BALLAD IN BLOOD (2016) - Review

Ballad in Blood

Horror
1 hour and 33 minutes
Rated: Not Rated

Written by: Ruggero Deodato, Jacopo Mazzuoli, and Angelo Orlando
Directed by: Ruggero Deodato
Produced by: Massimo Esposti

Cast:
Roger Garth
Ernesto Mahieux
Carlotta Morelli
Gabriele Rossi
Noemi Smorra

It had been twenty-three years since Italian horror maestro Ruggero Deodato last helmed a horror movie for his fans - that was of course the 1993 giallo The Washing Machine. Deodato has become most famous for his groundbreaking 1980 cannibal/exploitation film, Cannibal Holocaust, whose found-footage format went on to inspire a plethora of notable horror films to date including: The Blair Witch Project, Paranormal Activity, and Cloverfield. Much more recently, however, the cannibal film subgenre was meant to be resurrected by horror filmmaker, and Deodato fanboy, Eli Roth with his movie The Green Inferno. Still, Deodato's masterpiece looks like Citizen Kane next to Roth's cheap imitation (it always looks like Citizen Kane next to any of its imitations ... sorry, Umberto Lenzi fans). Nevertheless, it seems rather odd that somebody who made such a mark in the horror world had vanished from it entirely for twenty-three years. It was a long and troubled road for Deodato to get to Ballad in Blood, and it is one worth exploring, especially if one is to understand the film's overall cohesion ... or lack there of.

At some point after Roth had begun vocally championing the films of Deodato and other Italian cannibal film pioneers such as Lenzi, Deodato began considering a return to the world of horror. Unfortunately, unless you're Dario Argento, the film industry in Italy and really in Europe in general hardly seems fit these days to back anyone interested in making a horror film, even despite their past works, for many reasons but mostly because a) the money is not there, or it is hard to obtain, and/or b) no one is willing to take the gamble. At some point after Deodato made a cameo in Roth's Hostel: Part II he was offered to direct a segment in the anthology film The Profane Exhibit (which despite the movie never seeing a finished product, Deodato did apparently shoot his segment). The Profane Exhibit led to Deodato reteaming with actor Giovanni Lombardo Radice to make House on the Edge of the Park: Part II, a follow-up to one of Deodato's most beloved and disturbing movies. Unfortunately, as Lombardo Radice told me himself, that movie fell apart due to conflicts with producers and financial backers. It did, however, cause Deodato's interest to shift onto another based-on-a-true-event idea he had for a film and out of that Ballad in Blood was born.

If this sounds convoluted and confusing, it's because it is. And this long and disheartening process to get one feature length film out of an Italian horror visionary who has been silent in the genre for so long surely affected the overall quality of the film. Ballad in Blood is unquestionably Ruggero Deodato's worst movie since the late 1980s when he delivered such laughable films as The Lone Runner or Dial: Help. The difference being, with those two previous films, one can see the dedication Deodato had in himself thrown into them. There's something charming and redeeming about that. With Ballad in Blood, however, it feels as if the maestro's losing whatever conviction he had for himself. Losing ... not lost.

For starters, the dialogue is painfully bad. It seems as if Deodato and screenwriters Jacopo Mazzuoli and Angelo Orlando had no idea how English speaking individuals actually talk to each other nowadays, and utilized the filmography of Eli Roth as to some sort of indication on the matter. Every other word out of the characters' mouths is just one angry explosion of vulgarity and profanity after another. And while yes, given the situation surrounding these characters, that could be forgiven and certainly even believable to a degree, but here it is bloated and overdone. Deodato, Mazzuoli, and Orlando clearly spent too much time delving into the films from the torture-porn craze of the early 2000s before they wrote this film in order to get a sense of how horror movie characters act. This is extremely disheartening especially given Deodato's past dedication to realism. A student of Italian filmmaker Roberto Rossellini, Deodato believed film should reflect reality. The characters in Ballad in Blood feel fake and like poorly constructed horror movie caricatures. On top of this, there's a lot of scenes and characters present within the movie that definitely needed to be cut out of the finished film in order to give it an overall streamlined effect - something more akin to Deodato's House on the Edge of the Park which was clearly the film he was trying to parallel with Ballad in Blood.

The performances are likewise terrible, but one is willing to forgive this notion due to the fact that in horror films - especially foreign or Italian horror movies - the performances aren't usually what's important. But here, they needed to be believable. This is as much a mystery film as it is a horror film, and in order for us as an audience to want to solve the proposed mystery with the film's characters we have to have at least some sort of care for them. With Ballad in Blood it's incredibly difficult to care for any of the characters in the slightest sense, even the ones who are quite obviously meant to be sympathized with.

The pacing is off too. This may in a way be an editing fault as much as it is a directorial issue. Editor Daniel de Rossi pieces together flashback sequences with the present in a jarring and unannounced fashion that it only becomes apparent what is happening fifteen to twenty minutes into the film. These sort of heavy handed jump cuts don't work effectively enough to engage the viewer, in fact they just lose said viewer entirely.

Despite all this mangled mess, there are still sparks of brilliance hiding within the trash heaps of Ballad in Blood. Remember, I stated Deodato feels like a director who is losing his conviction in himself - his belief in himself as a talented and capable filmmaker - but he hasn't completely lost it yet. There are specific sequences in Ballad in Blood that genuinely feel like old school Deodato and any fan of his work will surely be reassured by this. His re-teaming with Italian horror composer Claudio Simonetti is terrific, and Simonetti's score for the movie reflects his unquestionable talent. The film's final moment, utilizing a direct piece of Riz Ortolani's soundtrack from House on the Edge of the Park, showcases Deodato's profound respect for his past works and for the genre overall. While he may have failed in creating a film as powerful as the earlier film was, this direct linkage between the two shows that Deodato is still interested in the ideas that he explored in his groundbreaking and brilliant earlier films. This ought to prove promising for anyone who is a fan of his. Similarly, the moment in the film's third act depicting the fatal crime that sparked the film's mystery is jarringly horrible to watch unfold, but the fact that it can elicit this kind of reaction out of a viewer is powerful. It mirrors the reactions of shock and terror and rage and anger that Deodato so expertly pulled from audience members who first saw Cannibal Holocaust or House on the Edge of the Park so many years ago. The maestro is still there. The man deeply interested in the dark and nasty side of human interaction and nature lurks somewhere beneath the corrupted and self-doubting surface that's been instilled in him from years of silence and camaraderie with lesser filmmakers who lack the vision and talent of Deodato. 

There is hope Deodato could one day churn out something brilliant in the realm of horror again (from what Lombardo Radice told me, it sounded like House on the Edge of the Park: Part II would have been the film to do just that). Unfortunately, with the maestro's older age, and with how long it took just to produce a film as subpar as Ballad in Blood, I worry horror fans may never see it.

3/10

GERALD'S GAME (2017) - Review

Gerald's Game

Horror/Thriller
1 hour and 43 minutes
Rated: TV-MA

Written by: Jeff Howard & Mike Flanagan
Directed by: Mike Flanagan
Produced by: Trevor Macy & Melinda Nishioka

Cast:
Carla Cugino
Bruce Greenwood

Some games you play. Some you survive.

Netflix has become quite the alternative when it comes to network television over the past several years, producing hit shows like House of Cards, Narcos, and Orange is the New Black. But it is only been recently that they have been daring to try their hand in the world of cinema. And why not? Made-for-TV movies have been a thing since, well, since television was invented. Although the majority of their film content has been booed by cinema purists (quite literally, they were booed at Cannes this year), the dismissal of their original films seems to be a slippery slope that is one that serves no merit whatsoever. Why not assess their films on a case by case basis as one does for films at the cinema?

With a renewed resurgence in Stephen King adaptations: both The Dark Tower and IT saw adaptations released this year, as well as a made-for-TV re-adaptation of The Mist, and soon re-imaginings of Salem's Lot, Pet Sematary, and The Stand are due to come our way, it only makes sense the Netflix would want to grab ahold of some of one of the most popular writer in the world's content to make their own contributions to the mix. Gerald's Game, King's 1992 psychological horror novel, may have seemed like an odd choice for them to make. With a plot consisting of a protagonist confined virtually to one spot for the entirety of the story, alone and isolated, one might have written it off as an un-filmable project and as something that exists brilliantly and purely in the medium of literature. So how does Mike Flanagan's adaptation stand up?

The storyline itself, is brilliant. Flanagan makes the wise decision to follow the events of the Stephen King novel nearly verbatim - unlike some other King adaptations that have come out this year - only excluding minor elements and changing a few details in order to fit time and visual constraints that the medium adheres to. By doing this, Flanagan respectfully recognizes the elements that made this story one of the most frightening ever told by the master of the macabre. The changes also allow for the film's two lead actors to really be front and center and shine through for its entirety.

