Film Review: The Comic

"The Comic"
** (out of ****)

[Click here to read my updated review written in 2021]

Harry Langdon. Larry Semon. Charley Chase. Billy West. "Fatty" Arbuckle. What do these names have in common? At one time all of these men were popular comedians during the silent era. Today they are forgotten. Only a select few remember them.

Why is that? Why do the names Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Laurel & Hardy, W.C. Fields and Abbott & Costello live on (somewhat) today? What separated their comedy from the others? Was it all a matter of some random person deciding what to preserve and what not to? The Keystone Cops (Kops) were popular back in the day. After a certain period of time, does "funny" really stop being "funny"?

You may think these thoughts as you watch Carl Reiner's "The Comic" (1969) starring Dick Van Dyke as a fictitious silent screen comedian, Billy Bright.

As the movie begins the audience learns Billy Bright has died. Some thought he was already dead. Bright is a forgotten name in the movie business, evident by the lack of attendees at his funeral. While being eulogized, Bright, lying in his casket, narrates his story to us.

Bright was a baggy pants comic on vaudeville with dreams of becoming the new king of comedy on screen. His first job was working for a Mack Sennett like producer named Frank Powers (Cornel Wilde). Given a minor role in his first two-reeler, Bright deliberately ignores his direction and improvises, making himself the star of the comedy.

He suddenly develops an interest in his leading lady, Mary Gibson (Michele Lee, who resembles Mary Tyler Moore). Mostly because she lets him do all the talking and listens to him praising himself. The two get married and start their own production company, on the same day as their wedding. This, according to Bright, is his wedding present to her. They begin to make two or three comedies a week. Bright says they are all masterpieces.

But then his star begins to fade. His wife divorces him. He begins drinking heavily. He refuses to adapt and make sound pictures. And soon he is forgotten.

In Bright's version of events he was too nice of a guy. He was pushed around by people that weren't as smart as him. The movie's humor stems from Bright's narration as the action on the screen tells a different story. We are dealing with an unreliable narrator.

Theoretically "The Comic" should been a loving tribute to the silent era and the great comedians of the past time has forgotten. Or, it could have been a biting satire on the movie business, dishing out gossip on what was going on behind the scenes. It could have even been a combination of both. Instead it is neither.

The first problem is the Billy Bright character. He is not sympathetic. Having an unlikable character as the star takes away from the movie being a tribute to the silent era. It doesn't provide us with an opportunity to bask in nostalgia, as we think of the "good ol' days" when slipping on a banana peel and a great pie fight were all the rage.

We really don't get a sense of how popular Bright was. Was he a beloved public figure? Instead of showing his fame, the movie takes away valuable screen-time showing clips of his comedies. Which, to be honest, I didn't find particularly funny. Wouldn't it have been better if the movie focused on Bright's creative process instead? How did he come up with his gags? It would have shown audiences the work that went into making movies and would have helped flesh the character out a bit more. Some clips could have still been shown, showing the final result of all of his hard work. 

The one good thing about showing the clips is we get to see Dick Van Dyke doing a lot of slapstick comedy. Van Dyke was a vocal admirer of Stan Laurel (see him on Gary Moore's show doing an impression) and this provides him with an opportunity to show off his pantomime skills.

As fun as some may find that to watch the movie could have also spent more time establishing the time period. Use some period music, instead of the terrible score by Jack Elliott. The music played over the opening credits sounds like it belongs in a horror movie. Maybe even shoot the entire movie in black & white, not just the silent movie clips. The costumes don't even look appropriate and look a bit modern (by 1969 standards). The make-up isn't very good either as we see Bright and his frequent co-star, "Cockeye" Van Buren (Mickey Rooney, in perhaps a nod to Ben Turpin) in old age.

In fact nearly everything about the movie seems second-rate at best. It has a made-for-television quality to it.

Supposedly the screenplay by Reiner and Aaron Ruben (the two worked together on the Sid Caesar television show "Caesar's Hour" in the 1950s) was based on real comedians. Some have suggested Buster Keaton was the main source of inspiration. However, Billy Bright's attire recalls Harry Langdon and his gestures and facial expressions remind us of Stan Laurel (who was inspired by Langdon).

"The Comic" was Carl Reiner's second movie as a director. This may account for some of the flaws of the movie. Reiner had been in the entertainment business as an actor and writer, working along side Sid Caesar and Mel Brooks, but may have been inexperienced as a director. He agreed to some strange editing choices. I suspect a lot of good material didn't make the final cut.

I wonder how this material would have been handled in the hands of a director like Peter Bogdanovich. Bogdanovich is a great admirer of Hollywood's past, directing several movies that play as homages. While Bogdanovich may not be considered as funny as Carl Reiner, he may have been able to tap into the more dramatic elements of the story. Incidentally, Bogdanovich directed and released a documentary this year on Buster Keaton called "The Great Buster" (2018) which I recommend.

There is no doubt Carl Reiner and Dick Van Dyke had good intentions for "The Comic" but those good intentions don't translate into a screen success. Which is unfortunate. 

Film Review: The Star

"The Star"
** 1\2 (out of ****)

Let "The Star" (2017) guide you to the true meaning of Christmas.

It seems to me Hollywood has run out of ideas in regards to Christmas movies. A lot of popular Christmas movies made in the 1980s & 90s are secular in nature. The movies revolve around Santa Claus and young children eager to see if they will receive their favorite toys from Ol' Saint Nick. In the old days (1950s & 60s) Hollywood would make epic religious blockbusters, which some people still watch on Christmas and Easter.

But in modern times "Christmas movies" have become romantic comedies (?) which take place in the month of December and air on the Hallmark Channel. They all mostly revolve around single 30 something year old women looking to find love. Then there are the "Christmas movies" that center on the difficulties of dealing with family around the holidays and the pressures of traveling.

Neither of these scenarios scream Christmas to me. Christmas movies shouldn't be about commercialism, finding a boyfriend, or hating to spend time with your family. To me a Christmas movie should be sincere but make you feel good. It should be about expressing good will toward your fellow man. It should be about embracing your family and loved ones. It should have characters wanting to become better people. And, if you are in a religious mood, it should be about the birth of Jesus Christ.

That brings us to the animated movie, "The Star", a well intended but ultimately flat, Christian themed movie devised to introduce children to the true meaning of the holiday.

In order to appeal to children "The Star" advances its religious theme with a light touch. It features talking animals and has plenty of silly, slapstick humor. Children won't feel as if they are going to church but will learn a bit about religion.

To me this is bit like having your cake and eating it. I admire what "The Star" wants to accomplish. I wanted to recommend the movie. I think in theory an animated religious movie could work, see "The Prince of Egypt" (1998), but "The Star" is trying to juggle a very delicate balancing act. You have to create kid friendly characters that are funny and interesting and could still serve as vessels for the religious aspects of the movie. How do you create slapstick hi-jinks and incorporate a religious message that is handle in a serious way?

Director Timothy Reckart, an Academy award nominee (for best animated short film) centers his story on a donkey named Bo (Steven Yeun). Bo's life lacks meaning. His sole purpose is to grind grain while he is tied to a mill. Bo wants to do something important and have others realize he is a somebody. Bo and his best friend, a dove name Dave (Keegan-Michael Key) want to join a royal caravan. But how can Bo escape?

While that is being figured out, Bo and several other animals and humans, including Three Wise Men, have noticed the appearance of a shining new star in the sky. Bo believes it is a sign he must join the caravan. The Three Wise Men believe it signifies the birth of a new king.

Of course the star does signify the coming of Jesus and appears after Mary (Gina Rodriguez) is visited by an angel. The angel informs Mary she has been chosen to give birth to the son of God. Now Mary must explain to her fiance, Joseph (Zachary Levi) that she is pregnant and carrying the messiah.

The movie, rightly or wrongly, glosses over any debate or discussion the characters may have had concerning if this is true. Joseph never doubts Mary's explanation. I wonder though what will children think? Will they understand how Mary became pregnant? The movie doesn't offer a kid friendly explanation.

