Now watching...

I do appreciate it Brian, even if I don't get to some of those videos for a long time.

there's always that obsequious arse-creeper -- usually armed with her little TIFF-branded tote bag, her doorstopper festival program and her reading glasses hanging from a cord around her neck, or his -- who can't help but address the talent during post-screening Q&A's as if they've known them all their lives and really, truly speak for all of us in attendance when they say what an absolute pleasure it is to park their noses up yet another celebrity pooper.

The worst case that I have witnessed of this cringe-worthy "look at me" stuff was in Chicago where playwright Edward Albee was giving a talk and enduring a Q and A, apparently as a favor to a friend in the English department of the university that sponsored it. Some joker got called on and prefaced his comprehensible only in that it was in spoken English question by announcing that he also was a playwright and always enjoyed "talking shop" with a fellow toiler in service of the dramatic stage. There was one audible but not really loud "Oh, fuck", from the audience. Albee just looked at the guy, looked at his host who was sharing the stage with him (who had an eye-rolling look without actually rolling his eyes) and just said something like "That's very interesting. Next question."

I have always found it strange that people who are paid members of the audience want to think that others see them as part of the festival staff, particularly when they are doing something that a staff member would get told off if not fired for.

ewaffle wrote:The worst case that I have witnessed of this cringe-worthy "look at me" stuff was in Chicago where playwright Edward Albee was giving a talk and enduring a Q and A, apparently as a favor to a friend in the English department of the university that sponsored it. Some joker got called on and prefaced his comprehensible only in that it was in spoken English question by announcing that he also was a playwright and always enjoyed "talking shop" with a fellow toiler in service of the dramatic stage. There was one audible but not really loud "Oh, fuck", from the audience. Albee just looked at the guy, looked at his host who was sharing the stage with him (who had an eye-rolling look without actually rolling his eyes) and just said something like "That's very interesting. Next question."

I swear I've come this close to uttering a few "Oh, fucks" of my own over the years at TIFF. In fact, most of the questions asked are rather lame (as you can see throughout my Q&As), and that's tolerable as the entire audience is still absorbing the picture they've just seen and perhaps can't dig for deep questions just yet, but these moist and garrulous moments really take the cake ("it's really cool being here with yooouuu, Val" - gawd!). And there's always someone in the crowd who has a pitch for whatever director or actor is in attendance. Sometimes this can be clever -- as in the guy who turns a question about westerns for Kilmer in those videos into a quick offer of a pitch -- other times is reeks of desperation. As your example illustrates, this kind of stuff isn't just limited to film festivals. I suppose it goes with the territory and I've learned to half-expect it at virtualy all TIFF programmes except Midnight Madness, where the toffee-noses tend to congregate less.

Drive (2011: Nicolas Winding Refn) ***½/****

Some random thoughts on the film (might rewrite into a review later):

The film certainly reminds you of a David Cronenberg movie in it's use of violence though I wouldn't say Drive is as good as Eastern Promises or The History of Violence.

Drive is quite a good film, avoid the hyperbole or you will be disappointed though. Refn took a minimalist approach to this movie and took out much of what he considered not to be needed (backstory, dialog). He also puts a lot of touches in that other directors would have missed making certain aspects more realistic or at least more contemplative (not wanting to spoil anything so I'm being vague) in this genre film.

Roger Ebert had called this existentialist as well as the director, but it doesn't feel as much so as say Two-Lane Blacktop especially in the second half of the film. But with an unnamed laconic lead as The Driver who can be prone to quick acts of violence leads to some very interesting scenes. Going through Ebert’s review I noticed he is completely wrong about “Standard isn't jealous or hostile about the new neighbor, but sizes him up, sees a professional and quickly pitches a $1 million heist idea.” This is not even close to what happened in the film.

The performances are quite good especially Ryan Gosling though sometimes you wonder if Ron Perlman is overdoing it as Nino. When seeing Bryan Cranston it is hard now not to think of Breaking Bad . Albert Brooks is quite believable.

The opening car chase is one of the more intelligent ones I have seen in its use of strategy and effectiveness. Refn is certainly influenced by Bullitt and that shows in the later car chase.

Not sure what the heck is up with the soundtrack and some of the worst title fonts I've seen since The Silence of the Lambs.

Easily worth watching, now I need to go see Bronson (which I do own).

Some links:
http://www.moviefanfare.com/movie-buzz/shifting-into-drive-with-nicolas-winding-refn/
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110914/REVIEWS/110919988
http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2011/09/drive_an_under-the-hood_manual.html#more

I'll just put this here:

http://superchanblog.blogspot.com/2011/10/jackie-movie-history-part-2.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SuperchanBlog+%28SuperChan%27s+Jackie+Chan+Blog%29

Does the Come Drink With Me images look like Jackie Chan?

Bronson (2008/2009: Nicolas Winding Refn) ***½/****

I have had the DVD of this quite awhile before I saw Drive, but viewing that movie was the impetus to watch this sooner than later.

Even after watching only two Refn films like Bronson and Drive you feel an auteuristic streak between these two. Some of the music is reminiscent of each other, though in this film you do get to hear Pet Shop Boys (It’s a Sin). Refn self admittedly has an interest in violence (obvious so far). He also has an interest in psychotic loners (one of my favorite subgenres) and likes to eschew explanation for his protagonist. I am getting the feeling that Valhalla Rising will have many similarities as well besides the use of the psychotic loner.

Bronson is based on a true story of Michael Peterson one of England’s most notorious prisoners. He was given the name Charles Bronson (he first suggested Charlton Heston, which I thought was a good pick but he is more of the Charles Bronson type) and it stuck and helped imbed itself in the subconscious of this bad (but not bad bad, he has his principles) man. Bronson is an artist and his medium is violence. Is he rebelling against anything? Is he an anarchist? There was nothing wonky about his childhood. He is also a wee bit cracked, but is an interesting study from a safe distance of the viewing screen. Tom Hardy’s (Inception) performance is intense and the heart, soul and bollocks of this film. With his bald head and old-style mustache he looks like a circus strongman from the late 1800s. If he waited a few decades he might have had a future in MMA (technically speaking I would say the mid to late 1990s; for later he would have to learn technique), if only he could purge the urge for stealing and unpaid mayhem.

The film is quite humorous and is easy to see this as a future cult classic though I do wonder if rewatchings will hurt this. Refn purposely gets rid of explanation as he just shows this tour-de-force. Bronson does not seem as much of a human, but more of a self-created character. While this is based on a true-life criminal and much of it is plausible it makes Bronson a two-dimensional character at best though to be fair to survive in prison you have to do something to your psyche to survive.

Or maybe Bronson is just insane.

New posts in this thread (and other ones, sometimes) tend to remind me I've been a bit tardy with updates.

So, here's my latest round-up of recently-viewed stuff according to my ratings history at IMDB. Quite the handy feature actually, and I can access it from both the website and via their app. Over the past year or more I've rated 3,084 titles that I've seen throughout my life, and I know that's well under half. As they pop into my head -- or as I watch them now, often for the first time -- I rate them. Kinda handy to be able to look back. If only all movie database sites had such a feature . . .