And shine they do. Carla Cugino and Bruce Greenwood are perhaps some of the most under appreciated talents working in cinema today. Both are recognizable and have made appearances in countless popular movies, but neither has achieved the profound recognition that they deserve. Their performances in Gerald's Game solidify this shameful fact. Greenwood, for starters, plays a rather unsympathetic and overtly misogynistic Gerald - the kind that was present in King's book. The difference is here, director Flanagan has made the decision to include Gerald's voice and presence throughout. He functions as both id and the ego of thought during the mind's most panicked and desperate of situations. Cugino similarly functions as the super-ego, counteracting and reminding one of the observable information, while also playing all three - struggling for her life, chained to a bed, desperate for an out. These two titans of actors contribute to the film's thrilling and horrific storyline, really amping up the tension, sympathy, and horror in the places that demand it.

Despite being a made-for-TV movie, Gerald's Game is shot gorgeously. There are certain sequences that are stunning to behold in both beauty and horror - often times both simultaneously. Cinematographer Michael Fimognari does a brilliant job in utilizing shots and lighting especially to play with the expectations of the audience and put them into the mindset of the film's protagonist. Is what we are seeing reality, or merely a panic-induced nightmare of horror? This similarly reflects the tone that was present throughout King's novel. Perhaps the only faux pas regarding the film's technical end would be a sequence near the film's beginning where the clear shadow of a person can be seen when it was clearly not meant to be seen. More than likely, this indivudal was a crewmember who unfortunately stood in front of a light source, saw they had done just that, and moved out of the way. While this is clearly an embarrassing mistake, it does not detract from the overall viewing experience due to its brevity, and if one were to really press their luck - they may try to argue that this clear mistake only adds to the overall tone that the film presses, that being the mindset of a woman gripping onto sanity as it slips away from her. Still, one has to wonder how an overt mistake like that was not caught by Flanagan, who also served as the film's editor.

The film's effects work are equally terrific. An eclipse darkened memory plays out with all the surreal qualities of a bad dream. A gory and intense climax is shown in all its bloody and beautiful glory. And of course, the film's antagonist, stands out like the most terrifying vision one has ever had in nightmares. To the big budgeted studio horror movies, and even the indie horror movies, who have relied too heavily on CGI over the past two decades or so, take note. Gerald's Game showcases how to make a terrifying and thrilling horror film with a storyline grounded in reality that largely utilizes practical effects.

With an incredible cast delivering some of the best - if not the best - performances of their entire careers, a frightening and intense storyline that adheres closely to the original source material, and a reliance upon believable and shocking effects work, Gerald's Game triumphs over its made-for-TV stigma by being an absolutely brilliant film. Even despite one glaringly stupid faux pas.

9/10

MASSACRE TIME (1966) - Review

Massacre Time

Western
1 hour and 32 minutes
Rated: M

Written by: Fernando Di Leo
Directed by: Lucio Fulci
Produced by: Oreste Coltellacci

Cast:
Franco Nero
George Hilton
Nino Castelnuovo

THE MASSACRE MEN - They carry their hate in their holsters and a name on every bullet in their belts...

Before Italian horror maestro Lucio Fulci earned his notoriety as The Godfather of Gore with such brutal flicks as Zombie, City of the Living Dead, The Beyond, and The House by the Cemetery, he made a name for himself like every other filmmaker by directing whatever scripts were to come his way - effectively making him a gun for hire. Massacre Time, the first of Fulci's three spaghetti westerns, came about in this exact fashion. The mid-1960s saw a large demand for these Italian-helmed westerns given the major success of Sergio Leone's films in the United States and abroad, as well as Sergio Corbucci's films in the European and Japanese markets. Fulci, a virtually relatively unknown filmmaker both inside and outside of Italy at this time, decided it best to try his hand at helming one of these iconic genre pictures before the boom completely fizzled out. Thus, Massacre Time.

The film is pretty run-of-the-mill with its storyline regarding a hero who has since moved away from his hometown to make a living for himself only to be called back home again to find the town he once knew and loved in a state of disarray at the hands of a tyrannical, wealthy landlord. In this sense, Massacre Time presents nothing new with its story, but given its budgetary and schedule limitations, one can see why screenwriter Fernando Di Leo chose to play it safe and keep the story in line with most other westerns of this and previous eras. Massacre Time's story does try new and inventive tricks regarding the relationship dynamics between its main characters, connecting them more on a personal level than most other westerns of this or previous eras, which allows for some really engaging depth and some genuinely surprising twists that lighten up its otherwise by-the-books story.

Fulci utilizes the film's simplicity to try new and engaging techniques that would ultimately pay off more brilliantly in his later films. For starters, the effects work within Massacre Time is largely impressive and it's truly surprising to see bodies riddled with bloodied bullet holes in an era where within most westerns men just fell to the ground to symbolize they had been shot, despite the lack of blood being a screaming cry to the contrary. A prolonged fight sequence between the film's protagonist and antagonist involving whips instead of fists or pistols is something new altogether to behold, and seeing the lash marks appear on the hero's face does seem all the more gruesome given the film's age. Fulci would go on to continue his fascination with whippings in his films Don't Torture a Duckling and The Beyond - in both cases, utilizes metal chains to really up the gore-ante. But seeing this violent precursor to The Godfather's later best remembered effects works proves to be all the more enjoyable with all of this in mind.

Overall, the fight sequences in Massacre Time are impressive. We don't get the drawn out standoffs of Leone, but what we do see are genuine massacres. In most cases where characters fire off their weapons, a minimum of three bodies will hit the ground. Fulci may not be presenting creative or mentally stimulating work with his gunfights, but given their ambitious and grand scale they become all the more engaging and entertaining to watch play out.

The film's score by Lallo Gori is outstanding and is quite honestly on par with some of the best musical scores from within this same genre. If you were to play Gori's score along with some of Ennio Morricone's most recognizable scores from Leone's spaghetti westerns, one might even believe the two pieces to be composed by the same man. Does that make Gori's score derivative? No, but it undeniably is trying to align itself with the more successful score in the way that Massacre Time as a whole is attempting to align itself with more profitable films. Cinematographer Riccardo Pallottini captures the rugged landscapes with enough capability for the audience to buy into the atmosphere of the movie, and editor Ornella Micheli paces the film terrifically - although since its original release Massacre Time has been cut, stitched together, recut, and then fixed again dozens of times so that it becomes questionable upon viewing the film now as to how much one is seeing is Micheli actually responsible for.

Having been released on the heels of Sergio Corbucci's enormously successful spaghetti western Django, Fulci took full advantage of casting Franco Nero, Django himself, as his hero for his first spaghetti western. Nero handles the role competently, and it is a wonder why the man's career never really blew up into the international superstardom it deserved. While the character of Tom Corbett is nowhere near as engaging or as memorable as Django, Nero's talent carries the character far enough for us to be engaged with him during the course of the film. The movie's two standout performances, however, belong to George Hilton - as the alcoholic brother of Nero's Corbett - and Nino Castelnuovo as the film's psychotic, and possibly incestuous, antagonist. Hilton provides Massacre Time with enough charm and humor to keep the movie engaging despite moments where its uninspired storyline is handled rather poorly. For example, many of the film's big surprises and twists are spoon fed to the audience within the last fifteen to twenty minutes. Hilton's screen presence also becomes larger - luckily or coincidentally enough - during this same time. It's a credit to Lucio Fulci that he could see that it was Hilton's character and talent, not Nero's, that would be the saving grace of this film and by allowing Hilton to really shine and get into his role, Fulci showed like all great directors he could make the best out of not much at all. With his performance as the evil Junior, Castelnuovo leaves an eerie and unclean feeling under the viewer's skin, despite his prim and proper bourgeois appearance throughout the movie. With the exception of some sweat and of course blood at the film's climax, Castelnuovo never manages to get a shroud of dust on his fancy white suit, thus adding to the weird and bizarre allure of his character.

While it may not be Lucio Fulci's best movie - or even his best spaghetti western for that matter - Massacre Time is a profoundly fun and entertaining movie that overcomes a great number of its shortcomings, particularly its uncreative storyline, through its use of talented actors delivering engaging performances, grand action sequences, competent cinematographer, a truly incredible score, and an overall brilliant sense of direction from a man who was, and sadly still is, one of Italy's most under appreciated talents.

6.5/10

IT (2017) - Review

It

Drama/Horror
2 hours and 15 minutes
Rated: R

Written by: Chase Palmer, Cary Fukunaga, and Gary Dauberman
Directed by: Andy Muschietti
Produced by: Seth Grahame-Smith, David Katzenberg, Roy Lee, Dan Lin, and Barbara Muschietti

Cast:
Jaeden Lieberher
Jeremy Ray Taylor
Sophia Lillis
Finn Wolfhard
Chosen Jacobs
Jack Dylan Grazer
Wyatt Oleff
Bill Skarsgård

You'll float too.

