Raise Your Glass... to 2014!

Hello, folks...

Just a quick belated Merry Christmas greeting to everyone. Sorry. Been quite busy with the Holidays. One of the reasons we love Christmas is because it gives us an excuse to celebrate family and friendship. With that in mind, let's all go into the New Year with smiles, laughter, and - of course - raised glasses.

Happy New Year to one and all... : )

And, of course, what would New Year's Eve be without our party anthem...

# 534 - THE HUNGER GAMES: CATCHING FIRE (2013)

THE HUNGER GAMES: CATCHING FIRE (2013 - SCI FI / ACTION / THRILLER)
**** out of ***** / 8 out of 10

(Into the breach once more we go, dear Tributes...)



CAST: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Sam Claflin, Liam Hemsworth, Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, Jena Malone, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Donald Sutherland, Lenny Kravitz.

DIRECTOR: Francis Lawrence

WARNING: Some SPOILERS and compelling reasons to watch the 75th Annual Hunger Games - straight ahead...




IT'S LIKE THIS: Ah, Cinematic Trilogies and Franchises... has there even been an easier cash cow or payheck in Hollywood? I'm thinking, no. Think about it: all you have to do is have your first movie hit big, then if you're smart all you have to do is ride that wave for as long as it will take you. And the sequels don't even have to be good or even average - just look at those fucking TWILIGHT movies. If I see another picture of Bella and Edward giving each other googley eyes, I think I'm going to puke.

Fortunately, our next review doesn't have any pale-as-ass vampires or their useless, tag-along, human girlfriends. That's because our next flick is THE HUNGER GAMES, PART DEUX, also known as CATCHING FIRE. Now, folks, unless "FIRE" is the name of some new venereal disease, I'm thinking we have some awesome thrills in store for us. If you'll recall, HUNGER GAMES PART UNO revolved around a future dystopian (meaning: shitty) society wherein famine and tyrannical rule are as common as I-phones and Facebook are today. Oh, and the Reaping. That's popular, too.

If you folks will also recall, our bad-ass heroine Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) was a lowly hunter from District 12 (which looked like the Appalachias) who sacrificed herself to save little sis Primrose (Willow Shields) from being chosen as a "tribute" for the, ahem, "Hunger Games." I don't have to remind you folks that the "games" basically consisted of 24 tributes hunting each other down in the middle of some technologically-controlled artificial wilderness - until one survivor remained standing. However, as you also already know if you saw the first flick, Katniss and her lapdog Peta Mallark (Josh Hutcherson) gamed the system (and the game) and managed to be declared the sole survivors. Which makes no goddamned sense because "sole" means "one." Whatever.
So, as CATCHING SYPHILLIS, er, CATCHING FIRE begins, we find that Katniss and Peta have been, um, reaping the benefits of being the "winners" of the 74th Annual games from the first flick. Unfortunately, a quiet fade into the sunset just doesn't seem to be in the cards for our lead couple. You see, President Snow (Donald Sutherland) is just a wee bit pissed off that Katniss and Peta outsmarted the rulebook and fears their cleverness has inspired the various districts to begin pushing back against the Republic. He pays a surprise visit to Katniss and her family, and basically tells Kat in private that this shit isn't over. Not by a fucking longshot, sweetie.

Sure enough, when the Reaping for the next Hunger Games comes around, Katniss and Peta are dismayed to find out the 75th Annual Kill-A-Thon will be comprised of tributes... from the winners and survivors of all the previous games. What the what? Apparently, this is President Snow's way of getting rid of Katniss and kill her rapidly growing status as a "hero." Oh, and he wants to just flat out kill her, too. As you can imagine, Katniss and Peta aren't exactly over the moon about this news. More like over the toilet seat, puking out of terror.

And so it goes... and once again starts up the whole dog-and-pony ceremonial show that Katniss, Peta, mentor Haymitch Abernathy (Woody Harrelson), and wacky event planner Effie Trinkett (Elizabeth Banks) embarked on in the first movie. Which includes: (1) parading their asses around the capital in search of "sponsors"; (2) training relentlessly to get back into shape for the games; and (3) generally wearing a lot of truly awful fashion. Well, except for that one awesome burning-mockingjay-spinning-scarlet-red gown that Katniss's fashion designer pal Cinna (Lenny Kravitz) makes for her. I would totally wear that shit and rock it.

Oh, and I should also point out that Katniss and Peta's adversaries this time around are proven killers - what with them all being survivors from the previous games. A few of our charming assassins are: (1) Finnick Odair (Sam Claflin), preening pretty-boy who, from the looks of it, spent most of his winnings on highlights and spray-tans; (2) Johanna Mason (Jena Malone), bitchy tramp who, from the looks of it, is a total whore; (3) Beetee (Geoffrey Wright), crafty geek who, from the looks of it, really loves his goatee more than anything else on Earth; (4) Mags (Lynn Cohen), older chick who, from the looks of it, thinks of Finnick as her surrogate daughter, er, son; (5) Wiress (Amanda Plummer), tweaky spaz who, from the looks of it, is just one "boo!" scare away from shitting her pants right then and there; and (6) Brutus (Bruno Gunn), who, from the looks of it, is probably the most ruthless of all the tributes judging by his, um, shaved head. There's more than a dozen other tributes, but these half-dozen are the ones who are the most interesting - and who just might prove to be either valuable allies to Katniss and Peta, or their most terrifying nemeses. Hmmmmm....

So... how will the 75th Annual Hunger Games pan out? Can Katniss and Peta repeat their success from the previous game? Will the Republic and President Snow fall for another bullshit "Romeo and Juliet" number? Or will it be curtains for our dear couple? And how will Haymitch protect his wards? Does he possess valuable info that can save them? Or are his hands tied this time around? And who amongst the tributes will be the inevitable traitor? But by the same token, who among them will be the surprise savior to Katniss?

One word, folks: hhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....


BUT SERIOUSLY: The rules for creating a terrific movie trilogy are, appropriately, three-fold: (1) start strong and captivate, (2) go deep and up the ante, (3) then bring everything full circle and finish even stronger. These rules sound deceptively simple, but are tricky to pull off. The fact remains they are at the heart of the best film trilogies in cinema history: STARS WARS, THE LORD OF THE RINGS, THE DARK KNIGHT, and even SCREAM. All these trilogies had first movies that opened strongly and captivated, second films that went deeper and upped the stakes, and final films that brought things back full circle to the first films and ended even stronger. Trilogies like THE GODFATHER and THE MATRIX were weakened by third films that failed to live up to the quality of the earlier films, underscoring the importance of adhering to the rules.

It might be a little too early to tell, but THE HUNGER GAMES films seem to be shaping up into a formidable trilogy. The first film opened strong and laid the groundwork. It was a reasonably entertaining action/thriller that vividly introduced us to the world of Katniss Everdeen and the sinister games that she and her fellow tributes must participate in against their will. Now, the second film fulfills the rules of a classic trilogy by simultaneously deepening the themes and upping the stakes - and is a markedly better film that its predecessor. All the emotional groundwork laid down by THE HUNGER GAMES is beautifully furthered and built upon by CATCHING FIRE - and audience investment is considerably higher this time around.

Part of the reason we empathize even stronger with Katniss and Peta this time around, is because we witnessed what they had to do to survive the first games. Resultantly, we feel like we survived along with them. So when they are involuntarily pulled back into the fray, we are right there with them. It helps considerably that, as with the first film, all the roles are filled with the ideal performer. Josh Hutcherson is once again a perfect combo of boy and man, while Liam Hemsworth is more affecting this time around as Gale, Katniss's love interest, since he is given slightly more to do. Woody Harrelson and Elizabeth Banks are also back again as Haymitch and Effie, invaluable members of Kat and Peta's team. Banks is particularly affecting this time around, with Effie showing an actual emotional attachment to Kat and Peta.

Indeed, CATCHING FIRE beautifully exemplifies the rules of the second film in a classic trilogy: go deeper and up the ante. The "upping the ante" part reveals itself with the unexpected paths that the games take.in this chapter. The first film had a strong first half because it focused on the intricacies and shifty politics of the dystopian capital, as well as the human minefield that Kat and Peta were forced to navigate to attain sponsors capable of aiding their survival later in the games. The games themselves were merely okay and - apart from some quirky flourishes - resembled the "fight-for-survival" antics of many other wilderness survival films. The games in CATCHING FIRE, however, are a different beast entirely. There is more emotional nuance and ambiguity to the characters and proceedings. In short, there is real suspense now - and the finale, which I refuse to spoil or even hint at, wonderfully sets the stage for the third, final, and hopefully most breathtaking entry in the trilogy.

Finally, no review of any HUNGER GAMES film would be complete without paying tribute (pun intended) to its star: the formidable, mercurial Jennifer Lawrence. Put simply, the strength of HUNGER GAMES is due primarily to Lawrence's unmistakable star quality and her ability to cast a long shadow with minimal effort. The role of Katnis Everdeen is one that requires someone who can clearly and rivetingly express all of the character's complex internal mechanics - often with just glances, gestures, and expressions. The role also requires someone who can believably go verbally toe-to-toe with some powerful authority figures played by more experienced, veteran performers in intense dialogue scenes. If even one side of this equation was compromised, the performance would have been diminished. Happily, Jennifer Lawrence is that rarity even in Hollywood: a star who is truly a star. She is genuinely amazing.

In the end, CATCHING FIRE is a very good example of a "second" film in a trilogy. Let's hope that the third installment, titled MOCKINGJAY and due to be released in two parts over the next two years, will provide a stellar capper to the HUNGER GAMES trilogy.

# 533 - ENDER'S GAME (2013)

ENDER'S GAME (2013 - SCI FI / ADVENTURE / ACTION)
***1/2 out of ***** / 7 out of 10

(Think of it as Basic Training for Space Bratz)



CAST: Harrison Ford, Asa Butterfield, Hailee Stenfeld, Viola Davis, Abigail Breslin, Jimmy Pinchak, Ben Kingsley.

DIRECTOR: Gavin Hood

WARNING: Some SPOILERS and compelling reasons to read a book before seeing the movie - straight ahead.




IT'S LIKE THIS: Ah, Boot Camp. Think of it as hazing for the world's most elaborate and privileged fraternity: the Military. This is how I framed Basic Training to an acquaintance getting ready to attend it. I told him to think of himself and his fellow recruits as fraternity pledges being put through the paces by dickhead upperclassmen (i.e., drill sergeants) for six to eight weeks. But when it's all done, it is all keg parties and pussy (or dick) galore. But in the case of the military, make that international keg parties and international pussy (or dick) galore - since the military is the kind of fraternity that circles the globe, and you get to have a whole slew of interesting experiences (and, um, people). But like your average pledge at Delta Pi Whatever, ya just gotta first make it through the gauntlet. And the best way to do that is with a sense of humor.

Which brings us to our next review, ENDER'S GAME, which is basically a Boot Camp Flick disguised as a Slam Bang Action Film - with very little humor, excepting one awesome one-liner about someone's mother than I actually used on an asshole I went to school with. But more on that switcheroo later in our BUT SERIOUSLY portion. For now, let's discuss the plot of this film that is based on a (apparently) classic novel by Orson Scott Card. In the opening we are told that Earth has been attacked by a bunch of bug-like aliens (is there any other kind these day?) called the Formic. Fortunately, the pesky critters got their asses handed to them because of the heroic sacrifice of Major Mazer Rackham (Ben Kingsley). The surviving Formic skedaddled back to their cosmos on the ass-end of the Universe - and have not returned since then.

