There is plenty of "Evil Dead" content on this site if you look around. The original film was one of those movies that terrified me at the prospect of seeing originally. Once I crossed the threshold however, I have not been able to resist the "Deadites" and any time one of these films comes up at a theater, I make the effort to go.
As part of the "Panic at the Paramount" Halloween Programming, we got a chance to see the original film presented with a live performance of the accompanying score. This presentation is apparently touring because my friend Aaron Neuwirth saw it in Los Angeles a week before we got it here in Austin. The score is performed by an ensemble of musicians rather than a full orchestra, but they are all quite good and there were no spots where I thought the sound was empty.
The band members are enthusiastic and the leader of the group encouraged the audience to get into the swing of things with cheers, screams and hooting or hollering as called for. It seems like the audience can fire up the performance with an engaged response to what they are listening to. This was a lot of fun and if it comes to your neck of the woods, (see what I did there?) you should definitely make the trek out to see and hear it.
As hard as it is for me to believe, I do not have a post on the original John Carpenter Halloween from 1978. I have seen this movie almost every year for twenty years at least, and I guess I never had the chance to go back and see it on the big screen until now. It seems like there must have been a Fathom Event Screening, but I looked on the site here and found nothing. So thank you Paramount Theater for giving me this opportunity.
Although not the first "slasher" horror film, that title must belong to "Psycho", John Carpenter's Halloween defined the genre in the late 70s and for the last fifty years has been the template for all the subsequent slasher films around. Obviously, the title "Halloween" helps make this a perennial, something it most certainly not have achieved under the original title "The Babysitter Murders". So much care was taken to set up the characters who are being stalked, it is different that almost all the subsequent films which make the victims into nearly nameless notches on the knife, axe, chainsaw of the killers in later films. The three main girls are introduced and each gets some moments to be a real teenager, before they become the target. Laurie, Annie and Lynda are average girls, with love lives that vary from the raucous to the non-existent. In the end it is Laurie, the virginal Jamie Leigh Curtis who survives and is remembered, but Annie had a well developed suspense scene in the film that is just as effective as the climax moments, at drawing a scared response from the audience.
Donald Pleasance is a little crazed as Dr. Loomis, although from what he knows, it is perfectly understandable. His sense of urgency does carry the pacing of the film in some of the spots where the killer is not on screen or actively pursuing he girls. I was a little nonplussed at the reaction of some of the audience at the screening. They seemed unable to adjust their post modern sensibilities to the late seventies context. They have seen scream too many times to know that the reason that meta narrative exists at all is that the original films took place. I felt a little like Randy at the party, I know the rules and why they existed in 1978, but no one else seemed to care. They did still appreciate the film, but I could not understand why they laughed at some of the moments in the film that are frightening or serious.
Anyway, I found the movie to be continuously compelling, and well shot, utilizing locations in Southern California that I grew up in as Haddonfield, Illinois. Michael Myers becomes an iconic masked killer and there is a long line of slashers that followed in his wake.
Director Robert Rodriguez was presenting the film with a surprise second feature, which was only revealed at the screening. It turned out he was planning a Carpenter double feature, by including Carpenter's next Theatrical Feature "The Fog"
I saw "The Fog" in it's original release and I have always liked the movie. It is a ghost story, told as a ghost tory with malevolent forces returning to wreak vengeance on the descendants of those who wronged them.
I like the fact that not everyone who gets murdered by the ghosts, deserves their fate. After all, furious spirits from beyond the grave are not always reasonable. This film puts Jamie Leigh Curtis in the story, but she is not really the star. If there is a featured performer it is the then wife of the director, Adrienne Barbeau. She plays the evening DJ at the local radio station and her studio is at a high point in the seaside community, so she can see the dangerous fog coming off the ocean, and she directs people to flee when it is clear that the fog contains the ghosts that have returned for their justice.
Jamie Leigh's Mom, Janet Leigh, is also in the picture, a nice bit of stunt casting but not one that was essential. Carpenter made running from the weather much more thrilling than Shyamalan did in "The Happening". It is a lot scarier to have the fog manifest as dead sailors bent on killing, than leaves blowing in the wind.