Twenty-seven years ago, Halloween III: Season of the Witch director Tommy Lee Wallace gave audiences the very first onscreen adaptation of Stephen King's gargantuan novel It by way of a two-part miniseries on the ABC network. The miniseries was deeply flawed and strayed in a number of ways from the source material, but with its inclusion of an iconic performance of Tim Curry as Pennywise the Dancing Clown and with the fact that so many kids and adolescents saw the miniseries when it aired - Wallace's adaptation has since gone on to develop a cult following (not unlike his entry in the Halloween franchise). With the return of the creature occurring every twenty-seven years, now in 2017 it only made sense for money-hungry producers to consider readapting King's grand novel, but this time for the cinema. And why not? As stated, Wallace's miniseries was flawed in major ways. This time, it seemed, audiences would be given a much truer adaptation of King's novel based on what was seen in trailers and discussed in interviews. So how did they do?

The story only follows the heroes, the Losers' Club, as they are children, ignoring the events of the novel where these characters are adults since that storyline will be developed later into a second It film. This was admittedly not a bad decision since the cinematic medium wouldn't be able to encapsulate the story of King's novel in its entirety without being well over six hours in length (a rough but probably honest estimate). The kids' storyline has been transposed from the original setting of the 1950s to the late-1980s. This is of course so that the producers and director Andy Muschietti can set the second film in the present day. This transposition of decades in no way affects the storyline in any damning or compelling way. Conversations of rock and roll that were present within the book have now been shifted to other music relevant to the era such as one character's secret obsession with the band New Kids On the Block. Again, the creative choice in the end perhaps only serves as a benefit to make the film relatable to audience members who also grew up in the late-1980s.

The film is photographed by cinematographer Chung-hoon Chung who does an intriguing job of casting an overall sense of darkness throughout the film. Moments set during daylight seem to have a desaturation about them, voiding the image of a great deal of its vibrancy. And sequences shot in the dark are dismally bleak and gray, giving the image a washed-out quality entirely. While this may take the eyes a second to adjust to, it's an effective way to shoot the film considering that the fictional town of Derry, which the film is set in, is meant to always have this cloud of dread hanging over it created by the creature that is Pennywise. By removing the brightness completely from the images, Chung has captured that cloud magnificently through the captured images on the screen.

The performances within It are the film's real show stoppers. The members of the Losers' Club do a great job with the material at hand and in many ways do capture the characters that King had initially put down on the page. Obviously the biggest standout, however, is Bill Skarsgård as Pennywise the Dancing Clown. What Skarsgård manages to do with the role hits so much closer to what was on the page than what Tim Curry had done with it. That's not to write off Curry's performance in anyway, but in moments where Curry went for the silly and over-the-top stylings he is known best for, Skarsgård restrains himself. His Pennywise comes across very childlike with its one track mind, and yet one always sees the heart of the monster lurking behind his wandering eyes, waiting for its moment to strike and kill. The sequence occurring within the first ten minutes between Skarsgård and Jackson Robert Scott is unnervingly terrifying. Skarsgård conveys more through his eyes and drooling lips alone than most actors can deliver in a full bodied performance and it is truly a wonder to see.

All of this considered, It - like its 1990 made-for-television predecessor - is an enormously flawed movie. The previously mentioned sequence between Skarsgård and Scott is undermined by a particularly hokey use of CGI. Unfortunately, many - if not most - of the scare moments throughout the movie are undermined by the rubbery CGI utilized to capture them. This is problematic because knowing this monster is a shapeshifter means there understandably had to be moments within the film where CGI came into play, but the movie relies on it too heavily throughout and it becomes more of a distraction than a tool to aid in the fear. Perhaps someone should have showed director Andy Muschietti John Carpenter's The Thing so that he could have seen that it is entirely possible to make a great and terrifying movie about a shapeshifting creature effectively through practical effects work instead of CGI.

But It's biggest and most damning problem comes out of its direction. Muschietti has ultimately traded character development for scares. The film follows the formula of a few minutes of dialogue, then a scare sequence, then a few more minutes of dialogue, and a new scare sequence, all the way until the film's big confrontation between the Losers and Pennywise in the third act. This is a problem because we lose moments where character development really could have helped this movie shine. With King's novel clocking in at nearly 1200 pages in length, it makes sense to cut much of the character development, but not all of it entirely. The bully character Henry Bowers's rage at the Losers is something that could have easily been explained in a sentence of dialogue, but it is gone entirely from this movie. Certain Loser's backstories are either entirely gone too, are mixed together with the stories of other characters present in King's novel, or are handled so briskly that we barely get a chance to learn who our heroes are. This doesn't allow us as an audience to connect to all seven of these heroes the way that we should to really genuinely care or believe in them by the film's climax. By adding a rift in the group in the film's second act, Muschietti isn't doing anything to help the storyline either. In King's novel these were characters who would die for one another if it came to such drastic means. In Muschietti's film, one doesn't get the impression that that is the case.

By trading character development for scares, Muschietti creates another problem as well. It's monster movie textbook 101 to show as little of the monster as possible, leaving much to the imagination of the film's audience. Muschietti doesn't do that. In almost every scare sequence, Skarsgård shows up in his Pennywise attire. While his acting allows this to be frightening for the first several of these moments, before the movie has even reached its halfway mark, the audience has seen Pennywise so much he has lost nearly all of the frightening mystery that was present in the very first sequence. The film's final confrontation between Pennywise and the Losers suffers the hardest from all of this. It's hard to care about the Losers because we haven't spent enough time with them and their stories to develop the necessary level of interest, and it's hard to be intimidated by Pennywise because we've seen so much of him throughout the movie, leading to some painfully bad, if not unintentionally laughable, moments in what is meant to be the film's epic confrontation of a climax.

Despite its amazing performances and its dreary cinematography, It is a film that ultimately suffers from its directorial choices to trade character development for scare sequences. With the continual use of blatantly distracting CGI and the ever damning decision to show the monster at every scare, the movie fails to live up to both the hype it generated prior to its release, as well as King's masterwork novel.

4.5/10

PLANET OF THE VAMPIRES (1965) - Review

Planet of the Vampires

Horror/Sci-Fi
1 hour and 28 minutes
Rating: Unrated

Written by: Mario Bava, Alberto Bevilacqua, Callisto Cosulich, Antonio Román, Rafael J. Salvia, Ib Melchior, and Louis M. Heyward
Directed by: Mario Bava
Produced by: Fulvio Lucisano

Cast:
Barry Sullivan
Norma Bengell

This was the day the universe trembled before demon forces of the killer planet!

Normally when the list of writing credits for a single motion-picture reads off like an endless list of nobodies (save for perhaps the director who - let's face it - if you're going to have that many writers you might as well throw in the director of the film for good measure too) it is usually safe to assume that the movie is going to be riddled with problems and pocketed with an unearthly number of plot holes. While nine times out of ten this is the case, every so often there comes a movie that challenges this cinematic stereotype that more writers equals more problems. Such is the case with Mario Bava's 1965 horror/science-fiction hybrid: Planet of the Vampires.

Like most of Bava's films, Planet of the Vampires focused largely on the relationships between the characters and how those particular relationships ebbed and flowed once the characters were placed within a horrible situation where they either inevitably panicked and lost all control of themselves, thus putting everyone in terrible danger, or rose to the challenge and faced the darkness head on. In no way was this setup any different from Bava's more famous gialli films like The Girl Who Knew Too Much and Blood and Black Lace, nor was it different from his gothic horror films Black Sunday, The Whip and the Body, and Black Sabbath. Bava's talent as an auteur filmmaker was largely in his ability to understand and explore human nature enough to know how it would work, or fail to work, and comprehend horrific situations.

Within Planet of the Vampires, the astronaut heroes must comprehend forces that are much beyond their comprehension. How do they achieve such a feat? Well, it is a horror film, after all, so obviously some do not and perish. But others quickly learn that the fastest way to stay alive in an alien and hostile situation is to accept the facts that their eyes have placed before them, no matter how incomprehensible that task may seem. It is this exploration of human character and interaction during moments of peril that makes Planet of the Vampires really a much more triumphant and intelligent film than its no-budget or B movie title suggests it to be.

Equally as impressive as the story's character interactions are the film's sets. Bava, yet again, manages to create a great deal of something out of nothing, making a few cardboard and fiberglass rocks look like an entire, desolate alien planet simply through smoke and mirror tactics and his now famously disorienting kaleidoscopic light schemes. The interiors of the spacecrafts, while at times feeling a bit too 1960s Star Trek-y in nature, do in the end come across as also being impressive mainly for the same reasons. Bava, the special effects genius that he was, managed to make the interiors of the spacecrafts feel cavernous and enormous in size, when perhaps really they were only a series of one or more rooms with interchangeable walls and parts. Cinematographer Antonio Rinaldi (although it is also stated that Bava did much of the filming himself) captures these landscapes under dark and ominous lighting that is both eerie and, as stated before, kaleidoscopic in quality. No director (with the exception of Bava's predecessor Dario Argento) has ever been able to create so much dread within situations lighted under vibrant lights of reds, greens, purples, blues, and yellows. It was a skill that enormously added to the nightmarish quality of his overall visions.

