Film Review: Game Change

 "Game Change"

  *** 1\2 (out of ****)

 For the last two years longtime readers, which I am willing to bet good money doesn't exist, may have noticed I no longer review current releases and primarily stay away from movies with a whiff of politics. At the same time though I don't want to seem completely irrelevant and not acknowledge the world around me. We are in the midst of a political election with voting day a mere three days away - not counting the millions of early votes already cast. The idea came to me, how about reviewing something related to politics? And for reasons I honestly can't explain, "Game Change" (2012) immediately came into my head.

"Game Change" was a made for television movie that premiered on HBO in March of 2012, which was also a presidential election year. As usual the right-wing media and political figures dismissed the movie - without seeing it in many cases mind you - as a "hit piece" on former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. It was an example of left-wing biased in Hollywood in their view. 

I saw "Game Change" back in 2012 largely because of my tremendous admiration for actress Julianne Moore, whom I believe is one of our finest. I was a bit skeptical however about her playing Gov. Palin and actually felt Tina Fey - who had been impersonating the governor on Saturday Night Live - should have been offered the role. Upon first viewing "Game Change" I didn't like it very much. It glossed over too much during the historical 2008 presidential election that would come down to - after the primaries - Republican Arizona senator John McCain and freshman Illinois senator Barack Obama. The film focuses on the election exclusively from the perspective of the McCain campaign. And because of that limited scope I thought they minimized the story. The film, based on a book, of the same title, published in 2010 by reporters John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, should have broaden up a bit. We didn't see enough from John McCain's point of view. We didn't get a sense of the historic nature of that election, in electing the first black man as the country's president.

However rewatching "Game Change" my interpretation of the film changed as the world has changed since the release of this film. It now belongs among a list of prescient films such as Sidney Lumet's "Network" (1976) and Kazan's "A Face in the Crowd" (1957) in predicting  the degenerate slide of the country and our politics namely thanks to the former reality television host turned politician Donald Trump. In fact it is difficult, nearly impossible, to watch "Game Change" today and not think of Trump. But the seeds for the eventual demise of the Republican party were all right before our eyes in "Game Change".

And that is how I now approach "Game Change". It isn't so much about Gov. Sarah Palin as it is a look into our political system and the type of figure it takes to reach the masses. Politics isn't about policy and ideas. It has morphed into cult of personalities. Ronald Reagan had a touch of that as did Bill Clinton but it almost seems quaint now. In typical Hollywood fashion, we took the classics and decided they needed to be updated for modern audiences. That usually means you sleaze it up and add gratuitous sex and violence. And voila you have Donald Trump. But don't kid yourself, followers of Barack Obama were equally part of a cult of devotion. Granted, those Obama supporters of 2008 were not near the unhinged violent nature of today's Trump supporters, but both figures have reached messiah levels of worship. Of course, Trump supporters took it ten steps further and made pronouncements that the ol' Donald is Heaven sent and the current election is the modern day equivalent of a holy war, as they make biblical references to Democratic nominee Kamala Harris as a Jezebel - a power hungry, violent, promiscuous woman.  

As "Game Change" begins, John McCain (Ed Harris) is doing poorly in the Republican primaries. Not gaining much support McCain is told by strategist Steve Schmidt (Woody Harrelson) he needs to go back to his old maverick ways. McCain agrees and would like Schmidt to join his campaign as a top advisor. The film then immediately jumps to images of McCain winning various primary contests and securing the Republican nomination. Then the real struggle begins. How do they beat the phenomenon known as Barack Obama? The media, in particular CNN, practically salivate over Obama. McCain can't match Obama's popularity. Why is a senator, of no particular accomplishment, beating McCain in the polls? It frustratingly leads McCain to muse, does the country want a statesman or a celebrity? And thus the famous "Celeb" campaign ad is created. It is the first step the McCain campaign took to change the narrative of the election. It was a risky move however as it was widely interpreted as McCain going negative. 

This becomes a theme of the film. How does one create a balance in politics between being honorable and winning an election? McCain at one point says he lost himself because of his desire to win. But it wont be the last Faustian bargain McCain and his campaign will have to make in order to compete with Obama. McCain's choice for a vice-president will need to be a game changer. A buzz needs to be created around McCain and selecting any of the possible candidates - Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, or even Democrat Joe Liberman - won't be beneficial to him. Not to mention there is a wide gender gap that must be closed. McCain is losing the female vote to Obama by as much as twenty percent. A female VP pick could potentially change that.

Blamed on a shortened vetting process of five days, and perhaps even subconsciously turning a blind eye to possible red flags, the campaign pushes for McCain to select a relatively unknown Alaskan Governor named Sarah Palin (Moore) as the VP nominee. The selection appears to give the McCain campaign the spark they were hoping for. Conservative media figures declare Palin could be the next Reagan. She speaks to voters in a way other politicians hadn't. But the cracks are soon on display. She doesn't know much about policy and history. It needs to be explained to her for example Queen Elizabeth II is head of state not head of government. The differences between the Iraq War and Afghanistan need to be explained as well as that Saddam Hussein was not behind the September 11th attacks. Not to mention the distinction between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. This opens up the McCain campaign to criticism since it's slogan is Country First. Is Sarah Palin prepared to be president if something should happen to the then 72 year old McCain? Was this selection a country first decision?     

"Game Change" makes some comparisons between Palin's popularity and Obama's but not nearly enough and not forceful enough either to illustrate what this all means and the collapse of American politics. Politicians like Sarah Palin, Barack Obama or Donald Trump don't have to know anything or have experience - remember Trump is a man that infamously said, "nobody knew that health care could be so complicated" - because there will be a media apparatus behind them - right or left - that will do the spin for them to prop them up and legitimize them. The spectacle is what is important. All style and no substance.