THE SPIRIT (2008) 3/10
God what a dreadful film. SIN CITY trod a pretty thin line with it's ripped-from-the-graphic-novel aesthetics, but Frank Miller pointlessly recycles the look, and then has all but one of his actors (sensible Sarah Paulson) play for camp, which is utterly the wrong approach when your setting is already hyper-stylized. I already knew of the film's dismal box office performance when I signed it out, but morbid curiosity always gets the better of me on productions as bad as this one . . .
BLOOD SIMPLE (1984) 8/10
HARRY POTTER III (2004) 7/10
HARRY POTTER IV (2005) 7/10
HARRY POTTER V (2007) 7/10
HARRY POTTER VI (2009) 8/10
The first five Potter films, and presumably the books they're based on, are far too on-the-nose for my tastes -- such obvious character names! -- but I can't deny the craft that goes into them. I realize they're largely designed for tweens and teens who aged alongside the characters, but the hardened adult in me was grateful when part VI veered into much darker, more serious territory right from the start. I assume the final two films maintain that tone, so I'm actually looking forward to seeing them . . .
DAYBREAKERS (2009) 7/10
Solid B-movie material
UP IN THE AIR (2009) 8/10
THE LEOPARD (1963) 8/10
INSIDE JOB (2010) 9/10
2 FAST 2 FURIOUS (2003) 3/10
By golly this had to be one of the stupidest films of the past decade. Worse, it looks like a TV pilot movie for series that never happened. The whole set-up makes NO sense: drug kingpin Cole Hauser wants to ship some drugs to Point A in Florida, to Point B in Florida, and apparently the best way to do that is to hire two strangers -- largely on their reputations, which are forged -- to drive garish, candy-ass import piss-cutters at top speed on the freeways, wrecking everything in sight and endangering casual travellers and police pursuit vehicles in equal measure. Not only that, but he TESTS his new recruits by sending them on a similar mission that results in highly-public carnage on the highway, and they still get the job. Apparently, hiring a guy to rent a non-descript van and obey the speed limits never crossed his mind. This movie made me very, very angry.
TELL NO ONE (2006) 7/10
Good but slooooooww.
PRINCE OF PERSIA (2010) 7/10
MASH (1970) 8/10
DARK BLUE (2002) 7/10
CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER (8/10)
AMERICAN GRAFFITI (1973) 8/10
THE DEER HUNTER (1978) 8/10
OBJECTIFIED (USA) 7/10
Second of Gary Hustwit's trilogy of Design Documentaries, and the only one I hadn't seen. Caught URBANIZED at TIFF this year, and saw HELVETICA at a different fest a few years back. This is probably the least of the three, perhaps more fascinating to designers/pop art junkies, but still worthwhile to casual viewers
SYNECDOCHE, NEW YORK (2008) 6/10
CATFISH (2010) 7/10
BANGKOK DANGEROUS (2008) 5/10
There just so much wrong with this film, and not just Nicolas Cage's hair . . . again . . .
PARADISE LOST 2: REVELATIONS (2000) 7/10
THE HURT LOCKER (2008) 8/10
ZOOLANDER (2008) 6/10
BARRY LYNDON (1975) 8/10
THE COLOR OF MONEY (1986) 7/10

My belated round-up of TIFF movies (I've mentioned a few of these earlier in the thread):
FROM UP ON POPPY HILL (8/10)
URBANIZED (8/10)
THE INCIDENT (6/10)
THE RAID (Indonesia) 8/10
SLEEPLESS NIGHT (France) 7/10
YOU'RE NEXT (USA) 4/10
A SIMPLE LIFE (Hong Kong) 9/10
LIFE WITHOUT PRINCIPLE (Hong Kong) 7/10
TWIXT (USA) 6/10
LIVID (France) 7/10
GOON (Canada) 6/10
MONSTERS CLUB (Japan) 5/10
THE ARTIST (France) 9/10
SAMSARA (USA) 9/10
GOD BLESS AMERICA (USA) 6/10
COUNTDOWN (Korea) 6/10
HEADSHOT (Thailand) 6/10
SMUGGLER (Japan) 5/10
UFO IN HER EYES (Germany) 6/10

On the plate for tonight . . .

Finishing up Keaton's THE GENERAL. I'm actually watching the Alpha Video version of this, which has a tolerable print scored with entirely random suites of classical music. This was in my library queue for ages, so long that in the meantime I actually purchased the Blu-ray during an Amazon sale, so when I eventually get around to watching that, it should be interesting to compare! Of course, even in a less-than-pristine presentation, Keaton's magic shines through.

After that, it's on to Leone's Dollars trilogy (or whatever it's called), also on loan from the library.

The Haunted Castle (1921: F.W. Murnau: Germany) **½/****

This is the first of hopefully twenty horror/suspense/lawyer related films to watch this month. This is a good chance to fill in some holes in the sundry lists of mine. I will start by watching the second extant Murnau film (The Dark Road being the first) and the title surely fits for this month’s theme. While Murnau’s latter Nosferatu is a classic in the horror film genre this movie is not a horror (apart from one dream sequence) and well the title is misnamed as well.

There is a castle, but it is not haunted. The German title Schloß Vogeloed literally means Castle Vogeloed which is the castle owned by Lord Vogelöd. Vogelöd is hosting several guests in his abode for hunting if the weather permits. An uninvited guest Count Johann Oetsch, who was previously accused and put on trial of murdering his brother, shows up and is mysteriously antagonistic towards everyone (why they do not just kick him out is probably due to aristocratic “rules of the game” possibly). His presence particularly annoys the former wife (Olga Chekhova) of his brother who is now married to the Baron Safferstätt. But what are his reasons for being there? And why did Father Faramund who is another guest suddenly disappear?

If you are used to seeing Murnau’s exquisite later films this movie is more of a shock. The camera, while characteristic of the era, almost never moves -- I only detected one shift of the camera to cover a scene. The sets, while decent, are not as expressionistic as his later works. It is impressive how Murnau would improve as a director in such a short period of time is and unfortunate that he died too young.

There are much better Murnau films out there and there are certainly better early period horror films as well (Nosferatu covers both categories). But if are looking to see an early Olga Chekhova film (who had a vast career in Germany; read about her exploits during WWII), an early Murnau that is a precursor to Tartuffe in part of its theme or an early whodunit mystery then this is an OK pick. Unfortunately this is not more than that.

The Comedy of Terrors (1963: Jacques Tourneur) ***/****:

This is the second pick for this month. I am deciding to try to get to as many variants of unwatched horror films as possible (of course I can always change my mind and strictly watch classic horror). From a silent murder mystery in The Haunted Castle to a later comedic horror film there is one thing in common to both of these films – they are considered minor films by great directors. Tourneur helped helm some of my favorite horror films (also produced by Val Lewton) in Cat People, I Walked with a Zombie and The Leopard Man. He also directed one of the best noir films in Out of the Past.

I was wary going into the movie, mostly caused by a few comments here and there on this film (not even sure where now) and the inauspicious beginning did not help. It was a sped-up (undercranked) scene that was plebian and had me wondering if Tourneur was going to treat this as a lowball comedy. I further thought this with the first scene between Boris Karloff, Joyce Jameson and Vincent Price. Karloff is underused, but ultimately that was because of his advanced arthritis and bad back. Jameson is not as good at acting as the others, but when she is the target of Price’s quips they are just priceless. But then the movie gets better and the character interactions work well.

While the movie was on a tiny budget and was made quickly it has two solid strengths going for it. The direction, with some minor quibbles and a few scenes that could have been reshot, is still quite fluid and looks good. The biggest strength is the actors though. You have a brilliant performance from Price whose antagonist performance as Waldo Trumbull is so good I ended up rooting for him – so what if he is a murderer and an alcoholic. His partner in crime is played by Peter Lorre as Felix Gillie an inept burglar and an inept carpenter who has an eye for Price’s wife who is an inept singer. Lorre has the ability to sway sympathy towards him and is quite effective here. Trumbell married into a funeral business that was owned by Amos Hinchley (Boris Karloff), but business has dying because of the lack of deaths. In fact when times get tough he has to help create his own business.

