Zombi. It's also a much better film than the very similar Zombie III from eight years on, which was mostly made by this same director, the infamous Bruno mattei.

Great late-night viewing, in the end.

Bad Match (2017)

passes 80-odd minutes enjoyably enough

[5/10 · 30 October 2019]

The middling ratings for this film are pretty much spot on, but that is largely a reflection of the fact that, even though this is a thoroughly "modern" movie with twenty-somethings and the current technological trappings, it's really a storyline that's been around for decades, and truthfully, similar notions have been done better by some really first-rate filmmakers and performers. Still though, I did think this was allright, and worth a single watch, though it's probably not something I'll ever come back to.

As I was watching this, it hit me that I am nearly twice as old as most of the characters in this thing. I was a teen in the 90s when the Internet was just starting to take off. It's really interesting to be caught in the middle here, aware of all the advances and how things are conducted nowadays, but also kind of stuck in that semi-old-school mindset. When I was a teen I remember a lot of telephone dating services being advertised on late night cable and radio, which some of us would occasionally try out for a lark. Some of them were just starting to get super-"modern" by allowing you to send a picture of yourself to someone -- by fax! For real.

Anyway, after this realisation and a slight dawning of horror, I settled down and just let the thing roll over me. It's a "thriller" of sorts, but it's not really that thrilling. Our male protagonist is Harris; he's a creep but, not totally unlikeable -- indeed, a lot of us guys can probably relate to him on many levels even if we don't necessarily approve of all his actions. Those start out, if not exactly innocent, at least understandable to the extent that Harris doesn't feel he's doing anything wrong. Eventually though, a guy who runs his life like this is going to end up running into problems; it's kind of natural-seeming that his first conclusion would be that the woman who doesn't react "normally" to his usual antics is the one responsible for turning his life upside-down. Actually, I felt that the "upside-down" part wasn't that profound -- some of these types of stories really put their characters through hell, and I honestly don't think harris's experience was all that bad. By the end, I felt a lot worse for the poor girl than I did for him, and I do feel that was a part of the filmmakers' intention. Riley's only "crime", after all, was being a bit clingy.

The ending of the film is both appropriate and rather "rushed" feeling. Honestly, it's good that this movie doesn't overstay its welcome -- at 78 minutes it's quite short, and I appreciate this (as the story is really a bit simple-minded), but it's definitely "front-ended". Nevertheless, there's a sad inevitability to proceedings that, while it didn't make for a totally engrossing story, I still found sort of satisfying, though maybe not quite in the way the filmmakers intended. It returns me to the question, posed by many authors over the years, as to whether there is really a "murderous type" -- the conclusion is almost always "no"; anyone could be driven to kill given the right circumstances, even a loser like Harris. There's also something in here about not jumping to the obvious conclusion all of the time, but the film wraps everything up so fast that I'm not sure the point is that effectively made. The movie feels like it isn't 100% confident about whether it wants to be a thriller or not, so when everyone compares it to something like Fatal Attraction, well, of course it's going to fall a bit short.

nevertheless, I thought the performances of the two leads were natural and believable. nobody else really even tried to stand out in this, but that's perfectly ok. It's a fairly tight, economical film that I can't fault all that much for slightly dropping the ball. Worth a watch if it's on or around, though I suspect this one will be forgotten about by most not long after viewing. By the way, the "death by stabbing" at the end was far too easy and quick to be believable. Actually, he seemed in worse shape than she did after being bashed over the head so many times.

From Beyond the Grave (1974)

Could be my favourite Amicus anthology

[9/10 · 21 April 2019]

The Amicus portmanteau/anthology films do have many fans, from what I can tell, but interestingly, many of us seem to have different favourites; From Beyond the Grave has always been mine, along with The Vault of Horror. Here we have four really good stories in their own right, and while I think the second segment, with Donald Pleasence and his daughter Angela (who looks just like him!) is by far the strongest of the four, I enjoy all of them immensely. Plus, the framing device is great, with Peter Cushing as a shopkeeper whose wares are rather special. For some reason, everyone's always trying to screw beleaguered Cushing at his business in one way or another, but they always get their just desserts in the end, usually very painfully. The exception is the guy in the last story, who is the one honest visitor to the shop, and who gets out alive!

1. The Gatecrasher this one features David Warner (Time bandits, Tron, Titanic, In the Mouth of madness, The Omen, Straw Dogs, Star Trek and a million other film and TV hings) as a seriously obnoxious know-it-all who badgers Cushing into letting him take home an antique mirror for next to nothing. In a Hellraiser-esque turn, the mirror is inhabited by an evil extra-dimensional being of some kind who demands blood, and is awakened by a seance to hypnotically prey on Warner's character, forcing him to bring home hapless women and stab them to death, feeding the spirit in the mirror, which wats to walk the earth and replace itself with its new vassal inside the mirror. This is a seriously creepy tale.

2. An Act of Kindness In this, my favourite story and by far the longest and most thematically complex and interesting, an embittered former army clerk of some kind, who never served on the frontline, works a crap job and is scorned and berated constantly by his nasty wife while their troubled son looks on encounters a street merchant, played by Donald Pleasence at his most weird and awesome. The street vendor, it turns out, is also a former military man, and the two unexpectedly hit it off and, although it's a bit awkward on our "protagonist's" part at first, become friendly. Soon the merchant is inviting him over for dinner, and our main character, feeling like he could use more friends in life but also painfully aware of his inadequacies as a person, visits Cushing's shop (temptations, LTD!) to obtain a service medal with which he can impress his new friend. Cushing won't let him have it though without proof that he actuallys erved, which he can't provide, so he steals it. Interestingly though, the problems about to befall Christopher are of an entirely different sort. he's been seduced by Angela Pleasence, who is a witch! She offers to get rid of his nagging wife, but does it in such a subtle and clever way that Christopher isn't really even sure what she's proposing. Sure enough though, his wife turns up dead. Months later, Christopher and his new love are getting married. But there's a crazy and unexpected punchline coming, a revelation of what a sick joke this has been all along. What I like so much about this one is that it's way more psychologically astute than you'd expect from such a piece, with the motivations of everyone being rather complex and, I think, sincere on all counts. indeed, everyone in this one is rather sympathetic, even Christopher's sharp-tongued wife. Angela Pleasence is an eerie presence, but you feel like her intent is far from evil somehow. The end twist is one you probably won't see coming and, even though it's connected with something that's barely been mentioned in the story up until that point, is clever and on point. is it justice? Well, I'm not sure! You gotta decide for yourself.

3. The Elemental

Many of these anthologies include a somewhat comedic story, and this is the funny one here. The item in question this time is an old snuffbox, which the new shop visitor cons Cushing out of by serreptitiously altering the pricetag when he's not looking. Unfortunately the snuffbox comes with an unwanted hanger-on, a particularly destructive spirit that then attaches itself to the protagonist. This spirit is like a poltergeist playing nasty games. it slaps the guy's wife and makes her think that he did it, terrorises his dog and tries to strangle his wife in the night. On the train he encounters a crazy old lady who claims to be a psychic, and the wild eccentric informs him that he's got a passenger, who will need to be exorcised and soon. There's a hilarious exorcism scene with the house getting destroyed and stuff flying absolutely everywhere. I love this stuff for some reason. Sadly, everything doesn't go according to plan...

4. The Door

In the final segment, a new visitor to Temptations lTD. picks up an antique wooden door dating back hundreds of years. At midnight, something happens and the door becomes a portal into the past, leading to the room of an evil 17th century satanist who wants to gain immortality through blood sacrifice. This one is a little similar to the first story, but is done more atmospherically, with barely any dialogue through long stretches. It's probably my least favourite, but still eerie as hell and this time, a wife gets to be proactive and smash stuff up with an axe. Our man also gets away unscathed at the end, proving that honesty, at least, is good for something. There's a neat little coda to the framing story that gives it a little more meaning than just a device to link the tales together, and a nice hurrah for Cushing's shopkeeper character.

This is a really great anthology full of fine performances, some of which are terrifically eccentric, and the best and spookiest stories. You should definitely add this to your list of horror anthologies to watch. They may not be the scariest thing around but they're always fun, and I think this one is a cut above most.

Bizarre (1970)

So very, very weird, and hugely entertaining

[7/10 · 21 April 2019]

Since I'm on a roll with the anthology movies right now, i'm going to post about what is probably the weirdest British anthology film out there and definitely one of the oddest things I have ever seen in my life.

