Apr 111981
 
one reel

Four old friends (Fred Astaire, Melvyn Douglas, Douglas Fairbanks Jr., John Houseman) have a secret, and when the son of one them (Craig Wasson) meets a beautiful, but strange woman (Alice Krige), death soon follows.  It’s up to the son to uncover what happened years ago before the beautiful ghost takes her revenge.

A sad end to the careers of Fred Astaire, Melvyn Douglas, and Douglas Fairbanks Jr., Ghost Story is a run of the mill ghost tale, done poorly.  The glaring problem is the directing—there isn’t any.  Camera angles appear nearly random.  Each actor performs as if he’s in his own film, with no concern for the other actors or plot; John Houseman is in a melodrama, Astaire is in a light comedy, and Douglas is in an After School Special.  Craig Wasson, playing the son of Fairbanks’ character, is in a little league of his own, putting in one of the worst performances you’re likely to find in a major motion picture.  He mugs; he grimaces; he plays two characters and is unbelievable in both.

But don’t think the only problem here is directing, as that would overlook the absurd writing.  It gives us characters that are in the story for no apparent reason (why are two young street thugs helping the ghost?) and implausible events (pulling a car from a lake, in the middle of nowhere, in the winter, when the car has been there for years and can’t be seen from the surface, is a simple, quick operation).  So why did I give this disaster even one ?  Alice Krige.  In one of her earliest films, she alone manages anything close to acting, creating a mysterious, intelligent, and sensuous character.  She is also beautiful, and has several nude scenes, so if your aim is simply to see Ms Krige, add two more s to my rating.

Back to Ghost Stories

 Ghost Stories, Reviews Tagged with:
Mar 281981
 
one reel

Secretive professor Norman Boyle (Paolo Malco) and his unstable wife Lucy (Katherine MacColl) move into a strange old house, along with their deeply annoying son (Giovanni Frezza) who sees a ghost girl that tells him not to go. The house had been inhabited by a colleague who was doing some unusual research when he killed his mistress and himself. Once in the house, they are joined by Ann (Ania Pieroni), the young, cute, and weird babysitter. The colleague was doing some strange research, as was a much earlier owner of the house, Dr. Freudstein. (Yes, that’s Dr. Freudstein). No one should be surprised when weird things start happening.

It’s a ghost story. No, it’s a zombie film. No, it’s a mad doctor flick. No, it’s about people going mad. No, it’s a slasher. I don’t mind a film being multiple different things at once (OK, I mind a little), but I’d like it to be clear which. And no, it isn’t unclear to make some kind of point. It seems Lucio Fulci shot a bunch of scenes that have no real connection to each other, and then called it a movie.

Gore is the point. It usually is in Fulci films. And there’s lots of killing and lots of blood, and by early ‘80s standards, it looks pretty good. We get multiple beheadings and throats being torn out. There’s impalings, broken legs, and a bizarrely bloody bat bite. I found it a bit ho-hum, but if all you want is to see blood shooting or dripping out of someone, you could do worse. However, none of that violence and gore has any weight. Half the victims we don’t know—in a few case, in any way at all.

Not that we really know any of these characters as none of them make any sense nor behave in any foreseeable way. The plot of a film can be nonsense, but the characters really need to be believable at some level. Let’s take Ann. She’s introduced as a ghost, but she isn’t one (I guess). Then she acts possessed, but isn’t. Then she acts like she knows some great secret, but she doesn’t. Then she just doesn’t talk when asked direct questions. Then she acts as if she is in league with the mad doctor, but she isn’t. Often she’s shot as if flirting with Norman, but apparently she wasn’t. And finally she drops into average babysitter mode. There’s no character there to work with.

Lucy gets upset for no reason, then gets calm for no reason. She seems mentally unstable, then she seems fine. As for Norman, the film sets up that he has some questionable behavior in his past (a mistress or he was working with his dead colleague), but nope. He just acted really suspicious for no reason. And when the bat flies into his wife’s hair, Norman just stands there looking bored and shining a flashlight on her. Is this supposed to mean something. Apparently not.

So an incoherent plot and nonsensical characters wrapping a lot of gore. It is considered part of Fulci’s Death Trilogy, along with The Beyond and City of the Living Dead, but there’s no connection beyond questionable plots and characters with lots of gore.