Not content to sit on his ass and wait for the next onslaught, however, powerful military figure Colonel Graff (Harrison Ford) convinces the World's governments to set up a formidable pre-emptive offense that involves... recruiting a bunch of whiny adolescents. Apparently, Colonel Graff believe that teens and pre-teens make the ideal combatants because they're still impressionable and sort of, um, developing. But (let's face it) mainly because the script told him so. This is how our hero, Ender Wiggin (Asa Butterfield), gets pulled into the maelstrom. Apparently, his other two sibling have already washed out of the training program: younger sib Valentine (Abigail Breslin) was too empathetic and ended up caring too much for the Formic, while older bro Peter (Jimmy Pinchak) was too bloodthirsty and endangered his own comrades in battling the aliens.

Colonel Graff slowly comes to believe that Ender just might be the perfect blend of Valentine's compassionate emotional nature - and Peter's ruthless, formidable one. In short, Ender would make the perfect commander because of his ideal blend of feeling and courage. Or at least, that's what Graff tells his colleague, Colonel Gwen Anderson (Viola Davis). Now all Ender has to do is deliver on the promise that Graff seems so sure is within him. Not that there's any kind of pressure on poor Ender. Good luck, kid. You'll need it.

So... will Colonel Graff be proven right? Is Ender the "one" they have all been waiting for to vanquish the threat of the Formic? And are the Formic planning to come back to attack Earth anyway? Is Colonel Graff right when he says Earth must strike first to teach the Formic to never fuck with us again? Or is it yet another example of overly-aggressive military strategy? And will Ender himself choose to participate? How will this all end for Ender and his fellow teenybopper warrior recruits?

Not sure, but I'm thinking they're not going to wind up at the local mall to hang out for a couple of hours and do nothing special before catching a flick at the Cineplex next door. Ah, the joys of being average....


BUT SERIOUSLY: Movie marketing can be very tricky. You want to entice the audience without giving away too much, as some narrative cards should be kept firmly up the sleeve and saved for the actual viewing of the movie. On the other hand, if you don't reveal enough about the movie in the trailers, you may end up not piquing the interest of the prospective viewers - and the film can open weakly. What you don't want to do, however, is sell a film to be what it is not. That may work in the short run by attracting audiences during opening weekend - but in the long term it can prove disastrous, as word-of-mouth spreads fast that the film is not what it was sold to be. And movie audiences can be very unforgiving and have long memories - which affects the reception of future sequels.

Such is the case of our latest film, ENDER'S GAME. Based on a popular novel by Orson Scott Card from the mid-80s, this film is said to be quite faithful to the source material. Anyone who has read the book will know exactly what they are getting as they go in to the film. However, majority of the target audience for this movie (teens and young adults) were born after the book was published and most likely haven't read it - and they have only the trailers and previews to rely on to determine what the movie is about. And therein lies the probem...

You see, the trailers for ENDER'S GAME make it look like a dynamic action film filled with battles with the Formic aliens. In reality, the film is essentially an extended series of training segments. There is a twist at the end that cleverly plays off the whole "training warfare vs. real warfare" and is quite devastating, but this movie is more of a cerebral rather than visceral thriller. Hardcore action fans will not get their fix here. Those of us who like our thrills a little bit more heady, though, will have no problem with it.
However, because this film was marketed as an intense action/thriller, that is the majority of the audience it attracted - at first. Since it opened, ENDER'S GAME has dropped sharply at the box office. It has nothing to with the quality, but disappointed expectations from the wrong crowd. The action movie crowd.

Quality-wise, the film is solid. The story is actually quite compelling and intellectual, exploring as it does how a hero should balance ruthlessness and resolve with compassion and humanity. It also preaches a theme of tolerance, which is quite surprising because of Orson Scott Card's reported homophobia. Whatever the disparity between the themes of ENDER'S GAME and the beliefs of its original writer, the movie itself is quite refreshing and thought-provoking. And, once again, therein lies the problem: the marketing of this film did not paint it to be the heady and cerebral coming-of-age film that it is. Instead, the press made it sound like yet another action-filled entry into the "Humans Vs. Aliens" sub-genre. And it most definitely is not.

Asa Butterfield is okay as Ender. When I say "okay" I mean he is passable, but he is certainly not as dynamic or compelling as we would like. Same with Hailee Stenfeld as Ender's love interest Petra. She, too, is competent but, again, not necessarily commanding. The same can be said for the rest of the young cast. They don't do anything wrong, per se, but they don't exactly stand out, either. Harrison Ford is similarly solid-but-unremarkable. He doesn't bring the fire and passion that the role of Colonel Graff screams for. Someone like Lawrence Fishburne would have nailed this role. By contrast, Ford almost seems to be phoning it in. Fortunately, the plot of ENDER'S GAME remains interesting enough at its core to keep its relatively bland cast from hurting it. The only two castmembers who distinguish themselves are Viola Davis and Ben Kingsley. Davis is quietly riveting as Colonel Gwen Anderson, Graff's more compassionate colleague, while Kingsley brings energy and charisma to the pivotal role of Mazer Rackham.

In the end, ENDER'S GAME is a good adaptation of the novel. It's just a shame the marketing didn't reflect the true nature of the story. With the right promotion, it might have attracted the right audiences - a more intellectually-inclined one instead of an action-oriented one. And with a more dynamic cast (excepting Viola Davis and Ben Kingsley), this movie could have rated higher. As it is, it's merely good.

Last but not the least, Steve Jablonsky’s visceral, stunning musical score for ENDER’S GAME deserves praise. It goes a long way in accentuating the emotional urgency of the storyline. As with his music for the underrated BATTLESHIP, Jablonksy uses an array of electronic and conventional instruments to create an elegant and energetic score that strengthens the film.

# 532 - THOR: THE DARK WORLD (2013)

THOR: THE DARK WORLD (2013 - SUPERHERO ADVENTURE / ACTION)
*** out of ***** / 6 out of 10

(Wow! Chris Hemsworth's boobs are bigger than Natalie Portman's!



CAST: Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Tom Hiddleston, Christopher Eccleston, Anthony Hopkins, Renee Russo, Kat Dennings, Stellan Skarsgaard, Jaimie Alexander, Jonathan Howard, Idris Elba.

DIRECTOR: Alan Taylor

WARNING: Some SPOILERS and compelling reasons to stick to Earthbound heroes - straight ahead.




IT'S LIKE THIS: Ah, Thor... is there a more out-of-place comic book superhero in the pantheon of comic book superheroes? I think not. Think about it: unlike his Earthbound colleagues like Peter Parker/Spiderman, Clark Kent/Superman, Bruce Wayne/Batman, Steve Rogers/Captain America, and Tony Stark/Iron Man, Thor doesn't have an alternate identity. He's just... Thor. And unlike those other dudes who battle crime, corruption, and evil on Earth, he spends half of his time fucking around on his home turf of Asgard with all its political backstabbing and squabbling, clocking only about 50% of his work in our world doing what superheroes should be doing: battling villains and saving Earth.

So... is he really a superhero? Or a member of fucking THE LORD OF THE RINGS universe? We shall discuss that later in the BUT SERIOUSLY portion of our review. For now, let's recap what happened in THOR 1: Thor was tossed out of Asgard for being a drunken hooligan, wound up on Earth where he met hottie astrophysicist Dr. Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) and experienced the kind of horrific culture shock that a country bumpkin from Kentucky normally gets while visiting Japan.

Meanwhile back on (yawn) Asgard, Thor's adopted brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) decided to make a power play for the throne and steal it from their dad, Odin (Anthony Hopkins) - which led to some serious fur flying. And trust when I say these Nordic gods are some furry creatures. Anyhow, you don't have to be a rocket scientist of Dr. Jane Foster's caliber to conclude that things eventually ended well: Thor triumphed over Loki, Odin regained control of Asgard, and Jane finally admitted to herself that she would love to suck Thor's balls dry - which left the door open for a sequel.

And here we are now with THOR 2: THE DARK WORLD. As our story starts, Asgard appears to be in the shitter yet again, as trouble looms on the horizon in the form of some sort of "Dark Matter" that is threatening to destroy all of The Nine Realms. And if you have deduced that Earth is one of those realms, then good on you for being a quick study. If not, then with all due respect, don't let the door hit your bony ass on the way out. Thank you.

Anyhow, Dr. Jane Foster is pulled back into the fray when she somehow gets "infected" by the dark matter, and must help Thor battle new baddie Malekith (Christopher Eccleston) to keep the asshole from destroying the Multiverses. However, if you think Dr. Jane turns into a sassy, feisty, decisive sidekick like her fellow hottie movie scientist Dr. Christmas Jones (Denise Richards) from the THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH, then it is my sad duty to disappoint you. Suffice it to say, unlike Dr. Christmas, Dr. Jane doesn't blow the whistle on any spies masquerading as nuclear physicists, or defuse nuclear bombs while hurtling through an oil pipeline at 70 miles an hour, or outrun exploding fireballs, or save James Bond from drowning. Nope, Dr. Jane simply just gets dragged around from place to place while looking like she has a really bad flu.

Oh, and we should also mention that Jane's terminally snarky intern Darcy Lewis is back for the ride, with an intern of her own (don't ask). He is Ian Boothboy (Jonathan Howard), and let's just say you just know he and Darcy are going to be trading body fluids before the movie is over. Call it a hunch. Or experience. Also trying to help Thor and Jane from the Earthside is wacky physics professor Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgaard). However, given that Erik can only think clearly when he's not wearing pants, I wouldn't put much stock in him if I were Thor or Jane.

So... will Malekith destroy all of the realms? And what happens when Thor gets so desperate for help that he releases Loki (you know? his brother? the bad guy from the first flick?) to help him? Is Thor so stupid as to believe that Loki wouldn't eventually betray him? Or is there more to Loki than meets the eye? Will he save Thor when it really counts? Or will he see this as another opportunity to grab power and seize the throne of Asgard? And will Jane finally get to knock boots with Thor? Or is she destined to pine for him from afar?

Well, considering she weighs about 1/1000000th of his total body weight, I'm thinking she may not survive coitus. Sweetie, go fuck Peter Parker/Spiderman instead. Less muscles to worry about. Better looking guy, too. Just saying...


BUT SERIOUSLY: In our intro we joked about how Thor is a bit of an anomaly when it comes to the legion of Comic Book Superheroes - but it is actually quite true. Unlike virtually all of the rest of them, Thor has no secret identity, nor does he spend all of his time on Earth. The "ordinary person thrust into an extraordinary role" element of most superhero backgrounds is conspicuously missing with Thor's mythos.

Thor's not like Peter Parker/Spiderman who was your average young man navigating his way through life when he gets bitten by a radioactive spider AND loses his beloved uncle in a mugging - setting the stage for Peter to become a determined vigilante. Nor is Thor like Bruce Wayne/Batman who has a similarly tragic backstory as Peter Parker - but is also infinitely wealthier, making it easy for him to invest in high-tech gadgetry to stomp out crime in Gotham City.

And even Clark Kent/Superman, who superficially resembles Thor in that they are both superbeings from another world, is also different from him. Clark Kent's home planet Krypton was destroyed and he has no choice but to find his way through his new home called Earth, and find a way to co-exist with humans while also protecting his identity as a superbeing. By contrast, Thor is always Thor and he constantly toggles between his home world of Asgard and Earth, which disrupts any momentum or relatability one starts to feel towards him. And unless you find Asgard thoroughly fascinating (we don't) then the excursions to that realm start to feel like leftovers from a cancelled FLASH GORDON sequel. Our outtakes from a LORD OF THE RINGS movie.