The film's pacing should also be commended. The film moves from one sequence to the next, perhaps only feeling sluggish within the first five minutes of exposition. Every sequence that follows serves a critical point in developing the story at hand. Editors Romana Fortini and Antonio Gimeno utilize longer cuts during important moments of dialogue, but understand the need for quicker more exciting movements for the eyes to follow during moments of action. The action sequences are framed in an excellent manner as well, often through pulled back long shots, giving the audience much to marvel at from the intense fights themselves to the gorgeous, seemingly alien landscapes they are set against.

The film is not without its issues, however. The script does spoon-feed its audience a great deal. Much of the dialogue delivered is often characters thinking out loud, proposing plot points to themselves and the audience. By the time the film's villains make their presence known to the heroes, they too lay it all out in one great big monologue that takes away much of the film's mystery. Luckily enough, the film does include a twist conclusion that evokes so much in the way of Lovecraftian dread that it is almost enough to make up for the spoon-fed dialogue entirely ... almost. Many of the actors seem stiff, although this could be blatant direction on Bava's part in an attempt to make them seem devoid of emotion and much more logic-driven in nature. But it does feel a bit uncomfortable, especially considering the film's overall purpose of exploring human nature and how it bends and shapes in moments of peril. Many of the actors are dubbed into English (depending on what version of the film that one sees, of course) and the voice actors do little in the way of conveying any emotions over the foreign performers. Barry Sullivan and Norma Engell, however, do emote the most, which is perhaps good considering that they become the film's main focus despite its large cast.

Despite its shortcomings of both wooden performances and poorly written dialogue, Planet of the Vampires is a surprisingly intelligent B sci-fi/horror movie, one that has gone on to influence many more famous hybrids of these genres, including most notably Ridley Scott's Alien. Its exploration of human nature during moments of peril is signature Mario Bava, and overall, in this sense, the movie does not disappoint, speaking volumes for Bava's talent as an auteur. Beautiful set pieces and incredible special effects work - both churned out on a nothing-budget - further showcase Bava's talent as an auteur and add to the existing merit that Planet of the Vampires had off of its premise alone.

6.5/10

ACTION OF THE TIGER (1957) - Review

Action of the Tiger

Action/Crime/Drama
1 hour and 33 minutes
Rating: Approved

Written by: Robert Carson & Peter Myers
Directed by: Terence Young
Produced by: Kenneth Harper

Cast:
Van Johnson
Martine Carol
Herbert Lom
Sean Connery

How a beautiful blonde and a tough smuggler escape the net of Continental conspiracy!

The 1950s saw a particular rise in animosity between the east versus west struggle that we have all come to call the Cold War that perhaps may not have been rivaled in sentiment within the following decades - although certainly, the closest the two compass points came to really fighting was within the following decade, tensions did seem to ease. Still, Americans and westerners everywhere made it very clear given the new breed of McCarthyist politicians running the show and Red Scaring the hell out of everyday citizens that they in no way, shape, or form wanted anything to do with the big bad Commie Reds. American, and even European, cinema reflected this sentiment in a major way. Nowhere was Commie bashing more prevalent within pop culture in the 1950s than it was within B movie cinema.

Thus was the case with Action of the Tiger, British auteur filmmaker Terence Young's 1957 adventure story. The film was meant to show lovable American and European characters rescuing small children, women, and one blind man from the evil terrors of Communism. If you've seen one 1950s anti-Communist movie you've honestly seen them all. 

Terence Young himself would later go on to refer to the film as being an absolute mess, and if a director ever dismisses one of his or her own works, take it on faith that he or she is telling you the truth. The movie's direction is so far beneath Young's capabilities it is a wonder he didn't have his name stricken from the film's opening credits. The scenes bumble and stumble their way from one set piece to the next, never quite getting into a smooth rhythm that would make its audience feel all the more comfortable. Actors seem fidgety within serious moments of dialogue, searching for a cigarette or something that they might fiddle and tinker with while discussing their horrendous situation with one another and means for escape (if only Young could have provided the actors with an escape plan off of the set of this horrible movie!)

The dialogue feels incredibly fat and weighty, and this is nowhere more apparent than in its delivery by more than capable performers such as Herbert Lom, who unquestionably was one of the greatest character actors to have ever worked in cinema, and Sean Connery who has never delivered a bad performance (with the exception of The Avengers but really who remembers that god awful nightmare?) Connery is in less than ten minutes of the film and is perhaps afforded no more than five to six lines of dialogue, but even this smooth Scotsman seems unsure of how to handle the clunky words that screenwriters Robert Carson and Peter Myers had handed to him. Lom seems equally lost, but, to be fair, out of the entire cast he does seem like the only performer on hand actually trying to salvage what has been handed to him. His scenes could probably be called the standout moments within Action of the Tiger, but to say that there are any standout moments within this film is probably affording it too much in the way of credit.

The story follows a mercenary rescuing children and a blind prisoner of war from Communist Albania, which honestly sounds like a really great premise for an action/adventure movie. But the problem is that there's nothing great or interesting about Action of the Tiger's story in the way of execution. Perhaps had the film been a major success for MGM (and make no mistake - it was not) the Commie Reds over in the east could have easily picked it up and showed it as an example of western anti-Communist propaganda. Native Albanians are showcased as brown, unintelligent persons who are so blatantly incompetent at their jobs they have to become double agents working for the west to actually gain any brains. The Communists are equally portrayed as child murdering, sadistic men in black. While there were certainly atrocities being committed by the Soviets during this era in history, any historian watching Action of the Tiger would most likely sigh and ask for the filmmakers to give them a break.

The film's leading man and woman are equally as problematic. Van Johnson stars as the blonde, American hero with shiny, straight teeth - punching Commies and saving women and children despite the fact that he really comes across as a bargain bin Humphrey Bogart. He delivers his lines in the wooden fashion of John Wayne, but lacks all the charm and charisma of that particular American icon. At no point does Johnson ever truly come to be his character to the point that you feel he could really give a damn either way - which, that is not saying he did a fantastic job portraying a smuggler, Johnson really seems like he does not give a damn whatsoever about acting and all the work that has to be put into a performance by an individual. Similarly, Martine Carol is enormously unimpressive. As the blonde bombshell who eggs our hero on to do the right thing by holding his heart in her hands and is always getting herself into trouble as was the fashion of every woman in a 1950s movie, she is one hundred percent forgettable. Sure, she looks good, but what's disheartening about that is that those were probably the exact words that producer Kenneth Harper said when she was cast for the film.

The film's one redeemable quality is perhaps its cinematography, which unfortunately may be difficult for most individuals to see in all its original Cinescope glory. The film has not seen a blu ray or even a DVD release from MGM and probably never will. Versions that exist today are ripped bootleg copies that were more than likely recorded from VHS recordings of the film back when Turner Classic Movies deemed this nightmare of a picture worthy enough to be showcased on their channel. Still, cinematographer Desmond Dickinson captured the beautiful mountains of Spain - doubling as Albania - in magnificent glory. 

Despite some capable performers, an exciting premise, gorgeous cinematography, and a more than capable auteur filmmaker at its helm, Action of the Tiger is one of those 1950s anti-Communist movies that slipped into obscurity hard and fast and for a very good reason. Still, it did first introduce Connery and Young who would go on to make three of their most successful films together within the following decade: Dr. No, From Russia with Love, and Thunderball.

1/10

ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN (1948) - Review

Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein

Comedy/Fantasy/Horror
1 hour and 23 minutes
Rating: Passed

Written by: Robert Lees, Frederic I. Rinaldo, and John Grant
Directed by: Charles Barton
Produced by: Robert Arthur

Cast:
Bud Abbott
Lou Costello
Lon Chaney, Jr.
Béla Lugosi
Glenn Strange

Jeepers! The creepers are after Bud and Lou!

The 1940s saw the Universal Monsters movie canon taken to its ultimate limits. With the success of all of the original monster flicks, Universal utilized the growing popularity of motion-pictures as well as the aforementioned success to build an empire off of various sequels, spinoffs, and ripoffs of these movies. While the decade was waning however, interest in the Universal Monsters seemed to be dimming. In another attempt - or gimmick if you prefer - to stir the crowds' interest, Universal decided that it might be best to add a little bit of the comedic flair to these horror films, á la the stylings of Bud Abbott and Lou Costello - the most slaptsticky duo in show business.