While shot primarily in English it was re-dubbed in post and it shows. The dialog fits the lips about 50% of the time, but there is no true Italian version. This sort of dubbing was common in southern European films of the time.

Fulci is probably best known for the faux-Dawn of the Dead (which was called Zombi in Italy) sequel, Zombi 2.

Nov 231980
 
four reels

Note: For those grabbing torches and pitchforks, I am giving Empire a good rating. I know here is where people will get upset with me as many want to rank Empire as #1, but it just doesn’t belong there. Yes, the cinematography is a little better, but it was good in Star Wars {A New Hope}. Yes, the acting has improved, but it still isn’t that good. And the SFXs might be a touch better, but that’s insignificant and they were a wonder already in the first film. And I do not give it points for introducing Boba Fett. Why does anyone care about some tertiary character with a so-so costume?

Sure, Empire has some great battle scenes. It also has one of my favorite lightsaber duels. And while character development is shaky and nothing deep is delivered, it isn’t embarrassing either. This is a good film; I don’t think I need to convince anyone of that.
But it has some problems. First, it’s a bridge film. It has no plot, but is only a couple chapters in the larger story. It starts nowhere and ends nowhere. Then there is the reveal where the response is unearned. The only reason anyone thinks it is a big deal that Vader is Luke’s father is if they themselves would find this a big deal in their own life. The film does nothing to sell this. Why does Luke care? Why does he scream out in that pathetic way? If Aunt Beru had been Vader, I can see why that would have had some emotional resonance; he knew her. Luke is a whiny kid with daddy issues, but that isn’t enough to explain it, nor is it a good thing that our hero turns out to be more of a child here than when we started with him. But besides the film not making this moment important, it has the effect of shrinking the universe as well as shifting the message. In A New Hope, the universe is vast and anyone could become a hero. Now everyone you run into is family and the saga has shifted to being one of royalty and chosen ones. It would be a very long time before this failing was repaired.

Oct 091980
 
one reel

Several years after a prank goes terribly wrong, a group of students have their last college party on a train, with an uninvited killer. As her friends start dropping, Alana (Jamie Lee Curtis) runs for her life.

Quick Review: It isn’t that this is particularly worse than the average Slasher film, but that it IS the average Slasher film. There is absolutely nothing new, different, or exciting. It’s all been done before. Yes, even in 1980, this was recycled. The characters are dull stereotypes; there is some blood (but nothing shocking), a minute amount of skin, some uninspired murders, and the usual screams.  The murderer is obvious early on, even wearing different masks, and his acts are impossible (it’s a train! How does he manage to get from one end to the other without passing anyone?). Decent productions values, Jamie Lee Curtis, and David Copperfield save Terror Train from the depths, but there is simply no reason to watch it.

 Reviews, Slashers Tagged with:
Oct 091980
 
one reel

Four unpleasant children tease a fifth until she plummets out a window to her death.  They make a pact to tell no one what happened. Six years later to the day, they all prepare to go to their high school prom. One is going with Kim (Jamie Lee Curtis), the dead girl’s older sister and the daughter of the principal (Leslie Nielsen). Also planning for the prom is a psycho in a ski mask.

DO YOU LIKE DISCO!?! Well, who doesn’t? And do you like to watch high school students, as visualized by twenty-plus-year-old actors with no significant dance training, boogie down to obscure disco tunes? Do you like to wait over an hour for the slashing part of your Slasher film so that you can dig the disco beat? If you answered “yes” to these questions, Prom Night is for you. This is a movie that is focused on what its audience wants, and that audience consists of Slasher fans who dislike gore, are opposed to nudity, but love faux-teen bickering and that ‘70s dance-dance-dance feeling. All right, it’s a pretty small audience, but everyone should have a movie.