This movie has a lurid title that you might feel slightly embarrassed about renting from the video store (or maybe not eh?). It's called Secrets of Sex, but it also goes under the less provocative and more mysterious title "Bizarre", which describes the movie's style and character really well without saying a thing about it.

So, this is basically an anthology depicting stories revolving around the theme of "The battle of the Sexes". This was a really popular theme in the 60s and 70s, given that feminism was on the rise and a lot of men especially were left scratching their heads and wondering what the hell was going on. The results were a lot of movies and TV shows and books based on this concept, most of which seem pretty outdated today. But I can say without a shadow of the doubt that I've never seen anything quite like this. Nothing I can really say is going to prepare you for it and I'm not going to sit here trying to describe the stories, because jeez...

Essentially, Valentine Dyall (The haunted, City of the Dead, the famous Man in Black on radio, and the Black Guardian in Doctor Who!) plays an ancient mummy, an egyptian king who once trapped his lady and her lover and sent them to the bottom of the ocean, or something. He has been resurrected because he has spent thousands of years observing the interaction of human beings, and is delighted to find that in all this time, not much has really changed. Lovers are still trapping each other in all the devious and twisted ways that they can. So, this is the framing device. Before the stories begin there are parades of all kinds of weird stuff of the type you might see in an italian mondo movie, but a lot funnier. There is some repetitive stuff in here but it's not bad and actually lulls you into a nice little trance. I should say that taking drugs with this movie is almost mandatory.

once the stories proper begin, we are treated to a crazy, unbelievable mix of horror and comedy vignettes. There's everything here from body horror to spy spoof to unbelievable fake rubber dinosaurs. it's both arty and trashy at the same time, and yes, I can probably say without my usual hesitation that this is, in some respects, a really bad movie, but it's also incredibly entertaining on almost every level. My jaw was on the floor almost throughout and I could not stop laughing. I feel, too, that most of the laughs are absolutely intentional. Rather surprisingly, some of this comes out seeming a lot cleverer than you might think at first glance. it's also even-handed, with some of the stories featuring the women coming out "on top", while others depict a solid victory for the men-folk. I thought the last story showed the film running out of steam a bit as it ends pretty abruptly, almost like the film crew were on the clock. I don't recognise any of these performers other than valentine Dyall, by the way, and I don't think any of the cast really stand out. Some of the stories do, however. The horror tale about a woman giving birth to a genetically stunted son just to get revenge on the husband she hates is genuinely disconcerting.

This is something for the real freaks, for people who revel in the tasteless and have a weird love of things they can't quite explain. It's simultaneously uproariously funny and awkward as hell and I think the guy who created it was actually really smart to do it in this way. Watch late at night, preferrably with some amenable company and the addition of your psychotropic substances of choice.

The Damned (1962)

haunting and even heart-breakingly sad

[9/10 · 21 April 2019]

These are the Damned, also known as simply The Damned, is a very special movie. it was made by hammer, but doesn't feel much like a hammer film. it was directed by an American named joseph Losey, who moved to England in an attempt to find work after he was blacklisted by the House Un-American Activities Committee. he returned to the US later, and made a few interesting films, like Secret Ceremony with Elizabeth Taylor and Robert mitchum, and The Accident. This is, I think, his only science fiction movie.

And it's a bitter, angry, sad and highly frustrated-seeming Cold War story. It manages to throw together a bunch of disparate elements in a really interesting and original way. It has a juvenile delinquent gang led by Oliver Reed in an early role, an American tourist, a group of scientists and military types doing covert experiments on children and an intense Scandinavian artist lady who creates weird sculptures, all congregating in an English seaside town. When the tourist gets mixed up with the gangleader's sister, he vows to protect her from her brother and his thugs. Big mistake. you really don't want to get on Oliver Reed's bad side. Fists fly and tempers flair, and soon our hero and the somewhat drippy sister are on the run, and end up finding out about the scientists and their highly dubious experiments, experiments which the lead professor type believes to be absolutely necessary. You see, he's convinced that a nuclear holocaust is coming, and his work is the only way the human race will survive.

I don't want to spoil this movie by saying much more about it. let's just say and, ok, it's not even a 70s movie so there's not a lot of blood and violence or anything, but to me, this is really intense, mostly in a psychological way. The ending is really sad and, if you have young loved ones (children, relatives, whatever), will make you want to hold them close for a while. Of course, this is one of those movies, like the Space: 1999 series, that ascribes some pretty strange properties to radiation, but it's a bit more realistic than that, and the science aspect isn't really that important anyway. It's more of a drama with a science fiction underpinning.

As well as Oliver, there are some other standouts in the cast. Alexander Knox as the professor is the closest thing the movie has to a villain, but he's not evil at all -- his motivation is that he wants the human race to survive, and he has a really nice relationship with Freya the artist, who is portrayed with real class and poise by Viveca Lindfors. She's a melancholy character, but also kind of the heart of this film, in a way, showing in a real physical sense what beauty humans can accomplish and why the race maybe should survive after all. In the end, oliver Reed's King character tries his best to be a hero. Yes, he's quite an interesting guy, at first a dangerous psychopath, but when the chips are down, he turns out to be not a bad sort. his last scene is just terribly grim and then it leads up to that heart-breaking ending.

So yeah, definitely not a feel-good film. it's personal and not everyone will agree, but to me, this is just as effective a Cold War story as Dr. Strangelove in its own way, and it was even made the same year. I kind of love that this movie is so unknown. People will watch it, expecting maybe some kind of thriller that they can easily forget about the next day, and, maybe, some of them will end up haunted for life by this thing. I know I was; it's a film that is oddly difficult to stop thinking about, even so many years on, when the threat of nuclear annihilation has receded in most peoples' consciousness to a vague but foreboding twinge of menace somewhere on the horizon.

M (1931)

Fascinating, ahead of its time, and highly influential

[9/10 · 21 April 2019]

This movie is from 1930/31 and pretty much defines the essence of thriller on film. Fritz Lang, of course, was a director of many silent pictures in the 1920s in Germany, and was one of the first to really take advantage of the sound format. Unlike most directors from the very early 30s, he seemed to have an inkling of just what an audio track could do for film, in fact. This picture isn't as audially fascinating as The Testament of Dr. mabuse, but it's full of really great dialogues on the nature and psychology of aberrant behaviour, the mentality of mobs, and so forth. You'll also find that it's just far different from most Hollywood pictures of even those pre-Code days.

The iconic thing about this film, really, though, is Peter Lorre and his portrayal of a serial murderer of young girls. His trademark whistling of "hall of the Mountain King" is a kind of "tick" that would be imitated and referenced for decades to come. In the end, the police are totally unable to find and stop this killer on their own, and so it's up to Berlin's underworld to help clear their name and bring this madman to justice. Interestingly, the topic of "mob justice" would soon become a very relevant issue in Germany, as the NSDAP had a nasty way of directing the propaganda and letting "democracy" have its say through violence when it suited their agenda. This wasn't at all what Fritz lang was going for, though; he came to hate the nazis and left for the US before the end of the 30s, where he continued to have an interesting, if somewhat less trail-blazing career.

Don't Torture a Duckling (1972)

A compelling story about supersticion and ignorance

[9/10 · 21 April 2019]

"Don't Torture a Duckling". I'm still not absolutely certain what the title means, so i guess this movie is in good company with some other gialli, but it's really atypical. I'm a fan of the style but it's always the atypical ones that stand out. This one isn't about rich sleazebags getting their just desserts, and the rural setting gives it a very different feeling than most. My stepmother's family was from a village like this, and even today, just an hour outside of Rome you can find places like the town featured in this movie -- a bit old-fashioned (some unkindly might say, "bkacward"), insular, etc. No electricity is pretty commonplace.

Anyway, here we have a movie by Lucio Fulci, from the period when he was making a lot of very high-quality thrillers. It's short on the gore and bloodshed that he's known for except in a few key scenes, when the violence is really pronounced and startling. It also is a film that makes use of its red herrings in an unusual way. in fact, you could even say that the red herrings are the very point of the movie. Basically young boys on the verge of puberty are being killed violently in this little community, and of course, the townsfolks' suspicion immediately turns toward the outsiders, or those who are deemed to be weird and thus isolated even within the community, like Maciara, the epileptic witchy lady. The community is so suspicious, so determined to put someone away for these terrible crimes, that they simply will not listen to reason. Maciara's death is both the most violent and saddest moment in the film, as on her way out of town she is beaten to death with chains while soul music blairs from a radio so that people can't hear her screams of pain. The killer, of course, ends up being someone much closer to home, so to speak, and is "unmasked" almost in the last three minutes. His final scene is way more over-the-top than what came before but it somehow is really fitting. I love this movie and I think it's very possibly Fulci's best.