I can's say it all makes sense, but I like the fact that Tom Atkins gets played as a sex symbol and John Houseman tells a scary story to kids on the beach. All in all it was a ton of fun.
The "Panic! at the Paramount" series this year has featured several special presentations that required an additional admission fee past our membership subscription. That has been perfectly reasonable given the quality of the programming. This presentation of the John Landis classic, featured a Q and A after the movie with the film's star David Naughton, who turned out to be quite the raconteur. He told us a number of funny stories about the production and working with the special effects make-up of Rick Baker
This is another of the great 1980s horror films that initiated the practice of mixing humor in with the frights. Landis was the right guy to do this having a great background in comedy, having made both "Animal House" and "the Blues Brothers". This film came out the summer I was working as a delivery driver for a photo supply company in Los Angeles. One of the places I delivered to, printed movie posters, and I just could not manage to snag one for this movie from the stacks of them I had to walk by when making a delivery to the printing company.
Jack and David are two college students, traveling through Europe on a summer excursion. They end up in a remote part of England, walking through a rural area, that is populated by a community living with a secret that casts fear over them. They are not particularly friendly natives and the boys are sent packing into the dark with a warning to stick to the road and stay off the moors. The humor had already started with the kibbitzing between the two young men, but it get more intensely humorous when they realize they have wandered off the road and they hear a howling animal near them. The tone shifts suddenly, and a horrifying bloody attack ensues. That is the pattern for the rest of the movie. A moment of levity is suddenly dashed by some horror, or a moment of terror becomes a joke in the hands of the actors and director.
Rick Baker famously won the first Academy Award for the new make-up category, for the combination of prosthetics, puppetry and hair and make-up moments. The scene where David's hand extends as it becomes a paw was shot one time. Landis called cut and print and was ready to go to the next shot, but Baker had spent months getting the effect ready and was not prepared to be done so quickly. As Naughton told it, Landis looked at Baker and asked, "Does it do something else" and the flummoxed make up master had to say no, and Landis simply said, "Let's move on then."
The use of pop tunes that evoked the moon was another early innovation. Tons of movies use "needle drops" these days, but in 1981, most films relied on original music for their cues. I can't say that "America Werewolf in London" was the first to use them, but it is the earliest film I can remember that used previous record hits for the distinct purpose of highlighting a scene in the movie. Other films may have used popular songs as background, but this movie was using them as punchlines and energy points.
It might be fair to classify the movie as a romance as well as a horror-comedy. The lovely Jenny Agutter plays the nurse who takes a special interest in David after he is discharged from the hospital. Their love affair is a touching counter-point to the horror story that David is living through. His friend Jack makes frequent appearances in the film, after his character has died, and there are great visual jokes that go along with some gruesome imagery. This is another example of how gallows humor is injected into the story.
I have heard it said that the 1980s were the golden age of horror films. I think that may be a little bit of an exaggeration, but having experienced "Re-Animator", Fright Night", "The Fog" and this movie, all in the last month, I might be convinced.
Celebrating the 40th Anniversary of it's release, is one of my favorite horror films from the 1980s, "Fright Night". This suburban take on vampire lore has all the elements that made the 80s horror films so much fun. There is nudity, blood, great practical effects, and a sense of humor that fit the times so well. It also has a couple of iconic performances from veteran actors, who are utilized perfectly in this film. This is one of the great ones for you horror fans, so sit back and read while I gush about how great this movie is.
Charlie Brewster is a high school kid, navigating his hormones, struggling with his grades and hung up on a lot of the geeky things that any horror movie fan might care for. He lives with his mother in a nice suburb in an older two story house. His bedroom happens to face the vacant house next door, and as you can imagine, he starts noticing things there that are disturbing. Like a lot of kids in the 70s and 80s, he is a fan of a late night movie show that features horror films, many of them from the 1950s. This fact plays a part because his girlfriend thinks that he is conflating what he sees on the TV with what is happening next door, the arrival of a vampire.