In order to keep children's attention the movie attempts to create action by having King Herod (Christopher Plummer) eager to find out who the "new king" is. In order to do this, Herod sends a Hunter (Lex Lang), with his two vicious dogs; Thaddeus (Ving Rhames) and Rufus (Ggabriel Iglesias), to follow the Three Wise Men, and kill the baby. This will also serve as a test for Bo and create a morality tale. What is Bo's true purpose in life? What are the things we should place value on?

Movie-wise "The Star" lacks interesting characters. It is not in the tradition of Disney / Pixar movies that are able to entertain adults and children with fully realized characters and humor all can enjoy. Even some Dreamworks movies are able to do this as well.

The voice-over work is hit or miss. Zachary Levi for example had a much better character in Disney's "Tangled" (2010) as Flynn Rider. Here he isn't given much material. The human characters are secondary to the animals. Which is fine but if these characters are meant to entertaining the children the jokes are very funny.

On a religious aspect, the movie does a fairly decent job incorporating the major elements of the Nativity story but naturally takes artistic license with many things.

I was not wowed by "The Star". I can't really imagine children will enjoy it either but it may be good to have them sit down once and watch it. Compared to "The Greatest Story Ever Told" (1965) or "King of Kings" (1961) "The Star" will be much more easier for them to take in.

Film Review: Monsieur Verdoux

"Monsieur Verdoux"  **** (out of ****)

Charlie Chaplin's "Monsieur Verdoux" (1947) is a killer comedy.

By the time Chaplin released this dark, rich, cynical comedy the silent era ended 18 years earlier. However, this was Chaplin's second full fledged talking movie. He no longer played his lovable downtrodden man of the people, The Tramp. To remove himself completely from that character Chaplin truly takes things in a new direction.

In "Monsieur Verdoux", which the opening credits state was based on an idea by Orson Welles, Chaplin plays the title character, who goes by many aliases, a Bluebeard.

The opening credits described the movie as "a comedy of murders". While that may sound dark, and it is, Chaplin's comedy has always had a hint of darkness to it. Chaplin had a gift for finding the humor in tragedy. The best example is the silent comedy "The Gold Rush" (1925). One of the major themes of that movie is hunger. In a famous scene Chaplin's Tramp is so hungry he resorts to eating his shoe. The scene is played for laughs but the undertone of it is dramatic. Here is a man so hungry he has no other options and must engage in desperate tactics.

Not surprisingly "Monsieur Verdoux" is similar in that the character's motivation for his actions is to provide for his family, so they may never go hungry. Hunger was always an important theme in Chaplin's work due to his own impoverished childhood. Desperate times call for desperate actions.

We learn Monsieur Verdoux worked as a banker. After 30 years of employment, the Great Depression hit. Verdoux was one of the first on the chopping block. For the past ten years he has been married to a paraplegic. The two also have a son. For the past three years Verdoux has led a double life, marrying women, with small amounts of wealth, and killing them. Some he has let live since he has not been able to get his hands on their money. Whatever money Verdoux does get, he invest in the stock market.

This is Chaplin's best attempt to create sympathy for Verdoux. Verdoux doesn't kill for the sport of it. Chaplin even goes as far as to make the wife literally dependent upon him. Who could hate a man like that?

Chaplin also presents Verdoux as a man of sophistication. Even his Tramp character had an air of refinement about himself. In one scene he sits by a piano and plays Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2. When we first see Verdoux he is in a garden, pruning. Chaplin plays Verdoux as a soft-spoken, mild manner man. Can this suggest even "good" people are capable of "bad" things? Is Chaplin making a comment on the duality of man?

The movie begins to explore these conflicting thoughts of "good" and "bad" when Verdoux meets a woman who has just been released from jail. She is simply credited as "The Girl" (Marilyn Nash). Verdoux finds her standing in the rain and offers The Girl shelter by inviting her to his apartment. This is all a pretext as Verdoux really wants to conduct an experiment on her and test out a poison he has created. Before The Girl can unknowingly drink the poison the two engage in a discussion of life and love. Verdoux is bitter about life and emphasizes the bad. The Girl champions the good in life and proclaims life has meaning and speaks of what true love is. These two characters become the conscience of the movie. However, to further illustrate his point, one has to admit, both characters make good arguments. Neither is completely right or wrong.

By the end of the movie one can take the position, what you put out in the world will come back to you. This is presented at two points in the movie. One has Verdoux admonish his son for playing too rough with their cat. Verdoux rhetorically asks where did the boy get such a mean streak. An intended joke given the character asking the question. However, it is what he says next that stands out. He tells the boy to remember violence begets violence. 

The other moment comes when Verdoux, now much older, runs into The Girl, who's fortune has changed. She offers to buy Verdoux a meal as a way to repay his kindness to her. It is something she had never forgotten. Here is it not violence that begets violence but kindness that begets kindness.

But Chaplin's true intentions for "Monsieur Verdoux" is to argue the crimes of one man fail in comparison to the actions of nations. Yes, Verdoux killed people but countries have turned murder into business. Bear in mind the movie was released in 1947. World War II was over. Technology played a very big role in the war, especially with the atomic bomb, which was dropped in 1945. There is a lot of money to be made in war and making weapons.

It is definitely a timely message and works alongside the themes of Chaplin's prior movie, "The Great Dictator" (1940) which ends with a plea for peace and warns technology is dividing us (funny how some things never change). But, the parallel between Verdoux's actions and the business of war doesn't flow smoothly to me. The third act of the movie could have used a rewrite. I feel Chaplin is reaching a bit to tie everything together. Maybe the comparison could be made but it doesn't flow as naturally as it should have.

Some of the ideas may be "heavy" but "Monsieur Verdoux" is not without laughs. This is a Charlie Chaplin movie after all. While Chaplin does play a murderer, we never see his Verdoux actually kill anyone. When Verdoux does go in for the kill the camera fades to the next scene after suggesting the fate of his victim. When the camera stays on Verdoux it shows his failed attempts and thus where Chaplin inserts comedy into the story.

The wife we see the most onscreen is Annabella (Martha Raye). She is presented as somewhat dimwitted. A easy-go-lucky woman that enjoys several drinks now and than. Mostly now. For however dimwitted she may appear she is smart enough not to trust Verdoux with her money. With this wife Verdoux is a sea captain named Bonheur. Annabella is also gullible and freely gives her fortune, which she won playing the lottery, to anyone that asks and falls for every get rich quick scheme. But she never falls for Verdoux's tricks. Each time Verdoux tries to end her life and unexpected twist happens. The best sequence involves them alone in a canoe. These sequences allow Chaplin to go into his physical comedy and at age 48 he could still knock himself around.

Another sequence is the already mentioned one between Verdoux and The Girl. It doesn't have laugh out loud moments but as a director Chaplin keeps building anticipation as the audiences hangs on The Girl's every action. Will she or won't she drink the glass with the poison that Verdoux has disguised as a glass of wine. We laugh at the dark nature of the situation as we watch Verdoux's anxious behavior.

The movie ends on a bittersweet note. Verdoux has been sentenced to death. This isn't much of a surprise as the opening shot of the movie is of Verdoux's tombstone. Verdoux at this point faces his fate head on. As he leaves his prison cell, heading for a guillotine, a beam of light strikes Verdoux's smiling face. Is it the Heavens shining on him? Either way Verdoux has found peace.

"Monsieur Verdoux" was a critical and box-office flop when released. Audiences didn't want to see their beloved Chaplin as a murderer and they were not in the mood for his comments on the business of war. It was too soon after the war. The movie did end up receiving an Oscar nomination however for Chaplin's screenplay. Many have warmed up to the movie over the years. With hindsight I believe it was Chaplin's last truly significant film. "Monsieur Verdoux" is worth a second look.

Film Review: A Madea Christmas

"A Madea Christmas"  *** (out of ****)

Guess who's coming to (Christmas) dinner in "A Madea Christmas" (2013).