Trumbell is in another jam. He owes a year’s worth of rent to the stalwart Shakespearean spouting (mostly MacBeth) John F. Black (Basil Rathbone in another good performance in the film; originally Boris was to have this role but it proved to be too physical for his aging body). But why not kill two birds with one pillow?

Add in Joe E. Brown in what is mostly a cameo role as a cemetery keeper, a very talented feline who is throughout the film and you have one of the best cast “B” horror/comedy films I have seen. I recommend this as it is quite a good time.

You can find this on a dual MGM R1 combo release with The Raven which has much of this cast though I still need to see it. Unfortunately it is OOP and prices are rising. There is a nice little interview with the writer Richard Matheson who wrote I Am Legend as well as the screenplays for several Roger Corman films like Pit and the Pendulum.

The Mummy (1959: Terence Fisher) **½/****:

Any horror movie marathon should include at least one Hammer (must fight the urge to add Bros. after Hammer) horror film. While they were often inspired by the Universal horror films (and the many sequels) of the 1930s and 1940s they add an atmosphere that is unique to their studio with lush sets, vivacious color, more violence, and usually more sex appeal. So for my third horror pick of the month I decided to go for the most famous Hammer film I had not seen.

The plot and characters are derived from The Mummy’s Hand (1940) and The Mummy’s Tomb (1942) which had Lon Chaney Jr. as the Mummy (first of three for him). In 1895, Stephan Banning with his injured son (Peter Cushing) and relative Joseph Whemple desecrates the tomb of Princess Ananka against the warning of Mehemet Bey (George Pastell) a fez wearing follower of Karnak (do not tell him Karnak is a minor deity) and with the Scroll of Life accidently awakes Kharis (Christopher Lee) a man who had his tongue cut out and was forced to guard/keep company Ananka for the rest of eternity (this is later shown in flashback; this part was taken from The Mummy’s Hand). This puts Banning in a catatonic shock. Whemple orders the entrance to be closed, but not before Bey getting his hands on the scroll. Bey vows vengeance.

Three years later in England …

There is a unique problem with the Mummy itself. It is a slow and plodding creature that you could normally avoid with a brisk walk. The movie takes pains to put victims where they cannot escape his strangulated grip and slow flailing arms and gives the protagonist a limp which makes it harder for him to get away (though not as much is made of this as you might think). At one point his controller Mehemet Bey takes out victims with more effectiveness than the Mummy. It makes you think that he really did not need the creature at all. I think Lee did a good performance for what he was given – the very tightly wrapped dirty toilet paper body wrap mixed with his stucco head (though it makes you realize how good the make-up done by Jack Pierce in the 1932 version was). I also always enjoy Peter Cushing’s acting.

While this movie has its fans to me it is a minor Hammer horror film. Lee is given more to do in his Dracula performances and this does not have the uniqueness of a film like Night Creatures. The movie feels full of pastiche – though done well with the direction of Fisher and the early Hammer sets are done well. If you have not watched the Universal Mummy series than you will probably get more out of this. Though you may wonder why Kharis speaks English.

The English subtitles on the R1 Warner Bros 2001 release (which is probably the same release issued in the Hammer Horror Classics set that same year) are quite bad and often are truncated and in the wrong order of what is spoken (common for the early Warner Bros releases).

Magic Story (1987: Lau Bing-gei: Hong Kong) aka Corpse Master **/**** (if you haven’t seen a hopping vampire film take a half a star or more off):

For the fourth horror pick of the month I thought it was time for a Hong Kong hopping vampire (僵屍) film. I have two of these types of films on DVD that I have not seen (I do need to get the Mr. Vampire sequels) and it was between this and a badly filmed (and very poorly transferred) TV release (I really hope that movie is not a theater release) starring Gordon Liu named Shaolin Vs. Vampire.

This independent quickie cheapie lasted about a week in Hong Kong theaters and was one of many made to make money off of the Mr. Vampire series which was very popular at the time and would keep going a few years after this movie. This was Lau Bing-gei’s, the writer and director, only credit in any film anywhere that I could find. That is not a good sign and something I normally do not see for a Hong Kong film, even a cheap one. It makes you wonder if it is a pseudonym, though several in this film only seem to have this as their only credit. Lo Wei (The Big Boss) actually produced this. Quite a downturn since his days with Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan.

If you are new to the genre and reading this review then I heartily recommend starting off with Mr. Vampire or Spooky Encounters. I have seen so many better hopping vampire films that I cannot recommend this to really anyone. There are no martial arts in this film, though a few stunts, which is a little strange since Mars and Benny Lai (both stuntmen/actors for Jackie Chan’s Sing Ga Ban for many years) both have big roles in this movie.

Beware of the magic Ding Dong.

Ding Dong is a child vampire (whom everyone thinks is a cute little hopping bloodsucker), one of several vampires on the loose. A scientist (Bill Tung: Supercop), his assistant (no idea who this is) who is in love with the scientist’s daughter, A Taoist priest (Mars) and several others are trying to capture vampires for money or other plot purposes. The assistant and his girlfriend befriend the little bloodsucker and try to keep him from harm. The movie’s plot is pretty much all over the place so you get the idea that it was make-it-up as you go and/or when we get hold of the actors working on other projects. There are a couple of nice scenes involving the child vampire (especially one where he interacts with other dead children – that does not sound good does it), but much of the direction, handling of humor and plot construction is somewhat inept.

The R1 BCI DVD (now OOP) has this film named Corpse Master (though that name is never used in the credits) along with Satan’s Slave in an Eastern Horror combo. I hate when they make up names for the film. It wastes my time trying to find information on the movie. The English/Chinese subtitles are burnt in and sometimes poor (well the English ones are). The transfer is widescreen, somewhat decent but I was not expecting much so I was fine with it.

Zodiac (2007: David Fincher) ***½/****:

“This world's divided into two kinds of people: the hunter and the hunted. Luckily I'm the hunter. Nothing can change that.”

For the fifth pick of the month I thought a serial killer movie would be appropriate. It was the only David Fincher film I had not seen and I had read good reviews about it. Technically it is more of a police procedural than a suspense or horror film, though it has elements of both.

The strength of a good procedural is that it gets you involved in trying to figure out the murderer as well with the facts given. Though I knew that ultimately the culprit(s) was not found and the movie is based on Robert Graysmith’s book Zodiac. The more research I have done on this case the more I realize it will not be solved. Too much time has elapsed, too many problems: unknown finger print at the cabbies murder scene, which technically could have been a cops, I do not remember if all the cops fingers were matched to correspond with the potential oops (so many crime scenes have been disturbed in various ways especially many associated with this case); possibility of copy cats (especially with several of the letters; possibility with additional murders as well); the fact the Zodiac took credit for crimes he did not do and there is many more issues as well.

Will the case ever be solved? I do not think so unless some excellent information/clues come out. Though an interesting point was made later in the film when it posed the scenario about two killers.

This is a fascinating film with some good to excellent performances. Fincher’s direction seemed understated for him which helps in this type of film. Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal) is portrayed, rightfully so, as becoming more and more obsessed by the case to the detriment of everything around him, until the publication of his first book. It was more than just him that was consumed by the media frenzy as inspectors David Toschi, William Armstrong and reporter Paul Avery lives were upended.

It is usually cool to see Modesto mentioned in a movie, though often as in this case it is of an ignoble nature. I am glad Fincher got the facts right involving the area like the correct name for the newspapers (Modesto Bee, Sacramento Bee) and the highway (132; technically a very dangerous highway up until recent; many fatalities were from head-on collisions where people tried to pass) where the incident happened. I have seen too many films put the wrong information down when dealing with the area. There are even a couple jokes on the Sacramento Bee about them being less prestigious than the San Francisco Chronicle especially when Paul Avery “downgraded” his job.