The film utilizes the same ideas of previous movies in the Universal Monsters canon, in particular House of Dracula, meaning that the producers thought it best to give the audience not one, not two, but three monsters in one movie. Getting Béla Lugosi to return triumphantly as Count Dracula - his second appearance as Bram Stoker's famous vampire - and of course Lon Chaney, Jr. as the Wolf Man, proved to be a major benefit to the film overall. Only Boris Karloff is missing, but given the little amount of screen time dedicated to Frankenstein's monster, his lack of presence isn't as sorely missed as one would ultimately imagine it to be. The story follows Abbott and Costello as they team up with Chaney to stop Lugosi from reanimating the monster with Costello's "dumbed down" brain. Pretty straight forward given that it's essentially the plot of Frankenstein but funnier and with more monsters.

The story's simplicity allows for the film's comedic elements to really shine forward. When it's all said and done, it is the comedy of Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein that really carries the film. Abbott and Costello themselves offer enough yucks to surely make anyone scared of Lugosi's evil, peering eyes feel comfortable yet again. But herein lies the biggest issue about all of this. Because the movie is a comedy, it begs the question of was this the moment of Universal jumping the shark with these monster movies. With no more room to explore the horror genre (let's face it, House of Dracula was an absolute dud), they decide to start over as a comedy. When Count Dracula and Frankenstein's monster became so mainstreamed that they were opened up to this kind of parody, the question of "Why even bother anymore?" has certainly got to be asked. Yes, the humor is fun and does make the movie all the more enjoyable than a lot of its predecessors in the Universal Monsters canon, but in the end this movie signifies the beginning of the end of something wonderful that Universal had created and built an empire off of.

All of that aside, it is enormously wonderful to see Béla Lugosi play Count Dracula yet again. Here he is a little more talkative than you might expect, and one gets the feeling that Lugosi was either enjoying the slapstick nature of the film a little too much or that he was blazed out of his mind during the entire shoot off of morphine or probably both, because he clearly isn't taking his performance as seriously as his previous roles. Gone is the intimidating Lugosi of Tod Browning's Dracula, gone is the horrifying performer that was present in White Zombie or Black Dragons. Here we only see Lugosi going through the motions knowing that he will be praised simply for his Hungarian accent and leering eyes. After all, when we think of Dracula, most of us do think of Lugosi - even if we don't know who the man is.

The real standout is Lon Chaney, Jr. as the Wolf Man. Here, just like in House of Dracula, Chaney's Wolf Man gets to play the film's hero. The final moments of this movie - despite being laugh out loud hysterical - are truly thrilling and it is a major joy to see the Wolf Man go toe-to-toe with Count Dracula. It is a little upsetting that more isn't discussed surrounding this character's sacrifice in the film's denouement, but since this is a comedy and not a serious movie this makes it a little more forgivable. Chaney - like his father before him - shows that he is capable of not just mastering truly physically driven performances, but that he can win you over just as easily from dialogue heavy scenes. He was truly an under appreciated talent just like many of the men who made a name for themselves within the Monsters canon - Lugosi included.

It ought to be noted that the film's special effects work is equally as impressive and praiseworthy as its comedic elements. Chaney's makeup - done by Chaney himself, who like his father preferred things done that way - is as authentic and creepy as it was within the original film, The Wolf Man. Lugosi similarly is cast in the palest of tones, truly looking like Stoker's living dead Count. There are several moments where Dracula transforms to and from a bat done through various animation work, but the animation moves seamlessly and is fun to see - especially since the original Dracula hardly included anything in the way of transformation sequences.

While it may not be as memorable as its predecessors, and it certainly is far from groundbreaking in the way that those movies were, Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein is a wonderful comedy that manages to charm its way past all of its shortcomings with terrifically funny moments and engaging performances thanks largely to the veterans of this genre, Lugosi and Chaney. Its only major - and without a doubt its biggest - flaw being what it symbolized for these films overall regarding their future and their legacy.

7/10

THE MOLLY MAGUIRES (1970) - Review

The Molly Maguires

Drama/History
2 hours and 4 minutes
Rated: PG

Written by: Walter Bernstein
Directed by: Martin Ritt
Produced by: Walter Bernstein & Martin Ritt

Cast:
Sean Connery
Richard Harris
Samantha Eggar
Frank Finlay

The year 1970 proved to be a rather important year for the careers of both filmmaker Martin Ritt and star Sean Connery. Ritt, who shot to stardom helming such films as: The Long, Hot Summer, The Spy Who Came in from the Cold, and of course his magnum opus, Hombre, was just off of the financial and critical failure of his mobster film, The Brotherhood. Connery, who had similarly shot to superstardom starring in the James Bond franchise, had also felt the sting of box office failure with his western Shalako having previously tanked with critics and audiences. Both Connery and Ritt were desperate to prove that they were still credible forces working within the industry. In order to do that the two men came together to work on a big-budgeted, studio backed historical drama, The Molly Maguires.

Set against the backdrop of late-1800s Pennsylvania, The Molly Maguires is a story of exploited coal miners working in perilous conditions for little to no pay for men who grew richer off of their physical labor. The film's title refers to a group of miners who fought back against the oppression often through means of violence. The film's interesting premise undeniably caught the eye of its stars and filmmaker as being a story that would translate well to the tumultuous racial conditions of 1970 (though the film's premise could parallel today's conditions even better regarding wealth inequality in America). Unfortunately for all those involved, audiences did not pick up on this and The Molly Maguires was a financial flop at the box office.

Despite this, however, The Molly Maguires is a film with many merits. For starters, as stated above, there's its social commentary. The film does a terrific job of placing its viewers into the harsh conditions that its heroes have to endure day in and day out. It is a film that in order for it to succeed in effectively getting its point across has to have the audience on its heroes' sides. Martin Ritt's pacing and direction throughout the film do a tremendous amount in accomplishing this. The film is over two hours long, and it is a slow burning two hours, but within that time Ritt tremendously is either allowing us as an audience to become better acquainted with the film's characters or showing us the dangerous conditions of their work. When the film was released many critics lamented that it was completely devoid of any humor. And while this is true and undeniably will upset some viewers and/or cause them to call the film boring and slow, the lack of humor brings the audience closer to the film's characters and setting. This was a time and place lacking much in the way of humor. These were people who did not have much to be jovial about, and Ritt does an incredible job at effectively getting that across to the audience.

Contributing to the film's excellent pacing is its smooth editing done by Frank Bracht and its absolutely gorgeous cinematography by James Wong Howe. Howe captures the coal region of Pennsylvania with such smoothness and beauty that the coal dusted sets and surrounding lush greenery have audiences completely sucked into the setting from the start. Similarly, Henry Mancini's score is truly beautiful and plays its cues effectively throughout the film.

Not surprisingly, the film's performances are topnotch. Connery and Richard Harris naturally steal the show, and the scenes that the two men share together - especially their final scene - are wondrous to behold. Harris does an excellent job portraying his deeply conflicted hero, making us as an audience forever unsure of what he may do regarding his overall motives. And while Harris may hold our interest, it is Connery who holds all the sympathy. His character's blind quest to seek justice for his fellow working man is an honorable one, even if his actions are brutal, and ultimately by the film's conclusion one can't help but feel a slight pain in their gut regarding his character's fate. The supporting cast all deliver talented performances and hold their own against these titanic leading men.

Despite its enormous amount of merits, though, The Molly Maguires does happen to have a major problem, and that would be its resolution. An effective ending would have shown Harris's character actually taking on sympathy for his comrades and thus changing his entire outlook as a character from what it was at the start of the film. Unfortunately, the film does not do that, and its conclusion hits harder than a sledgehammer to the gut. It's unforgivably surprising to the point that one cannot believe Ritt had the intention to keep Harris's character flat by the film's conclusion.

The Molly Maguires may be a slow-burning historical drama that is over two hours in length and is almost entirely devoid of all humor, but the film is a beautiful character study with an important social commentary that has grown to become even more important today than it had been when the film was released. And despite its deeply troubling and disappointing ending, it is a film that is a triumphantly carried to overcome its shortcomings through its incredible performances, outstanding technical qualities, and brilliant direction.

8.5/10

IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS (1994) - Review

In the Mouth of Madness

Fantasy/Horror/Mystery
1 hour and 35 minutes
Rated: R

Written by: Michael De Luca
Directed by: John Carpenter
Produced by: Sandy King

Cast:
Sam Neill
Julie Carmen
Jürgen Prochnow
Charlton Heston

Lived Any Good Books Lately?