And that is the main problem with THOR: THE DARK WORLD - we spend waaaaaaaay too much time in Asgard. Unlike the original THOR from a couple of years ago, this movie is filled with extended passages of Thor, Odin, Loki, Frigga, and the rest of the Immortals engaging in political intrigue in their other-wordly domain. What made the first THOR so engaging was the humor that came out of Thor's conflicts with "the real world" AKA Earth. His interactions with Dr. Jane Foster, Darcy Lewis, and Erik Selvig were all humorous and made the storyline relatable. The excursions to Asgard were kept to a minimum, with the storyline mainly focused on Loki's threat to Earth and its denizens.

Unfortunately, in a clear (and ultimately misguided) attempt to not repeat themselves, the makes of THOR: THE DARK WORLD have chosen to center most of the sequel in Asgard this time. Only in the final act do we return for any significant amount of screen time to Earth for a show-stopping (and movie-saving) climactic battle in the middle of modern-day London. This long setpiece is filled with energy, humor, and fire (both literally and figuratively). Quite frankly, it redeems the film and keeps it from sinking to the average mark. Had director Alan Taylor found a way to energize the narrative much earlier on, this film would have rated as highly as the first THOR did.

The cast is certainly competent. Chris Hemsworth once again proves to be a solid presence as Thor, even though he doesn't necessarily have the emotional depth of Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker/Spiderman or sexy unpredictability of Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark/Iron Man. Hemsworth had more to play with, humor-wise, in the first film. Here, he is stuck playing the serious "straight guy" contrast to bad-boy brother Loki (played by Tom Hiddleston in another delicious, show-stealing performance). The character could have used more of the fire he had in the original. Nevertheless, Hemsworth acquits himself well.
Speaking of Loki, Tom Hiddleston manages to turn in an even more interesting (if that's possible) performance than the one in the original film. In THOR, Loki was a complex villain who clearly had chosen the dark side - and Hiddleston infused his portrayal with layers of ice-cold calculation and hidden hurts. Here, he delivers those same dimensions - but enlivens them with a delightfully sardonic humor. THOR: THE DARK WORLD's best plot thread is how Loki is reluctantly freed from his Asgard prison by Thor so that they can help each other overcome new baddie Malekith (Christopher Eccleston, whom let's just say is no Tom Hiddleston when it comes to being a bad guy). Once again, Hiddleston easily steals the show from Hemsworth, and gives us an even more dazzling presentation. Quite frankly, without him this sequel would have been average and nothing more.

Another strong aspect of THOR: THE DARK WORLD is, as with the first movie, its "human" element. Natalie Portman is once again delightful as Dr. Jane Foster, who takes the stereotypical "brainy babe scientist" role and makes it relatable and funny the way Denise Richards did with her similar role as Dr. Christmas Jones in the Bond film THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH. As with Richards' casting in that movie, the gorgeous Portman has been knocked for playing a brilliant astrophysicist. However, let's not forget that actually Portman graduated from Harvard, folks. And who says someone so pretty can't have a PhD? A good friend of mine has a boss who is in her late twenties and has a PhD in Bio-Chemistry - and looks like a supermodel. Are Dr. Jane Foster and Dr. Christmas Jones really that unbelievable? Don't think so.

As with the first film, Kat Dennings provides a mother lode of comic relief as Darcy Lewis, Jane's lippy intern. A bonus in this film is Darcy's relationship with her own intern, Ian Boothboy, played with goofy cluelessness by British actor Jonathan Howard. There's a great gag between Darcy and Ian during the climactic battle that is a riot. Darcy's humor once again provides welcome relief from some of the more serious elements of the storyline. Same goes for Stellan Skarsgaard, who gives the role of Erik Selvig even more quirks than in the first film. Running around without pants on to be able to think clearly comes to mind.

Anthony Hopkins, Renee Russo, Idris Elba, Jaimie Alexander, and Ray Stevenson form the pedigreed supporting cast and denizens of Asgard. As with the first film, they all have their "moments in the sun" but are careful to never steal the show from the main performers. Besides, Tom Hiddleston as Loki already did that.

In the end, THOR: THE DARK WORLD is not as good as THOR. However, it does have its moments. Let's hope that the third film spends more time on Earth than Asgard. And let's pray for the return of Darcy and Ian....

Holiday Movie Season 2013 - And Onward to 2014!

Hello, folks...

Just a quick note to say sorry for the delay in posting the last of our Halloween 2013 reviews. As you may have noticed, we shortened the list a bit. It's been a very busy last two months, but also very fun with friends and family interacting together. That’s what life is about, folks…

At any rate, please find below our HOLIDAY MOVIE SEASON 2013 reviews. Given how busy we are, please expect one review per week until the New Year. Thanks, all - and to the Americans out there, have a Wonderful Thanksgiving!

# 532 - THOR: THE DARK WORLD (2013)

# 533 - ENDER'S GAME (2013)

# 534 - THE HUNGER GAMES: CATCHING FIRE (2013)

# 535 - ANCHORMAN 2: THE LEGEND CONTINUES (2013)

# 536 - THE SECRET LIFE OF WALTER MITTY (2013)

# 537 - A CHRISTMAS STORY 2 (2012)

# 538 - ONE CHANCE (2013)

# 539 - LOOPER (2013)

# 540 - BARNEY'S VERSION (2009)
















And here’s a sneak peek at some of the highly-anticipated events of 2014 (and I don’t just mean The World Cup!):














Ciao ciao, folks...

# 531 - DAWN OF THE MUMMY (1981)

DAWN OF THE MUMMY (1981 - HORROR) * out of *****

(I wonder if those mummies are just pissed-off because they got so much sand in their butt-cracks during their thousand-year sleep...)



CAST: Brenda King, Barry Sattels, George Peck, John Salvo, Joan Levy, Eileen Faison, Diane Beatty, Ibrahim Khan.

DIRECTOR: Frank Agrama.

WARNING: Some SPOILERS and compelling reasons to keep your ass as far away from the sands of Egypt - straight ahead...




IT'S LIKE THIS: Ah, the stupidity of youth. How else to explain how you can think a movie is awesome as fuck when you are a kid - and then watch it again as an (arguable) adult, only to discover to your utter horror that it is, well, a gigantic turkey? Well, folks, that is DAWN OF THE MUMMY, a movie whose trailers made me so eager to see it as a kid that you would have thought they were giving away Atari gaming consoles during the opening credits. Whoops - guess I just dated myself. My bad.

Anyhow, the truth is I actually didn't see DAWN OF THE MUMMY until one of my buddies suggested it for our Halloween Line-Up last month. You see, I was about eight when I learned this flick was playing at the local theater. But, wait! Right across the street at another theater, SPHINX was playing. The spooky-smart movie buffs among you will recognize SPHINX as the Lesley-Anne Down starrer which featured her as the intrepid British Egyptologist, Dr. Erica Baron. Erica basically traveled to Egypt to investigate the mysterious legend of a lost pharaoh's tomb - only to be pulled into a maelstrom of murder, deception, and intrigue. In short, it was a Hitchcockian chase film set among the sands of Luxor. With my biggest childhood crush, Lesley-Anne Down, as its intensely feisty lead.

Now, I could have easily afforded to see both DAWN OF THE MUMMY and SPHINX back-to-back on my allowance. But as my thrifty German-Norwegian father has always said to me: "If you want something, you must give up something first" - which is apparently a Germanic tenet because I know other Krauts who espouse the same motto. In other words, even though I could easily see both of them, I had to choose between these two films, both set in Egypt, but the first a horror movie and the second a suspense-thriller with Lesley-Anne Down in a tight pantsuit running from bad guys and doing her best "Female Indiana Jones" impersonation waaaaaaaaaay before Lara Croft made it fashionable and hip. Guess which movie won? Yup, the lovely Ms. Down and her movie SPHINX won the gift of my company that afternoon. And now that I have finally seen DAWN OF THE MUMMY, I realize that I made the right choice - and dodged a major bullet that fateful day many, many, many years ago.

Because, to put it very delicately, folks, DAWN OF THE MUMMY is a colossal pile of steaming camel shit. Even the trailers that somehow wowed me as a (clearly) stupid and impressionable boy back then now look horribly dated and simply awful. There are some movies that stand the test of time and only get better with age, like fine wine and Russell Crowe. Then there are movies like DAWN OF THE MUMMY, that start out as crap - and progressively turn even more rank as time goes by.

My intro to the discussion of this film is actually going to be longer than the discussion of the film itself because, folks, it doesn't really deserve it. The plot is your basic "Slasher Movie Meets Walking Dead" set-up, with a bunch of allegedly-hot NYC models and their tech support (photographer, hair & makeup, gophers) traveling to Egypt for a location shoot in what turns out to be a cursed Pharaoh's tomb. The heat from the photo shoot's floodlights apparently re-awakens the mummy (or something) and his minions. ANd let's just say these bandaged pus-bags are a little cranky about having their three-thousand year naps interrupted. Oh, and they also have a serious case of the munchies after being asleep for so long.

Cue the next 60 minutes of our moronic imbecile models and their flunkies being chased and chowed down on by some surprisingly fast-moving mummies who are really zombies-in-disguise. I suppose if you were REALLY digging to find SOMETHING - ANYTHING - even remotely redeemable about this celluloid train-wreck, you could posit that its speedy cadavers paved the way for the Jackie Joyner-Kersey undead of WORLD WAR Z, DAWN OF THE DEAD 2004, and 28 DAYS LATER. But that wouldn't be so much reaching for something as outright popping your goddamn arms out their sockets in a futile effort to justify this movie's existence. It's bad, folks, and anyone who knows me knows I am the most forgiving person/viewer out there - but even I couldn't find anything to like in this flick.

Well, I suppose that's not entirely true: there are a couple of decent shots of the pyramids and some pretty oases. But, fuck, I can go on the Internet for that. Sorry, mummies... time go back into the tomb.


BUT, SERIOUSLY: Seriously, folks: there isn't much to say about DAWN OF THE MUMMY except that, as we discussed in past reviews, a decent idea can be condemned by lousy execution - and this flick is a prime example of that. I have always loved Egypt and been fascinated by its culture and mythology, and some of my favorite films are set there, whether they be mystery-thrillers (SPHINX), love stories (the lovely, lovely CAIRO TIME), and action-adventures (RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, THE SPY WHO LOVED ME). DAWN OF THE MUMMY could have easily been a worthy entry (as a horror film) into this select group. However, due to very low production values and truly atrocious acting and writing, it is doomed.

Still, having a low budget is not an excuse. Many films like THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, HALLOWEEN 1978, and the PARANORMAL ACTIVITY films surmounted middling funding to inventively tell their stories in a professional and frightening way. DAWN OF THE MUMMY clearly had enough funding to secure an actual location shooting in Egypt, so how much more expensive would it have been to tweak the script and hire some actors who can actually, you know, act? I lost count of the times we winced at the line deliveries in this movie, especially that blonde actor who plays the crazy treasure raider. It's like he went into this determined to be as bad as possible. Well, dude, you won the prize.

Whatever the case may be, DAWN OF THE MUMMY is a staggeringly awful film that cannot be saved by its would-be atmospheric Egyptian setting. With the right handling, this could have been a passable horror entry and maybe a little more. As it stands however, it is one of the worst horror flicks (and worst films, in general) we have ever seen. Boy, am I glad I saw SPHINX instead a long time ago. If you want to see a solid suspense-thriller set in the Egyptian sands, see that movie. One shot of Lesley-Anne Down's face alone trumps DAWN OF THE DEAD in its entirety - twenty times over.

# 530 - TENTACLES (1977)

TENTACLES (1977 - HORROR) **1/2 out of *****

(Good thing this creature didn't turn up in Japanese waters - otherwise, his ass would've been lunch for the local populace...)



CAST: John Huston, Shelley Winter, Henry Fonda, Bo Hopkins, Delia Boccardo, Claude Akins, Cesare Danova, Alan Boyd, Marc Fiorini, Sherry Buchanan.