The mundane neighborhood feels like the perfect place for a vampire to hang out, and this vampire is the exquisitely disguised Jerry Dandridge. He looks like a night club lothario, speaks as if he is a cultured antiques dealer and he has an interesting cover that explains some of his activities. Well before it became a cable TV phenomena, Jerry and his familiar Billy Cole, flip houses. So there is always material coming in and out, and the windows might be covered for lighting reasons. They do however fail to cover the upstairs bedroom windows, and that is where Charlie witnesses one of Jerry's meals being consumed.
How does a normal kid, convince anyone to listen to him when he cries vampire. The murders in the town point to Jerry from Charlie's perspective, and when he goes to the police and tries to get them involved, suddenly Jerry is as aware of Charlie as Charlie is aware of him. The battle of wills and the vampire strategies make up the bulk of the plot, aided by two terrific secondary characters. Charlie has a oddball friend, nicknamed "Evil Ed" who provides Charlie with advice about resisting a vampire. Ed is played by Stephen Geoffreys, who was born to play a young Jack Nicolson, if ever they needed an actor for a flashback sequence. His gleeful laugh and haughty distain for Charlie's story make the plot more interesting.
The character of horror nerd Ed is not the only source of assistance that Charlie seeks out, and this is where the best element in the film comes in to play. Charlie contacts Peter Vincent, the washed up horror movie actor, who hosts the local "Fright Night" movie show. Vincent is played by the late Roddy McDowall. McDowall had more than 250 acting credits to his name, including the Academy Award winning "How Green Was My Valley" and "Lassie Come Home" as well as four of the five original "Planet of the Apes" movies. This was the juiciest part he ever had, a craven coward when faced with a real vampire, his fearless vampire hunter from the movies is exposed. McDowall hams up the actor part of the script, but also delivers some real pathos to the character. Peter is forced to become what he has only pretended to be in the past. Watching him grow a spine when faced with the consequences of his lack of faith, is one of the great moments of acting in the film. I will continue to insist that he should have been recognized with supporting actor awards for this movie, but of course horror films get overlooked all the time by prestige organizations.
Opposite Peter Vincent is our vampire, played by Chris Sarandon. A vampire named "Jerry" is just the kind of twist that is needed to make the genre fresh for the era. Sarandon follows the script impeccably, presenting Jerry as innocuous at times, and threatening in other moments. He has the slick confidence that a would be Don Juan would portray to the world, all the time he casually munches on an apple , he really is licking his lips with his piercing eyes. He moves casually up and down the stairs and laughs off the challenges of the humans trying to end him. He has tender scenes with both Amy and Ed, suggesting a deeper emotional core than just the need to feed. His performance is the equal of his counterpart, and one of the most memorable vampires in movies you are likely to meet.
Finally, I need to say something about the effects and make-up. This is a movie that was made at the height of practical effects, before CGI rendered real on camera props and make-up less important. When Jerry transforms into his vampire shape, it is repulsive and frightening. There is a jump scare moment with a transformed Evil Ed, that is heart wrenching in spite of the plot point he was engaged in. The transformation of Amy is one of the most startling horror images I can remember from that decade. All of those moments will make you long for the artists of that era, and resent the coders that have taken over their roles. I highly recommend this film to everyone.
Here is another of the best films of the year, that I am getting to, way past the time I saw it. "Good Boy" is a horror film with a relatively brief running time, but it will deliver the suspense, shocks and dread that you crave with these kinds of movies, and it will give you a real hero to root for in Indy" the terrific star of the movie, and the title character. In case you still don't know, "Indy" is a dog and the film story is told through his point of view. Dog lovers should be entranced with this film and relieved but a bit sad at the resolution. I don't want to give any spoilers, but be assured, you will be ok as an animal lover when this is all done.
Our lead actor, is the pet of the director, and has not been trained as an actor. "Indy" is reacting to the elements of the story, but the actor Indy is sometimes just being a dog, who is being closely watched by his human companion, so that editing and normal dog behavior can be crafted into s scary story that features a dog. I am all for the praise that the dog is receiving for his performance, but the talk of an Academy Award nomination should probably belong to the editing team as much as our canine leading man.