What would happen if one were to take the cosmic dread and unspeakable horror themes within the stories of HP Lovecraft and combine them with the visually striking and universally groundbreaking horror movies of John Carpenter? Madness. And out of that madness's very mouth, a story that will leave some viewers captivated, some viewers exasperated, and others scratching their heads in wonder at the web of madness they've been captivated into. Whichever camp within one may fall, John Carpenter's In the Mouth of Madness undoubtedly has a raw power behind it - a power that is bound to move people to have one extreme response or the other - a power the likes of which the horror master hasn't tapped into since.

Because the film is meant to be a love letter to HP Lovecraft, it lacks in much of the visual amazement that John Carpenter's previous cosmic and not-so-cosmic horror films have presented us. With The Thing, Carpenter dared to show the monsters in full lighting, knowing that the effects work would speak for itself. With In the Mouth of Madness, he is presented the challenge of doing what Lovecraft did with his monsters: keeping them in the dark and letting the viewers' minds try to comprehend just what it is they are seeing ... or in this case experiencing. This restraint on Carpenter's behalf is remarkable to see done, especially given just how wrong the whole thing could have gone. After all, Carpenter and Lovecraft have about as much in common as Poe and Eli Roth. But somehow the combination of the two styles works with some truly effective scare moments that only solidifies the fact that Carpenter is one of the most under appreciated auteurs to have ever worked in the film industry.

The story is challenging, but then again it is meant to be. Surely the viewers who find this film to be exasperating and troublesome think so because of the film's story. And yet, those who love it and defend the film arguably do so for the same reason. Carpenter understands that like much of Lovecraft's fiction, multiple visits to the story make for a more comprehensible and even enjoyable experience. As viewers begin to piece it together, and work the film's plot from end to beginning, what they will find will either delight them or agitate them at all the convoluted mess they had to go through. Yet it is because In the Mouth of Madness's story dares its audience to come back, to return to the madness, that there's something to be said in favor of the overall intelligence of the piece. This is not "popcorn" horror - this is old school, cosmic horror in the best sense.

The special effects work, done by KNB, is really quite remarkable, although there are problems with some particular moments. Luckily, Carpenter shrouds the creatures in extreme closeups, low level lighting, and with brief cuts - courtesy of editor Edward A. Warschilka, who does a tremendous job with the film's overall pacing. When the monsters are on screen the effects work furthers the audience's sense of wonder, amazement, and dread. Tentacles, blood, gore, claws, teeth, disfigured children, and one creepy old hotel owner are all standout moments that occur - luckily enough - throughout most of the movie. The effects do, however, fall flat in a few moments. In a sequence where Julie Carmen's character crab walks with her head spun completely around, the effect looks like someone wearing a cheap Halloween mask over his or her normal face. A young boy riding a bicycle and suddenly becoming old looks fake and rubbery. And the aforementioned hotel owner in her "true" form seems just a bit too robotic in movement. Perhaps Carpenter couldn't contain himself and he let the cameras roll on these lesser effects just a tad too long. The good news is, the cameras aren't on them long enough for the whole film to be completely undone.

The performances, like in damn near every John Carpenter movie, are terrific. Sam Neill delivers one of the best performances - if not the best performance - of his career. His journey from calculating cynic, to broken and mentally frayed maniac (believe me that's not even coming close to spoiling anything) is so amazing to watch that one has to wonder why this brilliant character actor hasn't been seen in more commercial work. Charlton Heston plays his role as well as anyone would hope, yet one wishes he were given more screen time, especially with Neill. The two men carry a scene together so well they make it look easy. Similarly, David Warner's cameo feels senselessly short. One can take solace that such an outstanding performer known for his work in the horror genre was at least cast in the film, despite being in say five to ten minutes of the movie if that. Jürgen Prochnow's performance is enormously more subtle than Neill's and yet, the two go toe-to-toe in their scenes together providing the film with its most memorable and unnerving sequences. Julie Carmen holds her own throughout the film, but out of all the performances she is the only one that feels flat at certain times that you'd wish she wasn't.

While its old school, Lovecraftian style assuredly will upset the horror fans of today who are so used to being spoon-fed plot points, In the Mouth of Madness is a triumph within filmmaker John Carpenter's career, mainly because it challenged him as an auteur to deliver something entirely outside of his wheelhouse, just as it challenges its viewers to approach the film from an entirely new perspective than other horror movies ask for. In the Mouth of Madness is pure madness - but for some of us, there's nothing else we'd prefer more.

7.5/10

THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME (1923) - Review

The Hunchback of Notre Dame

Drama/Romance
2 hours and 13 minutes
Unrated

Written by: Perley Poore Sheehan
Directed by: Wallace Worsley
Produced by: Carl Laemmle & Irving Thalberg

Cast:
Lon Chaney
Patsy Ruth Miller
Norman Kerry
Nigel de Brulier
Brandon Hurst

Victor Hugo's Immortal Classic

For nearly a century now, Universal Pictures' Monster Universe has remained iconic in the annals of cinema. With numerous reboots (sometimes not even by Universal - hello, Hammer) done throughout this stretch of time, the most successful outside the original and Hammer films being the reboots of the 1990s, it only makes sense that Universal is looking to reboot these old monster movies and cash in on the growing "universes" that various production houses are currently creating. While I will not comment on the latest attempt at rebooting these films (Mummy: Impossible or whatever it's called) it may be worth while (pay attention here, Universal executives) for audiences to go back and reexamine the original Universal Monster films in order to understand why these movies have remained so iconic for nearly a century. And what better place to begin than with the first of Universal's Monster movies: The Hunchback of Notre Dame.

Starring the iconic Lon Chaney in his first of only two appearances in the Universal Monsters oeuvre, The Hunchback of Notre Dame remains a wonderfully engaging film ninety plus years after the fact for an enormous amount of reasons. It unquestionably is a flawed and dated film, that cannot be denied, but when it comes down to it what silent film isn't by today's standards? No, Hunchback is an endearing movie largely for its story. Despite the enormity of Victor Hugo's novel, screenwriter Perley Poore Sheehan did an excellent job at keeping the film very true to Hugo's book. There are many sequences missing, and even some that are relocated in setting, timing, or both, but ultimately the heart of Hugo's novel - the vast majority of the story - remains intact completely unaltered. There's no doubt in my mind that if Hunchback were adapted today Universal would take drastic leaps and bounds at changing the story to fit a much more fast-paced retelling, geared for audiences of films like .... well, Mummy: Impossible or whatever they called it. But there's something to be said about the slow pace of the story. Hugo's novel is gargantuan, but that serves the readers quite well. This adaptation also has a longer running time and does not shy away from the enormous amount of exposition that its story demands. Viewers of today may find it a struggle to get into at first, but those who stick with it will undeniably be glad that they did, because this story is full of heart, love, suspense, drama, and sorrow.

As impressive and as meaty as the film's story remains, nothing is more impressive than the film's sets. Constructed under a period of six months, Universal went through painstaking lengths to recreate the cathedral of Notre Dame as well as the surrounding streets according the specifications of the 1400s setting. This meticulous construction pays off, especially considering most films of this era lack in the way of set design (many often used sheets with paintings upon them as backdrops). It's hard not to be drawn into this movie and no doubt viewers will question how none of it was shot on location. Even the statues and facade work of the reconstructed Notre Dame seem impossibly identical to the original.

Adding to the character of the set is of course the film's central performance of Quasimodo by Lon Chaney. Despite the film's title, Quasimodo the hunchback actually does not appear in the vast majority of this film - at least not until the end. This is largely because Quasimodo in Victor Hugo's novel also is absent from a great deal of the story. And yet he is forever the heart of the story. We leave him to engage in other characters such as the lovely Esmerelda (here portrayed rather unconvincingly in then-normal white-washed fashion by Patsy Ruth Miller), the charming Phoebus de Chateaupers (played by Norman Kerry), and the sinister Jehan (who was not the book's villain interestingly enough - here portrayed by Brandon Hurst). We are willing to travel away from the lovable hunchback due to the fact that we as an audience know the multiple stories that are occurring will all weave their way back together to Notre Dame and thus to Quasimodo - which they do. Here it is easy to see why Lon Chaney is so highly regarded in discussions of acting or film. Through the vast amount of prosthetic and make-up work (which Chaney often did himself) and without the ability to speak dialogue, Chaney brings Quasimodo to life very much in the way that he would later bring the Phantom to life in his second Universal Monster movie: The Phantom of the Opera - sheerly through his physicality. He creates a character that can be frightening and charming all at once; one that we as an audience have no trouble at all feeling sympathy toward in any capacity.

Despite these two major assets The Hunchback of Notre Dame is problematic largely for what it has changed regarding the novel's conclusion. In this adaptation, the story is tied together with an unquestionably sad note, but one that leaves us as an audience with a sense of optimism and pride in the film's unlikely hero at disposing of the film's wicked villain. Hugo's novel was very dark and bleak like the era it was set within. Sheehan and director Wallace Worsley unquestionably felt that audiences of this era couldn't handle seeing a film like this and having it end on such a sad and bleak note. So, not surprisingly they changed the conclusion. Those who have not read Hugo's novel will most likely find themselves unbothered by this change. But those familiar with the book's extremely tragic and haunting ending will be very surprised by the change (it's been years since I've seen the Disney adaptation but I highly doubt they kept the original ending either so, kudos to Universal for keeping most of Hugo's story intact).