DIRECTOR: Ovidio Assonitis

WARNING: Some SPOILERS and compelling reasons to keep your ass as far away from the beach as possible - straight ahead...




IT'S LIKE THIS: In our last three Halloween horror reviews, we circled the globe, hopping from England (THE LEGACY) to Japan (THE HOUSE WHERE EVIL DWELLS) and back to the US of A (CAT PEOPLE). Today we go back overseas, but not really, with out next review. What do I mean? Well, folks, basically our next destination is Italy by way of California. You see, our next review is TENTACLES, which is set and shot in Southern Cali with American stars like John Huston, Shelley Winters, Henry Fonda, and Bo Hopkins (yes, you read that right) - but is actually an Italian-directed-and-produced rip-off of JAWS. Except without the marauding Great White shark - but a really pissed-off Giant-Ass Pacific Octopus in its place.

It all starts in the sunny So-Cal beach town of Solana Beach, which is your average West Coast seaside village - except with people who look like John Huston, Shelley Winters, Bo Hopkins, Claude Akins, and the luscious Italian dish Delia Boccardo. Just like JAWS, our main players are busy enjoying the sun & sea and preparing for some festive annual seafaring event, in this case the yearly Solana Beach Regatta. The town mayor, John Corey (Cesare Danova), is also about to enter into a resort development contract with the powerful Trojan Corporation, led by the slick Mr. Whitehead (Peter Fonda). Only an Italian film could name a powerful corporation after a condom brand and keep a straight face. How inconvenient, then, when strange things start happening...

First, a baby disappears from the edge of the local beach, apparently snatched by something in the water (look at the title of this flick and think real hard, folks) while her vapid mother gossips with another woman. Second, a fisherman's boat gets squueeeeeeezzzzzeeeeedddd into nothingness by something in the water (look at the title of this flick and think real hard again, folks) one night while fishing. And third, some local hottie named Judy (Sherry Buchanan) - along with her dumb hick buddies Mike and Chuck (Alan Boyd and Franco Diogene) - disappears while out boating one afternoon (do I have to tell you folks to look at the title of this flick and think real hard again?). All in all, not the best time to be indulging in water-sports in good ol' Solana, CA. Unless, of course, you have a Death Wish.

Anyhow, before long, our townspeople get suspicious (fucking finally!) and Sheriff Robards (Claude Akins) calls in the help of local stud-muffin marine biologist/Orca trainer Will Gleason (Bo Hopkins). Oh, and Will just happens to have an ultra-hot Italian wife named Vicky (Delia Boccardo). Okay, alright, Vicky is actually an American character, but as we already established before, TENTACLES is technically an Italian movie, and therefore Vicky is played by the hot Italian babe Delia Boccardo. Got that? Good.

So, like I was saying... Solana Beach plus Marauding Giant Octopus equals Cancel Your Summer Plans, Assholes. I don't have to tell you folks that Mayor Corey predictably pooh-poohs Sheriff Robards and Will's concerns. Nor do I have to share that Whitehead and his development agenda gets put way ahead of the safety of the Solana Beach residents and regatta participants. And it sure as fuck goes without saying that our lovely, lovely Delia Boccardo, er, Vicky gets put in serious danger when she decides to search for Judy and her two dumbass escorts, out at sea. Did I mention that Vicky and Judy are supposed to be sisters, too? Just play along, folks. It's an Italian horror film, after all.

Will Will (giggle) be able to stop the rampaging octopus? Will Mayor Corey and that jackass Whitehead continue to suppress his attempts to warn the public? What will happen if the regatta, uh, happens? Will the eight-armed psycho ocean creature make a buffet out of all the sailors? Or will Will (ha ha) talk some sense into the powers-that-be and shut the whole show down? Or is Solana Beach destined to becomes a major footnote in a future book on Oceanic Disasters? And why did an octopus, supposedly the most docile creature this side of a tranquilized Justin Bieber, go ape-shit in the first place?

Hopefully it's not because it found out that John Huston and Shelley Winters' trailers were bigger than his. Or is it? Hmmmmmmm....


BUT, SERIOUSLY: In our recent GIALLI SAMPLER, we discussed the popularity of Italian Gialli (colorful Italian murder mysteries) and how they influenced modern American thrillers and horror films. Another little-known branch of Italian cinema, though, is the "Italian Rip-Off Of An American Blockbuster." Italian studios were famous (or infamous) for this. For every American hit in the 60s, 70s, & 80s, there were likely a few Italian clones that followed, closely mimicking plot - but not necessarily quality. After THE EXORCIST, there were THE HOUSE OF EXORCISM and BEYOND THE DOOR 2. After THE OMEN, there were THE CHOSEN and THE VISITOR. And after JAWS, there was THE LAST SHARK and... TENTACLES.

As these cheesy Italian Rip-Offs go, TENTACLES isn't bad. It certainly is nowhere near as good as JAWS, not even close. But it gets a passing grade because of its competent technical aspects and the presence of some talented (and accomplished) folks in the cast. A friend of mine likes to joke that John Huston, Shelley Winters, and Peter Fonda must have really owed someone in the Italian film industry a huge favor for starring in this film. Either that or they were being blackmailed, he says. The truth is, the movie is not an embarrassment for any of them - and, in any case, their roles are actually fairly minimal, almost like window-dressing.

TENTACLES actually belongs to Bo Hopkins and his character of Will Gleason. The film acquits itself enough to score an average rating, largely due to Will's plot thread and his idea to use his pet Orcas to hunt down and kill the giant octopus. It plays out a lot less ridiculous than it sounds on paper, and packs a decent amount of suspense and tension. Italian actress Delia Boccardo is also a nice presence as Will's doomed wife, Vicky. I remember first watching TENTACLES as a kid and being crushed by (SPOILERS) Vicky's unexpected death. I was sure she was being positioned as the film's heroine. In any case, her abrupt disappearance from the action gives the movie some emotional resonance and gravity - and believably fuels Will's determination to destroy the octopus. I daresay Vicky's fate is akin to (SPOILERS) Rachel Dawes' (Maggie Gylenhaal) similarly out-of-left-field demise in THE DARK KNIGHT.

Ultimately, TENTACLES is nothing more than a passable Italian rip-off of JAWS that manages to rise above others of its kind because of some solid flourishes. Director Ovidio Assonitis helms it with assurance and makes his characters reasonably believable and likable. He also tweaks the formula here and there (the unexpected death of Vicky; the Orcas saving the day; some nice character interaction) to give it some freshness and appeal. Unlike THE LAST SHARK, which was such a blatant rip-off of JAWS (and a lousy one, at that) that Universal pictures actually took legal action against the producers. At least TENTACLES tries some ideas of its own.

# 529 - CAT PEOPLE (1982)

CAT PEOPLE (1982 - HORROR / ROMANCE ) **** out of *****

(Meow, bitches..)



CAST: Nastassja Kinski, John Heard, Malcolm McDowell, Annette O'Toole, Ed Begley Jr., Ruby Dee, Lynn Lowry.

DIRECTOR: Paul Schrader

WARNING: Some SPOILERS and some good reasons to let your inner cat out right now - straight ahead...




IT'S LIKE THIS: In our last Halloween review, we hopped over to Japan and observed THE HOUSE WHERE EVIL DWELLS, wherein the dumbass Fletchers, an American family, were waylaid by a trio of goofy, mincing Japanese ghosts who were about as scary as a Pokemon cartoon. Let's just say things didn't end well for the dear Fletchers, even with their nemeses being as silly as Pee Wee Herman on laughing gas. I've seen supermarket checkout cashiers who were more terrifying.

So, let's go back to the States and head on over to probably the most exotic, mysterious city within our own country: New Orleans, LA. Our next Halloween Review is the 1982 erotic horror flick CAT PEOPLE, and let's just say that this is one good-looking movie. Hell, there were moments when I forgot I was watching a horror flick, and thought I was reviewing the latest Calvin Klein fragrance or apparel commercial, filled with slinky, purring, gorgeous folks who look ready to devour you at any minute. My, it's getting hot in here....

Anyway, our story kicks off with a prologue set several thousand years ago in some desert environment. We see a woman being led by her tribe to a towering, sprawling tree in the middle of nowhere. She is chained to the tree - and left alone by her escorts. Just when you are starting to think this is some prehistoric fraternity prank, who should show up but a sleek, handsome black leopard. Mr. Leopard locks eyes with our hapless damsel, like they are seeing each other across a crowded bar. Slowly, he walks up to her, gazing at her intensely in the way I look at my prime rib when I haven't eaten all day. Except when Mr. Leopard gets close to the chained maiden, he doesn't eat her. At least, not in the conventional sense. A-hem.

Flash forward to 1982 in New Orleans, and we meet our lovely, lovely heroine: Irena Gallier (Nastasska Kinski). Irena has just arrived in The Big Easy from New York. Apparently, she is an orphan and foster child who is now reconnecting with her long-lost brother Paul (Malcolm McDowell), who has spent the last few years tracking her down. Now that he has, he has asked her to move in with him and his weird house servant, Female (Ruby Dee). I should also add that Female's name is pronounced "Fuh-mah-lay." Just saying...

Anyhow, later that evening, a prostitute named Ruthie (Lynn Lowry) goes to a skeezy motel to meet a client - only to be attacked by a black leopard hiding underneath the bed. Ruthie barely manages to escape - and the animal control folks of New Orleans Zoo are called in. The are comprised of: (1) Dr. Oliver Yates (John Heard), hunky zoologist who loves cats; (2) Alice Perrin (Annette O'Toole), Oliver's assistant who has a crush on him; and (3) Joe Creigh (Ed Begley Jr.), the comic relief on the animal control team.

After an extended scuffle, Oliver and his folks are able to corral the loose big cat and tranquilize him. Later, Oliver learns from NOPD Inspector Brandt (Frankie Faison) that there have been a series of murders recently in New Orleans - and he believes this cat may be the culprit. But where did the black leopard, AKA Big Blackie, came from? Whatever the case may be, Big Blackie winds up the newest exhibit at the zoo - whether he likes it or not. Sorry, brother.

While all this is going on, it appears Paul has disappeared - and no one knows where he is. Irena, being new in town, tries to entertain herself as best she can in her brother's absence. After spending what seems like an eternity in the French Quarter, Irena ends up at the New Orleans zoo, after hours. She finds herself strangely drawn to Big Blackie, and he to her. Oliver discovers her and she runs off, leaving the big cat behind, who's all pissed at Oliver for cramping his style.

Eventually, Oliver catches up to Irena, who has somehow wound up in the branches of a tree twenty feet off the ground. She has no idea how she got up there - just that she instinctively leapt up and reached it, no problem. Ahem, folks. Anyhow, Oliver takes Irena out to dinner and is entranced by her exotic beauty which is almost... cat-like. Ahem x 2, folks. To be a nice guy and help out this newbie in town (or maybe to get her to like him) he gets Irena a job in the zoo's gift shop. My, my, my, it's getting hot in here...

All in all, a pretty good night for our dear Oliver: he met a hot, exotic, feline chick in the form of Irena, took her to dinner, got her a job, and is probably going to wind up in her bed real soon. Unfortunately, this really good evening is followed by a real bad day. As in: (1) Big Blackie kills Joe during a cage cleaning; and (2) escapes from the zoo later on when Oliver tries to put him down. Oh, and that evening - miracle of miracles - Paul miraculously turns up at his house and surprises the shit out of Irena. He says they need to have, ahem, a heart-to-heart about something. And what Paul has to say is supremely bizarre.