Prom Night has a reputation of being one of the founding (I can’t bring myself to type “classic”) Slasher films, primarily based on it coming out only two years after Halloween. Ignore the reputation. For such an early entry in the sub-genre, it’s astounding how derivative it is. It steals from Halloween (including taking Jamie Lee Curtis), Black Christmas, Carrie, and even Saturday Night Fever. Many of the stolen elements, such as phoning the victims, are just tossed in, having no effect on the story. Actually, Curtis’s character, Kim, has very little effect on the story. The same is true of Leslie Nielsen’s principal, who is missing from large chunks of the film for no reason. Neither are potential victims, detectives, or serious contenders for being the unknown killer. They just use up time so we’re not forced to get to know the victims. Hey, isn’t it a good thing to get to know the victims?

In an attempt to deepen the mystery, red herrings are flung about like they actually are fish.  Who could the killer be? Perhaps the mentally deficient janitor. Maybe the child-molester incorrectly blamed for the girl’s death six years ago, and who was badly burned and just happened to escape from an asylum on the day of prom (yeah, that’s hard to say without taking a breath). It could be the dead girl’s mother, who is still in mourning. And let’s not forget the juvenile delinquent who attacked Kim in the middle of the school cafeteria, wearing a mask, just because he could. Chances are, you’ll know five minutes into the film, but if you’re not sure, don’t worry, because when you learn the killer’s identity, you won’t care.

The acting is about what you’d expect for a Slasher. Unfortunately, that statement also covers Curtis and Nielsen, who are both off their game. It’s not surprising, given how little they have to work with, but I expect more from Curtis.

If you don’t fit into that peculiar demographic, is there anything worth watching in Prom Night? There is one mildly entertaining beheading. You just have to ask yourself, how much disco music are you willing to take for one ax stroke?

 Reviews, Slashers Tagged with:
Oct 091980
 
toxic

Years after a boy drowns at a summer camp, the camp is reopened, and young, sexually active camp counselors  begin to die in gruesome ways. Is it the boy, back from the dead or someone else slicing and dicing?

It would be silly for me to try and review Friday the 13th like other films. Saying that the directing is amateurish, the plot non-existent, and the acting up there with the average junior high play should mean something. But for Slashers, no one cares about any of that, particularly for a teen-Slasher with no theme.  What counts is: does this film deliver thrills? Is it frightening and shocking and a little arousing? Obviously not. I remember watching this at the theater when it was initially released, tapping my fingers and waiting for a moment that even reached mildly tense. It never came. What I got was excessive dialog about what’s for dinner and if there is enough paint thinner, plus scenes of looking for a snake and making coffee (or was it tea? So much time is spent following her heating the water and spooning out the sugar that it must have been important).

Give me some real horror: a ghastly, gory moment that will hit me in the gut, and maybe some lewd nudity that will make me sweat. Friday the 13th failed to deliver any of that. It is a mild, placid film. Perhaps there is enough here to perk up a particularly inexperienced twelve-year-old, but for anyone else, there are far more exciting horror films out there. I suppose for 1980, this could be considered bloody, but for those of us with Dawn of the Dead on our shelves, this is like an episode of Happy Days.

The “climax” makes everything that came before it silly (and impossible as there is no suggestion of supernatural strength). The hulk with the hockey mask and machete is the killer in the sequels, not here. The murderer in this first film isn’t shown until the end; the character isn’t even introduced till then, so there is no way to guess who might be responsible before that moment.

If you feel a need to see a psycho-at-a-summer-camp movie, try the far better Sleepaway Camp.

 Reviews, Slashers Tagged with:
Oct 091980
 
four reels

A hundred years ago, a ship of lepers sank off the shore of what would become the town of Antonio Bay.  Now a strange fog is rolling into town and citizens are dying.

Part ghost story, part slasher, part curse flick, The Fog is an atmospheric tale that puts multi-dimensional, everyday people into a horrific situation. Director John Carpenter sidesteps all the clichĂ©s, presenting something original while sticking close to the standard ghost story. Yes, there is the pretty young girl who is quick to have sex (Jamie Lee Curtis), but unlike in so many horror films, she doesn’t die, she isn’t stupid or bitchy, and she isn’t weak. Finding such a sexually liberated character in modern horror is a good enough reason to watch The Fog.