I'm not knowledgeable enough on the work of director Tyler Perry to give an in-depth analysis of the meaning of his movies and the common themes flowing throughout them. However, I have been exposed to enough to know I have problems with his movies and storytelling.

"A Madea Christmas" was the eight movie to feature Perry's female alter-ego Madea, an elderly, loud, sassy, brash, sometimes violent, so-called truth teller.

In some ways Perry's approach to the character reminds me of classic comedies starring the comedy greats such as Chaplin, Keaton, Laurel & Hardy and W.C. Fields. In those movies, as in the Madea movies, the formula is similar. We have an established character that remains consistent movie after movie. This allows the audience to identity with the character and create a relationship. Then we take that character and put them in different situations which the audience knows, by now, will cause major conflicts. For example, we know Laurel & Hardy are inept at any task given to them no matter how big or small, so, lets make a comedy where they are police officers. Because of our preconceived notions of the characters we laugh at the very idea. We just know something terrible will happen and crooks will be able to outsmart the two.

So too has Perry created a character in Madea that his fan base knows. A relationship has been established. Perry now can have fun creating new scenarios to place the character in which will result in maximum conflict. That seems to be some of the thinking behind "A Madea Christmas".

Madea (Perry in drag) finds herself on a road trip from Georgia to Alabama after her great niece, Eileen (Anna Maria Horsford) becomes heartbroken and suspicious when she learns her daughter, Lacey (Tika Sumpter) will be not visiting her for Christmas. Lacey is a school teacher in a small town that is going through a lot of financial difficulty thanks to a construction company that has built a damn which has affected crops grown by farmers.

This has an effect on the school's funding causing a Christmas jubilee to be cancelled. The townspeople are not willing to accept this. You can take away our jobs but you will never take away our jubilee!

This however is only part of the reason why Lacey will not be home for Christmas. Lacey also got married without telling her mother. Not only did Lacey get married but she married a white man, Connor (Eric Lively). Eileen may have looked pass her daughter not telling her about the marriage but will not be able to accept her only daughter marrying a white man.

The conflict will escalate when Eileen and Madea unexpectedly arrive at Lacey's house and find out that Connor's parents, Buddy (Larry the Cable Guy) and Kim (Kathy Nnajimy) will be staying at Lacey and Connor's home too to spend Christmas with them. How will Eileen react?

Perhaps this reverse "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner" (1967) scenario was meant to serve as a Christmas reminder of the theme of forgiveness and love thy neighbor. But Tyler Perry really doesn't have anything interesting to say about race relations. Madea and Connor's parents cannot understand Eileen's objections over their marriage. I suppose the deeper question to ask is, did Perry address this topic because it is a topic of controversy within the African-American community?

Perry takes on racism from a different angle when it is subtly implied one of the townspeople, Tanner (Chad Michael Murray) is a racist and explains why he does not like Lacey. This sub-plot is too subtle and again Perry really has nothing to say on the subject.

"A Madea Christmas" was made for two reasons. One was to place the Madea character in a situation that audiences know will make the character uncomfortable. Without knowing much about the character, one can assume, Madea doesn't like children. Christmas time presents a perfect opportunity for Madea to be surrounded by children. Hence why we get a completely unnecessary sequence involving Madea working at a department store, insulting customers and at one point, playing Santa. Why do this? Because in theory it should be funny.

The other objective for "A Madea Christmas" is to promote a Christianity theme and place an emphasis on the religious aspects of Christmas as oppose to the secular event the holiday has become. It is possible to celebrate Christmas and take all the religion out of the holiday. How many people celebrate Christmas but don't go to church on that day to celebrate the birth of Jesus? How many people will have decorations of Santa and Frosty the Snowman but not a Nativity scene? So, it is possible to take religion out of the holiday.

Tyler Perry and "A Madea Christmas" want to fight back. Many times religion is brought up in the movie and characters are outraged in one sequence when the Christmas jubilee will be turned into a holiday jubilee.

As a "bad Catholic" it is refreshing to see a movie about Christmas mention Jesus Christ. But, as strange as it may seem, doing so could be off putting to viewers.

This is the third Tyler Perry movie I have seen, coming after "Acrimony" (2018) and "Madea's Family Reunion" (2006). "A Madea Christmas" is my favorite so far. On a purely entertainment level, it was the most fun I've had watching a Tyler Perry movie but the movie does have flaws.

I don't like Perry's dialogue. It is neither naturalistic or poetic. Perry is too forceful when trying to make a social point. He leans in to hard. And then there are the characters and Madea in particular. Perry works a lot with stereotypes. What else to make of Madea. There are only two possibilities. Either Perry is perfectly aware of this and uses it as an opportunity to get laughs or the character comes from a good place in Perry and he truly believes there are people out there like this. In the end it really doesn't matter because the character always becomes larger than the movie and it out of place. I sense Perry wants the character to serve as a moral conscience hence why some believe she is a truth teller but whose truth is she telling?

The most enjoyable performance is Tika Sumpter's. This is the first time I have seen this actress and hope to see her in many more projects. It would be nice to see her in something that requires more of a range of emotions.

Devotees of Tyler Perry seem to view "A Madea Christmas" as a mix bag. They imply newcomers to Perry's work probably wouldn't like. Naturally I had the exact opposite reaction. I believe this movie is one of the more mainstream and easily accessible Tyler Perry movies I have seen. Than again, that may be exactly why Perry fans don't like this movie. Maybe they feel he sold out for commercial appeal. Surely Madea's truth telling wouldn't allow Perry to do that, would she?

Film Review: The Muppet Christmas Carol

"The Muppet Christmas Carol"  *** (out of ****)

It sometimes seems Hollywood has an insatiable desire to "revitalize" classic movies or novels by providing us with countless, unnecessary remakes or "re-tellings" or "re-imaginings" or whatever it is they like to call it. Charles Dickens novella "A Christmas Carol" is a story that has endured the test of time despite Hollywood's best intentions.

Over the years there have been various film adaptions of Dickens' story. One of the earliest known existing one dates back to 1901, a British film entitled "Scrooge, or, Marley's Ghost". A slightly better known film version may be the one released in 1935 called "Scrooge" starring Seymour Hicks in the title role. It too was a British production.

For American audiences, many know the 1938 version starring Reginald Owen as Scrooge in "A Christmas Carol". This was my personal favorite adaptation of the story as well as a family favorite. Every Christmas I watched it with my grandmother. There are movie buffs however that would argue the best version of the story was the 1951 production starring Alastair Sim as Scrooge.

While these may be the best known adaptations, it hasn't stopped there. There have been musical adaptations, one starred Albert Finney, a TV movie starring Patrick Stewart, several animated versions, one even starring Mickey Mouse, and a very good one directed by Robert Zemeckis in 2009 with Jim Carrey. And to this ever expanding list we can add "The Muppet Christmas Carol" (1992), the first Muppet movie released after the death of Jim Henson.

"The Muppet Christmas Carol", surprisingly, is a rather straight forward telling of Dickens' tale. That is part of the problem. Why am I choosing to watch this particular version? Because it is kid friendly? So was "Mickey's Christmas Carol" (1983). Because it has Muppets? I suppose. Is that such an appealing attraction? Do you children even know who the Muppets are?

In its attempt to appeal to a younger audience "The Muppets Christmas Carol" adds humor to the story, supplied by The Great Gonzo (as Charles Dickens) and his sidekick, Rizzo the Rat (as himself). However, because of this the sentimentality and rich emotions the story provides aren't as prominent.

Our story begins on Christmas Eve with Dickens (Gonzo) and Rizzo serving as narrators of the story. They follow Ebenezer Scrooge (Michael Caine), a wealthy money lender with a particular dislike of Christmas. On this day Scrooge will reject a Christmas dinner invitation from his nephew, Fred (Steven Mackintosh), whom Scrooge feels is poor and hapless. Scrooge will insult charity collectors (Dr. Bunsen Honeydew and Beaker) refusing to donate to the poor and throwing them out of his office, and will eventually relent in giving his employees, consisting of Bob Cratchit (Kermit the Frog), the day off for Christmas.