See, it appears that he and Irena are, um, "Cat People." That is, they are descended from an ancient race of beings that had big cats for parents. Being a "Cat Person" has several rules: (1) They can only mate with each other; (2) if they mate with a "Normal Person" they will transform into, ahem, a big cat; and (3) the only way they can turn back into a human form is to, ahem, kill a human. Hence, all the murders that have been happening lately. Apparently, Paul has been having sex with normal folk, then transforming into Big Blackie, and then having to kill more human folk to turn human again. Got all that?

Paul tells Irena that he and she are fated for each other. The only way they can avoid turning into big cats - and therefore keep from killing more innocent people - is to continue their ancient traditions of keeping it all within the "Cat Family." Paul says he can help Irena discover her true nature. Irena, on the other hand, basically tells Paul to go fuck himself - and books it out of there. She is rescued by the NOPD, and they take her back to Paul's house - where a K9 dog detects the smell of rotting flesh.

Before you know it, the cops have uncovered several corpses in Paul's basement - past victims of him in Big Blackie form. So far, Irena's reunion with her brother has been a total bust: (1) he turned out to be skeezy pervo who wants to boff her; (2) he's killed a shitload of people and stored them in the basement; and (3) he can apparently turn into a black leopard. All in all, it's looking like she should've stayed in New York, eh?

But is Paul right when he said she has the "black leopard" inside her, too? And how can she contain it? Is it true that if she makes love to a normal man, she will turn into a big cat and kill him? If so, how can she hope to have a normal relationship with any man? And what happens when she finds herself falling in love with Oliver? How can she give in to her desire but also protect him, too? Will she end up killing the man she loves because of the "cat within"? Or will she find some way to break the curse of the "Cat People" - and find a way to have a happy ending with Oliver? Or will she have to make the ultimate sacrifice to keep him safe and alive?

Well, I'm pulling for you, girl. Good luck with that...


BUT, SERIOUSLY: In our past Halloween review of THE HOUSE WHERE EVIL DWELLS, we talked about how execution is, essentially, everything when it comes to telling stories cinematically. A great idea can flame out if told incorrectly, as we saw with that movie. But we also discussed how a potentially silly idea can actually work, and even soar high, if given the correct treatment and told in an inspired way. Our latest Halloween review, is a beautiful example of that: CAT PEOPLE takes the ludicrous notion of humans morphing into jungle cats when sexually aroused, and turns into a hypnotic, surreal, and - yes - supremely sexy examination of love, desire, and sacrifice.

Director Paul Schrader was very clever to use New Orleans as a backdrop for this remake of the original CAT PEOPLE from 1944. That film was set in New York but, while considered a classic, it doesn't have the seductive, feline-like quality that this remake appropriately has in spades. Part of the reason for CAT PEOPLE 1982's sexy feel is the New Orleans atmosphere that is langurous, slinky, and mysterious - much like a cat itself. New York is simply too fast-paced and crowded for a tale that pivots around sensuality and dark romance, and CAT PEOPLE 1942, while an entertaining film, is simply not as alluring this version.

Another reason the remake fares better than the original is because of Nastassja Kinski, who gives us a more compelling Irena than Simone Simon did back in 1942. Kinski, daughter of German superstar Klaus Kinski, is very magnetic in the role and appropriately feline-like. Quite frankly, I can't see anyone else playing this role in the same way she does, combining innocence, sensuality, fear, and courage in a way that makes her constantly fascinating. Nastassja Kinski was never more beautiful and riveting than she was as Irena Gallier in this film. It is truly her best part.

The third and final reason CAT PEOPLE 1982 trumps CAT PEOPLE 1942 is because Paul Schrader wisely decided to turn his film into more of a dark, tragic love story - and less of a horror film like the original was. He makes the romance between Oliver and Irena the most important aspect of the plot, giving it an almost "Romeo-and-Juliet" aspect. As a result, the remake has a powerful emotional core that the original lacked. Schrader wisely realigns the various plot threads and streamlines the narrative in the most emotionally effective way. The result, quite simply, is a much better film that has a haunting, bittersweet feel.

For a film romance to work, both parties must be effective. John Heard as Oliver Yates is just as potent as Kinski's interpretation of Irena. When Oliver tells her "I've spent most of my life looking for someone I would even want to fall in love with. Now that I have, I'm not letting you get away." Without the right emotional build-up and the right actors involved, the line could've easily come across as false. But because Oliver and Irena's relationship is so engaging, Heard sells the line. Oliver and Irena are one of my TOP 3 favorite screen couples, right next Jesse Wyler and Terry Brogan from AGAINST ALL ODDS and Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy from THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN. Great characters played wonderfully by great actors.

Malcolm McDowell, Annette O'Toole, Ruby Dee, Ed Begley Jr, and Frankie Faison are all good in their various important supporting roles. McDowell is the true standout as Paul Gallier, the murderous villain whose crimes are rooted in an instinct for survival - not evil. McDowell gives the role layers of unexpected humanity and complexity that make it more interesting. Ruby Dee is also eerily effective as Female, the Cajun servant who knows all about the "Cat People" and their history - and how strong the "cat" is inside Irena. Finally, special mention must also be given to Giorgio Moroder, whose sleek, brooding music score does a lot to enhance CAT PEOPLE 1982's very seductive vibe. It's romantic, scary, and surreal - all at the same time.

In the end, CAT PEOPLE 1982 is meant to be more of a dark romance than a horror film. The emphasis on Oliver and Irena's "forbidden" romance is the emotional engine that powers the movie, turning what could have been just another "wild beast on the loose" horror movie into a moving look at the animal inside all of us - and the unexpected capacity of that animal to still make a great sacrifice for the one it loves.

# 528 - THE HOUSE WHERE EVIL DWELLS (1982)

THE HOUSE WHERE EVIL DWELLS (1982 - HORROR ) ** out of *****

(So much for a relaxing few months in the Japanese countryside..)



CAST: Edward Albert, Susan George, Doug McClure, Amy Barrett, Mako Hattori, Tsuiruyuki Sasaki, Toshiya Maruyama, Henry Mitowa, Mayumi Omeda.

DIRECTOR: Kevin Connor

WARNING: Some SPOILERS and even more compelling reasons to keep your ass in the city as far away from the Japanese countryside as possible - straight ahead...




IT'S LIKE THIS: In our last Halloween review, THE LEGACY, we traveled to rural England to observe two Los Angelenos as they found themselves ensnared in a supernatural mystery involving a really fucked-up inheritance and a huge spooky house. In our next Halloween review, we will hop further East to Japan, where we will explore another spooky house, although much, much, MUCH smaller than the one in THE LEGACY.

Our next flick is THE HOUSE WHERE THE EVIL DWELLS, and it is set in the Land of the Rising Sun. Our heroes are the Fletcher Family from San Francisco, California, who have relocated to Kyoto, Japan because of Daddy's new job. We have: (1) Papa Ted (Edward Albert), writer who has been commissioned to write a book on Japanese culture; (2) Mama Laura (Susan George), housewife whom we will find out later on is a bit of a nympho; and (3) Baby Amy (Amy Barrett), daughter who probably should have stayed in Frisco, if for no other reason than so she won't have to annoy the living shit out of us.

The Fletchers are given a home to stay in by old pal Alex Curtis (Doug McClure), a publishing exec who helped Ted nabbed this much-needed job. The house is your basic traditional Japanese style with sliding doors and tatami (read: on the floor) mattresses. As homes go in Japan, it's actually pretty spacious. Believe me when I say I know what I'm talking about. I lived there for over two years and encountered family apartments that my cats would think too small for them by themselves - let alone our fat asses thrown in, too. So, the Fletchers are lucky, indeed, to have a domicile big enough for all three of them.

Wait, a second… But what the fuck are those three goofy, transparent dipshits wearing kimonos who are running around the place, unnoticed by the Fletchers? Well, folks, in case you hadn't figured it out, those three clowns are ghosts - and although we the audience can see them, the clueless Fletchers can't. Apparently, the place was the site of a murder-suicide about two hundred years ago: a cuckolded Samurai warrior (Tsuiruyuki Sasaki) caught his slutty wife (Mako Hattori) playing "stuff-the-sashimi" with a hunky neighbor (Toshiyo Maruyama) - and he basically pulled a "Kill Bill" on them. Then, realizing there's no one left to cook and clean for him now that his ol' lady is gone, he promptly commits Hara-Kiri - which is Japanese for "Self-inflicted 'Kill Bill'". And just like that, the place's vibe is fucked for eternity. And Alex either didn't know about the house's messed-up history - or didn't bother to tell his pals. Nice. Cretin.

It doesn't take long for the Fletchers to cotton on to the fact that something is wrong in their house. First, Laura (under the possession of the slutty Japanese wife's ghost) comes on to Alex like a sorority girl in heat. Second, Amy starts seeing scary Kabuki faces in her soup, and this understandably kills her appetite. Third, Ted starts getting possessive and jealous of Laura and resents Alex's presence whenever he comes to visit. Fourth, big-ass cackling crabs (you read that right) start chasing Amy and her babysitter Noriko (Mayumi Omeda) around the house - and eventually causes Amy to fall out of a tree and hurt herself severely (do not even ask). And finally.... well, that's about it. Essentially the "haunting" consists of the silly transparent ghosts "possessing" their American counterparts and basically making them act like mean drunks. Yawn.

So... how will this all end? Are the loopy ghosts influencing Ted, Laura, and Alex to recreate the doomed love triangle from two centuries ago? And will Amy be eviscerated by those demonic crabs? What happens when a Zen monk (Henry Mitowa) tells the Fletchers they must get out of that house before it is too late? Or will the Fletchers be your typical Stupid Horror Movie characters and stay put? What the fuck is up with those cackling crabs anyway?

Who knows. This is Japan, after all, so all bets are off...


BUT, SERIOUSLY: In previous reviews, we've talked about the concept of "Idea vs. Execution." Basically, a bad idea can actually produce a good movie with the right execution. Conversely, a great idea can also devolve into a mediocre flick or worse, given the wrong execution. Our latest Halloween review, THE HOUSE WHERE EVIL DWELLS, is a prime example of the latter.

Here, we have an idea that, had it been presented correctly and effectively, could have yielded a classic, atypical Haunted House movie. Instead, it constantly makes the wrong choices and ruins every single chance to create dread and fear. Which is a shame, because the rural Japanese setting is actually quite fresh and atmospheric. But with such a flawed execution, this eerie environment's potential is completely wasted. Given the right handling, THE HOUSE WHERE EVIL DWELLS could have been an Asian-set version of THE SHINING, a film that it has more than a few parallels with.

Like THE SHINING, this film revolves around a family unit of three who move to an isolated location because of the father's job. Like THE SHINING, the family has past issues that begin to resurface the longer they remain in the haunted location. Like THE SHINING, it becomes clear that the grim history of the haunted location is going to repeat itself - with the family as its new victims. Unlike THE SHINING, however, THE HOUSE WHERE EVIL DWELLS is thoroughly lacking in the psychological depth and ambiguity necessary to make it a terrifying experience. In fact, this movie is probably the most obvious, ridiculous ghost story I've ever seen.

The sad thing is it didn't have to be that way. THE HOUSE WHERE EVIL DWELLS could've been a classic like THE SHINING, especially since it has three protagonists who are being influenced by three separate evil forces to recreate a specific part of the past, instead of just one like in THE SHINING. I have shown this film to many friends and the unanimous complaint is always: "Who the hell thought up the idea of showing us the ghosts in transparent form, making mischief, while the characters onscreen go about their business, completely clueless?" Whatever atmosphere and interest is created by the setting and the conflicts between the leads is thoroughly dissipated the minute we see those see-through phantoms prancing about like silly teenagers. Wow. Just... wow.