While the english dubbing might be considered a bit stiff by some, I really don't think it's too bad. The cast is also very much an international one, so I highly doubt they were all speaking Italian, thus hearing the film in English is not really any less" true" than the italian cut. Speaking of the cast, there are some real notables here, from western stars to women known for their roles in Bond films. The story is the real treat here, and it might surprise you how much pathos Fulci is able to wring out of it.

Rasputin: The Mad Monk (1966)

Christopher lee at his most satanic

[8/10 · 21 April 2019]

Christopher Lee is determined to fight and screw his way to the top of the food chain in Rasputin: The Mad Monk. is he really mad though? or just evil? He certainly seems like somebody who absolutely knows what he is doing. In this awesome pseudo-historical potboiler, Rasputin has the power to heal with his hands, and also a dangerous, magnetic personality and a drive and will to get what he wants no matter what inferior creatures might try to get in his way. Shot on leftover sets from Dracula: The Prince of Darkness, I'm pretty sure Lee enjoyed making the "Russian" movie more, because while he is playing a somewhat Dracula-like character here (though the supernatural stuff is underplayed), he actually has, you know, lines! Lots of them! if you are a Christopher lee fan and haven't seen this, you'd better get on it; it's one of his most satanic and boisterous performances. He starts off by healing, then demands a cossack peasant party where he drinks everyone under the table and then cuts off a guy's hand. he seduces and sneaks his way into the nobility and alternately roars and growls menacingly at everyone. I don't know about the rest of this but Lee is awesome and this is one of my most-often-watched movies from hammer, being one of my first as well along with The Devil Rides Out and Dracula (1958). The movie is over far too quickly but it's an enjoyable romp throughout, mostly because of Sir Christopher -- you just can't look away. one of my favourite parts is when Rasputin, without subtlety or any need for finesse, coldly tells his female pawn, after her usefulness has expired, that she should go to her room, and destroy herself -- which of course, she does! yep, this isn't one of those stories that tells us that Rasputin was just a misunderstood nice guy! I don't understand why anyone would complain about historical accuracy when they are watching a movie designed strictly for entertainment purposes. Sure, one could argue that it was a bit insensitive -- made only fifty years after the Revolution, after all -- but it was clearly done with the intent of having some fun and giving Lee a part that he could sink his teeth into, as it were, since he found the recurring Dracula roles to be a bit stultifying. On all the levels that count, I think this film is a success, and it's a great nighttime watch, with or without friends.

The Evil Dead (1981)

The whole thing is a tad overrated, but this is still an atmospheric creeper

[7/10 · 8 December 2018]

I'm sure by this point nobody cares what somebody like me has to say about this movie, or indeed, this *franchise*, but I'll do it anyway. I saw the next two instalments (the remake given the name Dead by Dawn and the loose sequel), and I was glad to finally come to this one. I thought all three movies were somewhat entertaining, but also given an undue amount of cultural weight. This is my favourite of the bunch because it really does contain a weird, morbid atmosphere, and is not played for laughs.

Those only familiar with the other films (and I think there are a surprising lot of you) might be surprised at how hard Sam Reimy works to create an atmosphere of genuine dread and hopelessness. It works well, up to a point. The problem is that the characters are non-entities except for Ash, and the story feels like it was written by a nine-year-old. Of course, we are all only really in this for the mayhem, and it does start pretty quickly. I like how this movie really pushes the case for the environment itself being malefic; that it's not just the playing of a tape waking the dead (or demons as the case may be), but the entire woodland they are in being riddled with evil and malignant spiritualities. It added an unexpected almost folk-horror element to proceedings, even though it was rather understated. Not much dialogue of interest in the film at all, so really not a lot to think about.

The demons seem to be able to possess whomever they want, whenever they want, so the rules of the world are nebulous and don't seem to make sense. Why'd they go back to sleep after the professor made the tape and spoke the incantations? Look, I'm fine with ambiguity in horror; in fact it's largely preferred to having everything explained, but here it just seemed like none of that stuff really mattered, and that's a bit iinsulting.

But hey, this is a really well-made movie with some nice quirks that was created by people who clearly really enjoyed what they were doing. Everyone plays it up to the hilt and I appreciate that. It's a lot creepier than the other instalments and does contain one or two genuinely disturbing scenes involving trees. it's also just over 80 minutes long, so the time will fly by. JOIN US!

The Avengers: Bizarre (1969) Season 7, Episode 33

Oh boy, it's like they're not even trying, now

[6/10 · 8 December 2018]

Well, you can't win 'em all. This was the last aired Avengers episode (though not the last made, I understand) and it's kind of bad. It's definitely not made with serious intentions though and you should cut it some slack, however the plot barely hangs together and only seems to serve the purpose of stringing together a bunch of absurd situations.

Nowadays, we are used to TV finales being a big deal, so it's sometimes easy to forget when we watch old shows that people were just expected to tune in whenever they could or felt like it, and so the last episode of the season wasn't anything special. This would be one of those cases, except it ends with one of the weirdest in a long history of Avengers "final joke scenes", where we see that Steed has built a rocket; Mother admires its lines and contours, and Steeds invites Tara to blast off with him. They do, and Mother looks on, horrified that they are unchaperoned. Actually, I've noticed a sort of running joke in the last few season 6 episodes I've watched, where "gentlemanly" sensibilities are mocked more than ever. This is a side of The Avengers that I don't think everybody has picked up on: the sly digs at the conventionality of upper-crust society, especially where sexual mores are concerned. it's a nice touch, and while I didn't like this episode all that much despite enjoying the absurdity of the whole thing, that last scene had me giggling and saying "What the ****!" simultaneously, and it's about as fitting an end to The Avengers as I can think of: Steed and Tara King literally blasting off into the sky to who-knows-where.

If you must know, the plot concerns a bunch of bankers and financial investor types down on their luck who decide to "disappear" by pretending to be dead. They go to this garish funeral home which has its own cemetery, and pretend to be dead, only to be whisked away to some go-go club under the graveyard. I guess they are supposed to stay underground for two years, smoking cigars and drinking and having their way with voluptuous houris. "Paradise", as they say. Steed's sarcasm about all this once he gets to the club himself ("Wow, this is really living!!!)" is priceless. But there are major unbelievable plot holes, not least of which is Steed apparently being killed, funeraled, coffined and interred in the space of less than a day, so that Tara's barely had time to say "by your leave m'lord I'll be back in a jiffy" before she learns all this. And are we really supposed to believe that that Mr. Happychap had no idea what was going on under the ground? Still, his reactions to the idea of more and more corpses being dug up are amazing, and it gets even more hilarious when all of the graves turn out to be empty.

I don't know, it wasn't so bad, but I'd be highly surprised if this were among anybody's favourite episodes. Of course the production is nicely done, the acting great and the music ace (though you might get a little tired of one repetitive theme), but this does have a little bit of an appearance of a show running on autopilot. I'd expect a little better from Mr. Brian ClemenS, who only seems to care about the macabre eccentricity of his plot. The villains are also nowhere near as memorable as you'd expect, but then, if their imagination is really limited to "keep them happy with underground go-go club for years", maybe I shouldn't be surprised.

Space: 1999: Breakaway (1975) Season 1, Episode 1

Radiation gone bad

[7/10 · 29 November 2018]

Back in the early 90s, a local TV station picked up a bunch of science fiction programmes from Britain, including Doctor Who, Blake's 7, and Space: 1999. I was already a Who fan and delighted to finally be able to watch stories from the 1960s for the first time, but as I always lived in a house with only one television, couldn't find the time to dedicate to more than one other show, as much as I was hungry for new science fiction to devour. So, I chose Blake's 7, which became a perennial favourite that I still re-watch every few years or so. I caught the tail end of Space: 1999 episodes every now and then but was never really convinced to give it a try, until now. I can't say what brought this on exactly: maybe the promise of some pretty cool guest stars; maybe my ongoing fascination with weird 70s stuff. Whatever the case, I'm glad to be finally doing this.