But something more spectacular will happen on this day. Scrooge is visited by the spirits of his deceased business partners, Jacob and Robert Marley (Statler and Waldorf), who warn Scrooge his must change his ways or he will suffer the same fate as them, burdened to wear heavy chains as symbols for their sins. Scrooge will be greeted by three other spirits throughout the night, the Ghost of Christmas Past, Christmas Present and Christmas Yet To Come. Each will show Scrooge the error of his ways and lack of generosity towards his fellow man.

"A Christmas Carol" can be a dark story, a tale of a fallen man, in desperate need of redemption. A story of class struggle and death. To lighten the mood for children, Dickens and Rizzo fill the void. Dickens has already written his story and as such appears precognitive to Rizzo, who is mystified by this, allowing for moments of humor between the two.

To also lighten the mood songs have been written for the movie by Paul Williams, who wrote the song "Rainbow Connection" for the first Muppet movie, "The Muppet Movie" (1979). None of the songs here are memorable or catchy except perhaps for a duet song by the Marley brothers.

Academy award winning actor Michael Caine is the human we see most on-screen and does a moderate job playing the character. Caine is a great actor. One of my personal favorites. He is a better actor than Reginald Owen or Alastair Sim but their interpretations of Scrooge are far more memorable and delightful bringing more personality to the character. It also helps those actors were able to feed off of other humans whereas Caine is acting opposite Kermit the Frog. It presents a completely different dynamic for an actor, creating a new mindset.

Because Caine is a great actor he fares better than most playing against the Muppets. His approach is different than others because he plays serious and allows the Muppets to be humorous. He doesn't try to much them in their silliness. Caine's interpretation of Scrooge is as serious as other actors and I suppose he takes it as far as the material will allow him. We must keep in mind the target audience is children. How interesting it would be to see Caine play the character in a dramatic all human version.

I find the crux of the film adaptations of "A Christmas Carol" involves the relationship between Scrooge and Tiny Tim (Robin the Frog). Tiny Tim serves as the turning point for Scrooge to mend his ways. It is always a dramatic moment in any of the human adaptations. Here though it misses something and doesn't tug at your heartstrings the same way. It is like that for many of the dramatic moments in the story.

While the dramatic moments aren't as powerful there is also a lot of good holiday cheer missing. "The Muppet Christmas Carol" can't find that ever so delicate balance providing entertainment adults and children can enjoy blending heartfelt moments and humor. It comes close but doesn't hit the bullseye.

"The Muppet Christmas Carol" was directed by Jim Henson's son, Brian. Following this movie, Brian would direct one more theatrically released Muppet movie, "Muppet Treasure Island" (1996) and the huge mishap, "The Happytime Murders" (2018), featuring muppets with an adult edge to them. The puppeteers on the movie are those that have long been associated with the Muppets including Frank Oz, Dave Goelz and Steve Whitmire among others. They each deserve credit for their work.

Children may find some enjoyment in "The Muppet Christmas Carol" but I think may enjoy "Home Alone" (1990), "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" (1966) and "Elf" (2003) just a bit more.

Film Review: Mr. Smith Goes To Washington

"Mr. Smith Goes To Washington"
*** 1\2 (out of ****)

As Americans went to the polls on election day, "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" (1939).

Frank Capra's political drama is filled with a lot of wishful thinking. Oh, its smart, in its own way. It understands some of the ways of the world. But, at the end of the day, for entertainment sake, it gives us the usual happy, Hollywood ending. As long as we don't think about it, we're happy watching it and feel satisfied.

I suppose that was the genius of Frank Capra. He gave us something to believe in and made us feel good. Capra, because of movies like this one, has been described as making American movies. There are those however that say his movies were simplistic. For the sake of argument, lets say they were. Now what? Does that take away from their entertainment value because they don't offer a "worldly perspective"? I don't think so. I happily watch Frank Capra movies. You'd be doing yourself a favor if you did too.

You know, we often think, in our modern, sophisticated world, that back in the "old days" they were pretty naive. They didn't understand as much as we do today. Even our phones are smart. Yeah, back than they didn't get the whole story about their government and about how things were really being run. They didn't have access to the internet. How smart could they have really been?

You can think that way but then you watch a movie like "Mr. Smith Goes To  Washington". Here is a movie that tells us the whole political system is rotten to its core. If good men (or women) actually make it to Washington they will become submerged in corruption. Some force will attempt to muddy their name. Politics is dirty business. Ladies and gentlemen, this movie was made in 1939. You could say the same thing today in 2018 and I'm gonna take a guess and say 2019 too. So, tell me again how naive they were in the "old days". We've all pretty much known the score about politics but nothing changes. And we know nothing changes but we vote (well, some of us anyway). Why? Because no matter what, we have the delusion there's a "Mr. Smith" out there. "Mr. Smith" for some people was Barack Obama. For others Bernie Sanders. And still others Donald Trump. A voice that will unify us and truly act in the interest of the people. On election day you may have found a new "Mr. Smith".

The Mr. Smith here is Jeffrey Smith (James Stewart), he is nominated to replace a recently deceased U.S. Senator of an unnamed state. He is the head of a Boy Rangers group and admired by children, including the governor's (Guy Kibbee) children.

Smith could be the answer to the governor's problem, who is getting pressure from a political boss, Jim Taylor (Edward Arnold), to nominate a hack of his choosing. The hack politician is not a popular choice and will allow journalist to report the governor is a lackey of Taylor. With Smith as the nominee he may prove to be a popular choice and may prove to be easy to manipulate because of his inexperience.

Here of course we are getting a political commentary. Politicians are figure heads for those that really run the country. Politicians don't need to please the voters only their bosses.

To really play up the schmaltz, Capra makes Smith a naive, opportunistic, patriotic young man. When he arrives in Washington, D.C. he lights up with enthusiasm at the sight of the Capitol Building. We hear a small boy reading the constitution, which is suppose to make us swell up with pride. Capra has patriotic music play in the background as we see a statute of Abraham Lincoln, that Smith adoringly looks at. What a great country, with a rich history, we live in. That is what Capra wants us to think. And boy is he lying it on thick!

The senior senator from the state, serving with Smith, turns out to be an old friend of his deceased father. In their youth, the two men were idealistic dreamers, no doubt where Smith gets it from. Smith's father died for his beliefs and it is assumed, now as a senator Joseph Paine (Claude Rains) is fighting the good fight. Paine wants to take Smith under his wing and will even tell him how to vote (how thoughful). At this point however we know Paine is also under the thumb of Taylor.

"Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" wants to draw a parallel between Smith and Sen. Paine. We start out in the world as Smith, ridiculously hopeful that we can make change happen in the world but we end up like Paine. We not only swallow the pill of compromise, we allow ourselves to give in to corruption. We make a deal with the devil (or political boss) and delude ourselves into thinking it is a "necessary evil". We can still achieve good things even if now and than we have to "play ball".

Frank Capra and his movie make some good points and outside of its hokey nature it can feel somewhat modern and relateable but eventually "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" loses some of its bite.

The powers that be conspire against Smith and he learns the truth about politics and how it all works. He also learns about Sen. Paine and who he really is. To retaliate, Smith will take to the senate floor and filibuster. He will reveal the truth to voters. Unfortunately, there are times when we hear Smith speak he isn't saying anything threatening to the status quo. This would have been a wonderful opportunity for Smith to really speak truth to power. The movie's screenplay holds back a bit.

We also get a rushed ending. The movie dares to imply a politician has a conscience. Audiences can only endure so much suspension of disbelief. This feeds into Capra's "happy, Hollywood ending". This wouldn't happen in real life though we may wish it would. The actions of one character in particular is just so overly dramatic.

These gripes aside "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" is a fine movie featuring a great performance from Stewart, one of the most iconic of his career. Praise should also be given to Claude Rains as well, who may be overlooked because of Stewart. The movie is smart and naive at the same time.