I blather a bit below so forgive:

Haunted Spooks (1920: Alfred J. Goulding, Hal Roach) ***½/****
The Haunted House (1921: Edward F. Cline, Buster Keaton) ****/****

For the sixth and seventh picks of this month I thought I could compare and contrast two famous silent shorts on the same basic theme: the fake haunted house. In Haunted Spooks we have an Uncle (Wallace Howe) trying to trick a couple, played by Harold Lloyd and his future wife Mildred Davis, out of their inheritance. They are supposed to live in the house for at least a year, but if they fail in this her Uncle gets the inheritance. To do this he decides to create a haunted house. In The Haunted House we have the more familiar variation of this theme of crooks establishing a haunted house to get away with their nefarious deeds (several Scooby Doo episodes, The Ghost and Mr. Chicken). Here we have local crooks led by Keaton-villain Joe Roberts who created an elaborate haunted house to cover up his counterfeiting scheme. Buster Keaton is the inept bank clerk who happens upon this scheme.

Harold Lloyd to me is the most underrated silent comedian now, though at the time he was with Charles Chaplin the most popular comedians of his era. Here he plays his typical The Boy character, but with a small twisted twist. After a snubbed love affair he decides to commit suicide (much like Keaton would do in Hard Luck a year later), which he is completely inept at. Luckily he runs into a lawyer (or the lawyer almost runs into him) who is looking for someone for The Girl to marry. He has no issue with this and gives up his current quest for The End.

There is some controversy as to how racist Haunted Spooks is. While the portrayal of the blacks is stereotypical in the aspect of them being scared by ghosts, the fact is everyone else besides the Uncle is as well. However, the use of intertitles in its characterized drawings of blacks is the most racist aspect about the film and the most difficult to defend.

However, the most known fact about the film is that this is the movie where Lloyd lost a thumb, a finger, was blinded for awhile by a prop bomb that exploded in his face. After this he wore a hand prosthesis for most of his work including this film.

Buster Keaton is one of my favorite comedians, so I am a bit biased. But his popularity had endured because his comedy is brilliant. He is appreciated more by critics now than he ever has during his lifetime and like Chaplin the resurgence started in the 1960s and has not stopped since.

While in The Haunted Spooks the house is more of the end of a punchline since its presence is at the end of the short, the house in The Haunted House is one of the best visual gag themed films of its time. It is an elaborate built, well thought out haunted house. Both films are disjointed in storyline, but neither is hurt by this. It seems like a natural progression within the plot both leading up to the haunted house. However, their approach with it is different and helps make the difference between a good film versus a great film. So much thought is given into the gags of The Haunted House.

Here is an interesting blog entry on the acting differences between “the big three.” http://artandcultureofmovies.blogspot.com/2010/05/dilemma-of-harold-lloyd.html while focusing on Harold Lloyd. The reason I was searching this was to try to describe the difference between the acting styles of the two. He correct in that Keaton would elongate scenes if the comedy was there where Lloyd is more plot oriented working off of what comes his way. He believes that this is because of Keaton’s vaudevillian background and Lloyd’s strictly movie background. While Keaton was the more physical of the two, Lloyd had no issue with doing stunts as well. Lloyd was the outwardly more emotional of the two (this is not saying much since Keaton was known as the stoneface – though he did act through the eyes) and often took a more optimistic approach that Keaton. However, even after seeing all of their major works it is still a question I ponder.

Criterion needs both Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd. I suspect the first Keaton will be his small role in Limelight (1952) since they have the rights to this and they have been slowly rereleasing Chaplin’s films.

Roger Ebert on Safety Last: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20050703%2FREVIEWS08%2F507030302%2F1023

The Raven (1963: Roger Corman) ***/****

The month I had to watch at least one Roger Corman horror flick that I had not seen. For the eighth pick of the month I chose The Raven which like the previously mentioned The Comedy of Terrors has quite a bit of similarities: three outstanding actors in Vincent Price, Boris Karloff and Peter Lorre, a comedic take on the horror genre, the same writer Richard Matheson, an AIP release and both of these films are quite fun to watch. While I would say overall The Comedy of Terrors is a better film, I still recommend this to those who are reading this (you know who you are; ultimately that statement really doesn’t make any sense, but I digress).

The beginning is an adaptation of the titular poem, but after that nevermore for the rest of the film. This is to be expected though and like most of the Edgar Allen Poe adaptations they tend to stray or were never there in the first place. I certainly do not fault Corman and Matheson for this though and I like what Matheson does with the script. He has the ability to eschew too much predictability and Corman has the ability to make a miniscule budget go quite far. The reuse of the old sets and the addition of new sets over the years for the Corman films certainly helped create better looking films.

Price plays Erasmus Craven a wizard who pines for his lost love Lenore (who else) to the dismay of his daughter Estelle. The raven sitting “lonely on the placid bust” has the voice of Peter Lorre and is actually a wizard named Adolphus Bedlo who lost a duel between Dr. Scarabus (Boris Karloff) the life-long enemy of Craven’s father. Craven, after turning Bedlo back to a human after a few tries, just wants to be left alone and wants nothing to do with the wizard world – until he hears that the spirit of Lenore might be in Scarabus’s command. Or is Bedlo lying to get Craven’s help to destroy a possibly innocent Scarabus?

This is the first film of two Price, Karloff and Lorre did together though all of them had done earlier pairings with Lorre and Karloff working in such films as You’ll Find Out (1940) and the underrated The Boogie Man Will Get You (1942); Price and Lorre working together in The Big Circus (1959); Karloff and Price working as far back together as the Tower of London (1939). Add in a very early appearance of Jack Nicholson as Lorre’s son (yes his son) and you have quite a strong cast. Though at this point I doubt anyone had the foresight to predict the type of career Jack would have.

While the optical effects are a bit goofy in the film, especially during the duel, as well as the exterior shots of the castle, the performances, sets and direction is quite good. I think fans of earlier horror comedy will enjoy this.

You can find this on a dual MGM R1 combo release with The Comedy of Terrors. Unfortunately it is OOP, but since I last wrote on The Comedy of Terrors there are more copies on Amazon (can I talk you into buying this?). There is a nice little interview again with the writer Richard Matheson (Richard Matheson: Storyteller) a Roger Corman interview (he really digs these films; though it is rare for him to trash one of his movies; I’m not sure I have ever heard him do that), a promotional record for the film and the original trailer which is worth watching because of unique footage in it (always fun to see trailers that have footage not in the film whether it is unique to the trailer or unused scenes, here it is promotional). From the extras you learn that The Raven was a bigger box office hit between the two films though you get the feeling that The Comedy of Terrors is the preferred film.

The Premature Burial (1962: Roger Corman) ***/****

Well I decided to watch another Roger Corman horror flick that I had not seen. I have been enjoying them and I have a whole bunch of them. So for the ninth pick of the month I picked a horror film from Corman that did not have Vincent Price in it.* This is actually the only Corman Poe adaptation that does not have Vincent Price.

I feel Milland (The Lost Weekend, Dial M for Murder) does a good performance as the suffering Guy Carrell. Many of the reviews of this film seem to take acceptance to the fact he is not Vincent Price instead of concentrating on his successes or faults of the character. He does not have the flamboyance as Price, but he, as Corman says in the extras, he has a romantic-lead quality that fits well for this role (though it would have been even more believable a decade earlier). After this Milland would star and direct AIP's Panic in the Year Zero! (which I own but need to watch).