The show's premise is interesting, if improbable. NO point in sitting here poking holes in the science; I'm sure that's already been done to death and, with all its clear attempts to be sober and serious, it doesn't seem like hard science was a series consideration for the production. All that's fine for me; I'm willing to go with a hell of a lot for the sake of a nice style, and so far, I'd have to say that Space: 1999 has that in abundance. I also think that the acting is really solid across the board. Martin landau has a cool, commanding presence here, Barbara Banes is calm and assertive, and I noticed a lot of fine British character actors even at this early stage that I recognise from other things.

The story in this debut episode is a bit thin, but I was surprised by how fast fifty minutes went by. It reminded me of a few things in my experience, most notably, and I suppose surprisingly, Star Trek: Voyager, though I think I'm going to enjoy this weird show a lot more. Sure, there are crazy coincidences at play, and as with many other slightly clunky sci-fi things, "radiation" is basically a synonym for "weird maleficent force that does inexplicable and unpredictable bad things". I have to say though, the notion of using the moon as a nuclear waste dump is funny in a cynical way that I rather like, and it's not that much of a stretch to see that happening for real. I also read a science fiction novel not that long ago by Neal Stephenson (bit of a slog to be honest) that described what might happen if the moon suddenly broke away from Earth's orbit, which, while nothing like this show at all, at least validates the funky premise to a degree. I would think the future for Earth might be bleaker than that of the Alphans, and I wonder if the question of whether they would have anything to return to even if they could get home ever comes up in the future of the show.

Roy Detrice's Commissioner Simmon is an obnoxious, obstinate character that reminded me of one of those stuffy officials from early 70s Doctor Who. I liked the double-think of his favourite statement, "in my experience, the impossible just takes a little longer". it sounds good, but really amounts to nothing more than a politician throwing his weight around, thinking that all it takes is saying the right thing, greasing the right palms, in order to get what he wants, regardless of how impossible the science is. Boy, is he ever shut up in a hurry when everything goes tits-up on the moon.

No aliens in this episode, but a mysterious signal from a rogue planet, possibly beckoning the Alpha crew onwards. Intriguing stuff. I'm not expecting much continuity from this show; it feels more like a mood or state of being than an ongoing story, almost, so rather antithetical to modern TV-writing practices, but you know, I rather like it. The series never actually coming to a proper end probably frustrated people in the 1970s, but now it almost feels like a verification of the point I just made; it's not a story you follow, it's something you feel, and it's probably possible to just imagine it carrying on forever, or until the Alphans meet the right alien super-being that elevates them to a proper state of higher consciousness for them to live in eterntiy, or some damn thing. yes, I've read a bit about the show to prepare me for what I'm about to experience. I'm ready. Bring it on, Mr. Anderson.

Closer (I) (2004)

I knew it was doomed within the first thirty minutes

[3/10 · 20 October 2018]

You could say this isn't the sort of movie I should be reviewing, but I try to keep an open mind. Believe it or not, I don't sit around looking for things to hate so I can trash them on the internet and to friends. I'm willing to give most things due attention, and the benefit of the doubt. I don't care where a movie comes from or who's in it, if it seems like it might be partway interesting, I'll give it a shot if I happen to come across it. Such is the case for Closer, which promised, if not chills and thrills, then at least some intrigue and the possibility of an emotional ride.

I don't really know how to classify this thing, and that's not a mark against it. it's not romance, it's not comedy -- it's a relationship drama, I suppose. There was a chance this could have been a well done, charismatic story, but I felt something went terribly wrong from the start. It's one of those cases where I'd probably enjoy some of the behind-the-scenes machinations more than the movie itself. I wonder, even, if the film might have been somewhat sabotaged by its stars.

The biggest problem with this whole story is a lack of chemistry on the part of all concerned. Throwing these people together was a mistake. The script also doesn't bother with subtlety, doesn't really give us a chance to know or care about these four people before we're whisked through another time jump of four months, or a year, and then we're told, "oh it's like this now; he's with her and she's with the other guy". While it's true that without these jumps forward in time that take place in the narrative, the story would probably have gotten bogged down in boring domestic details, the fact that these gaps are basically needed to keep the story vaguely alive-and-breathing should have set off alarms for everybody. I don't have to like any of these people, but I should at least be interested in them. Julia Roberts' Anna is basically a complete non-entity, who's snogging the unlikeable writer a mere two minutes after her first appearance in the story. Are we just supposed to figure this is the way it goes because she's played by Julia Roberts? That's almost how it seemed! I wonder how the story would have played out if they'd cast unknowns? I bet it would have been better than this, somehow.

There's no arresting style, no poignant words, just a Bizarre Love Square. yes, a Love Square. Who's sleeping with whom this time? Who cares. This is just an irredeemably bad movie. I could almost feel my will to continue being drained as the thing progressed, and I wonder if the screen-writers, the actors, or anybody directly involved felt the same. I kind of hope so.

Donkey Punch (2008)

I guess it was all right

[5/10 · 20 September 2018]

This film has gotten some pretty low scores here on IMDB, and to be frank, I can definitely understand why this is the case. That said, I didn't think it was so bad and it passed the time well enough. It's just fairly shallow and stupid.

Truth is though that I can't totally resist a story about a party going terribly wrong, and I guess this is basically what we have here. It's pretty much an exploitation homage, and after the eponymous "donkey punch" episode, it goes exactly as you think it will. The characters, even the girls, are pretty thinly sketched and it's hard to imagine them doing anything outside of the story they are in, but nevertheless, the acting seems solid all across the board and everyone in the production did a commendable job. Still, the film doesn't exactly have any dialogue triumphs, and its climax (ha hah) is in fact the wild intercutting of the sex that rises to a fever pitch and then goes horribly awry. It was pretty hot stuff, and then turned to a genuine "oh crap!" moment, and I appreciated that.

Unfortunately what followed didn't give me anything that I didn't learn from 1970s exploitation movies, and those are a hard act to follow. I understand Dead Calm was an inspiration or at least an influence, but i still haven't seen that one. it's probably better than this was. The film didn't piss me off exactly but it didn't leave me with much feeling of any kind, either, and that's bad. The second half is supposed to be tense and psychologically frought, but it's oddly lifeless. It's all a bit vapid and everyone is pretty and stupid. There's a death that reminded me a little of I Spit on Your Grave. Some of the music was fun. Where'd those young boys get that yacht anyway? if they ever said, I missed it; this is not the sort of movie you'll remember a word from, either.

Beyond the Darkness (1979)

I was surprised!

[8/10 · 31 August 2018]

Well I'll be damned, this was a really good movie. Granted, you might need to have a taste for the morbid and grotesque to think so, but for the right kind of person, this thing turns out to be remarkably watchable, intriguing, and even rather emotional.

I'd heard things about this film and its director that led me to believe it was going to be nothing but wall to wall sleaze 'n' trash from a guy best known for directing porn. It's a bit sleazy and trashy, sure, but I think dismissing it as merely possessing those qualities and nothing more is doing the work a huge disservice. There are moments of real elegance here, pathos of a strange and demented sort, and a kind of weird, queasy likeableness that gets under your skin. Frank and iris make a great serial killing couple of an unconventional sort. She's in love, and just wants to keep things straight and nice for her precious boy. Unfortunately, her love is unrequited. With Frank's sweet Anna gone for good, you'd think this would be the perfect chance for Iris to monopolise his affections, but no, damnit, the guy's a taxidermist and keeps Anna's corpse in his bed, and won't be rid of the thing! It's frankly becoming a problem for Iris and something's clearly got to be done!

The relationship between these two characters, and Anna, Frank's now dead and silent (but still somehow potent) love, drives the film, and, whoa, I couldn't believe it, but the movie manages to make them sympathetic and compelling. Frank comes out best even though he's a murderer and a necrophile and who knows what else; iris is admittedly pretty scary and utterly insane, yet still, her position is somehow relatable and she's absolutely right in her advice to Frank. This whole story comes off as some kind of sick and twisted family drama, and somehow I love the damn thing.