Over the years some have found it fun trying to decode what party Mr. Smith belongs to. Some have suggested because Capra and Stewart were Republicans, Mr. Smith must be one as way. You'll notice no party identification is ever given. Most likely because that would split audiences on their feelings toward the character. Smith is a generic name and the character is supposed to represent everyone.

The movie, released in that historic and famed year of 1939, earned 11 Academy Award nominations including best picture, best director, best actor (Stewart), two for supporting actors (Rains and Harry Carey),and won one for best writing, original story (Lewis R. Foster).

Here is a movie that is a nice reminder that even when our politicians aren't inspiring at least our movies are.

Film Review: Haunted Honeymoon

"Haunted Honeymoon"  *** (out of ****)

Gene Wilder's "Haunted Honeymoon" (1986) is both a homage to classic comedy / horror movies like "The Cat and the Canary" (1939) with Bob Hope and a love letter to his wife Gilda Radner, in the last movie the two starred in together.

Wilder, who co-wrote the comedy "Young Frankenstein" (1974) with director Mel Brooks, perhaps wanted to repeat his success as Brooks tried later with "Dracula: Dead & Loving It" (1995). Although the bar isn't set very high, Wilder's comedy may come off slightly better than Brooks' Dracula effort.

Wilder understands a comedy / horror movies needs atmosphere. You need to treat the material as two separate movies. Take your horror portion seriously. "Haunted Honeymoon" takes place in an old, scary looking mansion. As the opening credits play we see someone has been stabbed.

Pay attention to this scene. It establishes Gene Wilder's philosophy of comedy. You give the audience the required information it needs to advance the plot and then you hit them with a joke. It is the opposite of his buddy Mel Brooks who tries to put in a joke before, during and after the set-up.

Speaking of Mel Brooks, Wilder also uses composer John Morris, who scored nearly all of Brooks' comedies. Morris, as usual, creates a terrific score, capturing the mood of those classic horror movies of the 1930s and 40s. Another example of taking the time to treat the horror portion seriously.

For the comedy, Wilder and co-writer Terence Marsh, have come up with a pretty good scenario. Radio actor Larry Abbot (Wilder. Sounds a lot like Larry Talbot, the Wolf Man, doesn't it?) is engaged to his co-star Vickie Pearle (Radner). This has triggered a deep rooted fear in Larry, causing him to have momentary blackouts, which upsets the sponsor of his radio show. Larry's uncle, Dr. Paul Abbot (Paul L. Smith), has studied Larry's case and believes he has a cure.  Larry needs to be scared to death. A perfect opportunity arises when Larry and Vickie go back to his childhood home, the old mansion, to celebrate their engagement.

The setting and the premise lend themselves naturally to create comedy within a horror atmosphere. Wilder and Marsh, as a result, don't have to write random comedy sequences, breaking away from the horror premise. The comedy is a result of the horror due to Larry's reaction to his family's attempts to scare him to death. That is how comedy / horror is suppose to work.

Take a scene where Larry, about to go to sleep, notices a monster walking down towards him, from the ceiling. Larry is terrified. He tries to alleviate  his fear by convincing himself the monster isn't real. To demonstrate his point he reaches out to touch the monster's face and slowly begins to realize the monster is indeed real. You have a scary set-up and humor that blends with the situation.

Another sequence doesn't lend itself so easily to both genres and feels a bit contrived. It feels like a comedy sequence randomly created. Larry gets into a fight with the butler, Pfister (Bryan Pringle) and knocks him out. Police are investigating the property and Larry must hide Pfister's body. I won't reveal the punchline, because it is funny, but here is an example of the horror not naturally lending itself to comedy.

But this has nothing on a sequence where Aunt Kate (Dom DeLuise in drag) performs a rousing rendition of the old jazz standard "Ballin' the Jack" with Vickie. Like a Brooks comedy, Wilder throws in a musical number that serves no purpose to the rest of the movie.

On average the performances are good with Wilder and Radner displaying a good amount of chemistry between them. I don't think this showcases Radner at the top of her game though it does have some nice moments and she has good banter with Wilder's character. Dom DeLuise on the other hand doesn't come out looking so good. This isn't a performance to take serious. It is a caricature. And worst of all, it isn't funny. It doesn't seem like much thought and care went into this character.

What I appreciate most about "Haunted Honeymoon" however are the nods to earlier movies. There is a werewolf character that looks an awful lot like the one in "The Undying Monster" (1942). That couldn't have been a coincidence. Being that the movie centers on radio actors and mystery and death, it makes me personally recall titles like "Whistling in the Dark" (1941) with Red Skelton and "The Cat and the Canary".

Whatever there is to admire however ultimately "Haunted Honeymoon" lacks in the big laughs department. That may explain why the movie was a box-office flop. It hasn't aged well either. Only recently has it been put on  DVD. You won't hear many praise the movie. The studio didn't even provide critics an advance screening. Imagine if Siskel & Ebert had given it two thumbs up. It might have added to the box-office. Or not, if they didn't like it.

While the big laughs may not be there, I do like what "Haunted Honeymoon" is trying to accomplish. I like its old-fashion spirit. I find Wilder and Radner to be likable actors. I appreciate the costume and production design. I like the musical score. "Haunted Honeymoon" does a lot of technical things right. Without revealing plot points, it could have used a rewrite or a different editor, who may have cut essential scenes.

Unfortunately after this movie's release Radner and Wilder would never appear again in a movie together. Radner died of cancer at the age of 42 in 1989. "Haunted Honeymoon" was the last feature length movie she appeared in. Wilder considerably slowed down after her death. He appeared in two movies with Richard Pryor; "See No Evil, Hear No  Evil" (1989) and "Another You" (1991). Gene Wilder died in 2016 at 83. He only directed four movies and "Haunted Honeymoon" is not the best of them. Most would say that honor belongs to "The Woman in Red" (1984), which co-starred Radner and was a remake of the French comedy, "Pardon Mon Affaire" (1976).

"Haunted Honeymoon" is a bit of an uneven comedy. It creates a nice atmosphere and does a lot of things right. It lacks some big laughs and doesn't develop its supporting characters. Wilder and Radner are fun to watch but neither is at the top of their game. It might be worth watching if you like comedy / horror movies of the 1930s and 40s.

Film Review: Friday the 13th

"Friday the 13th"
** 1\2 (out of ****)

As odd as this may seem, for someone that devotes the month of October to horror movies, I never saw "Friday the 13th" (1980) until recently. Naturally I heard of it and am aware of the numerous sequels that followed and the 2009 reboot but I never sat down and watched the movie.

My understanding is "Friday the 13th" was inspired by John Carpenter's "Halloween" (1978), which I consider one of the greatest horror movies of all-time. "Friday the 13th" and "Halloween" are considered to have begun the slasher horror genre and the depiction of gruesome violence against teenagers (in particular females). Minus the teenager part, I'm not comfortable stating these two movies established the slasher genre. What about the films directed by Italian filmmakers Dario Argento and Mario Bava for example? Did "Friday the 13th" and "Halloween" popularize the genre for American audiences? Maybe. I'm more willing to make that statement.

Watching "Friday the 13th" stirred conflicted feelings within me. On one hand this story of a group of teenagers working at Camp Crystal Lake and a supposed "death curse" placed on it, does all the things you hate about horror movies. For one thing, it is gory for the sake of being gory. Some wisenheimer will say the violence depicted here is tame compared to today's standards (Great! Our standards have lowered!). But "Friday the 13th" does something far worst than that. It doesn't take time to create distinguishable, interesting characters. The audience doesn't come to have any relationship with these people on screen. Who are they and why are we watching them? Other than hair color what separates one character from the other? For all those that love this movie, explain to me (without the use of google) the difference between Alice (Adrienne King) and Marcie (Jeannine Taylor)? Or how about Jack (Kevin Bacon) and Ned (Mark Nelson)? All "Friday the 13th" does is create pretty young characters for us to watch die one by one. You can make the agruement so do a lot of other horror movies. True. But one of the things that separates the good movies from the bad is the characters. Do we have compelling, interesting characters? People that we feel we know and like.