Despite a white-washed cast and a rather too optimistic ending for what this story calls for, The Hunchback of Notre Dame is a triumph of cinema that remains - nearly a century later - something both beautiful and magical that is well worth the time of anyone who calls him or herself a movie lover.

8/10

ALIEN: COVENANT (2017) - Review

Alien: Covenant

Horror/Sci-Fi/Thriller
2 hours and 2 minutes
Rated: R

Written by: John Logan & Dante Harper
Directed by: Ridley Scott
Produced by: David Giler, Walter Hill, Mark Huffam, Michael Schaefer, and Ridley Scott

Cast:
Michael Fassbender
Katherine Waterston
Billy Crudup
Danny McBride
Carmen Ejogo
Demián Bichir

Run.

Since its creation, the Alien franchise has been a cultural phenomenon that has seen droves of loyal fans and cinephiles eager and excited about any and every new installment within the series. And yes, some installments have faired better in the long run than others (surprisingly, Alien: Resurrection has developed a bit of a cult following and to be fair even Alien 3 has its merits - although they are hard to find through all the nonsense). When Ridley Scott, the man who began it all, announced in 2011 that he would be returning to the Alien universe with a prequel, naturally all the fans of his original film became ecstatic. And while Prometheus did see a mix of responses from fans and critics, its enormous box office success prompted Scott to have a spark of creativity and understand that the hype for these films is still very much alive and well, even forty-seven years after his original film (it's now been almost fifty!). Thus, we were promised more from the franchise's original auteur.

One of the largest complaints critics and audiences had regarding Prometheus was that it seemed too distant from the Alien universe. While there were overlaps and similarities, some wanted more and felt snubbed by the film lacking the franchise's iconic monster. With Alien: Covenant, Scott has made it clear that he has heard those concerns. Unlike Prometheus, Alien: Covenant is a return to the more horror and monster-movie elements that made the original Alien so incredible and memorable in all of our psyches. Once the story's action begins, the monster and creature effects hit the audience so fast and so hard we're barely given a moment to catch our breaths. Admittedly, it is a refreshing change of pace from Prometheus, which at times did feel majorly bogged down with philosophical discussions. Unfortunately, Alien: Covenant has a lot of this too and it actually doesn't work as effectively as it did within Prometheus. In the previous movie, we saw a group of scientists and rich corporatists searching for the creators of human life and discovering an unnerving truth. In that context, the philosophical dialogue made sense. In Alien: Covenant, the film concerns a ship that is carrying hundreds of colonists looking for a new home world to call their own. While some philosophical discussion in the way of dialogue makes sense (the sequences between the two Fassbender robots are truly remarkable), Alien: Covenant does feel a bit more weighty than Prometheus, meaning there are moments that feel to be moving much more slowly. The exposition at the film's start seems to drag on much longer than it ought to, and one is left wishing some cuts had been applied.

Not helping the lengthy exposition is the film's call-to-action, which is virtually identical to that of the original Alien. Anyone who has seen the original - or probably any Alien film - can guess what happens next. Not even halfway through Alien: Covenant, the entire story becomes evident and predictable to the point that one is left feeling disappointed Scott didn't notice just how predictable the movie really is.

Once the chaos begins, however, the film really does take a major turn for the best. Ridley Scott understands that the xenomorph creature has become such a cultural icon (you can buy plush children's toys of them - thanks a lot, James Cameron) and because of this perhaps isn't as terrifying as it used to be in Alien. It was terrifying in the original film because it played with our fears of the unknown. We never truly saw the creature in its entirety, as it was hidden in shadows, mechanical backgrounds, close-ups, and quick cuts. But Scott understands we all know what the xenomorph looks like now and it can no longer be a symbol for our fear of the unknown. Therefore, he brilliantly introduces a solution. He makes them fast - faster than they've probably ever been seen before. Most of the sequences with the xenomorph are filmed in low levels of daylight, allowing us as an audience to see the creature we all know and are familiar with. What we are ultimately scared by is our knowledge that these creatures are an unstoppable force of violence (as Ash said in the original film when Ripley asked him how to kill it, "You can't"). Add the unprecedented speed into the mix and we as an audience get a horrible feeling in our guts regarding the fate of the film's heroes.

Scott also adds some new creatures into the mix - the not-fully developed neomorphs. We're introduced to these ghostly, speeding, demons right out of the gate in one of the most grotesquely brilliant moments of the film (a moment, that surprisingly, pays homage to Lamberto Bava's film Demons which - when asked about the effect in question - Demons' special effects artist Sergio Stivaletti said was an homage to Alien - thus Scott brings it back full circle with the neomorph birth). The neomorphs are utterly terrifying and the presence of these new and unexpected monsters does keep the film in line with Alien's elements regarding our fears of the unknown.

The film's cast is terrific, as surely was expected. Michael Fassbender - as was the case with Prometheus - absolutely steals the show. This time around, Fassbender plays two characters divided purely in morals and principles. It's incredible to see this titan of a character actor perform dialogue with himself and play two characters whose only similarities are that they look alike. Katherine Waterston does a good job as the film's leading heroine, although perhaps her character isn't as memorable or well rounded as Noomi Rapace's Shaw in Prometheus and certainly not as much as Sigourney Weaver's Ripley. But, Waterston is a capable performer who answers the call to action just as anyone would expect a female lead in an Alien movie to do so. The film's supporting cast also are great and Danny McBride gives a surprisingly lovable performance in what is perhaps his most serious role to date.

All of these wonderful things considered, Alien: Covenant does have another problem ... and it is a big one. What made the original Alien so frightening was - again - its playing on our fears of the unknown. In it, space truckers stumble upon an alien organism that acts as a parasite attacking them all one by one. The film shines due to its randomness. It succeeds because the events within the film are seemingly random and shake up the characters' abilities to deal with reality. The problem with Alien: Covenant (and Prometheus too while I'm at it) is that it seems to be saying the events of Alien weren't in fact random at all. These prequel films are suggesting that humans, xenomorphs, neomorphs, face huggers, and engineers are all connected in some mysterious convoluted back story all leading up to the events of Alien. This is a major problem because Scott is essentially stripping away that randomness of the first film - the elements that made it so brilliant and so terrifying - and he is providing us as viewers with explanations for things that ultimately feel like they didn't need an explanation. Is it necessary to know where the xenomorphs came from? Was it necessary to know who the space jockey in the original Alien was and what his intentions were? Hopefully, with the continuation of this prequel franchise, Scott will pull back and understand that by providing these explanations he is undermining his original masterpiece.

Once one gets past the film's weighty exposition and largely predictable plot line, Alien: Covenant is truly a thrilling film that returns the franchise back to its horror/monster-movie roots by placing its iconic villain front and center. And while it may be problematic overall for the franchise, the extent of which has yet to be determined. In the meantime, Alien: Covenant is a whole lot of fun.

7.5/10

THE LONE RUNNER (1986) - Review

The Lone Runner

Action/Adventure/Drama
1 hour and 29 minutes
Rated: PG

Written by: Chris Trainor & Steven Luotto
Directed by: Ruggero Deodato
Produced by: Ovidio G. Assonitis & Maurizio Maggi

Cast:
Miles O'Keeffe
Savina Gersak
Donald Hodson
Ronald Lacey
John Steiner
Michael Aronin
Hal Yamanouchi

A legendary desert avenger battles a savage outlaw empire!

The 1980s signaled the decline for a great many of Italy's filmmakers who earned their proverbial claims to fame in the decades prior. Despite having gotten his start in the 1970s with great films like Waves of Lust, Live Like a Cop, Die Like a Man, and of course Last Cannibal World, the 1980s seemed like they might have been a fruitful decade for filmmaker Ruggero Deodato given his starting the era with his two most discussed films: Cannibal Holocaust and House on the Edge of the Park. Unfortunately, with a few low budget pictures and one big budget film not adding up to much in the way of box office profits - by 1986 Deodato, like many other wonderfully brilliant Italian filmmakers, was finding financing his films to be much more difficult. Deodato, again like many of his cohorts, turned to becoming a gun-for-hire director in order to make money so that he might put together projects he later felt passionate about. Such was the case for his film The Lone Runner.