Now, there are plenty of uncomfortable scenes for gorehounds and fans of sleaze to sink their teeth into, so don't get the idea that this is some kind of sweet love story couched in the pretenses of an arthouse movie. It's not, or at least not really. Yet I feel a vein of tenderness somehow pokes through all the same. Still, who can forget the stew scene (vile and disgusting!), the embalming, and the wince-inducing bit where Frank carefully plucks out a girl's fingernails while in the process of murdering her. The movie, I think, also contains a lot of humour, but you've probably got to be of a slightly sick disposition to see it as funny -- still, it's undoubtably there if you are ready to open up to it. Much of the humour is derived from the absurd situations Frank gets himself into. Remember the scene of the killer riding on the potato truck in Hitchcock's Frenzy? Yeah, it's a bit like that.

What's more, you've got a really nice, spacious house for the camera to prowl around in, some sweet shots, and an absolutely pumpin' Goblin score that also features a really beautiful piano piece that I have dubbed "The Love Theme". It's probably one of Goblin's best scores, in fact. After watching the movie, check out the band Morte Macabre's stunning rendition of the "Love Theme" (ok, the real title is "Quiet Drops").

Give this one a try if you are ready for something bold, original and screwed up. You might be pleasantly surprised at just how watchable and engrossing it all is. It's probably not a film you'll forget in a hurry. While the movie is peppered with some murders, the pace is kept relatively unhurried throughout, until we nearly get to the ending, when the admittedly unhealthy relationship of Frank and iris comes to a boiling point and there is a sudden explosion of unfettered violence. it's almost just as sad to see the two of them go at each other as it is satisfying. I do love it when art makes me feel my own sort of conflicted emotions, and this film really delivers.

The House by the Cemetery (1981)

There's something about this

[8/10 · 26 August 2018]

I've been into many of Lucio Fulci's films for some years now, but I only watched this one once before yesterday, sometime around 2004, probably. I didn't think it was nearly as good as The Beyond or City of the Living Dead, to which it has some obvious parallels in storytelling. I didn't really get it and was even possibly a little annoyed by it.

Well, it's now 2018 and I've finally watched it again, as my girlfriend wanted us to view "something scary, possibly with Cheap Thrills". I thought, "why not give this weird thing a shot again"? Boy oh boy, I'm glad I did.

It's strange, but I found myself a lot more emotionally invested in this film than I thought I would be. I picked up a lot of interesting thematic resonances, foremost among them a tragic death of one's childhood, which gave the movie an oddly tender feeling despite its gore and bloodiness. "Rite of passage" stories are pretty commonplace and, frankly, I'm usually pretty bored with them by now, but whereas most would choose a different path, Fulci makes one out of horror and death and decay. The atmosphere is rather suffocating throughout, but there is an underlying frisson of -- I can almost call it "soulfulness", which I've found in some of Fulci's films. Even when he's obviously just going for Cheap Thrills, he seems to have something to say, but as the scripts are usually not that well articulated in the early 80s films at least, you get the feeling you are right on the edge of it, trying to find it. I found there were things here that were really fascinating and I think it's a film I'll probably watch again at some point.

Don't get me wrong though, there are a few laughably bad elements, like the Bat Atack Sequence (oh god), and the story seems so vague and wispy that a stiff breeze would blow it away. The latter isn't necessarily always a weakness though, and like the best of Fulci's horror films, this feels like a nightmare, where the rules of reality are slightly bent, and maybe some things normal people would deem to be important are simply glossed over. Nevertheless, I think House by the Cemetery actually did a great job of building and maintaining tension, and there are several pretty awful sequences that made my heart beat faster and brought the sweat out of me. Oddly, I found myself feeling for the characters more than i expected even though they are pretty thinly sketched, and most striking of all, but I didn't mind Bobby the kid one bit. He featured in the movie a lot more than I remembered, and sure, his dubbed voice was a little strange, but it wasn't too bad and I felt a lot of pathos. My mother once told me that horror stories don't normally scare her, but knowing about terrible things happening to children really gets to her, and I think this movie was able to touch on that fear a little bit and make me understand it. Nice job, Lucio.

The film is eerie as hell, and beautiful in a striking, gothic way. That's a very nice creepy house! There's a lot of style on display, and despite some obvious budgetary/editing shortcomings, some rather clever visual misdirection. The story, though it's a bit of a swiss cheese affair, really made me think of H. P. Lovecraft at times, with its dark ancestral secrets, setting, an academic moving into a benighted house, and an old Victorian doctor trying to cheat death and turning into a monster as a result. The prevalence of heart-breaking sobbing as the harbinger of death is a genius touch in my view as it is extremely discomfiting, just as it was intended to be, and succeeds in both setting your "teeth on edge" and making you feel bad. I liked it.

All in all, I enjoyed this more than I thoughtI would and I'm glad I gave this movie a second chance.

The Gate (1987)

Fun as hell!

[8/10 · 10 August 2018]

There's no point in spending a lot of time analysing this movie. It's an incredible, over-the-top, very 80s horror experience that is also gloriously childish and exuberant. I loved the performances of the two lead child actors, and I really don't say this often. They were both terrific, and something here in the direction or performances just worked so well that these nearly-pubescent children never put a foot wrong -- a rare thing to see. The paeans to heavy metal were great, even if none of the music featured in the film is as heavy or dark as Venom or Sacrifice! Terry has great taste.

This movie has a thin story, but it has loads of memorable scenes, some sympathetic performances, and a feeling of ecstatic freedom and paradoxical joy in horror and weirdness. It was shot in my home province of Ontario and I enjoyed the little references and cameos from local establishments and such. The movie is 80s-as-hell and can be put alongside some other films of the period that are ostensibly directed at children but dabble in strange morbidity and delight in being somewhat twisted. never once does the movie try to preach morals or ruin the fun. Terry is so over-the-top sometimes it's just glorious. If you want a great movie night with some friends, this would be a nice choice. Even if you're one of those people who finds these projects (the styles, the music, the monsters, the stop-motion, etc) "cheesy" I don't think you'll be able to resist falling under its spell and kind of liking the thing.

Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998)

Completely ridiculous, but loads of fun

[7/10 · 5 August 2018]

I can totally see why this film has such a great reputation. It's quick-on-its-feet (well, once the first forty minutes or so have passed), violent and also doesn't take itself too seriously. in fact, I'd say this is as much of a comedy as it is a crime drama. The situations the characters get themselves in are pretty absurd, and the whole thing hinges on coincidence and a kind of wild spiralling-out-of-control-of-circumstance taht, although a bit unbelievable, just works for telling this kind of story.

What's more, the script is witty as hell and absolutely bursting with great one-liners and scathing put-downs. I found the cadence of the dialogue to be almost lulling, and all the actors delivered their lines with convictiona nd clarity that I find lacking in some of the US films of similar type. Nevertheless, I think fans of the Breaking Bad TV series might enjoy this, as I found some of the elements to be similar, and, as in taht series, at times I felt like I was watching an episode of The Three Stooges instead of a serious crime flick. That's not meant to be a slag against BB or this movie, but just a reflection of just how absurd these things can get.

And really, I think the absurdity is rather welcome. Crime movies can be such dreary affairs nowadays; I think the levity is appreciated. Also, no police characters, just a bunch of hoods and old-timer crooks with names like "Soap", "Bacon", "Barry the baptist" and "Dog". I can't think of a bad performance here and even Sting, of all people, has a small role and doesn't let the side down (god, I'll never forget him in Dune!).

The music is all extremely well-chosen rock and soul tunes, too, and I dug all of it, especially the james Brown and Stooges. The whole film feels very honest and sincere despite its general silliness, and I enjoyed the hell out of it. I also love the ambiguous ending and am glad taht noone has yet interpreted it as an open interpretation to "hey, let's make a sequel!" Good work, fellas.

The Fly (1986)

Legendary with reason

[7/10 · 3 August 2018]

I've not yet read the short story on which both are based, but the majority of people seem to find this a better film than the 1958 version with Vincent Price in the role of the "interloper". I really like Cronenberg as a filmmaker (most of the time) and I certainly see how his version of the story was more challenging from a technical standpoint, but I don't necessarily agree that it's a better film all the same. The original had a quiet, sad psychological feel and told its story in an extremely economical way. It's what I'd call a very "tight" film and I really enjoyed Price as a nicer fellow and friend trying to figure out, along with the scientist's wife, what the hell was going on. Still, Cronenberg's adaptation is very good and I enjoyed the different emphasis; the way he took notions from the original tale and really made it his own, with the usual Cronenberg emphasis on very bad things happening to the human body.