The cast is as good as I’ve seen in any horror film; in addition to Curtis, there is Adrienne Barbeau, Janet Leigh, John Houseman, Tom Atkins, and Hal Holbrook. Each has their moment as The Fog tells several different stories of people trying to survive and figure out the mystery of what the ghosts want. It’s all tied together by Barbeau’s Stevie Wayne, the town’s late night radio DJ. As the other characters listen to her broadcast, it feels like she is part of each story, even though she interacts with few of the other characters. The Fog was the first in a line of memorable thrillers John Carpenter made in the ’80s. He went on to make Escape from New York  (1981), The Thing (1982), Big Trouble in Little China (1986), Prince of Darkness (1987), and They Live (1988). He has since lost his way, but for that decade he ruled several of the fantasy genres.

Oct 091980
 
two reels

A prostitute (Nancy Allen) and the son of a murder victim team up to find the murderer. The key is in the files of the victim’s psychologist (Michael Caine).

Quick Review: Brian De Palma rips off Psycho in this lackluster thriller.  Angie Dickinson steps into the Janet Leigh role and the rest is by the numbers. There is no tension, no surprises, and Nancy Allen sounds like she is reading her lines while Dennis Franz is doing a cartoon cop’s voice. De Palma does get the sexual scenes right. Angie Dickenson looks great in the shower (the best scene in the film) and Allen is as diverting to the audience as she is to the psychologist when she strips.  But a little erotica is not enough. The body count is low for a Slasher, and two of the killings are dreams, but the razor murders are just enough to put it in the sub-genre.

 Reviews, Slashers Tagged with:
Oct 091980
 
toxic

A child, Willy, kills his mother’s abusive boyfriend as his sister, Lacey, watches in a mirror. Years later, Lacey (Suzanna Love), suffering psychological damage from the event, breaks a mirror that releases the spirit of the boyfriend, and the killings begin.

Here, in one film, is everything that went wrong with horror in the ’80s. It’s poorly shot, edited, acted, and written. And, it isn’t frightening. Not even slightly disconcerting.

It steals its beginning from Halloween, but John Carpenter knew how to frame a shot. This looks like it was filmed with the old family 8mm in the neighbor’s spare bedroom. The stabbing might have been funny if played for laughs as it looks so fake. Like most of the killings in the film, extreme close-ups are used so that there doesn’t have to be a person in the shot. Just a knife shoved into some cloth.

For the next hour, the bland people just walk about, doing some farming. It looks like the director went off for lunch and left the cameras rolling. That director is Ulli Lommel, who obviously took this project to prove that Europeans can not only be as incompetent as Americans in making horror films, but can exceed them. There’s no clichĂ© he is unwilling to drag out, no unbelievable effect he won’t haphazardly shoot, to demonstrate his ineptitude.

Knowing that most people will get bored and leave for significant portions, Lommel repeats flashbacks over and over. Hey, you might have been gone the first five or six times. Now that’s being helpful.

Watching, I have to wonder if they had a script, or if they were writing it as they went along. The Adult Willy is a good, but mute man, who strangles a woman for no reason. It doesn’t tie into the story in any way and is thereafter ignored. Lacey’s husband yells at her when he actually thinks she isn’t doing things on purpose, but is insane.  Perhaps Lommel changed the husband’s point of view mid-day, after shooting the yelling scene. Four campers pop up by a lake and two are killed. There’s no reason for them being in the film or dying (the ghost is after his killers—I think, it’s never explained). The remaining campers drive off and aren’t seen again. But then there’s a lot of threads that go nowhere. Early on, Willy and Lacey get a note from their mother who wants to see them. They don’t see her, and she’s never mentioned again. Did the actress who was supposed to play the mother fail to show up?

John Carradine appears briefly as a psychiatrist, but has no connection to the story. It looks like they had him for one afternoon, shot a few bits on the same set, and then spliced pieces throughout the film.

It all climaxes in a silly supernatural fight scenes, with plenty of point-of-view shots because showing the entire scene would be too expensive. One of the more pathetic segments has a priest impaled by a drawer full of knives, except we don’t see that. We see close-ups of his face (which changes very little for a man getting stuck in the back). Then afterward, the camera pulls back to show the blades sticking into an obvious board under his vestments.

But this is a Slasher film and things like a nonsensical story, amateurish lighting, and non-existent color correction aren’t important. So, how does it stand up in what does count for a Slasher? It’s very, very slow, with over thirty-five minutes between killings. There is little blood and the closest you get to skin is a girl in her underwear cutting her hair.