Producer Ovidio G. Assonitis hired Deodato to direct the film, hoping that this legendary master of the grotesque's name might add some weight to the film ensuring its success. Unfortunately for Deodato and Assonitis things didn't pan out in their favor. Assonitis initially told Deodato that the film was meant to be a made-for-TV movie, which undoubtedly led to Deodato toning back his usual amount of violence and gore (his previous three pictures: Body Count, Cut and Run, and Raiders of Atlantis were all signature, bloody Deodato). And yet when Deodato traveled to the United States after completing the film, he was surprised to find various B movie houses showing it. And that is exactly the point, The Lone Runner's biggest problem seems to be a major lack of communication between all the parties involved with making the film.

For starters, the story is an absolute mess. It follows the kidnapping of a rich king's daughter in a post-apocalyptic desert, her rescue, her being recaptured, her escaping, her being recaptured again, her being saved, her being recaptured yet again, her being rescued again, her being recaptured .... well, you get the idea. The film is so grotesquely cyclical that it reaches a point where while watching  it one feels that the actual experience is an hour or so over its real running time. Not even the film's script - what little there is in the way of dialogue - can make up for this lazy of a storyline.

Peppered in throughout these moments of rescue and recapturing is the film's running gag, where the hero, played by Miles O'Keeffe interacts with a wandering merchant - often stealing from the man promising to pay him back the next time. This happens EVERY time between a capture and a rescue to the point where it too becomes predictable, and whether or not anyone thought it was funny the first, second, and maybe third time - by the fourth and fifth time even people easily prone to laughter will find themselves growing angry.

The performances are a mixed bag at best, something that becomes a given with later career Deodato movies. Miles O'Keeffe actually is entertaining enough as the film's hero, but considering he is offered very little in the way of dialogue, his performance probably seems much better than it is. Let us not forget the Ator films, Sword of the Valiant, and even Tarzan the Ape Man where O'Keeffe shows off his particular lack of thespian talent. The rest of the performances are largely forgettable, although it should be said Deodato regular John Steiner is really a lot of fun to watch. This is largely due to his character in the film being completely unlike anything he has ever done before, for Deodato or anyone else. Hal Yamanouchi also holds his own, but like O'Keeffe he is offered very little in the way of dialogue and mostly impresses through his talent in the film's action scenes.

What action sequences are present - and trust me when I say there are quite a bit - are for the most part actually pretty entertaining, and remain The Lone Runner's greatest strength. Deodato proved himself worthy of directing exciting action sequences with Live Like a Cop, Die Like a Man, Raiders of Atlantis, and Cut and Run and here he continues to flex those talented muscles. O'Keeffe especially is a blast to watch fight - using crossbows, fists, and daggers - and he undoubtedly could have had a much bigger career in action movies (hey, if Schwarzenegger made it work, why not?) His fight scenes with Steiner and Yamanouchi in particular are really terrific and a lot of fun to watch play out on the screen.

The Lone Runner, unfortunately, offers nothing more than quick flash in the pan excitement. This is especially disappointing considering the talent of Ruggero Deodato as a filmmaker, but understanding his restrictions and limitations as a gun-for-hire director of the film, one is left with the impression that if this is what came out of his more than capable hands, then perhaps this motion-picture was never meant for greatness regardless of who made it. Still, a bad Ruggero Deodato film has more merits than a good M. Night Shyamalan film - as I always say.

4/10

THE DARK KNIGHT (2008) - Review

The Dark Knight

Action/Crime/Drama
2 hours and 32 minutes
Rated: PG-13

Written by: Jonathan Nolan & Christopher Nolan
Directed by: Christopher Nolan
Produced by: Christopher Nolan, Charles Roven, and Emma Thomas

Cast:
Christian Bale
Michael Caine
Heath Ledger
Gary Oldman
Aaron Eckhart
Maggie Gyllenhaal
Morgan Freeman

Why So Serious?

The Batman franchise - like all superhero franchises - has seen its fair share of reboots, reimaginings, or remakes (three now, which may seem like a small number but keep in mind its the same number that Superman and Spiderman have under their super belts as well). Super hero movies are a lot like ticks: for years you just heard about them, and now they're everywhere - especially during the summer season. They've flooded the market place faster and harder than any other genre over the past two decades. But can one blame the business side of Hollywood for this? After all, these films do tend to churn out enormous profits ... well, most of them do, and this alone might make their enormous budgets and constant reinventions all the more worthwhile for Hollywood. Personally, I'm of the belief that superhero movies have over stayed their welcome by about ten years. With my own prejudice against movies that heavily utilize CGI and fall outside the realm of realism aside, I'm willing to concede there are in fact some really remarkable entries within this cinematic phenomenon. One of them, of course, being The Dark Knight.

The film succeeds in many ways due to the fact that it is a superhero movie less concerned with CGI and wants to be remembered as being a film that grounded itself in realism - or at least as close to realism as a superhero movie can get. It's a far step away from the surrealist Batman films of Tim Burton and an even further step (thank goodness) away from the hokey, tongue-in-cheek Batman movies of Joel Schumacher (somebody please show this movie to Arnold Schwarzengger so that he can see how to deliver a pun effectively). And yet still, The Dark Knight succeeds further by improving upon the rather dull and unimpressive moments of its predecessor Batman Begins.

For starters, there's the story. Nolan is obviously a filmmaker who is much more interested in showcasing the humanity of these comic book characters and how they interact with one another. Unfortunately, in Batman Begins what we saw was a good performance from Christian Bale and nothing else really. Katy Holmes held her own, but by no means stood out. Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, and Morgan Freeman - obviously three of the most talented men in Hollywood - are never given more than brief moments of comedic relief. Caine and Oldman in particular merely serve as a backdrop for character development for Bruce Wayne. And the villains in Batman Begins were so laughably unimpressive, it makes you wonder what the hell happened during the film's development? (Sorry Liam Neeson, but even your performance in Taken outshines your work in Batman Begins). Did Nolan not know there were a slew of really great Batman villains to choose from? But thankfully, none of these faults exist within The Dark Knight. What we see is an elevation of the more than capable character actors within the film: Bale, Heath Ledger, and Oldman, to the point that all the other players within have stepped up their games in a big way. Gyllenhaal, who replaces Katy Holmes, actually feels more memorable of the two women, purely to the dedication she gives to her performance. Her struggle between the film's two heroes is one that is palpable and believable - just as the struggles of the other characters are. These performances elevate the story, allowing us as an audience to believe in what we're seeing (even the film's more unbelievable moments).

The film's action sequences are stunning and capably captured. In Batman Begins, cinematographer Wally Pfister appeared to have been drunk from watching too many Jason Bourne films. Action scenes were hard to follow with the handheld camera jumping all over the place. Here, Pfister seems to have woken up from that nightmare and instead the camera seems to have settled down some (I say some because, yes, there are a few action scenes one wishes hadn't been handled so shakily). Moments like an underground car fight/chase, a shootout inside of a building in Hong Kong, and the film's opening bank robbery are absolutely thrilling and they make the film all the more entertaining.

The film's pacing should also be commended. Nolan allows moments of tense dialogue - most of which is very well written, by the way - which builds character and subplots to be interrupted by these thrilling action sequences. What this all adds up to of course is a rather long film - long at least by most superhero movie standards - but one that doesn't feel that it's overstayed its welcome. Viewers unquestionably will be engaged by every single moment. Nolan creates such wonderful moments of tension through all of this, that when the unexpected occurs, the audience feels as blindsided as the film's characters.

And yet despite all of this, The Dark Knight is not the perfect movie so many have claimed it to be. For starters, it is so blatantly set in the real city of Chicago one wonders why even go through all the trouble of pretending it's the fictitious city of Gotham? Sure, I get it. Nolan wanted this film to be much more realistic than the previous Batman films, so logically I understand why he chose to shoot it in a real city. But he could have at least tried harder to hide the fact that the city this was shot in was Chicago. If you wanted viewers to believe Batman was in Gotham and not Chicago, maybe don't include a shot of him standing upon the Sears Tower ... just a thought.

The film does have its moments of cringeworthy dialogue and CGI usage, but most of these are few and far between. A particular moment where a boat captain on a ferry that left from Navy Pier ... I mean, Gotham Pier, says, "We're still here, which means they haven't killed us yet." It is so bad one wonders if it was suggested to Nolan by a less capable filmmaker like Michael Bay. Similarly, some of the dialogue delivered by Aaron Eckhart once his character has become Two-Face is painfully delivered. Not so much a writing error as a casting one, though. The CGI used on his face alsol at times feels a tad too distracting - especially given the amount of practical effects work used throughout the film. Imagine it, a good practical effects job of Two-Face's burns probably in the end would have looked much better.

Despite its minor issues, The Dark Knight remains unquestionably one of the best Batman movies, and even one of the best superhero movies of all time largely due to its attempts of toeing the line of realism, its thrilling and well-paced story, and of course its incredible performances - mainly that of Heath Ledger who undeniably has burned himself into the psyches of so many movie goers forever as being what they think of first when they think of the character of the Joker.

9/10