This movie is much more a study of Seth Brundle's character, too. We spend over half the film getting to know him and what he is up to, before his unfortunate accident with a pest and a teleportation machine. He's ably played by jeff Goldblum, whose physicality is very impressive in this demanding role, though I found the actor a little prone to mumbling his dialogue at times. Still, he is supposed to be a socially awkward fellow, so I guess it fits well.

The relationship with Gina Davis's reporter character is very effective, and I liked her strong character from teh outset. Unfortunately she does somewhat degenerate and fall to pieces as the story progresses, but I can't really blame her. In contrast to Vincent Price's "nice guy" portrayal in the 1958 film, the "interloper", or I should say, the third part of the triangle, Veronica's newspaper editor, is a loathsome and despicable person who seems to finally do the right things despite himself. My girlfriend and I spent most of the film wishing he would get killed, and I'm sure Cronenberg made him so sleazy and nasty on purpose. It was frustrating and heartbreaking that Veronica kept returning to him and letting him back into her life, but again, I can't really blame her. In a way, too, it illustrates that even in the "enlightened" time this movie was made, a woman's value in work and life was often extremely underappreciated and a lot of very bad sexual politics sometimes took place. This still happens today, but I'm not sure a guy like Stathis would be able to get away with acting like this toward his female colleagues on any major newspaper, even if he were the editor.

Anyway, you can see right off why Veronica and Seth value each others' company. He treats her well and is kind and passionate toward her, while she gives him a sympathetic ear and not only has a passion for his body but also the work he is doing, which sets her afire with dreams of fame and glory. Admittedly it's not nice to see her going back to Stathis and basically insisting that she's using Seth, but in Seth's company we see a rather different side to her. Her horror and revolusion by the end of the movie is really sad to see. Unfortunately it also leads to the one moment in this movie that I thought was ridiculous: the aborted um, abortion scene, with the rather transformed Seth bursting through the window and abducting Veronica. Now who in hell has a window like that in an operating room anyway? I'm not squeamish as such, but the entire abortion scene seemed a bit superfluous and maybe just an excuse for Cronenberg to play out some of his gynecological horror fetish, which of course reached its apex in Deadringers (released a couple of years later). I think the dream sequence was sufficient and horrible enough as it was, and anyway, you could argue that the "aborted abortion" scene became the excuse to release this movie's non-Cronenberg-directed bad copycat sequel.

Make no mistake though, this film is considered an 80s classic for a reason. I may not rate it as highly as some and I certainly don't think it's as good as some of Cronberg's other, weirder films, but it's still better than some of what he's done lately (the "mature" A History of Violence being possibly his worst film to date) and it's still quite an experience. The horror of the situation really creeps up on you and the first half of the movie includes a lot of sweet scenes that almost lull the viewer into a false sense of security. There's a nice little tribute to the 1958 film near the end and the whole thing becomes gross and revolting in that 70s/80s Cronenberg way you'll either love or hate depending on your personality. I dig it quite a bit; it's one of his very personal touches you can almost always count upon. My only other criticism is that I find the music to be a little dull and too bombastic/mainstream Hollywood, although there were some nice "sad" motifs. I think a sparser, perhaps more electronic-infused score would have suited this thing well. But it's ok! Good film and a must for 80s body horror fans.

The Avengers: The Superlative Seven (1967) Season 5, Episode 12

As usual, I'm not sure it makes a lick of sense, but it's an incredibly good time

[7/10 · 2 August 2018]

I love that The Avengers can be watched totally at random and in any order, so that's basically what I've been doing. I estimate that at this point I've seen a little less than half the series. The show's a lot of fun and in many ways the coolest thing on TV in the 1960s, but I tend to take it slow because the episodes are so full of weird turns of events, double-crosses and totally off-the-wall twists that are hard to make sense of, and the seeming randomness of events paradoxically tends to make the episodes run together sometimes, from my perspective. Essentially, while there are obvious standout episodes, I have trouble following the train of the plot sometimes and so it all becomes a lot of zany, memorable set-pieces. This is particularly true of the later seasons when The Avengers stopped being a "crime" type show and turned into total chaos.

I must say the big surprise for me in this one was Donald Sutherland. The Avengers keeps throwing casting surprises at me, in fact, and it's pretty cool. Here, Donald's character is working alongside John Hollis's foreign agent (I don't think his name or country of origin is ever even mentiond, although I might have missed it) to test soldiers (or something). Yes, to be honest, I'm really not sure why any of this is happening, or who's responsible. But the setting was cool, the banter between the bemused partygoers hugely entertaining, the cast first-rate, the music cool-as-hell, and John Steed was a total boss as usual. Everyone gets on a plane to attend a mysterious party, and even when they realise nobody knows what the hell is going on, they still keep drinking champagne and chatting and smoking like well-behaved gentlemen. Of course, the characters show a lot of eccentricities and that's one of the biggest charms of the show in general.

eventually it turns into a bizarre kind of And Then There Were None.... type scenario as many of the characters get bumped off by an unknown killer whom it's indefatigably stated is one of them! Interestingly, and again somewhat par for the course for this show, it's the women who kind of end up saving the day. Emma Peel isn't in this one much at all, so you know she's going to show up at the end to kick some arse, and she does. She's got Steed's back, always, just as he has hers when she has her few solo adventures, and Diana Rigg is just amazingly cool -- just too cool for words in this role, really.

I like to watch this show late at night, sometimes after having had a few drinks. It works well and suits the mood, but sometimes I'm not so sure it helps me figure out exactly what the devil's going on. Then again, The Avengers is just the kind of show you have to "roll with" and just let all the suaveness and coolness happen around you. I'm sorry if that all sounds half-arsed or something, but it's really the best way I've found to go about it. It's not that you have to switch your brain off, exactly, but that the show's writers (and performers) were just totally on their own track and good luck trying to figure anything out before it happens. Even the endings of most episodes leave me wondering "wtf was all that about?!' some of the time. But there are usually clues in the dialogue, which are just really understated and not made a big deal of. The "big deal" is all about the style, the laid-back nature of the character interactions even when they're at odds, the drinks, nice cars, weird gadgets, sudden and sometimes hilarious death scenes and, in this season, the brilliant interplay between Rigg and Mcnee.

Mars Attacks! (1996)

Surprisingly, a real treat -- a genuine loving parody

[7/10 · 1 August 2018]

I first saw this movie when I was sixteen or so, not long after it came out on video. I feel sure the people who rented it only did so because of the "A-list" actors. I don't think they really "got it" and, at the time, I'm not sure I did either.

over the years since then an interesting thing happened: I ended up watching this about four more times, twice when it just happened to be on and twice (the most recent times) through personal choice. It's safe to say that the damn thing just grew on me like insidious Martian mould. In 1996, I was really into science fiction, but more the "literary" stuff than silly old movies. I was a bit pompous about it all, in fact, so while I did kind of get a kick out of the movie the first time, mostly I just thought, "well, that's pretty silly, and surprisingly -- old-school!" and never really gave it much more consideration. With each subsequent viewing though, my immersion in old SF televisual classics and so-called b-movies had grown greater and certain things about this movie started to make a kind of ghastly, irreverent sense. I choose to just forget about the film being based on some old trading card series; I don't know anything about them, and maybe I'm missing out on something, but I think mars Attacks! works very well regardless as a kind of send-up of very serious and grave 50s and 60s low-budget SF "schlockfests".

The funny thing is, I like a lot of those old movies, and I like them unreservedly. I don't find the form to be automatically "cheesy", too talky, too earnest, or anything like that. And I'm not a huge fan of parody for its own sake. usually, in fact, it leaves me cold at best, and a bit angry at worst, as peoples' hard work and dedication is lamppooned for a new generation with little sense of taste or respect. It's easy to be really contemptuous about mars Attacks!, and I think that was part of my initial impulse. I just didn't see the point in putting an "a-list" cast and director to work on what was essentially a copy of a plot from a 1950s B movie. Jack Nicholson's salary from this film alone might have financed two of those pictures!

But then I thought about it a bit more. 1996 was the year Independence Day came out, too, after all. And what was this movie, this ridiculous blockbuster with the at-the-time state-of-the-art special effects and jumped-up movie stars, but a retread of 1956's Earth VS. the Flying Saucers? In fact, what were a lot of these big blockbuster movies but more expensive takes on what guys like Roger Corman, Val Guest and, yes, Ed Wood, had already done? Were they better just because they had a whole lot of money spent on them? NO!