The movie is a haunted house type story, although there are moments of possession and human perfidity. Todd is the human featured in the film, but we barely see his face in any of the shots. At first I believed the character was a recovering drug addict, but as the movie goes on, it becomes apparent that Todd is suffering from cancer, and it is effecting his personality and behaviors. There is as a result some ambiguity as to whether some of the events are supernatural or merely the ramification of Todd's declining health. Indy knows there is something wrong, and he is loyal to a fault. Any dog owner who has instantly regretted snapping at their dog in a moment of stress, knows how wonderful it is that our pets can forget a momentary detour from our usual path.
Indy wants to do the right thing, but as a dog, he can't understand some of the things he sees, and that we see through his eyes. There are moments of horror that reflect some violence, but the movie is really about the horror of losing touch with your humanity. There are a couple of good jump scares, and there really is a supernatural element to the movie, but while dread is the feeling that envelops the story, it is really just sadness that forms the climax.
The lack of dialogue and exposition will be challenging to some viewers, but anyone who has loved a dog will want to stay invested in Indy's journey. The hair on the back of your neck will stand up a couple of times, and there may seem to be jeopardy to the dog, but in the end this is the story of a good boy, who struggles in his animal brain, to make sense of the world he finds himself in with his human companion. This movie is a triumph and deserves the accolades it is receiving.
The fact that it has taken me more than three weeks to post on this film, should not in any way be seen as a fault in the movie. From my perspective, this is one of the best films I have seen this year and it has a strong chance of making my end of the year list. I have simply been busy and lackadaisical in following through on my promise to post on everything I see in a theater. This movie might not be on any screen near you, but it should be available for streaming soon and it will be worthy your money to do so.
"Roofman" is based on the true story of a burglar/robber, who despite being a criminal and threatening people, seems to also have been a person with a good heart and brain. The fact that we can sympathize with the character, in spite of his criminal activity is a combination of the real person the story is based on, and the script/performance supplied by the movie. Everyone likes an underdog, and the character of Jeff, played by Channing Tatum, gives us that underdog in a very appealing package. He is a family man, struggling with the inability to hold a job that would take care of his family. He is smart enough to figure out a low risk criminal career, but of course gets caught. He is also smart enough to figure out a way to escape, but he has not figured out what to do once he has, He is all tactics without strategy.
Tatum has grown into a very appealing actor and this role is probably his career best performance so far. He hits the right notes of desperation in the opening act, as Jeff falls into a life of crime. His victims, who are not the ones financially responsible, all seem to feel he was a decent guy, in spite of being held up. He is polite, apologetic, and considerate of the employees that he encounters. In he second act of the film, he meets and bonds with a woman, who is unaware of his status as a fugitive, and she sees his good qualities and falls in love with that guy. Kirsten Dunst plays the friendly employee of the Toy R Us store that Jeff is hiding out in, and her sincerity and open nature are infectious. I personally think this is a career best performance as well. Dunst and Tatum have great on screen chemistry, which makes the outlandish but true story attractive to us as viewers.
There are a few parts of the movie plot that seem to be manufactured to get the characters into a coherent story. Jeff is hiding out for six months because he has to wait on his fixer buddy to get back from an overseas job. He also has to commit another crime, to be able to pay for the escape plan he is getting from this mysterious compatriot. That one last job brings together the two lives he has been leading, which is of course the climax of the film, so maybe it feels a little inevitable. What I did like is the fidelity of the story to the real events. They don't manufacture a resolution to make us happy, they just spin the outcome to make it feel less sad.
The film is sold as a comedy, and while there are comedic moments, that is not really an accurate description of the movie. This is a romantic drama with a real life criminal background, which is doomed from the start. The fact that it is ultimately a downer is overcome by the bright relationship between the two leads. Peter Dinklage provides an antagonist that diverts us from the fact that Jeff is the criminal. Dinklage can do both the comedic and the a-hole parts well and he does both of those in this film. My friend Howard and I talked about this film for a special episode of the LAMBcast, when that gets posted, I will share the podcast here with you so you can listen if interested.