It doesn't help that the setpieces (if you can call them that) are patently absurd. The sequence where Amy sees the ghosts making faces at her in her soup bowl is more funny than anything else. So is the extended setpiece of Amy and Noriko being terrorized by giant crabs who growl at them like randy construction workers. If this were meant to be a comedy, then these scenes might be acceptable, but the press for the film confirmed it was supposed to be a full-blooded horror film. So, what gives? What a waste.

The cast is okay, and they are the only reason this film manages to rate a ** (mediocre) and not any lower. Edward Albert, Susan Fletcher, Doug McClure, and Amy Barrett are competent as the Americans caught up in the strangeness of Japan. The best scenes are the quarrels between Ted and Laura, which have the ring of real-life spousal arguments. Had director Kevin Connor and his writers taken a more subtle approach to the haunting, and highlighted the growing domestic fracture of the Fletcher family, as well as Alex's growing role in the matter, this movie would've been immeasurably better.

I sincerely believe this film should be remade and given the same cerebral approach given to THE SHINING. For entire passages of that movie, we could not be sure if Jack Torrance (Jack Nicholson) was simply going crazy from isolation - or if he really was being influenced by the "ghosts" of the Overlook Hotel. This is the same way that the Fletcher family's unraveling should have been handled here: is Ted and Laura's union simply going down the tubes because of Alex's presence - or are they all being influenced by the tragedy from two centuries ago? Like THE SHINING, the answer should not have been obvious until close to the end of the movie. In that film, the ghosts were kept out of sight, for the most part, until the last 20 minutes of the film - and that made it scarier. Here, everything is spelled out for us within the first 15 minutes in utterly ridiculous fashion. Again: what a waste.

Two words: remake time!

# 527 - THE LEGACY (1979)

THE LEGACY (1979 - HORROR ) ***1/2 out of *****

(So much for a relaxing few weeks in the English countryside..)



CAST: Katharine Ross, Sam Elliott, John Standing, Ian Hogg, Charles Gray, Hildegarde Neil, Margaret Tyzack, Roger Daltrey, Lee Montague, Marianne Broome, William Abney.

DIRECTOR: Richard Marquand

WARNING: Some SPOILERS and even more compelling reasons to keep your ass in the city as far away from the English countryside as possible - straight ahead...




IT'S LIKE THIS: In our last two Halloween reviews, DEADLY BLESSING and THE HOWLING, we saw what happened when Los Angelenos make the mistake of venturing past the limits of L.A. County into the great unknown otherwise known as The Boonies of Rural America. Three words: Very. Bad. Things. So can you imagine, then, how worse it is for Los Angelenos who make the mistake of going into the rural heartland of... foreign countries? I think I just shat myself visualizing the awful, awful possibilities: weird clothes, weird accents, weird food, weird hair.

That's exactly the problem facing the protagonists of our next Halloween review, THE LEGACY. Our leads are one lovely L.A. couple named Maggie Walsh and Pete Danner (Katharine Ross and Sam Elliott), interior designers who, from the looks of their Hollywood Hills home, specialize in Arabian/Moorish design. They must be somewhat talented, because when our story opens, Maggie is calling long-distance to some bank in London to verify a check she received from a British corporation that wants to hire them. The bank confirms the check is legit, and so now Maggie and Pete must make a hard choice: go to England and do the job - or stay in sunny L.A. for other assignments?

It turns out Maggie has never been to England and has always wanted to go, since her ancestors hail from there. She'd like to go to Britain about a week early so that they can explore the countryside (oh, shit, here we go again) before they have to start work in London. Pete, on the other hand, is a little more skeptical about this mysterious job and accompanying check - and thinks they should find out more about the offer. In the end, though, Maggie waggles her tits at him and basically makes him forget his reservations about crossing the Atlantic to the United Kingdom. Big mistake, Petey. You had it right the first time, bud. Stick to your instincts next time.

Before you know it, our lovely couple have skipped across the pond and are soon touring the British countryside on a motorcycle. So far, so gray and drab. Big fucking surprise. Unfortunately, before Maggie and Peter can say "Fuck this noise" and go back to London where at least they have some swinging pubs to go to, a car zips out of a country lane and sends them flying ass-over-teakettle over some hedge.

The car is a Rolls Royce, and its passenger is Jason Mountolive (John Standing), an English aristocrat who apparently has a huge-ass manor nearby. He graciously offers to have Maggie and Pete's beat-up motorbike taken to the closest village for repairs, then take our lovely couple to his mansion so they can freshen up and dry off from their tumble into all that wet English shrubbery. Not having much of a choice, Maggie and Pete agree. Mistake # 2, folks...

Not too much longer after arriving at the Mountolive crib (which, I should point out, is bigger than most Ivy League university buildings), Pete immediately detects signs that this place is about a few eggs shy of an omelet. For starters, the help is creepy as fuck, led by spooky Nurse Adams (Margaret Tyzack) and asshole Chauffeur Harry (Ian Hogg). Then a bunch of glamorous house guests arrive and pretty much look down their noses at the gauche Americans in their midst.

They are: (1) Jacques Grandier (Lee Montague), asshole French magnate; (2) Karl Liebnecht (Charles Gray), asshole German industrialist; (3) Clive Jackson (Roger Daltrey), asshole British music tycoon; (4) Maria Gabrielli (Marianne Broome), bitchy Italian countess; and (5) Barbara Kirstenburg (Hildegarde Neil), British publishing millionaire who is the only one who treats Maggie and Peter with any kind of kindness. What the hell are these five richer-than-Trump folks doing here in the ass-end of British nowhere?

Well, Mags and Petey don't have to wait too long to find out: it appears that all these folks have been gathered at Casa De Mountolivo because Jason Mountolive is dying - and they are all his heirs. Evidently, his will is about to be read. All fine and good, but what the fuck does this have to do with Maggie and Peter? They're just innocent bystanders who are staying only until their motorbike gets fixed, right?

Wrong. It slowly starts to shape up that Maggie's presence in Mountolive Manor is not a coincidence. Nor is the job offer that brought her and Pete to England. Nor is the "car accident" that totaled their motorcycle. What secret agenda does Jason have in bringing Maggie to the reading of his will? What mysterious connection does she have to the Mountolive Legacy? And what does Nurse Adams mean when she says "there can only be one"? Does it have to do with any of the mysterious "accidents" that begin claiming the lives of the other guests? Is some supernatural force whittling down their numbers? If so, why? Is there truly only one person who can claim... The Legacy?

Oh, who gives a shit. Mags and Petey should've kept their asses in the Hollywood Hills.


BUT, SERIOUSLY: The period beginning 1978 onward marked the rise of the American Slasher movie. Kicked off by the huge success of HALLOWEEN that year, this wave produced similar films like FRIDAY THE 13th, THE PROWLER, HALLOWEEN 2, FINAL EXAM, TOURIST TRAP, PROM NIGHT, TERROR TRAIN, and many, many more. All these films featured masked killers terrorizing teenagers or young adults in event-themed settings. Of all the Horror Sub-Genres during the late 70s/early 80s, the Slasher Movie was the most popular. Which makes THE LEGACY something of an anomaly.

This movie is more of a throwback to the old-school Hammer horror flicks of the 50s and 60s, utilizing the "old dark house" premise. There are no psycho killers here chasing nubile teens or college students. The characters here are all sophisticated adults at the mercy of supernatural forces. Their deaths are constructed as colorful setpieces that are elaborate and almost avant-garde. In this respect, THE LEGACY is closer to the Italian Giallo sub-genre than the American Slasher sub-genre. But, as we discussed in our recent extensive examination of the Italian and American Giallo sub-genres, the American Slasher film owes a debt of gratitude to Italian Gialli because of how it influenced HALLOWEEN - the movie that started it all.

THE LEGACY is a more elegant and brooding affair. Director Richard Marquand vividly utilizes the somber British countryside and milks maximum atmosphere from it. There are those who say this movie has a "quaint" feel, but we think this is actually a plus which adds to its authentic English ambiance. Think DOWNTON ABBEY meets DARK SHADOWS. Marquand also builds suspense and tension deliberately, preferring the "slow burn" approach over the rushed pace that was already becoming increasingly common in horror films even at that time.

Katharine Ross and Sam Elliott are solid as the American couple who quickly get more than they bargained for when they get to England. This element of having Yanks as protagonists swept into a sinister mystery (albeit a supernatural one) on foreign soil once again echoes the Giallo formula. Ross made her mark in BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID, THE GRADUATE, and THE STEPFORD WIVES, and brings the same combo of charm, vulnerability, and strength to the role of Maggie Walsh. Sam Elliott, the epitome of rugged American masculinity, is perfect for the role of Pete Danner, a guy who is a quick study and unafraid to speak his mind and stand his ground. It should be noted that Ross and Elliott reportedly fell in love during the filming of THE LEGACY, and began a long-term relationship afterwards. Just like with Dee Wallace and Christopher Stone in our previous Halloween review, THE HOWLING, you can see the chemistry between these two and their ending up together off-screen is not a big surprise.

The rest of the cast fills out their roles quite nicely. Of them all, Margaret Tyzack and Hildegarde Neil are the standouts as, respectively: (1) Nurse Adams, the enigmatic head of the Mountolive household; and (2) Barbara Kirstenburg, the glamorous publishing tycoon who becomes Margaret's confidante and erstwhile ally in figuring out what is going on in Mountolive Manor. Charles Gray, who played one of Blofeld's iterations in the Bond Franchise, is also good as Karl Liebnecht, the unscrupulous German who sees Maggie as a threat to him inheriting Jason's legacy. Then there's musician Roger Daltrey who is ideally cast as Clive Jackson, the music magnate who is also zealous to claim his inheritance.

THE LEGACY may seem out of step with the films that were flooding theaters at the time but, in my opinion, that's a good thing. There are those who also question the film's ending, stating it is unbelievable. I beg to differ: just like with DEADLY BLESSING's seemingly out-of-nowhere final twist, THE LEGACY's final plot turn makes complete sense when you think about everything that has come before. They are both solid, underrated horror films.

# 526 - THE HOWLING (1981)

THE HOWLING (1981 - HORROR ) **** out of *****

(So much for a relaxing few weeks in the country...)



CAST: Dee Wallace, Patrick Macnee, Dennis Dugan, Christopher Stone, Belinda Balaski, John Carradine, Slim Pickens, Elisabeth Brooks, Margie Impert, Robert Picardo, Kevin McCarthy.

DIRECTOR: Joe Dante

WARNING: Some SPOILERS and even more compelling reasons to keep your ass in the city as far away from farm country as possible - straight ahead...




IT'S LIKE THIS: In our last Halloween review, DEADLY BLESSING, we saw what happened when two L.A. city girls (Susan Bruckner, Sharon Stone) went into the ass-end of Pennsylvania to support a good friend and fellow L.A. girl (Maren Jensen) following the death (murder?) of her country-boy husband (Doug Barr) involving a rogue tractor (don't ask). Unfortunately, it turned out machinery-gone-wild was the least of the Los Angeles lasses' worries - as it appeared someone from the local religious cult nearby (like the Amish, but somehow more square) really wanted them dead and gone so that the house and land could be reclaimed by the cult. All in all, a pretty strong case for breathing in some good ol' fashioned Wilshire Boulevard smog and soaking in some heavy 405 traffic congestion.

Now, in our latest Halloween review, we have another Los Angeles girl who goes to the sticks for some peace and quiet - only to find out, omigod, that the woods totally suck and are full of things that will tear you apart, eat you, and pick their teeth with your bones. Before shitting you out onto the forest floor to be eaten by even more critters. Holy shit, dude, don't these chicks watch horror movies? If they did, they'd know better than to venture past Malibu to the north, Montebello to the East, or Redondo Beach to the South. Stay where the concrete is, girls, and you will be just fine. From werewolves and insane religious cults, anyway. I can't promise anything about muggers, gangbangers, or shifty used car salesmen.