Guy Carrell has a favorite Poe illness – catalepsy. Or at least he thinks he does. This fear consumes every waking hour of his life ever since he had viewed an unearthing of a coffin whose occupant was buried alive and the corpse’s countenance was of sheer terror and of broken fingers trying to claw his way out. He even has tried to push away his lover Emily Gault (Hazel Court, The Raven) who will not let his issues get in the way of their love.

Some of the burial of the character is reminiscent of Vampyr (1932). I would have to imagine it was an influence. The sets are extravagant and every year they seem to keep getting better and better for the Corman films. Carrell’s mausoleum which he built out of days of obsession is an excellent piece which is completely overboard, but fitting for the character.**

Since this, House of Usher (1960) and Pit and the Pendulum (1961) have similar themes I recommend that you do not watch these too close together (though it might be of interest to watch this after watching one Corman/Price collaboration). While I do not think as highly of this as those two, I still like this and fans of these “B” horror films will probably enjoy this. I have some issues with the plot during the last part of the film and one major part during the film (I think his main issue, which was solved with the creation of the tomb, could have also been solved if he had a lawyer/trusted love one put in a particular place for a period of time say a month before he could be buried).

This movie is on the expensive and OOP Midnite Movies Double Feature with The Masque of the Red Death (do not fret about this though; The Masque of the Red Death will be reissued November 22 of this year from Image (R1) with the film The Madhouse). It is also available on the Roger Corman Collection that has 8 films which is still available and cheaper than the Double Feature.

* Long story short: Corman would have had Vincent Price in the film if he could of, but he had an exclusive contract with American International. Corman had some issues with AIP and was going to do this next Poe film with Pathe. What is interesting about this is that Pathe was soon sold to AIP, but Corman still kept Ray Milland in the role (I have no idea if Corman could have gotten Milland out of the contract, I also doubt that Corman would have). Corman talks about this in the extras on the DVD.

** Safety Coffin link. The fear of premature burial has been around for a long time. While that article briefly mentions that it is in movie The First Great Train Robbery, it is earlier in Michael Crichton’s novel (he directed the film as well) where he goes into much more detail on this and some of the history of who created variations on this such as the Bateson's Belfry. This was created by George Bateson who made quite a bit of money by it, but was so consumed by fear of being buried alive he set himself on fire.

Boris Karloff: The Gentle Monster (1995: Kevin Burns)

“My wife has good taste. She has seen very few of my movies.” – Boris Karloff (this is attributed to him, though I currently cannot find the source)

For some reason I had a hell of a time trying to find it in IMDB. So here is the link (only 12 votes yikes; I should be the 13th): http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0462165/combined For the 11th pick of the month I needed to watch at least one horror documentary. Being a huge Boris Karloff fan I knew which one I had to watch.

Arts and Entertainment’s (A&E) long running serious Biography (1987 - ) have done quite a few episodes so it is easy to find one on a favorite actor or director. With a running time of 45 minutes I knew it was not going to have enough information on Boris that I did not already know, but it was fun to watch and like all of these I learned a few tidbitss. As usual with this series it does a condensed version of his life starting from his difficult childhood as a William Henry Pratt, to his struggling days as a touring actor in Canada, his early days in the silent cinema and his successes and typecasting after Frankenstein (1931). He has done so many movies that if you are fan you are bound to notice many missing from this documentary. Good to see The Comedy of Terrors mentioned though.

One of the benefits of documentaries is to see new footage of stars saying nice things about the actor. Here we have Carol Burnett, Ron Chaney, Bela Lugosi Jr., Roddy McDowall, Robert Wise, Sara Karloff, Peter Bogdanovich (IMDB misses this one for the documentary; Peter directed Boris in Targets (1968) how many extras is this man in?) and several others. Everyone, of course, has nothing but nice things to say about him. I do wonder why he was married so many times (five or six; one they state they are not quite sure on).

One issue that is annoying because of the documentaries age is that the scenes of the films shown are from pretty bad copies (possibly public domain for the older movies). A later filmed documentary (literally in a few years) would have access to restored films and would look a lot more polished that what is shown here.

I do think fans of Boris would enjoy this as well as fans of the classic horror genre. I certainly liked it.

You can find this biography on two DVDs: Biography – Boris Karloff: The Gentle Monster from A&E or on the Heroes of Horror R1 Image release. Both are OOP, but if you can find either one pick it up. Though specifically if you can find the Heroes of Horror pick it up. It is an awesome biography set. Why are both OOP?

The Phantom Carriage (1921: Victor Sjöström: Sweden) ****/****

For the 12th pick of the month I decided that I had to watch at least one Criterion release (I’m possibly going to try to fit in their House release as well that seems a fine fit for this month) and I have not seen a Swedish silent film this month (I have seen a German silent this month). This film has a great reputation and I have wanted to see this for several years. I am a big fan of 1920s cinema and I think it is one of the best decades of film. This film further helps than opinion.

The Phantom Carriage is like the Irish Cóiste Bodhar a coach which carries the dead spirits. Unlike the headless dullahan (the one in charge of the coach; he usually carried his head with him though) this Swedish tale discusses that the driver is chosen every year. The unlucky one is one who is the last to die before New Year’s Day. At least that was what was told to David Holm (Victor Sjöström). But he would soon believe it when a scuffle leaves him dead before the stroke of midnight. He is faced with an old friend who is the current Grim Reaper who is partially responsible for Holm’s downfall in society. He led him to alcohol, he became a leach on society, he went to jail, he led his brother into crime (though I did not agree that was responsible for his brother’s actions) and when he got out of jail his family had left him. This further led him to despair.

However, the unconditional love of one woman Edit (Astrid Holm), a Salvation Army worker, helps lead him to possible redemption. The scene with her sewing his clothes for him and then him tearing up all she did is quite heartbreaking. But she never gives the reaction he is looking for, she does not doubt. However, from the sewing of his soiled clothing he gave her tuberculosis.

While the special effects are quite good with an elaborate use of double-exposure, there are other elements that are just as impressive. The storyline which uses a vast amount of flashbacks is exquisite. The cinematography and sets are excellent. The acting is not overdone as with the stage influence of many films from this time.

This is a tale of redemption that has to have had a Charles Dicken’s Christmas Carol influence. There are too many parallels between that book and this story based on the novel Körkarlen by Selma Lagerlöf. But the film is unique enough with so many strengths that I am so glad I finally got to see it. If you are a fan of silent cinema then I think this will be a salient viewing.

The Criterion release is quite good with a solid transfer (not perfect though I would not expect to see that though) and they have been improving in their silent movie collection though still far behind what I think they should have. I am a little puzzled though not surprised by the overboard Ingmar Bergman love here. I am glad the have the two extras: The Bergman Connection (an audio visual essay from Peter Cowie) and Interview with Ingmar Bergman which is extracted from a 1981 documentary on Victor Sjöström by Gösta Werner. Seriously, they just used the Bergman interview. It feels like the main reason this film was added to the Criterion collection was because it was one of Bergman’s favorite films. There should have been an audio visual essay specifically on this film and/or we could have had the whole 1981 documentary. The insert essay titled “Phantom Forms” by Paul Mayersberg is decent, but does not go over the film as much as Sjöström’s career. I am looking forward to the audio commentary from Casper Tybjerg though I hope I do not hear Bergman mentioned more than five times.

The two scores that come with this are vastly different. The preferred score is the one done by Swedish composer Matti Bye performed and recorded in March 1998. It is a beautiful chamber orchestra ensemble that fits the film quite well. Then there is the alternate score composed in 2007 by KTL an experimental duo whose sound here resembles the inner thoughts of static. While I somewhat liked it late at night with very little sleep the more I listened to more irritated I got (especially the louder it played; this is one of the few scores that made me physically twitchy; I now have more appreciation for the Alloy Orchestra).