Once that became apparent to me "Friday the 13th" was an exercise in patience. How long do I have to sit down and wait for the movie to be over?

I don't want to come off sounding like a pretentious, high affluent movie critic either. "Friday the 13th" does some interesting things. I like the fact the killer is never shown on screen. Every time the killer appears, it is shot in a POV style with the audience in the shoes of the killer. This is interesting because it provides a voyeuristic quality. Voyeurism plays a big part in this movie. That leads to a comparison to Alfred Hitchcock. While "Halloween" may have influence the release of this movie, "Friday the 13th" owes much to Hitchcock's "Psycho" (1960).

For one thing, listen to the score composed by Harry Manfredini. It "burrows" heavily from Bernard Herrmann's theme for Hitchcock's iconic film. If possible, I would suggest listening to each theme side by side. Without revealing the ending of the movie, both come to very similar conclusions, only from reverse perspectives.

There are some scares in the movie and some intense moments to keep you in suspense. That may contradict my statement that the movie was an exercise in my patience but I admit it is suspenseful to see someone about to be killed. Then that suspense turns to disgust when we have scenes where the killer takes an ax and sticks it in someone's head. So, all statements are true. There is suspense, there is unnecessary gory violence, and the characters are simply pawns created to be killed off one by one, making it an exercise in my patience.

When the movie begins we are told it is 1958. We are at Camp Crystal Lake where two teenagers excuse themselves from a larger group so they may find a place to make out. As this is happening we are put in the shoes of the killer and see the two teenagers about to die. Then the movie jumps forward to the present day. We learn the camp has been closed all this time and is about to reopen. We learn, through dialogue, that there was another incident involving someone being killed the prior year in 1957. My question is, why couldn't the movie start with that scene? The larger point is, I don't like the way "Friday the 13th" handles its origin story and the incredibly slow way it goes about finally revealing everything to us.

Understanding a bit more about who could be the potential killer would have created more suspense, kept us involved more in a story, and allow the characters to have more to do than wait to die. They could have been playing amateur detectives, piecing together clues.

By the time the movie does reveal the killer to us, it goes on way too long before everything is resolved. First the movie doesn't show the killer then it shows too much of the killer.

"Friday the 13th" was definitely an influential movie in its own right. Though I hadn't seen the movie before, the character Jason Voorhees, with his hockey mask is an iconic image. The character Jason has become representative of Halloween. A slew of slasher movies emerged in the 1980s and were reborn again in the mid 90s with pretty young teenagers meeting grisly deaths.

I don't like that the characters weren't developed but admit there are some suspenseful moments and I like the musical score and nods to "Psycho". So, I decided to split the difference with my rating. Not an awful movie but not a great horror movie either. You'd be better off watching "Halloween" or "Psycho" instead.

Film Review: Child's Play

"Child's Play"
*** (out of ****)

"Child's Play" (1988), its a toy story!

There has always been this strange, twisted desire in people to take something innocent and turn it upside down and inject some darker sinister side to it. Think along the lines of having horror movies take place around Christmas; "Black Christmas" (1974), the origin of Krampus and movies revolved around it. Or how about puppets speaking in an adult manner, using four letter words - the stage show "Avenue Q" or the recent movie "Happytime Murders" (2018). It seems to me "Child's Play" is one more example of this. Taking the innocent - children's toys and twisting our perception of it.

When I was growing up my parents bought me ventriloquist dolls - Howdy Doody, Charlie McCarthy, Mortimer Snerd and Bozo the clown. As much as I hounded my parents to buy me them, I always had a sinking suspicion they were up to no good. It would freak me out if any of the dolls were facing me as I went to sleep. And then "Child's Play" was released. Guess what movie I didn't want to see?

I reveal that embarrassing story to serve as a reference that on some level "Child's Play" plays to our secret fears. For as ridiculous as the plot is an audience can buy into the premise and become lost in the story. In movie terms it offers a reasonable explanation for the doll's origin and we don't question it. That, and we know the doll would be alive anyway. All dolls are alive.

The doll, Chucky, has become an iconic horror figure, to my generation, alongside Jason Voorhees, Freddy Krueger, and Michael Myers, replacing (sadly) figures like "Dracula", "Frankenstein's Monster" and "The Wolf Man". "Child's Play" has lived on and endures as something of a modern cult classic horror move. Screenwriter, Don Mancini, has made a nice living writing and eventually directing several sequels to the series under the titles of either "Child's Play" or "Chucky". There is even a reboot set for release and according to the website IMDb a television series is in development. No one is willing to take the batteries out of Chucky. As long as they release movies, audiences will seek them out.

It is Chicago 1988. Six year old Andy (Alex Vincent) has a birthday coming up. What he wants most of all is a Good Guy talking doll. It is the hottest toy on the market costing $100 (that's more than $213 adjusted for inflation, per the website dollartimes). That's a bit too much for Andy's mom, Karen (Catherine Hicks), who works as a jewelry clerk at the department store Carson's. Luck (?) strikes when Karen buys the doll from a peddler, hanging around the back of the store, for half the price.

What Karen, the peddler and Andy don't know is on the night before, the Lake Shore strangler, Charles Lee Ray (Brad Dourif) transferred his soul into the doll after being chased and shot by police officer Mike Norris (Chris Sarandon, at one time married to Susan). Now the doll Chucky would like get his revenge against his partner, Eddie, who left him to die, and officer Norris.

In order to make that happen Chucky must befriend Andy, whom he tells he was sent by his father in heaven. Disturbing events begin to occur and the death count starts piling up. First Andy's babysitter and then Eddie. Both times Andy was the only other person nearby. Could Andy be the one responsible for the murders? Is Andy a bad seed? Andy tells his mother and the police Chucky is the one responsible. But who is going to believe a toy doll is alive, killing people?

To the movie's credit it delays physically revealing Chucky is alive but the audience is two steps ahead of the other characters, which takes away suspense. We don't question whether or not Chucky is alive because we saw what Charles Lee Ray did. Imagine if we hadn't and it was revealed later in the movie through a flashback? Then we'd be just as confused as Karen and Norris, adding a psychological element to the plot. Could a sweet, innocent child (again playing with the notion of a twisted perception of something innocent) be a murderer? "Child's Play" wants to have it both ways. It can't. 

"Child's Play" is still capable of creating suspenseful moments and keeping the audience on edge. For one thing, we are in suspense as to when will Chucky reveal himself? 

What becomes unfortunate is for as cautious as the movie is to reveal Chucky it goes into overload by the third act having Chucky walking around with knife in hand a bit too often. I, for one, prefer it when the villain doesn't have too much screen time and the anticipation of their appearance serves as a threat looming over the characters. By the end of the movie "Child's Play" becomes a typical serial killer / slasher movie. "Child's Play" has to walk a delicate balance since the villain is a doll. The sight of a diminutive toy chasing after full grown adults could result in unintended humor. That's why less of Chucky would have been better. 

Credit must be given to the special effects team and the animatronics used to create Chucky. They do manage to give Chucky personality and to the best of their ability try to make Chucky a threatening figure.

The human performances are effective as well. Catherine Hicks delivers the best one. Alex Vincent is a cute kid but sometimes I felt he was told by the director, Tom Holland, to delivery his lines in an overly cutesy way. Chris Sarandon on the other hand seems a little bland. Brad Dourif however does excellent voice work.

"Child's Play" is a good horror movie playing on our fears of dolls. It is probably the best movie in the Child's Play / Chucky franchise. It plays its story straight with effective performances bringing about lots of scares.

PS - Although I am not the first one to point this out it should not go unmentioned how people noticed Andy was not only the name of the boy in this movie but also the name of the boy in Pixar's "Toy Story" (1995), also a story about toys coming to life. I find it very hard to believe the selection of the name Andy was not intentional on Pixar's part.