Anyhow, our heroine is Karen White (Dee Wallace), an intrepid TV news anchor for KDHB-Los Angeles/Channel 6 who is investigating a series of brutal murders by "Eddie The Mangler." Apparently, Eddie (Robert Picardo) has been terrorizing the L.A. area for the last year - and he has contacted Karen because he, well, has a crush on her. Seizing this opportunity to try to nab the killer, the LAPD and Karen's cutthroat, ratings-obsessed boss, Fred Francis (Kevin McCarthy), decide to use her as bait to lure Eddie out and trap him. Finally, Eddie agrees - and tells Karen to meet him in L.A.'s red-light district which, as you would know if you've been to L.A., covers several hundred thousand square miles.

Anyhow, the fateful night arrives and the LAPD and her schmuck boss send Karen out into the seedy underbelly of the City of Angels to meet up with the psycho killer who has been gutting women for the last year - armed with nothing more than lipstick and a wonky surveillance tracking device. Fucking great. "Don't worry," says the LAPD to Bill Neill (Christopher Stone), Karen's understandably concerned football player husband, "We've got her covered." With what exactly? Dead air?

It goes without saying that Karen's rendezvous with Eddie goes pretty bad. First off, the tracking surveillance wire on Karen's body goes dead. And second, the cops in this movie are apparently a bunch of hopeless nitwits who couldn't find their own asses even if their palms were super-glued directly to their buns. Fortunately, these assholes decide to earn their pay and manage to catch up to Karen in an utterly seedy (even for L.A.) porno joint where Eddie is just about to fillet her in a private booth in the back. They unload about ten pounds of lead into Eddie's ass - and Karen manages to crawl the fuck outta there to report the story of a lifetime.

Or does she? As it turns out, Karen ends up with some serious amnesiac PTSD, and can't remember a goddamn thing from the moment she entered the porno shop to the moment the borderline-useless Keystone Cops of Cali showed up to finally save her in the nick of time. In short, she remembers nothing about her few minutes in the private booth with Eddie. Karen's psychiatrist, Dr. George Wagner (Patrick MacNee) tells Karen that she just needs time to recover - and eventually she will remember what happened. Karen rightfully says she's not sure if she wants to remember.

Nevertheless, Dr. Wagner advises Karen and Bill to head up north to "The Colony" - his therapeutic village nestled among the redwoods of Northern California. In other words, it's a hamlet made up of wackos, nutjobs, and recovering basket cases like Karen - all of whom Dr. Wagner is treating. Wonderful, doc. Talk about a healthy environment. It doesn't help that one of the patients, a slutty brunette vixen with cat eyes named Marsha Quist (Elisabeth Brooks), starts making frank sex talk to Bill right in front of Karen. Donna (Margie Impert), another patient, helpfully points out to Karen that Marsha is a nymphomaniac. To which Karen politely responds something along the lines of "Thanks for the fucking breaking news flash, lady..."

Then weird things start to happen. I mean, even weirder than the whackjobs that Karen now calls her neighbors. The following occur with increasing frequency: (1) scary howling in the woods at night; (2) mutilated cattle corpses turning up in the middle of the paths; (3) Bill disappearing for hours on end and coming back with scratch marks down his back; (4) something creeping around in the bushes outside their cabin; and most terrifying of all: (5) Sam (Slim Pickens), the Colony sheriff, lurching up to Karen and in sickeningly-earnest-gushing-fan-boy-with-a-Kentucky-Fried-Accent mode, telling her "Say, yer somewun faymus, aintcha? Yer much purdier in purson. Hyuk-hyuk-hyuk." Jesus Christ, if this clown came up to me and said that in that fucking voice, I'd be in my car and driving - fast - back to L.A. within five minutes. Forget the werewolves - this guy is the real monster.

Anyhow. what exactly is going on in The Colony? What is behind the cattle killings and the eerie howlings late at night? What secrets are the Colony patients hiding from Karen? And where does Bill go to every night? And why does he come back with scratch marks up the wazoo? Is he porking that whore Marsha? And what happens when Karen's news station coworkers back in Los Angeles, Chris Halloran and Terri Fisher (Dennis Dugan and Belinda Balaski), discover that Eddie's body has disappeared from the L.A. morgue? What does this mean? Wasn't Eddie shot to shit by the useless Keystone Cali Cops? And what is Dr. Wagner true agenda in operating The Colony and bringing Karen to it? Will she live to tell the tale? Or will she end up howling at the moon?

Hard to say for sure. What I know for certain is this: if Karen survives her "vacation," I highly doubt she will venture twenty feet off Sunset Boulevard ever again.


BUT, SERIOUSLY: In 1981, two back-to-back werewolf horror films were released and quickly became instant hits - and eventual classics. The first was THE HOWLING in April 1981, which made its budget many times over at the box-office and was quite profitable. The second was AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON a few months later in August 1981 and was an even bigger hit, with its blend of black comedy and classic horror elements. These two movies often divide horror fans, specifically as to which one is the better film - and it is a very tough call. In the end, though, if we are to judge the film on its scare factor and atmosphere, I would have to give the title to THE HOWLING.

AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON chronicled what happens when two backpacking American college students (Griffin Dunne, David Naughton) are attacked one night on the isolated moors of rural England. One dies, the other survives - with bite marks. The survivor is taken to London, where he recovers with the help of a kindly doctor and a pretty nurse (Jenny Agutter) whom he begins an affair with. Unfortunately, he also starts to... change. I can see why AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON was more popular than THE HOWLING at the box-office, what with its juxtaposition of many crowd-pleasing elements: horror, thriller, mystery, comedy, romance, action. There was pretty much something for everyone here.

With THE HOWLING, however, we have a full-blooded horror film. While director Joe Dante and co-writer John Sayles bring some threads of black humor to the story, they don't let them take over the plot the way AMERICAN WEREWOLF did at certain points. THE HOWLING never loses sight of its focus: to scare the hell out of you. It may not necessarily be the better film out of the two, but it is certainly the better horror film. I hope you folks can see the distinction. While AMERICAN WEREWOLF had its own atmosphere (what with being set in England and all), THE HOWLING has a taut sense of steadily mounting, claustrophobic dread that the former doesn't quite have, despite its scary setpieces.

Some critics have knocked the setting of "The Colony" - an isolated therapeutic village that serves as backdrop for the unfolding events. I think it is perfect because of the off-kilter vibe we get from the very beginning because of it. And when the other narrative shoe drops in the latter part of the story, the strange setting makes perfect sense. In the novel of the same name by Gary Brandner, the place was just an average small town. However, how many times have we seen the "ordinary town that turns out to be evil" in horror films?

By changing it to a more clinical setting, Dante and Sayles are able to gracefully tie-in all the story's subtexts about repressed aggression and animal instinct in the midst of normal human society. In fact, they bring shades of INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS and THE STEPFORD WIVES into THE HOWLING with this element of an innocent woman arriving at an isolated community with strange people sharing a dark secret between them. Making it more of a therapeutic retreat keeps the story fresh and inventive - and quite spooky.

One thing that THE HOWLING has over the AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON is its ominous rural setting - the redwood forests of Northern California have never looked so spooky. Eighty percent of the story unfolds in this remote wilderness setting, and the movie is all the more atmospheric because of it. In AMERICAN WEREWOLF, we had some evocative scenes on dark English moors and in the nearby rural village filled with weird locals, but they were only a few. Most of the story unfolded in the modern capital of London. This in itself isn't a bad thing, as London has its own atmosphere - but it can't compete with a dark forest full of strange shadows and sounds.

Dee Wallace is terrific as Karen White, and I like how she manages to make the role consistently human and vulnerable without turning her into a wimp. Wallace would go on to bigger fame as Elliot's mom in E.T. THE EXTRA TERRESTRIAL the following year in 1982. She would also end up marrying her male lead here, Christopher Stone, in real-life. Watching them onscreen as Karen and Bill, you can kind of tell something was cooking in the kitchen, so to speak. Wallace and Stone have a very compatible air, and make for a handsome couple.

Patrick Macnee is suitably ambiguous as the mysterious Dr. Wagner, who may know more about Eddie The Mangler than he lets on. Macnee hits the right notes of avuncular warmth and gracious elegance, but also adds an air of distance that makes the character a bit inscrutable - perfectly appropriate for someone with a hidden agenda. Actually, it would probably be more appropriate to say that Dr. Wagner's hidden agenda has hidden agendas of its own. It's a fairly complex and layered role that Macnee essays well.

Dennis Dugan and Belinda Balaski are immensely likable as Chris Halloran and Terri Fisher, Karen's colleagues and friends from the TV station who get pulled into the fray even though they are far away in L.A. Dugan would go on to be an accomplished director himself, stepping behind the camera to helm many of Adam Sandler's comedies like GROWN UPS 1 & 2, HAPPY GILMORE, JUST GO WITH IT, JACK AND JILL, YOU DON'T MESS WITH THE ZOHAN, and more.

As far as Balaski, well, this woman was my biggest crush growing up (right next to Lesley-Anne Down and Kate Jackson), and her character of Terri Fisher is my fave in this film. I like how Terri is the first to intuit that something is wrong at The Colony - and is also the first to connect the events in Los Angeles to this isolated community way up north. The beach sequence where Terri realizes (SPOILERS) Eddie's involvement with Dr. Wagner through a picture that Eddie left behind in his L.A. pad, and her ensuing extended chase scene through the woods and several buildings at The Colony, is now a classic horror setpiece. Balaski starred in the classic PIRANHA, and appeared in GREMLINS a few years later - both directed by Joe Dante. Gorgeous, gorgeous woman with real talent...

The various bizarro inhabitants of The Colony are vividly played by Margie Impert, Slim Pickens, Elisabeth Brooks, Robert Picardo, and many more. Picardo, who would go on to feature prominently in one of my favorite TV shows ever, CHINA BEACH, is particularly scary and effective as the serial killer werewolf, Eddie Quist. These folks and their off-kilter auras are instrumental in creating much of the The Colony's eerie atmosphere. Then there's Kevin McCarthy as Karen's ice-cold boss Fred Francis. McCarthy was the lead in the original INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, and his presence here reinforces THE HOWLING's connection to that movie.

In the end, while AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON may be the more critically and commercially popular film, THE HOWLING is the more effective horror film. And, quite possibly, the more financially successful film: THE HOWLING had a substantially lower budget than AMERICAN WEREWOLF, and made just about the same profit.

Data below:

AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON:
Budget: approximately $10 million.
Final Gross: approximately $30 million.
Expenditure vs. Profit: $10 million/$20 million

THE HOWLING:
Budget: approximately $1 million
Final Gross: approximately $ 18 million
Expenditure vs. Profit: $1 million/$17 million

You folks do the math - and tell me which one was actually the bigger hit...

# 525 - DEADLY BLESSING (1981)

DEADLY BLESSING (1981 - HORROR / MYSTERY ) ***1/2 out of *****

(So... if the Amish look like swingers in comparison to these assholes, why would anyone in their right minds want to live next to them?)



CAST: Maren Jensen, Susan Buckner, Sharon Stone, Ernest Borgnine, Jeff East, Doug Barr, Lisa Hartman, Lois Nettleton, Colleen Riley, Michael Berryman, Kevin Cooney.

DIRECTOR: Wes Craven

WARNING: Some SPOILERS and compelling reasons to keep your ass in the city, as far away from farm country as possible - straight ahead...