So, mars Attacks! is different because it's bald-faced about it, and that's really the extent of the parody. The more things change, the more they stay the same. The actors here know they're in a silly movie, and they're allowed to have fun. Nobody's expected to pretend this movie is anything other than what it is: a total unrepentent blast from the past.

Sure, the ending is completely retarded. But it's ok as it's totally in keeping with the form! I like the build-up a lot. I enjoy the ridiculous stereotype characters, especially Ron Stiger's screaming red-in-the-face, practically foaming-at-the-mouth warmonger general. Jack nicholson as US President is so grave and sincere, it's hilarious; bang-up job from him, too. And there are so many adorable little cameos, gags and tributes. The music is nothing but loud warbly electronics done on an old synthesiser and it's the kind of thing that's both a terrific call-back to films of yore and something to annoy bothersome houseguests with. Tim Burton and Danny Elfman seem to have this relationship of trust going consistently, and I'm glad they went with this score instead of the normal bombastic stuff from sci-fi blockbusters of the 90s and beyond. About the gags, there are just too many to list, and a lot of them are over so quick you could easily miss them. This makes the movie have a nice re-play value, though, and is probably why I was always tempted to re-watch it even when my initial judgment was "kind of bad!".

I haven't even talked about the aliens. They're ridiculous and awesome. I love their perpetually pissed-off duck-quack talking. They seem to have a sense of humour even though they're hell-bent on killing everyone. And I'm sorry I can't remember the name of the IMDB reviewer who said this, but I just love the notion (which I just came across the other day here after watching again) that the martians set out to destroy everything "uncool" about humanity. I never thought of it like that before, and I think he might be on to something!

I also have to respect that even though Tim Burton got together a whole bunch of top-bill actors, everyone was not only (presumably) on board with the project, but most of them agreed to get killed off in sudden and undignified ways. I don't think anyone's acting chops were exactly stretched making this movie, but I hope everyone had a good time and enjoyed their cameos and generic parts and laughed along when they were dispatched. This is a rare beast for sure: a self-aware and slightly smug 1990s movie that still managed to win me over and put several big grins on my face. Try it!

Hard Candy (2005)

I'm a decent guy! Ask anyone!

[6/10 · 30 July 2018]

Well now, the profusion of low scores for this title I'm seeing on IMDB are interesting. Some of the reviews themselves are rather revealing, too. I don't blame most of my fellows; I couldn't really give this a higher score even though a part of me wanted to, but on the whole I'm very glad I watched this film and as a work of art that puts the viewer in the position of being the "victim" of a kind of sociological experiment, I think it's an admirable success.

A mistake I think many people make when viewing film is to try to ascribe a message to it: a moral you can sum up in a sentence, a payload or political polemic. It's not that people necessarily want to see this in the films they watch, but they can't help but do this sometimes, and oftentime the result of their conclusions leaves viewers feeling angry and manipulated.

Make no mistake, then, this film is manipulative. I ask, though, why shouldn't it be? Furthermore, although it's manipulative in a rather extreme, even heavy-handed way, I don't think it's trying to deliver a message to the viewer in a neat little box with a bow. What I believe it is doing is presenting a situation which, after all, is not all that uncommon in the annals of recent human history, and turning it on its head; asking us to examine it from several different angles and perspectives which we might not have considered.

So, the one criticism I really have of this film is unfortunately the same one that everybody else who actually liked it (that is, those that aren't utterly convinced that it's trying to shove a feminist message down their throats) have: I don't see how haley was able to do some of the things she apparently did in this movie. The precociousness and intelligence, I can buy, but the physical strength is a bit more of a stretch. Interestingly, every time jeff gets poleaxed and comes to, haley has done something else rather incredible with his body. How does she manage it? jeff must be twice her weight and size. Even if she bench presses that kind of weight regularly, managing to manoeuvre him into a chair, get off his clothes, suffocate him unconscious with cling wrap (in reality I suspect he would have been fighting really hard and it would have taken several minutes to accomplish this, though I suppose he could have been already weakened by being drugged earlier), suspend him from the ceiling -- all that stuff stretches credibility to its breaking point. In spite of having no difficulty accepting her intelligence, too, I did find at a couple of points that I was listening to an older woman speak, and not a fourteen-year-old-girl. This is particularly evident when she is reprimanding jeff for allowing her to drink and accepting her flirtations. I"ts so easy to blame a kid!", she says. "If a kid says, 'hey, let's make screwdrivers!', you take the alcohol away!" I couldn't help but feel this was the screen-writer pointing the finger and not a "kid" talking at all, though Ellen page delivered the whole scene with a lot of feeling and intensity.

As for her incredible physical feats, hey, maybe she had an accomplice we didn't even see? We always get those scenes from Jeff's perspective, right, so, you never know! I'm only being half-serious, but the last-moment revelation at the end that jeff in fact had an accomplice and they were responsible for the missing/dead girl together could make for a nice comparison.

The lack of other characters in the movie didn't really bother me, though, despite that last-moment reveal of a person of great significance whom we never even heard of up til that point. This after all isn't the point of the film, and in the end I admire it's sheer dedication to minimalism. This could have been a stage play, easily. And some of my favourite productions are two-handers in minimal sets, so this one fits right in. At 100 minutes though, it is perhaps just a little too lenghty, or maybe I would have spent some of that extra time in greater build-up before the two characters met, or background, or maybe even a phone call or two between jeff and Aaron to establish that they had some kind of relationship so it didn't come so much out of left-field. Still, I think it entirely possible that things like that would have taken away from the direct, what-you-see-is-what-you-get nature of the film, and that is in the end one of its most admirable qualities.

The other thing to really admire in the film are the performances, which are both top-class in their own right. haley is adorable and, during those moments when we still feel jeff might be innocent, it's easy to see how he could be taken in fully and fighting with himself to stay away from this dangerously precocious and sexually awakened youngster. Jeff himself is put through the wringer of emotions and displays a wide range, but mostly he just comes across as a rather normal, low-key guy in his early thirties, the type whom you wouldn't think twice about meeting on the street. That's part of the genius of it. He has an explanation for everything; he has no harmful urges, he's just a photographer!

In the end, I don't think this movie comes down firmly on haley's side any more than it really does on Jeff's. I could wish that we knew a little more about her, because I don't think the role of badass vigilante entirely suits, but I'm ok with a bit of obscurity and appreciate that the filmmakers didn't want to get bogged down in backstory and unnecessary complexities. This is a "what if?" movie, and thus I think it's advisable to suspend disblief at some of its more incredible elements and allow the thought experiment to proceed. The thought experiment in question asks you to imagine "what if this often all-too-real and tragic situation happened this way instead?" "What if the child got the upper hand? What if the child in question had her own particular kind of psychopathy to contend with?" It's interesting, and timely, and although I have some reservations, I'm glad it was made.

The House by the Lake (1976)

Both tense and fun

[8/10 · 21 July 2018]

This was simply a great 70s exploitation film. There were similarities to others I have seen, sure, and predictably perhaps, I Spit on Your Grave came to mind, but this movie does things quite differently and is the better for it. There's also no protracted, difficult-to-watch rape scene, so there's that, although it is possible to argue that this actually makes Death Weekend/house by the Lake more exploitative because it pulls its punches in showing you just how horrible a victimised woman can be treated by a group of horny, ignorant men. Nevertheless, I really had a good time with this (which you can't properly say about I Spit on Your Grave without feeling weird), and it was even a lot of fun. It's also full of familiar southern Ontario locations, as it was mostly shot in and around King City and Kleinberg. The former place has changed quite a bit since 1975, but you can still find some very nice, beautiful and roomy houses like the one that gets gloriously trashed in this film.

This movie is really about a strong woman pitting her wits against five guys. yes, five guys: her new boyfriend, harry, if you can even call him that, is a pathetic loser who cares for nothing but his property and money. To my mind he was the most despicable guy in the film, moreso than the hooligans who come after the unhappy couple. His motives are totally trashy and he comes across as a nasty bullshitter. Just hateful. The four home-invaders are ignorant and aggressive, but are by contrast, a bit relatable in a way, and I almost forgot what scum they were for a moment as I laughed and cheered them on as they wrecked the house and totally went to town smashing everything in sight, pouring beer everywhere and just seemingly having the time of their lives. Honestly, that was probably a selling point for the young actors in this movie. Their leader, though, is a bit of a calculating sort, and I did think the hint of Stockholm syndrome at the endd was a little misplaced. Then again, the movie is ambiguous enough about it that it shouldn't really piss anyone off, and there's after all no doubt that the guy is dead -- it was just a strange final scene to close on, as she remembers this guy and what he did and, seemingly, has a hint of regret about killing him.