Film Review: Black Sabbath

"Black Sabbath"
*** 1\2 (out of ****)

[Note: This review is in reference to the original Italian language version with English subtitles]

Italian horror maestro Mario Bava's "Black Sabbath" (1963) begins with Boris Karloff addressing the audience preparing us for three tales "of terror and the supernatural". However that is not the common link of this anthology movie. Each tale actually deals with revenge.

When mainstream American movie fans think of Italian horror movies (which probably seldom happens) the name that most often comes to mind is Dario Argento. Argento wasn't the only filmmaker working within this genre that garnered respect and cross-over appeal with Americans audiences. There was also Mario Bava.

Bava was instrumental in the development of giallo, directing what most film historians agree was one of the earliest examples of the genre, "The Girl Who Knew Too Much" (1963). By the end of his career he directed more than 30 movies including "Black Sunday" (1960), "Blood and Black Lace" (1964), "Kill, Baby, Kill" (1966) and his final movie, "Shock" (1977). His influence is said to have been seen in the films of Martin Scorsese, who championed Bava's use of colors, Quentin Tarantino and Tim Burton, who said of Bava's work "they are like dreams. They just stay with you." His "Planet of the Vampires" (1965) is believed to have inspired Ridley Scott's "Alien" (1979).

Fans of Bava's work will usually rank "Black Sabbath" high on their list of his best films. I once read, but have not been able to confirm, "Black Sabbath" was Bava's favorite of his own movies.

In the first story of this anthology, "Telephone", we meet the blindingly beautiful Rosy (Michele Mercier). Arriving home one night, she begins to receive phone calls from a disguised voice, telling her she will die. Not only that, but the caller also seems to be spying on her, as he comments on her every action. Eventually we learn the name calling her is named Frank. He has escaped from prison and tells Rosy he is going to get revenge against her for the way she treated him.

Seeking protection, Rosy calls her friend Mary (Lydia Alfonsi) and asks her if she would spend the night. It is more than implied these two had a sexual relationship. Frank may have believed Mary is what came between Rosy and him.

Watching "Telephone" it was difficult for me not to think of the opening sequence in Wes Craven's "Scream" (1996) with Drew Barrymore. She is also home alone and receives phone calls from an unknown person, who makes threats of killing her. "Telephone" must have been a source of inspiration.

Some may argue this is the weakest of the three stories but I feel it is a very good short story that doesn't over stay its welcome. It has a good suspenseful scenario that tries to offer a few twists. Not to mention a good performance given by Michele Mercier.

The next tale of revenge is called "The Wurdalak". It stars Boris Karloff as Gorca. He has went off to fight and kill a wurdalak, a vampire for the rest of us. Leaving behind his two sons; Giorgio (Glauco Onorato) and Pietro (Massimo Righi) as well as Giorgio's wife (Rika Dialina) and son Ivan. If Gorca does not return in five days, his family believes he was not able to stop the wudalak and has turned into one himself.

The situation becomes a bit more complicated when a stranger, Vladimir (Mmark Damon) finds a dead body and a knife stuck in it. Vladimir makes his way to Gorca's home where he explains his discovery. The knife belongs to Gorca but was the body that of the wurdalak? It is hard to say since the head was removed.

For me is the weakest of the three stories but it does build anticipation to whether or not Gorca has been turned into a vampire and is his family at risk. To be honest though, it is predictable.

Karloff is dancing around giving a campy performance but I did find it effective. Throughout the story he had a "mad" expression on his face. It kind of tips you off but it looks like Karloff is having a good time.

Ending this "trilogy of terror" is "A Drop of Water", perhaps the best of the three tales and one that features the most memorable images. It is the most scary, even with its cheap special effects.

Helen Corey (Jacqueline Pierreux) is a personal nurse to an ederly woman that has passed away. She learns the woman died during a seance and has, to put nicely, a ghastly expression on her face. She may have died of fright.

As troubling as that may seem it is not what grabs Helen's attention. Instead she is focused on an expensive ring the woman is wearing and decides to steal it.

This turns out to be a poor life decision. When Helen arrives home she mysteriously hears water dripping and visions of the dead woman throughout her home. It all cumulates to a chilling climax.

"Black Sabbath" does create some great color schemes and knows how to effectively generate atmosphere. The performances across the board are good. If there is a criticism it is that this feels like three separate stories that don't come together as part of a greater whole. 

The best of the pack is "A Drop of Water" which should be watched at night, in the darkest room in your home, when you are all alone.

Film Review: The Mummy

"The Mummy"
*** (out of ****)

For love or mummy, that is the question in the Hammer horror film, "The Mummy" (1959).

One of the most terrifying moments of my childhood, besides having to speak to my sister, was when I first saw "The Mummy" (1932). I vividly recall the fear that struck my heart when I saw Boris Karloff buried alive.

I grew up watching the classic horror movies of the 1930s and 40s. It wasn't until I was older, looking back on them, I realized outside of "Dracula" (1931), "Frankenstein" (1931), "The Wolf Man" (1941) and "The Mummy" quality quickly went south for these movies at Universal. The public lost interest and Universal demoted the movies to their "B" movie department.

What infuriates me most of all was Universal's treatment of The Mummy. In the 1940s Universal created a reboot of the franchise. It seemed like they wanted to erase from memory the Karloff version and released "The Mummy's Hand" (1940). This created a new origin story and a new mummy character. The movie was a failure in my mind as it incorporates too much humor (!) in the story. Why would Universal even bother with this reboot if horror movies had fallen out of fashion? Three sequels followed and it seems when movie fans today think of The Mummy origin it is the reboot movies they are thinking of, not the original version with Boris Karloff.

This leads us to this version of "The Mummy", which was part of the famed Hammer horror films of the 1950s.

Hammer Film Productions was a London based company started in the 1930s. They regained a great deal of popularity in the 1950s, releasing horror movies based on characters introduced in American films of the 1930s released by Universal. These films were known for starring Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee. They were also memorable for their visual style and later on graphic violence.

Watching "The Mummy" part of me wonders why couldn't Universal Pictures treat their Mummy franchise with this amount of respect. Here is a movie that takes its mummy story serious and tries to elicit scares from the audience.

This version of "The Mummy" takes elements of the 1932 version and the reboots of the 1940s. This time around we follow a British archaeologist father and son team; Stephen (Felix Aylmer) and John Banning (Peter Cushing) in Egypt. If you recall in "The Mummy's Hand" the last name Banning was also the character's surname. They have been searching for the tomb of Princess Ananka (also introduced in "The Mummy's Hand. In the original version it was Princess Ankh-es-en-amon). While not shown on-screen, during the search John has managed to have broken his leg. He refuses to desert the expedition and seek proper care. Although, you may suspect the father, Stephen, doesn't want to his son to leave and may not care about his son's health as the discovery of the tomb is of far greater importance. John may also have a bit of hero-worship towards his father and doesn't want to disappoint him.

And so we have established the greed of the Westerner and their meddling of ancient culture as the princess' tomb is discovered. An Egyptian, Mehemet Bey (George Pastell. This name was also used in "The Mummy's Hand" changed from Ardeth Bay in the original) warns the expedition team not to enter the tomb. They do not heed his warning and inadvertently bring back to life a mummy named Kharis, after Stephen reads aloud words from the Scroll of Life. Alone in the tomb with the mummy, Stephen is sent into a severe shock and hospitalized for three years, with no hope of recovery.

It takes Mehemet Bey three years to travel to Engand (it must have been a long walk) and with him he brings the mummy, Kharis (Christopher Lee). Hoping to avenge the God Karnak, Bey will use Kharis to kill those involved in the expedition that desecrated the tomb of Princess Ananka. This all comes from "The Mummy's Tomb" (1942), the first of the three following sequels.