The Boogeyman has nothing to offer anyone. No matter what your tastes, there’s something for you to hate. And there’s no boogyman to give the title meaning.

 Reviews, Slashers Tagged with:
Apr 201980
 
one reel

The alien Zenon have come to invade Earth in a star destroyer they stole from Star Wars. Luckily the Earth is defended by three female super heroes. Unluckily, they have no weapons or useful strengths and if they transform into their outfits, they will be shot from space. The Zenon’s plan is to set loose a bunch of monsters that happen to be the one in previous Gamera movies. Of course Gamera shows up to defeat the monsters just as he did before. Also hanging around to use up time is a kid who plays the Gamera march on the organ and seems to have a pointless connection to Gamera and an evil Zenon lady who isn’t quite up to the task of dealing with a child.

Daiei was dead, its assets bought by another company, which decided it wanted a Gamera movie, though they didn’t want to pay much. They weren’t even a film company, but figured they could make something back on their investment. The old contracts were still in force, so the filmmakers had no choice. And it turns out a giant monster movie is pretty cheap if you don’t film giant monsters. So they edited together clips from the previous films and shot a minimum amount of new footage, mainly dealing with humans in everyday environments, and they had their film.

The actions of the humans (and space women) have nothing to do with the monsters’s actions. People in the streets don’t act like the country is under attack (I’m guessing many weren’t aware they were in a film). There’s no attempt to make the pieces fit together. The evil lady wants to kill the superhero women because they are somehow on Gamera’s team, except they aren’t in any way. They just watch him on their home video screen. The voice from the space ship keeps threatening the evil girl when Gamera wins due to her failure, except she’s not in charge of the battles with Gamera—she came down to get the three superheroes. Gamera: Super Monster is just some nonsensical new clips stuck between old footage.

Is this worse than the abysmal Gemera vs Zigra? As a movie, yes, much worse, as it barely qualifies as a film. However, if all you want is a way to catch up on the bad Gamera movies, perhaps for your geek trivia contest, without having to watch those films, then this serves a purpose.

Feb 261980
 
2.5 reels

In a cosmic coincidence, the Phantom Zone prison of Ursa (Sarah Douglas), Non (Jack O’Halloran), and General Zod (Terence Stamp) happens to drift by Earth right when Superman (Christopher Reeve) has tossed a nuclear bomb into space. Now freed, the three Kryptonians move to conquer Earth. Meanwhile, Lois (Margot Kidder) has discovered Clark is Superman and he has given up his powers so he can marry her.

Superman II has Christopher Reeve as the perfect Superman. It has Margot Kidder being adorable and quirky. It has the John Williams score. And it adds in General Zod and Ursa, two of the most memorable screen villains.

What it doesn’t have is a good story. It’s hard to figure how much of that is the fault of a poor original script, and how much came in the mess of firing director Richard Donner. Lex Luther shouldn’t be in the film at all, but then Gene Hackman refused to return once Donner was dumped. Perhaps he could have been made relevant by un-shot scenes. A central plot point, the big sacrifice of Superman’s power for love, is a cheat. He’s told it can’t be undone, and then it is undone with ease and almost immediately after it was done (powerless Superman only exists for one horrible, bullying scene).

A lot of little things don’t work. Some of those can be laid at Lester’s feet. He inserted childish jokes in scene after scene. So we get Non failing to use his heat vision and a smarmy honeymoon hotel bellboy.

There is also the infamous kiss and Superman getting revenge on a bully. And I’m not fan of the civic duty over love theme.

Still, I can’t dislike this film. Reeve, Kidder, Douglas, and Stamp are too memorable.


Superman II (The Richard Donner Cut)

There is no Richard Donner Cut. Donner did not shoot enough film to create a finished product. He shot Superman and somewhere around half of Superman II when he was fired by the Salkinds. They hired Richard Lester, who was more amiable to their desire for a light, children’s film, the full flower of which can be seen in the disaster that was Superman III. Lester didn’t just finish the film, but reshot some of the scenes Donner had finished as well as oversaw changes to the story.