I will tell you up front, especially if you are new to this site, I love musicals. The form is not as popular as it once was, but the ones that manage to make it to the screen are usually going to get some attention from me, even if I have reservations about the subject or director. Hell, if Ari Aster or Robert Eggers did a musical, I'd bother to see it. Fortunately, I don't have those reservations about this particular film. I generally trust Bill Condon as a director and, although I never read the original novel, I am a big fan of the 1985 film that was based on it. William Hurt won the Academy Award for his performance as Luis Molina, and the film played the story straight as a political drama, with tragic outcomes.
When the story was converted to a Broadway Musical, I was frankly confused. I could not quite imagine how this bleak story of two prisoners in a South American hellhole, would work as fodder for tourists visiting New York City. Even with the fantasy sequences extended, it seemed like a longshot at best. I never saw the musical version, which was quite successful, until now. It works really well as a film, and I would be interested in seeing a stage production so I could compare the way they transition between the two worlds presented in the story.
There will be some comparisons here to the 1985 film, since that is my original experience. I actually purchased a Laser Disc copy in the last year because I did not own it in any other form, and the cover art is really nice. I rewatched the film and confirmed my impression from 1985, this was one of the best films of the year. So now it comes time to see the musical version in a screen format, and I have to say I was nicely impressed. The tone is a little old fashioned, but that's ok, so am I.
There are three things that are important to talk about here, the music sequences, the original story premise and the performances. The thing that I liked the most about the musical sequences is that they remind me of the dance numbers and songs from the 30s and 40s era films that inspired them. The camerawork is not ostentatious, it is just clever enough to give us some interesting views of the action taking place. For the most part, the scenes are shown in full screen shots with very limited edits. I'm not an expert, but I would be willing to believe that some of them were done in single takes from start to finish 9if not, then a nod to the editors who made it appear seamless). The settings are often elaborate in the way a musical from bygone times would be. There are extravagant costumes, interesting backgrounds, and colors that pop every time we go to the musical fantasies. Unlike some contemporary music, you could actually follow a melody in most of the songs. This was not a Sondheim tonal fest, but a throwback to films like "Cabaret" or "Chicago". I wasn't humming the tunes as I left the theater, but I could if I listened to them a little more.
Bill Condon has stayed true to the political story, but there is one significant change. Molina, the persecuted homosexual that is cellmates with Valentin, the political prisoner, is revealed much earlier in the story as an informer for the warden. That limited my ability to build the requisite sympathy for the character for a lot longer time than in the 1985 film. The prison sequences are fairly grueling, and I was happy there there was no dance number to accompany the food poisoning diarrhea scene. The story is also set more clearly in the Argentina of the 1970s. The timing of events in Argentina are closely tied to the ending of the musical, where they were not as important in the 85 film.
A Crappy Poster Does Not Help
There are several changes in the story of the old film that Molina is recounting from his memory. Those allow the fantasy character played by Jennifer Lopez, much more of a role than Sonia Braga got. Lopez continues to be beautiful on screen and her singing performance is very good, with eight or so songs to perform, including the climax title song. She has the most impressive of the musical elements in the film. Her two costars, get something that the two stars of the 1985 movie don't get, they have dual roles not only as the prisoners but as characters in the fantasy of the movie "Kiss of the Spider Woman" as Molina is telling it. Diego Luna has the heavier role in the musical sequences as the romantic interest of the star Ingrid Luna (Lopez). Tonatiuh, the actor playing Molina, has the stronger role in the prison scenes. Both of the men are quite good in the jail set scenes. Tonatiuh plays Molina with less obvious femininity than Hurt did, and the more subdued reading of the character might be better for the story, but it will probably not sustain the attention that Hurt's performance did. This may be a case where the authentic casting works against the need for the audience to suspend it's disbelief.
So, the movie is old fashioned, put together professionally, does right by it's socially important political story and the music scenes all work. So why is this film going nowhere fast with audiences? I guess it is just a different world. This movie could have been platform released thirty years ago, starting in prestige locations and then getting a wider release as interest grew. That is not the world we live in anymore, and the success of the movie suffers for it. If you can find it on the big screen, go for it, but my guess is that it will be PPV this week and streaming on a service next month. Too bad, because it would bring back some old fashioned glamour to a movie going experience.