IT'S LIKE THIS: Poor Martha (Maren Jensen)... she's an L.A. big city girl who has moved to rural Pennsylvania out of love for country-boy husband Jim Schmidt (Doug Barr) - and soon runs afoul of his horrible relatives. And we're not talking "horrible" in the usual way - we're talking "horrible in the bible-thumping, fire-and-brimstone, you-will-burn-in-hell-for-living-the-modern-life-and-wearing-jeans" kind of way. You see, folks, Jim's family are, um, Hittites - who are like the Amish, only much, much, much, much, MUCH more repressed. If you can even imagine such a fucked-up scenario.

Yup, turns out the Hittities don't believe in nothing but the old ways, which means: (1) they follow the Bible to a "T"; and (2) nothing else. Which also means they have no electricity, running water, indoor plumbing, or clothing that doesn't look like it's a Halloween costume. And Lord forbid anyone who thinks about stepping out of the box and joining the Modern World, because those people are immediately shunned. Which is exactly what happened to Jim when he decided to go to college in L.A. and defy his family, led by whackjob father Isaiah Schmidt (Ernest Borgnine), who looks as scary as, well, Ernest Borgnine. Can't say I blame Isaiah for being concerned, though... I mean, seriously: what else could possibly happen to a nice guy who was raised by even more repressive versions of the Amish, when he gets to La-La Land? The words "eaten alive whole" come to mind...

Fortunately, Jim lucked out and met the sweet and lovely Martha at college, and now that they have graduated, they have decided to marry. Jim has brought his new wife back to, uh, Hittiteville to take over the farm he inherited when he turned 21 or something. Problem is, Isaiah and the rest of the Hittite clan are pissed off that Jim brought home an outsider for a wife - and have shunned him (and Martha) even more. They have also taken to threatening Jim and Martha to try to drive them off the land, which the Hittites want to reclaim for their own. And that's just the backstory, folks....

Our story kicks off in full when Jim gets murdered in their barn one night after a lovemaking session with Martha. We're meant to think it was an accident, but come on: gigantic tractors don't start up themselves and run over sexy farmers on their own, folks. Clearly, some human intervention was at play here. Or was there? Hmmmmmmmm.... Could there be something to the local whispering about an evil entity called the "incubus" prowling the surrounding land?

Whatever. The point is Martha is devastated by Jim's "accidental" death. Think about it: you are a hot chick who just gave up glamorous L.A. city life for a hot country boy and moved to the ass-end of Pennsylvania with him, surrounded by his colossal asshole relatives - and barely two days after your goddamn wedding, he... DIES!? What the fucking fuck? I would demand a re-count or... something. Anyhow, it's a good thing Maren has some loyal friends from Los Angeles who show up when she needs it most because, well, right now she, um, needs it most.

Cue the arrival of hot L.A. bombshells Vicky Anderson (Susan Bruckner) and Lana Marcus (Sharon Stone) to lend some moral support to their pal Martha. Vicky is your basic "rah-rah-rah-sis-boom-bah" cheerleader girl who was probably running for Student Council president in the womb and could charm even a rattlesnake suffering from a pounding hangover. Lana, on the other hand, is your textbook brooding artistic chick with dark depths and a full flask always conveniently located no more than a few feet away. I have a feeling her issues have issues of their own. I'd like to know what bizarre sorority house the earthy Martha first met these two in. I've seen friendships between cats and parakeets that were more believable...

The arrival of Vicky and Lana at Martha's farm does not go unnoticed to the constantly-spying Hittites. Then again, is it so surprising that a religious sect full of men who cannot have sex before marriage, cannot masturbate, and cannot get to the farm animals because they have been locked up by that damn Isaiah, instantly notices the two sexy blondes (and their even hotter brunette pal) parading around in skimpy shorts and low-cut blouses? Methinks not. It's like taunting a pack of starving pit bulls with dripping, juicy prime rib. Anyone else think this is going nowhere good?

Sure enough, even stranger things begin to happen. William (Michael Berryman), one of the Hittite teens who love to spy on Martha through her bedroom window, gets knifed by a dark figure while - you guessed it - during the Pervo Peeping Bill number again. Then Lana gets trapped in the barn and chased around by what looks like a banshee wearing a black robe. During the cat-and-mouse tussle with the killer, she stumbles across William's body and barely manages to escape with her own life.

The local sheriff (Kevin Cooney) advises Martha to take Vicky and Lana and get the fuck out because someone clearly wants them gone from the farm. Martha, being a tough, independent woman, says she will not be run out of her own home and plans to stay put. Even with a killer loose and the nearest house about a mile or so away. And with a phone that works sporadically, at best. And a truck that looks like it is going to fall apart at any minute. I don't know whether to admire Martha - or slap the living shit out of her.

Is the sheriff right? Are Martha, Vicky, and Lana in danger from something or someone that wants the farm and land? Is Isaiah or one of his minions behind the whole thing? Is it the "incubus" that everyone seems to quaking in fear of? And what happens when Vicky has a chance encounter with John (Jeff East), Jim's brother who is still part of the Hittite sect? Will they have a forbidden romance just like Martha and Jim's? Or will Isaiah refuse to lose another son to a "modern harlot"? And why is Lana suddenly having scary nightmares with dark figures, cobwebs, and spiders falling into her mouth? Is it a warning? Or does she need to lay off that flask?

Time will tell. Just remember that these chicks had a chance to get when the getting was good. How about them apples, bitches?


BUT, SERIOUSLY: Horror auteur Wes Craven is most famous to modern audiences for giving us three modern horror classics: the original NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET in 1984, and then SCREAM 1 & 2 in 1996 and 1997. These films were slick, entertaining, and thorough crowd-pleasers. Craven took a break from SCREAM 3 (which, frankly, was more of a horror comedy than an actual horror film), then returned in the passable SCREAM 4, which was conclusive proof that the series had run its course and had tapped the well dry. Still, Craven deserves credit for helming the terrific first entries in two of the best franchises in the horror genre.

Craven's name is so attached to the very commercial NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET and SCREAM series that people often overlook that he started his career in the 1970s with gritty, edgy horror fare that was decidedly not mainstream. In 1972, he directed LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT, a graphic and disturbing revenge film that was remade a couple of years ago into an even more graphic and disturbing update. Then in 1977, he helmed THE HILLS HAVE EYES, a grisly cult hit that was an early entry in the "In-Bred Cannibals Terrorize Stranded Tourists" sub-genre - which was also remade a few years ago.

LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT and THE HILLS HAVE EYES were so different from A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET and the SCREAM movies, that you'd be forgiven for thinking they'd been directed by two different directors. Basically, Craven's body of work can be divided into two distinct parts: the early section in the 70s when his output was characterized by graphic violence and a gritty, grindhouse vibe in rural settings, and then the later section which covers his work from 1984 onward, which were characterized by a more polished look, relatively sophisticated suburban or urban settings, and more audience-friendly plots.

In between these two sections, however, is a lone film that serves as a bridge between Craven's gritty earlier fare, and his more handsome latter ones. The film is DEADLY BLESSING, and was released in 1981 to a decent profit. This film combines elements of Craven's 1970s films (rural setting, weird characters, a gritty look) and his films from the mid-80s and onward (very attractive stars, suspenseful and crowd-pleasing setpieces, surprise twist endings). Indeed, DEADLY BLESSING has gradually developed a loyal cult following over the years, as fans of Craven and the SCREAM movies have realized this movie was practice for his more popular work later.

The movie's overall premise of city dwellers in deadly conflict with the superstitions and traditions of backward country folk isn't exactly new, but making the latter a repressive religious sect similar to - but more stringent than - the Amish, is a fairly fresh (for the time) perspective. This same conflict would be explored again three years later in Harrison Ford's classic thriller WITNESS, albeit in a more benign way. Here, Craven is more focused on creating an eerie atmosphere that paints everything in this bucolic setting in a distinctly sinister way. Perfectly appropriate for a film that is more of a horror film than a thriller.

Craven's ability to construct fluid, scary setpieces that keep audiences on edge is first shown off to good effect here. DEADLY BLESSING is full of them: (1) Jim's encounter with the tractor in the barn that leads to his death; (2) William spying on Martha, then becoming victimized himself by the killer; (3) Martha taking a bath, unaware that the killer has placed a snake on the bathroom floor; (4) Vicky and John encountering the killer while making out in her car in the middle of a dark field, and her subsequent attempts to escape; (5) the revelation of "whodunit" and Martha's desperate battle to the death with the killer; and the best of them all: (6) Lana's terrifying first encounter with the killer while trapped in the barn. This particular setpiece is actually even better than most of the ones that would come later in NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET and SCREAM. It is even more remarkable because it is the only one that takes place during the daytime - and, yet, it is the scariest one of all.

The cast is full of beautiful, talented faces. The trio of female leads are all solid and engaging. Maren Jensen (from BATTLESTAR GALACTICA fame) makes Martha an appealing mix of soft and hard, and she ably expresses the character's multiple internal conflicts - not just about what has happened to her husband, but also whether to stay and fight for his legacy or head back to L.A. with her friends.

Speaking of her pals, Vicky Anderson's sunny disposition is expertly played up by Susan Bruckner, who is the textbook "California Blonde." Lana Marcus, on the other hand, is meant to be a cooler, pensive, more distant personality, and the elegantly gorgeous Sharon Stone takes ownership of the role. This was Stone's first speaking part and her first real role. Before DEADLY BLESSING, she only had modeling experience and a dialogue-free, one-shot cameo in Woody Allen's STARDUST MEMORIES from 1979. Stone acquits herself well here, considering she had no real acting background and was required to play a wide range of intense emotions and scenes. The nice vulnerability that she would show much later in bigger, higher-profile productions like BASIC INSTINCT, SLIVER, INTERSECTION, THE SPECIALIST, and CASINO first reveals itself here. It's not surprising to note that, out of all the talented young folks just starting out in DEADLY BLESSING, Stone is the one who went the farthest with her career.

Lois Nettleton, Colleen Riley, and Lisa Hartman round out the solid female supporting cast. Hartman, who would later wed country singer Clint Black and make a name for herself on the TV show DALLAS, is particularly impressive. Like Stone, this was her first real role and she similarly knocks it out of the park. Ernest Borgnine, the most experienced castmember, shows his considerable mettle as Isaiah, the Hittite clansman who may or may not have basically ordered a Jihad of sorts on Martha, Lana, and Vicky. He lends the film some solid gravity and class. Finally, Jeff East and Doug Barr as equally compelling as John and Jim, Isaiah's sons who bristle under the oppressive rule of their father and the Hittite sect.

Then there's that famous (or infamous) twist ending. The single most divisive factor between those who like DEADLY BLESSING and those who don't is that ending which, admittedly, first seems to come out of nowhere. However, when you think back on the atmosphere of the film, the tone of the story, and all the hints planted here and there, it kind of makes sense. The version released in England omits the final twist and (SPOILER) simply ends after the first killer is revealed, and everyone thinking the nightmare is over. Lana says goodbye to Martha in front of the farm the next morning, and rides off with the sheriff to catch her flight back to L.A. The British version doesn't show what happens afterwards, when (SPOILER) Martha goes back into the house to see (SPOILER) what is waiting for her inside... Let's just say that our dear lucky Lana made the right choice of leaving when she did - she ends up being (SPOILER) the sole survivor of DEADLY BLESSING. Great, scary ending that deserves more credit than it often gets. I loved it. Poor Martha, though...

Bottom line: DEADLY BLESSING is solid horror flick with mystery overtones that marks a transition from Wes Craven's earlier grindhouse-style flicks and his sleeker, more commercial movies that would start a few years after this film. It is well-deserving of its increasingly popular status and growing cult following. It's safe to say that, without this movie, there would not have been a NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET or SCREAM.