As in "The Mummy's Hand" this movie also finds time for humor. To be fair, many horror movies do, as a way to break tension. In this version of "The Mummy" it is at a much more "acceptable" level. Two drunk carriage drivers (Harold Goodwin and Denis Shaw) are given the task of delivering a large crate to the residence of Bey. The bumpy roads (and their drunkenness) cause the crate to fall off of the carriage and into a swamp. While the two drivers don't know what is in the crate, obviously the audience does.

Thematically there isn't anything new in "The Mummy" but the major contribution to this version may be that it was filmed in Technicolor. Much of the production designs still look like "B" movie quality to my eyes however. Still there is a slickness to this production that leads me to prefer it to "The Mummy's Hand".

Of all the horror movies of the 1930s and 40s that I have seen, each with a strong anti-science message, "The Mummy" is the only one I can readily recall that so directly comments on this theme as well as commenting on the lack of respect Westerners show towards other cultures. One of the most fascinating scenes in the movie isn't a horror sequence but a discussion between Bey and John regarding these issues.

As in other "B" movies the acting is at times a bit wooden. Cushing in particular on one hand has that stuffy British mien that Americans attribute to the British but it seems to go beyond that. The audience doesn't really believe in these performances. Everyone is simply playing their part not fleshing the characters out.

One other improvement this movie makes over the 1940 version is the atmosphere created. "The Mummy" has some good sequences playing around with lighting. Even the comedic scene with the carriage establishes the proper mood creating suspense. Will the mummy Kharis kill these two men? And the scene where Bey brings Kharis to life, out of the swamp is very well done, despite how fake the location looks.

The movie was directed by Terence Fisher, whose works has been closely associated with Hammer films. He directed "The Curse of Frankenstein" (1957), "Dracula" (1958), featuring Christopher Lee's first foray as the distinguished count, and "The Hounds of the Baskervilles" (1959) . He is often credited as doing much for Gothic horror films by adding elements of sexuality and morality into the stories.

Not without its own flaws "The Mummy" is still a vast improvement over Universal's destruction of its mummy character. Nice atmosphere, good cinematography,  and an effective musical score make "The Mummy" worth watching.

Film Review: Nosferatu the Vampyre

"Nosferatu the Vampyre"  *** (out of ****)

It is a rather audacious act for a filmmaker to remake a movie that is generally considered a classic. F.W. Murnau's "Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror" (1922) is recognized as a masterpiece of silent cinema, a masterpiece of the horror genre, and one of Murnau's finest achievements. To take on a project with this reputation you better bring something special to the table.

This leads us to Werner Herzog's "Nosferatu the Vampyre" (1979). A movie ultimately I can't say gives audiences a fresh perspective on this existing material. Yes, Werner Herzog is a great filmmaker. And, yes this remake of "Nosferatu" is well made but I must conclude it is an unnecessary exercise. Some call this movie an affectionate homage to the original and to Murnau. That all may be true but it isn't a good enough reason to touch a classic despite what ever best intention's Herzog had.

The fundamental flaw in Herzog's version of this material is the filmmaker's interpretation of Murnau's film. "Nosferatu", in the hands of Murnau, was not merely a "vampire movie". I understand the lead character was a vampire but I suggest re-watching the movie. There is a theme of the constant battle between good versus evil in nature. Herzog, ever so delicately, touches upon this theme but ultimately I feel Herzog has given us a straight forward vampire movie. Look at the remaking of the title as an example.

There is nothing wrong with making a vampire movie. The question is, why remake Murnau's movie if you are not going to elevate the material. For me, Herzog has taken what made that movie unique from other vampire movies and has given us something, in theme, more routine.

Many may know the circumstances surrounding Murnau's "Nosferatu". It was an unofficial adaptation of Bram Stoker's "Dracula". Murnau was not able to secure the rights to the novel and thus changed the names of characters. The vampire for example is called Count Orlok.. Still, the estate of the Stoker family sued and won their case. All copies of "Nosferatu" were thought to have been destroyed. Herzog however is able to call the characters by their originally intended names since the novel is now in the public domain.

And so we get Jonathan Harker (Bruno Ganz) a newly wed real estate agent sent to Translyvania to meet with Count Dracula (Klaus Kinski), who wants to buy an estate in the same town as Harker, Wismar. According to Harker's boss, Renfield (Roland Topor) there will be a large commission to be had if Harker can seal the deal. This is all the incentive Harker needs. Finally, he believes, he will be able to afford a proper home for his wife, Lucy (Isabelle Ajani).

Lucy has been having nightmares and a daily nightly appearance of a bat flying into her bedroom (why she doesn't shut the windows is beyond me) makes her believe Harker should not travel to meet with Dracula. She senses an evil force. Harker doesn't heed her advice and begins his journey. He learns the townspeople fear Dracula's castle and plead with him not to travel any further. Harker ignores their advice as well.

If you knew nothing of vampire movies, this may have been an effective tool to create suspense. Are the townspeople right? Is Dracula an evil figure? What could he possibly look like? But, we have seen vampire movies before from "Dracula" (1931) to "Nosferatu". Therefore this all feels routine in its set-up and delays the inevitable payoff.

Since no one dare approach the castle, Harker must travel by foot. Here is where Herzog lightly broaches the theme of good and evil in nature. Before Harker leaves, Lucy wants them to spend some time by the sea. It all seems peaceful. The two lead a simple life. This is contrasted with Harker's journey. The skies look violent. Nature isn't so kind and peaceful. Trouble seems to be in the air. In the end though it becomes a foreshadowing of Dracula and not part of a larger social commentary.

When we see Dracula, those of us that have seen the original, will marvel at the attention to detail in makeup. Kinski looks identical to Max Schreck.

And it must be said, this is not a "gimmick" movie. Herzog and Kinski handle this material with sincerity. Kinski is not giving an impersonation of Max Schreck. Kinski makes the character his own. Herzog doesn't want the audience to bask in nostalgia for the original. If you have seen the silent version, naturally in your mind you will make comparisons. The problem is the original looms over this remake.

From the meeting between Harker and Dracula we go into the familiar story. Harker becomes a victim of Dracula, who and travels to Wismar with great haste upon the site of Lucy. The movie suggest an almost telepathic ability the two have to communicate with each other. Eventually leading to a showdown between the two. Dracula represents evil and Lucy represents purity.

Some have suggested Herzog does add something new to this material. They claim this version of "Nosferatu" explores Dracula's loneliness. I admit there is a scene where Lucy is face to face with Dracula and the two discuss her love for Jonathan and death. In this scene the viewer may pick up on the despair in Dracula however to suggest this movie fully explores such a theme is to really over play your hand.

Defenders of this movie will advise others to pretend they never saw the original and to judge this movie on it own merits. In theory it is wonderful advice. In practicality however it is nearly impossible. One can't undo their life experiences. So, we must ask the question, what separates this version of Dracula from other versions? There is a greater sense of dread among the inhabitants of the town upon Dracula's arrival. Herzog is a talented visual filmmaker and can compose arresting compositions. Pay attention to the lighting in relation to Dracula. Because of the makeup, the black costume Dracula wears, and the bald head up against the black background Dracula's head is luminous. It creates an interesting effect.

Herzog's other big contribution to the movie is the visual of hundreds of rats roaming around the city. It is a metaphor for something. What I am not sure. Disease / evil spreading across the town? Herzog shows a bit of dark humor as a group of people try to have supper outside while the rats surround them. Does this show how people adapt and conform to trouble around them? The image recalls one from Herzog's "Aguirre, the Wrath of God" (1972) and a scene with monkeys.

One couldn't say Herzog's "Nosferatu" isn't well made. You can certainly admire the performance by Kinski and some of the visuals as well but the movie is stuck in the shadows of the original. Where Murnau's version is regarded as a horror masterpiece, Herzog's version isn't even scary and takes on a more somber tone (which is not necessarily a flaw, just an accurate observation).

There is definitely an audience for "Nosferatu the Vampyre", especially among those that have never seen the original. I am sure they will enjoy this. If you have seen the original and this remake, it would be fun to watch "Shadow of the Vampire" (2000) the fictitious story of the making of "Nosferatu".