Notes: I am also surprised that this is not on Roger Ebert’s Great Movie list, though I will not be surprised if he adds this within the next three months. There is Cabiria but not this. But with the recent release I believe this film will get more recognition over the next couple of years.

The Fly (1958: Kurt Neumann) **½/****:

Every Halloween influenced month of viewings should include at least one man transformed into creature (or hybrid) flick. I have seen the Cronenberg remake a few times and I knew it was time to watch the original for the 13th pick of the month. Watching this also has the benefit of checking off another Vincent Price film. The Cronenberg's The Fly (let’s call him Brundlefly), like with John Carpenter’s The Thing is among the few sequels that I consider better than the original. The original film based on a short story by George Langelaan is not a bad film, it has some great moments, but I feel a bit letdown after watching this.

It does not help that I watched this after a great film like The Phantom Carriage though. That film had a much more complicated narrative than the overused basic flashback structure here. The normal type of we have an incident, let’s have a conversion that explains the incident and then the aftermath after we catch up to the present time. Now there is nothing inherently wrong with this, but since it is commonplace there have to be additional factors to make in interesting.

Being a Vincent Price fan I am probably a bit biased. Personally I felt Price was underused as François Delambre, though I am not sure how he would have done as the scientist here. The scientist (David Hedison) is an absent-minded professor type, very banal and that is fine until the incident. But for the most part I was not overall happy with the acting, though it is typical of many of these films from the 1950s or the direction from Kurt Neumann. The relationship between the couple was fine, though the love triangle was pretty much over before it began.

Where the film was most successful was certain moments like the unmasking of the fly which reminded me of The Phantom of the Opera (1925: Rupert Julian), the killing of the scientist (this is not a spoiler you know this at the beginning of the film) and the creepy ending which is quite effective. But there is no real suspense as you know everything is going to happen. So when efforts in the middle section are made to catch the fly you know what is going to happen. Almost everything is perfunctory after the first act.

I just felt ambivalent about this making it more difficult to come up with a review. I just do not feel that this is one of the greater horror films even though it has its following and is even in New York Times Best 1000 Movies Ever list.

Funny how things work though: after watching Chuck Norris in Good Guys Wear Black I have a better appreciation for The Fly and most movies.

The Masque of the Red Death (1964: Roger Corman) ***½/****:

The more I watch the Roger Corman Poe cycle of films, the more I feel that they are underrated. Maybe I just read the wrong critics or not enough critics (though to be fair Leonard Maltin is a fan of this film) because I also think Corman is an underrated director as well (The Intruder is my favorite film of his). This is among those films I wonder why I took so long to watch (as opposed to a film like The Phantom Carriage where I was waiting for a Criterion release). One of the advantages of concentrating on horror in October is that I get to see films I might have eschewed otherwise. For the 14th pick of this month I thought another Corman and Vincent Price film would fit the bill. And it sure did.

Corman went to England for this one to take advantage of their government subsidies (he states this on the interview on the DVD). Corman has always had budget sense. He can make a good looking film out of a small budget and he almost always makes a profit off of his films (especially the ones where he is a producer).

The film is a combination of two Poe stories: the titular one and Hop Frog which is used as a subplot with the dwarf and his love (actually played by a little girl which is a little creepy in a few scenes; her voice is dubbed). Vincent Price is Prospero a Lord of Flies worshiping prince who believes he can ward off the Red Death that has stricken the area. He is a sadistic man with charm who has allowed the local aristocracy to take protection in his castle. He has also taken a girl Francesca (Jane Asher) whose strong believe in God fascinates him. Will she be his undoing?

The Ingmar Bergman The Seventh Seal references are apparent, but still quite effective. The sets and colors are exquisite. The cinematography is quite good and done by future director Nicolas Roeg (Walkabout, The Man Who Fell to Earth). I always find it fascinating the connections you find with the more films you watch.

What I love about Vincent Price is that he gives his all with his performances. Occasionally you can tell when an actor does a horror role and seems to phone in a performance. You do not worry about this with the reliable Price. This is one of the main reasons he was asked to do horror roles over and over again. I have read some complaints of him being the same type of actor with his roles. Just watching him in the Poe cycle you can see so many variants of his acting style that I just cannot agree with that. In this film you get a very evil man though with a sense of humor (maybe because he uses humor in so many different situations that some reviewers think this is the markings of similar characters).

This movie is on the expensive and OOP Midnite Movies Double Feature with The Premature Burial. Do not fret about this though; The Masque of the Red Death will be reissued November 22 of this year from Image (R1) with the film The Madhouse. The extra on this is a great 18 minute interview with Roger Corman where he discusses the Poe cycle, the budget of this film, the Bergman influences and much more.

Constantine (2005: Francis Lawrence) ***/****

For the 16th pick of the month (I’m skipping the review of the 15th for now) I picked a film I had already seen, but have wanted to rewatch over the past few years. Constantine has all the elements fit for this time: demonic possession, Beelzebub, Satan himself, world domination, cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria. Some reviewers such as Roger Ebert were not kind to the film*, though this movie was a worldwide hit and has a decent IMDB average of 6.7. It did not make its money back stateside with a budget of near 100 million dollars and a gross off 76 million here so luckily it sold well elsewhere and if you add in DVD sales and rentals and the film did well, though not enough for a sequel. I liked the film the first time I saw it and I wondered if time would change that.

There is something about the mythology of the film I find fascinating, but I also enjoyed the plot. Constantine (Keanu Reeves) is a chain-smoking, hard drinking morose loner whose God-given ability to see demons (as well as seraphs) had previously driven him to commit suicide in his youth. This act marked him as a condemned man, but he is trying to make it up by rounding up rogue half-breed hellions who are overstepping their place in this realm. A police officer (Rachel Weisz: The Mummy, My Blueberry Nights), whose identical twin (yes the same actress, saves money that way) recently committed suicide, comes looking for Constantine to find answers on why. The relationship between these two is somewhat atypical in that they tease but do not have a romantic relationship. The script does a lot of little things like this right. It could have done some aspects better like maybe not having the professional sidekick of the time Shia LaBeouf.

I liked Keanu Reeves’s performance though it really is not much different than many of his other performances. He is a little more sardonic here with a bigger twist of asshole, but still Keanu (I like Keanu). It is interesting that he would end up in Hell again though like Nicolas Cage they get their share of these types of roles. They should team up for a film involving Hell, the end of humanity and at least one motorcycle.

Satan had an interesting characterization by Peter Stormare (Minority Report; already in Criterion for Armageddon). This leads to an interesting topic on who best played the Lord of Flies (I’m very partial to Angel Heart; cannot list the actor since it is a spoiler: D). But Peter’s bizarre performance was certainly unique.

The director Francis Lawrence sharpened his teeth on music videos before getting his first film gig here. This would help him handle the special effects here though he is still a little weak on directing humans. He would later direct the successful I Am Legend (where he had a little trouble directing CGI creatures) and this year he directed Water for Elephants which I have not seen. Though one cannot help wondering what Guillermo del Toro (Hellboy) would have done with the material.

Stay for the very end as this film has a little extra at the end of the credits. It is annoying when you leave a film during the credits only to find out later that you missed a little extra scene.

* Roger Ebert's Review If you read his review he spends most of his time stating the plot instead of objections to the film which seemed to amount to their being a Catholic Priest and not sure what else though I did spot another mistake in one of his reviews: “The angel Gabriel (Tilda Swinton) tells him, "You are going to die young because you've smoked 30 cigarettes a day since you were 13."” This was actually stated by the doctor. Ebert is correct that confession would have solved his problem of salvation a lot quicker unless I am missing a technicality.