The deaths though are generally well done and appropriate. Diane really kicks arse and the actor put in a great performance. She's a very tough female protagonist in a 70s movie and that's just a joy to see. Even the comic relief drunk guy was on point. This film did a great job with its cast of characters in a style that's perhaps not too recognised for such things. This is a great edition to the small but notable Canadian exploitation/horror canon and a bit of an unsung classic in the genre.

Assignment: Outer Space (1960)

Gravity

[4/10 · 21 July 2018]

It could be my love of vintage SF in general, but still, there's something about these creeky old Italian space movies that keeps me coming back to them. Despite their often formulaic natures they somehow end up being oddly memorable, even if perhaps for the wrong reasons.

The movie here is notable because it's Antonio Margheredi's first feature. He would go on to do the mostly-charming Gamma 1 movies, along with lots of entertaining gothics, gialli, action and horror films. This is a clunky hard SF picture (or at least, it's trying to be hard SF) without the weirdness of the Gamma cycle and thus ends up being really dry and a bit unexciting.

nevertheless, the film prefigures 2001 by showing spaceship crews placed in cryogenic suspension for long space journeys. It's clear that someone involved in writing the script did some background reading and that is pretty cool. Unfortunately they get a lot of things totally wrong. The film shares in common with many others of its type, along with vintage TV shows, some real howler scientific errors. First off, nobody really seems to know what a galaxy actually is. This is just something you have to ignore, and when someone urgently shouts a line like "it's in the next galaxy, Commander!" with a worried look and a frisson of sweat, you just have to pretend they're actually saying something else.

The ships all have annoying and totally unmemorable names like ZX226 and LD410. This is another characteristic of the Italian space opera. Why can't they call 'em Gladio, Roma or something? Italians surely would give colourful names to their spacefleet. But wait, I forgot, this is dubbed in English of course with pompous American voice actors shouting the dialogue at one another! Actually I believe there are some real-life Americans in the cast, too, this time.

It's cool that a black guy has a position of respect on board ship and nobody even mentions it, but that's slightly undercut by the reporter's utterly flummoxed reaction to there being a woman in the crew. This leads to a totally bad non-sequitur romance, of course. In the end the black fellow, a friendly guy named Al, who is a really fun character, has to sacrifice himself. He was the best character in the movie.

There's some really poor model-work and an infamous explosion shot that is supposed to be in space but is actually clipped straight out of a movie about cars. Probably looked ok on the tiny low-resolution screens of the day. But what's really hilarious about this movie to me is the absolute gravity and seriousness with which everything is done. You just don't see this anymore. Normally, I actually appreciate this quality of old SF films, but this one's attempt to be hard science fiction and its simultaneous utter failure in that department renders the stiff acting and dialogue a real scream. nevertheless, I appreciate how hard they were trying with this -- I really do.

Tales from the Crypt (1972)

Well done horror anthology from Amicus

[8/10 · 29 May 2018]

I love short stories and probably spend more time reading them, all told, than I do novels. It stands to reason then that the anthology format, both in film and especially on TV where it is more prevalent, is one of my favourite things. New characters and situations with each story, no continuity, and a promise that if you're not really into this particular story, stick around because the next one might be up your alley. Night Gallery, Twilight Zone, Outer Limits, Thriller, hammer House of Horror, and even a more contemporary example like Black Mirror -- that's my bag. So naturally, I was eager to check out all these Amicus productions from the 70s. They're all pretty entertaining, even if the story quality isn't consistently high, and although I still haven't seen two or three of them, I'd rank Tales from the Crypt as one of the best of the series, along with Beyond the Grave (probably my favourite) and The House that Dripped Blood.

Here we have five short tales connected by a fairly standard but ominous framing device. There's a strong cast, nice 70s décor, and even some pathos. A lot of these movies have the predictable theme of jerks getting hit with justice of one kind or another. Thus, it's sometimes hard for this viewer to see them as true horror, since true horror involves bad things happening to people who don't deserve it. Nevertheless, one thing I like about these pictures is that despite everything they often impart a good degree of sympathy toward their characters, even, sometimes, the more despicable ones. And I'm not going to say unreservedly that everyone here deserves their fate. Anyway, watching this is like having a night of detailed and somewhat scary dreams. You know they're connected in some way but they're all different, yet seem like takes on the same or similar themes. The order and progression of the tales is well-chosen and I think the direction is solid, sometimes verging on the artistic. Here are some thoughts on the individual stories.

All Through the House:

Well, I view this one as a mere introduction to what's to come. A lady kills her husband in cold blood and is then informed by the radio (in an interruption of dire christmas music) to be on the lookout for a Santa suited maniac. I guess the creators of Silent night, Deadly Night probably saw this. Anyway, there's barely any dialogue at all and we have to listen to the most dreadful, enervating christmas choral music for the duration. It was probably sapping Joan Collins's character's will to live, anyway. It's ok, but just a teaser that is ultimately quite meaningless.

"Reflections of Death":

This was much better. It got to me, anyway, because I hate these kind of scenarios, with dreams within dreams and a person appearing to wake up and not being sure of what is reality. This happens to me sometimes, especially if I'm having a bad night for whatever reason, and always leaves me feeling disassociated and unsure of my place in the world. So, to me, this was a real nightmare. Sure, it's been done before, but that didnt' diminish its effectiveness, for me. Poor Ian henry didn't get very far, did he?

"Poetic Justice":

This is a story about the consequences of bullying. The bullied person this time round is not a child, but a sweet, kindly old fellow played by Peter Cushing, who loves animals and children, but is resented by his rich, rotten neighbours. The worst of the neighbours, a father and his loathsome son, mount a campaign of terror against the old man, to make him miserable and drive him away from the neighbourhood, or maybe worse. Their taunts and besmirching of the old man's character drive him over the edge, but there's poetic justice to be had against the perpetrators. I liked this one a lot, mostly because Cushing's portrayal was so good, and, well, sincere. My heart-strings were definitely pulled. I do kind of feel that the supernatural element wasn't entirely convincing. I mean, if all bullied suicides could come back and exact revenge! -- yet he did seem to practice a form of ritualistic witchcraft, and while ouija boards are silly and always make me laugh, I get where they were going with this and i can't honestly think of a non-supernatural solution that would have been as satisfying.

"Wish You Were Here":

A painful and rather depressing short take on thee always popular "three wishes"/"Monkey's Paw" type scenario. It struck me as surprisingly grim, especially as Richard Greene's character was probably the one guy here met with "justice" who didn't at all deserve such suffering. Jeez. It made me feel bad, and that's good, if that makes sense.

"Blind Alleys":

This one was really tense and well-directed. And hey, it's Patrick Magee! Always a pleasure to find him in something. nevertheless, all that stuff he said about blind people is utter nonsense. And they go from powerless figures of pity to the most powerful people in the room in a matter of seconds. Which one is it? if they were so clever and resourceful, why suffer at the major's hands for so long? Nevertheless, it's true that the disabled were often locked up in such "homes" with terrible conditions, and it's true that people were sometimes forgotten about and basically left to rot in such establishments. I think such things were mostly done with by 1972; This seems more like a place out of Dickens, but hey, the notion has its heart in the right place. Incredibly, by the end they managed to wring some sympathy out of me for the major, who after all was probably just in the wrong job, although looking at it from that angle, the story could also be considered a sort of commentary on the nepotism and abuse flagrant in the army, where the officers can live like kings while those in the bottom file have to contend with dish- water and near starvation rations. Again, I don't think any contemporary army in the west operates like this today, but certainly the screen-writers here probably experienced some horrors in their own camp during World War II. Anyway, good story despite some reservations. I really felt sorry for that poor dog, though.

These movies, paradoxically, are quite nice. What I mean by this is that despite dabbling in the macabre and such, they're rather low-key compared with most modern horror, and make for an evening well-spent, possibly even with younger family members (although I haven't tried this myself and maybe most young people brought up with today's fast-paced fare would have a hard time). It's really difficult not to like them, though, and they are great for people who don't necessarily have the attention spans for long gothic melodramas or whatever yet still enjoy seeing some of the trappings. I still think Beyond the Grave is probably the best one, but you really ought to give Tales from the Crypt a go, too.