The so called Richard Donner Cut returns a majority of the footage that Lester had replaced, and splices in some test footage and even a bit from the first film to try to approach what Donner would have done. There’s still a good deal of material shot by Lester and some of what Donner would have done was never shot in any form, so remains missing.

The most notable changes from the theatrical cut are:

  • The re-insertion of Marlon Brando (Brando had also had problems with the Salkinds, leading to the shots being replaced by ones of Susannah York as Superman’s mother),
  • The elimination of the Eiffel Tower terrorists (the evil trio are released from the Phantom Zone by the nuke launched by Lex Luthor at the end of the first movie)
  • Lois leaping out the window of the Daily Planet to prove Clark is Superman
  • Different scenes at Niagara Falls
  • No amnesia kiss. Instead the time-reversal ending from the first film is used. The original plan had been to use the reversal in the second film, but problems with the production of the first film caused them to tack it on to it when the original ending fell apart.

The “Richard Donner” cut has the same major flaws as the theatrical version. It still has the cheat of Superman giving up his powers and getting them right back. It still has Lex feeling like an unnecessary add-on. It also has the same positives: Reeve, Kidder, Douglas, Stamp. and the score. But if I am being picky, this is the better version, if for no other reason than how adorable Lois looks wearing only Superman’s T-shirt (instead of a long white nightgown). The loss of some juvenile humor is also a plus, as are the “new” relationship scenes between Lois and Clark. Only two changes are not an improvement. One is the time-reversal. It was terrible in Superman and it is terrible here. However, so was the amnesia kiss, so I’ll call it a draw. The other is Jor-El’s speech by Brando when Superman is asking about having a love life. The father is a self-righteous ass, and considering he was married and had a child, it’s hard to see it as natural to the character.

The new cut also introduces inconsistencies, but that’s to be expected with what amounts to a rough cut.

The other films in the series are Superman, Superman III, Superman IV: The Quest For Peace, and semi-sequel Superman Returns. The character was rebooted by Zack Snyder for Man of Steel and Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice.

Dec 051979
 
3,5 reels

After a boat shows up in New York harbor with only a zombie on board, the daughter of the ship’s owner and a reporter head to Matul Island to discover what happened.  What they find is a doctor trying to cure a plague of zombism.

Zombi 2‘s name has created a great deal of confusion, partly because it isn’t a sequel to anything.  When Dario Argento re-cut Romero’s Dawn of the Dead for Italian audiences (focusing on the gore), he re-titled it Zombi.  That film was a hit, so Director Lucio Fulci altered his zombie film to conform with Argento’s and titled it Zombi 2 as a marketing gimmick.  It doesn’t fit in Romero’s Dead world, (the zombies are much slower, rarely looking up or moving their arms), but it is close.  If one were to slide it in, it wouldn’t be a sequel, but a prequel, with its first scenes occurring before those of Night of the Living Dead.  Since the title is of little use outside Italy, it is called Zombie in many countries (including the U.S.) but goes by at least four other titles (Island of the Flesh-Eaters, Island of the Living Dead, The Dead Are Among Us, Zombie Flesh-Eaters).

By any name, this is a flawed triumph.  The flaws are everywhere, and include acting that goes from fair to non-existent, poor dubbing (all versions are dubbed as half the actors spoke English and half Italian), plot points that go nowhere, make-up that looks like flour and red paint, perplexingly stupid characters (sometimes they get rid of dead bodies and sometimes they keep them nearby), bodies that still have flesh after 400 years, and an annoying electronic score.

But the good outweigh the bad.  Several shots, particularly the boat sailing into the harbor, a 360 degree turn about a shuffling zombie, and the ending (which I won’t give away), are artistic marvels.  But zombie films rise or fall on their ability to tickle the viewer’s primitive feelings, to bring forth an instinctive response, and here Zombi 2 scores.  The gore is extreme, and while much of it is nothing new, a few moments will shock the most jaded moviegoer (one involves an eye—I’ll say no more).  Zombi 2 also provides the bizarre.  In a mesmerizing series of scenes, Fulci delivers first a topless scuba diver (the underwater photography is clear and crisp), then a submerged battle between the diver and a zombie, and finally a contest between the undead and a shark.  That’s something no one should miss.
Fulci went on to make the zombie/hell gate feature, The Beyond.

Back to Zombies