Some reviewers were upset that the film did not follow the comic book Hellblazer exactly. I am not a comic book reader fanboy, so I came into the film cold and I also have the opinion that the movie has to operate in its own universe.

possible small spoilers:

The Devil’s Advocate (1997: Taylor Hackford) **/****

For the 17th pick of the month I thought a lawyer/satanic film would be a great fit for the month. I thought I could also compare and contrast two different Keanu Reeves performances (I watched Constantine the night before). I did not have high expectations for this movie and even then I was disappointed. The plot is so basic and with its extended running time for its boilerplate story it goes on for far too long.

You have a small town undefeated attorney in Kevin Lomax (Keanu Reeves; is it my imagination or does his accent come and go) get lured and hired by a very large firm run by John Milton (Al Pacino; if you paid attention to the name of the film or the trailers then you know who he actually is) who’s hand is in so many different evil areas, well because there is money there and well he is the Devil. His mom thinks this is a bad idea and well his wife Mary Ann (Charlize Theron) is OK with it until… I think we know most of the arc of the story after this.

When a plot goes on cruise control you start thinking other things like what would happen if Reeves and Pacino switched roles (not saying this would have worked, but it would have been interesting) and Hackford sure is trying to get as much nude performances out of his actresses. Films I find mediocre are harder to write about because for the most part you feel the film is overall neither good nor overly bad. I notice some reviewers tend to digress when writing about films they find uninteresting. I wonder what I am going to watch next. I hope the NBA stops their stupid lockout.

I was going to comment on the problematic nature of having an undefeated lawyer (both as a DA and as a private criminal attorney which is impossible even if you cherry-pick your cases), but the film comments on this towards the end. It seems to be fairly intelligent in this area commenting on the importance of jury selection, how DAs get paid less than being private (though in truth most private attorneys tend to struggle especially when there is a glut of them in a town) though some of the histrionics in the court scenes are, as usual, a little much.

I seriously hated the ending with its hackneyed contrivance ending (hmmm hackneyed/Hackford). However the penultimate conclusion between John Milton and Kevin Lomax was the best scene in the film (with their first meeting being second with that wonderfully creepy waterfall terrace) with the wonderful statue background that appears to be alive while Pacino gets to ham it up and if the film had that gravitas earlier it would have been a much more satisfying experience. Pacino is at his best with scene-chewing dialogue because of his personality, but he has much more difficulty in not being bombastic at every single moment and overdoing his Cheshire Cat smile. There is no subtlety to his performance and there is no subtlety to this film.

There are just so many better films out there to be watched before this one. I know this film has its fans (don’t all films), but I really cannot imagine why. Satan has been portrayed better in many films, Keanu has been better, heck I liked Constantine better than this. I would rather watch Army of Darkness for the 38th time than watch this movie for the first time, but I guess that goes without saying.

Something Wicked This Way Comes (1983: Jack Clayton) ***/****:

“By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes.” – MacBeth (IV.i.44-45)

“… the Lightning-rod man still dwells in the land; still travels in storm-time, and drives a brave trade with the fears of man.” The Lightning-Rod Man by Herman Melville (while the traveling salesman in this film reminds me of the character in the Melville short the allegorical undertones are completely different between the two)

I do take recommendations. So when I was looking for a “kids” or Disney horror film to watch for this month I thought that this film which I had not seen since the 1980s would fit the bill. It was also recommended to me by Internet stalwart DukeTogo whose taste is similar to my own. So for the 19th pick of the month I chose the movie based on the Ray Bradbury book, who also wrote the screenplay. This is a film that scarred (scared) many unsuspecting children who were expecting a Disney flavored “horror” film.

It had been so many years since I had seen this so this felt mostly like a new experience. Of course when you watch film years later you notice actors you did not know before and this film is cast quite well though I did not realize until doing research on this film that Pam Grier played the Dust Witch in quite a seductive role (she’s almost always seductive).

Late one night a carnival comes to town and sets itself up to the horror of Will Halloway and his friend. To me there is not that much creepier than a carnival at night, well except for the carnies during the daytime. It is led by Mr. Dark (Jonathan Pryce; playing evil incarnate with a beard). Mr. Dark offers temptation to the town, but analogous to W. W. Jacobs’s The Monkey’s Paw every wish comes with a price. But Will has seen that Mr. Dark is not natural and Mr. Dark needs to get rid of the two boys (does he think the town will believe those accusations from the boys?).

Will’s dad Charles (Jason Robards) has been a disappointment. His heart troubles and a past incident with his son trouble him. He seems a prime candidate for Mr. Dark. But there is something strong underneath his milquetoast exterior. His relationship with his son is a complex one and it helps the story of this movie. He is a good not great father, who cares for his son, but whose frailties help helm a humanistic character.

This is a well made, well directed film (Clayton’s last directed film was The Great Gatsby nine years before) that evokes a particular gothic dread in its atmosphere and set design (I would have to imagine that some of it would have been controversial if noticed). It is ultimately a tale of lost nostalgia, one that was lost before the arriving of the Carnival and more surprisingly a more mature film than one initially expects. It is also a tale of redemption. I find psychological horrors more effective than physical horror after years of watching violence upon the screen. While I would not say this is overly scary, I do not think I would allow children too young to watch this, though they are probably already jaded with the massive amount of video games played and movies watched.

The Tell-Tale Heart (1928: Charles Klein):

“True! – nervous – very, very dreadfully nervous I had been and am…”

For the 18th pick I thought I would watch something obscure and short. This film is a expressionistic, hugely influenced by The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920) and very much like the titular short-story by Edgar Allan Poe. It is so much like the story that it is a bit hard to do a review on this. I still prefer the short story and this neat but ultimately stagy rendition does not still the beating of my heart. In fact if you have not read the really short-story (three and a half pages in my book of Poe stories) then take the time to do that instead of tracking this down. Heck if you have not watched the original The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari then take the time to watch that as well.

This film can be found on the awesome set (and a bit expensive) Unseen Cinema: Early American Avant-Garde Film (1894-1941) and on the Avant-Garde 3: Experimental Cinema 1922-1954 - Deluxe Two-Disc Edition. I have Unseen and if you are into obscure avant-garde then that set is a must. However, for most it probably is not a priority.

Another round of recent viewings. Random notes here and there, but for many of these films there isn't much I can add to the already abundant critical consensus. Starting from the most recently watched, as usual:

PAGE ONE: INSIDE THE NEW YORK TIMES (2011) 7/10
GIMME SHELTER (1970) 9/10
KIMJONGILIA (2009) 7/10
LAST TRAIN HOME (2009) 9/10
As with the recent story of the little girl run over (and ultimately killed) by two truck drivers in a mainland market street and ignored by countless passersby in a mainland market, here's another work that illustrates the misery and indifference wrought by decades of China's myopic polices and the country's embarrassing, soul-crushing race to catch up to modernity, which benefits a much smaller percentage of the population than you might be led to believe. LAST TRAIN HOME is a beautiful and painful documentary about the miserable, heartbreakingly destructive effect of China's economic "boom" on the millions of rural families torn apart by the desperate need to work at low-paying, exploitative factory jobs in the big ugly cities. The film focuses on one family, but it's readily apparent that this story unfolds in millions of households across the land, as parents of a certain age -- who still maintain strong ties to Confucian values of filial piety, hard work and sacrifice but were among the first generation to leave the backwoods in search of a better life for their young ones -- must abandon their children to the care of aging grandparents. That this young generation -- in particular the increasingly resentful and disaffected daughter who sees her parents once a year during the massive human migration that give the film its title -- foolishly chase the spoils of westernization and consumerism by abandoning their crucial educations in favour of similarly dead-end factory jobs (minus any sense of familial duty) is revealing of how China's future may not play out the way the country's leaders would like the world to think that it will. China needs more socially-conscious cinema like this -- exhibited theatrically, which probably didn't happen too much in this case -- and about three hundred fewer gargantuan period spectacles with former Hong Kong stars in the leads every year. Then again, the powers that be are undoubtedly fearful of a populace that has had one too many mirrors held up to its bleak existence. Director Lixin Fan's camerawork and framing is fearless and his images often epic in their intensity, and one can easily imagine the powerful touch he'd bring to a non-documentary feature.
PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES (2011) 7/10
DOOMSDAY (2008) 6/10
WINGS OF DESIRE (1987) 8/10
DRIVE ANGRY (2011) 7/10
Yes, only one point less than a Wenders film, but based on entirely different criteria!
COME SEPTEMBER (1961) 7/10
Signed this out because it's so heavily referenced in BEYOND THE SEA, Kevin Spacey's biopic of singer Bobby Darin, who made his film debut here. Not bad, as far as fluffy Rock Hudson romantic comedies of the era go, and the Italian locations are gorgeous.
BEYOND THE SEA (2004)
This picture would've been one of the great (if white-washy) biopics had it been produced earlier in its preproduction limbo during the late 80's and early 90's, when Kevin Spacey -- whose performance is brilliant -- was young enough to convincingly play singer Bobby Darin throughout most of the stages of his rise to success. As it stands, sequences during Darin's teen idol years are somewhat less than convincing, despite the fine attention to period detail and spot-on reproductions of the singer's hits. Spacey's passion for (and resemblance both vocally and physically to) his subject is absolute. I really can't think of anyone else who could've played Darin.
ATLANTIS: THE LOST EMPIRE (2001) 7/10
PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2 (2010) 7/10
When the third film recently opened to generally positive reviews and solid box office numbers, I figured it was time to sign out the sequel, since this franchise clearly had stronger legs than I had imagined. I passed over Part 2 on many occasions figuring it was just an inferior cash-in to a surprisingly effective original. For the most part, it doesn't bring anything new to the table other then the way it cleverly bookends the events of the first film, but watched alone in a dark room, its a highly-effective creep-out.
CRANK: HIGH VOLTAGE (2009) 5/10
Asians certainly don't get much respect in this one, do they?
NEXT (2007) 7/10
CRANK (2006) 6/10
PROM NIGHT (2008)
Easily one of the most insulting horror retreads of the past decade.
A PERFECT GETAWAY (2009) 5/10
There's a scene early on in this where newly-met vacationers Steve Zahn and Timothy Olyphant discuss Screenwriting 101 (Zahn plays a struggling screenwriter), and Olyphant's blatant reference to the obligatory twist in Hollywood thrillers all but signals that this film will have one, and what it will be (if you think about it even a little). Once it arrives -- right on schedule -- the film kicks into flashback overdrive, not only showing us the events prior to the story as we've seen it, but presenting alternate versions of scenes throughout the picture that provide information we could've figured out entirely on our own.
GIANT (1956) 9/10
YANKEE DOODLE DANDY (1942) 9/10
ONCE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST (1975) 9/10
DESPICABLE ME (2010) 8/10
RESIDENT EVIL: AFTERLIFE (2010) 6/10
THE BREAKFAST CLUB (1985) 8/10
SIXTEEN CANDLES (1984) 6/10
THE MASK OF ZORRO (1998) 8/10
SWING TIME (1936) 8/10
MARY POPPINS (1964) 8/10
BUTCH CASSIDY & THE SUNDANCE KID (1969) 9/10
CURSE OF THE VOODOO (1965) 4/10
HORROR HOSPITAL (1973) 6/10
INSEMINOID (1981) 3/10
TOWER OF EVIL (1972) 6/10
CAT ON A HOT TIN ROOF (1958) 9/10
THE LEOPARD (1963) 8/10
CABARET (1972) 8/10
THE GOLD RUSH (1925) 9/10
MODERN TIMES (1936) 9/10
DRUNKEN ANGEL (1948) 8/10
THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW (1975) 8/10
FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE (1965) 8/10
A FISTFUL OF DOLLARS (1965) 8/10
THE GENERAL (1926) 9/10
THE LOVE NEST (1923) 7/10
THE BOAT (1921) 7/10
ONE DEAD INDIAN (2006)
CBC TV movie about the infamous shooting of native protestor Dudley George during the occupation of Ipperwash Provincial Park in 1995, which took place near my old home town when I worked for the daily newspaper there. OK for what it is, but probably of little interest outside of Canada.
BORN INTO BROTHELS: CALCUTTA'S RED LIGHT KIDS (2004) 8/10


Finishing up tonight:

T-MEN (1947)

T-MEN (1947) 8/10
Surely one of the great unsung noirs. Criterion could do wonders with this one.
SLAUGHTERHOUSE FIVE (1972) 7/10
Heady stuff, and worthy of further reading, but I have to wonder if it worked better in the novel on which it's based (as always), because on film the non-linear narrative starts to feel like what must have been a then-novel editing gimmick that avoids potentially costly special effects or having the hero need to regularly comment on or react to the jarring shifts to different time periods of his life (whether they're figments of his war- and plane-crash-addled imagination or not). Seems like it's more for the benefit of disorienting the the audience than Billy Pilgrim, as he only directly references this "problem" while typing his letter to the editor at the beginning of the film, and near the end when he mentions it to his kids, both instances occuring in his later years, after the various traumas in his life. Still mulling this one a bit, which can't be a bad thing . . .
COVER GIRL (1944) 8/10
Slick Columbia musical with Rita Hayworth and Gene Kelly. Kelly's dance with his own conscience is one of the all-time greats. In fact, his numbers are all quite good in this one. And Hayworth, well . . .
RETURN OF THE FLY (1958) 5/10
Practically a remake of the original FLY, only with a bigger, sillier insect head and a ludicrous happy ending that assumes the matter transition device can simply be set to "undo".
CURSE OF THE FLY (1965) 5/10
Only slightly better than RETURN in that it ditches the silly oversized fly head in favour of a small menagerie of deformed freaks and a heroine (Carole Gray) who's a bit of a nut. Gray opens the film by slow-motion running through some creepy woods in her underwear.
NASHVILLE (1975) 8/10
Probably one of the more interesting Altman pictures I've seen, but the fabricated country music in it is mediocre, and I say that as someone who grew up listening to country music during that exact same era. Other than Keith Carradine's subsequently (and justifiably) famous "I'm Easy", none of the songs in the picture would have qualified as the hits they're supposed to be in the film's milieu. In the interview on the DVD, Altman acknowledges that Nashville types hated the songs, but that the passing of a generation has been kind to them, but I seriously doubt that's the case. Even with hindsight, these are not very good songs cobbled together in support of a much better movie.

^ I'll push up T-Men on my watching schedule. I believe I have the current R1 DVD. Criterion has one Anthony Mann BTW (The Furies which is a good film, but nowhere near as good as his Stewart western collaborations). I like Anthony Mann's work so it is a good fit. Have you seen other of his directed films?

Good point about the Nashville music and when I rewatch the movie I will pay more attention to that aspect. It has great relationship stories intertwined (I'm not so sure about the ending of having to bring a gun into it). You bring up an interesting issue about what Nashville would think of the music today. I have not read anything on that, but it would make an interesting extra. I know if Criterion could, they would release the film (though they have always had trouble releasing negative extras on a release; they have had consenting opinion on the extras but that does not happen too much; I love the extras and there are some great ones, but sometimes go overboard into the fawning territory.)