For Schmidt and Nicole Wallace (Sarah Paulson) all they can do now is try to coach and guide Palin to a level of "acceptability" by preparing her for interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric and her VP debate with Joe Biden through cram sessions. But Palin proves difficult to handle and succumbs to mood swings, leading some within the campaign to question her mental capabilities. Palin feels overwhelmed by the information being thrown at her and like earlier with McCain begins to feel she is losing herself. The best thing the campaign can do is let Sarah be Sarah.

Despite my initial apprehension of Julianne Moore in the role, Moore does deliver a very good performance. It never feels like a caricature of  the real Palin, the way Tina Fey would perform it. In Moore's hands Palin is an innocent woman dragged into the national political arena. An arena she was not prepared for. Soon however the media spin and the large crowds get to her. She believes the hype as illusions of grandeur set in. She is the one to crowds are coming to see. She is the reason fundraising has picked up. She is the reason there is excitement on the Republican side. She is more important than John McCain. It all plays out similar to "A Face in the Crowd" and turns Palin into something of a tragic figure. A woman who rose to the top quickly and crashed just as fast. In her New York Times review Alessandra Stanley called the performance, "a sharp-edged but not unsympathetic portrait of a flawed heroine, colored more in pity than in admiration."

Within that desire to achieve fame, Palin feeds on the simmering hate and hostility in the political crowds. As she blasts Obama, supporters lash out and snarl calling Obama a "socialist" and a "Muslim". The anger from the crowds doesn't phase her but it makes McCain uncomfortable. Schmidt even tells McCain they need to lay off  mentioning Obama's name, leading to the famous moment when McCain had to correct a woman in an audience that Obama was not a Muslim but a good man with whom he just had differences with. Today we couldn't even imagine Donald Trump speaking out if his supporters became unruly towards Harris. He's the one inciting the anger!

Through these moments "Game Change" focuses on a contrast between Palin and McCain. Unfortunately for Ed Harris, the film gives him little to do. The central character in this film is Sarah Palin not McCain. Look at the film's poster. It is Palin that is front and center not McCain. Therefore Harris slips into the background and while he gives an adequate performance he never made much of an impression on me. I didn't feel Harris really captured John McCain either. Performance wise the film belongs to Moore with Woody Harrelson coming in second. Harrelson's Schmidt I believe has more screen time than Harris' McCain.

The film was directed by an unusual choice, Jay Roach, a director probably best known for his comedies such as all three "Austin Powers" movies and "Meet the Parents" (2000). Perhaps like Sarah Palin, he too was ambitious and has tipped his toe into serious political films such as "Recount" (2008) which was also a made for television film airing on HBO, about the 2000 presidential election between Al Gore and George W. Bush and the Florida recount that followed. He followed that up with "Trumbo" (2015) and "Bombshell" (2019). He tried to combine politics and comedy with the disastrous "The Campaign" (2015).  

"Game Change" did well critically earning twelve Daytime Emmy nominations, winning four, included among them one for Moore's performance, Roach's directing and Danny Strong's screenplay. Harrelson, Harris and Paulson were also nominated for their work. In addition "Game Change" went on to earn five Golden Globe nominations and once again Moore won for her performance as did Ed Harris. While also winning the award for best miniseries or motion picture made for television.

While the acting and directing is done well in "Game Change", I do want to point out the fact that this was a made for television movie is noticeable in the budget and technical quality of the film. In order to give the film a sense of authenticity "Game Change" does incorporate real footage into the film. For example in a sequence involving Palin's speech at the Republican Convention. The audience can instantly see the difference between the real footage and the film. This isn't done as seamlessly as in "Forrest Gump" (1994) for example. This most likely is due to it being a TV movie. This would have looked much better as a Hollywood motion picture. It leads one to wonder why wasn't it one? It could also explain the glossing over of events and limited scope.

Even though "Game Change" is in many way a product of its time, it lands a much harder punch watching it today. It hits on so many facets of today's politics it can be eerie. Palin is presented as a candidate that flat out lies with little regard for the truth. She cannot be handled by her advisors and repeatedly "goes rogue". McCain warns his staff in one scene about the "dark side of American populism" when his campaign wants him to attack Obama because of Rev. Wright. Palin is a creation of the right-wing media that had already exhibited ugly tendencies a la Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Pat Buchanan, and the henchmen at Fox News. There is even a scene about presidential concession speeches and what it represents regarding the peaceful transfer for power!

For many of us that lived through the 2008 presidential election - it was my second time voting for president - we may not have realized it but it was the beginning of a turning point in Republican politics, that had already turned into a circus during the Clinton-Lewinski scandal. "Game Change" tells us in order to succeed in American politics you need movie star charisma and a lot of hate in the electorate that can be tapped into and exploited by the right politician.

Throughout the year on this blog the running theme has been Was I Right? - my look back at films I placed on various annual top ten lists to determine if I was right to choose them. I didn't place "Game Change" on my 2012 list which wasn't necessarily a mistake but I was wrong not to give this film more credit and see beyond its portrayal of Sarah Palin and view it as not only an indictment of U.S. politics but a warning of the type of politician that could emerge. In Roger Ebert's Chicago Sun-Times review of the film, he described Palin by writing, "She may have been a bad candidate but she was a brilliant campaigner, astonishing the staff by her ability to save situations that looked perilous to them." Time and the country's degenerate downward spiral has ultimately improved "Game Change" as a meaningful political film with a keen insight. 

Film Review: What Lies Beneath

  "What Lies Beneath"

   *** (out of ****)

Robert Zemeckis' Hitchcockian inspired supernatural / thriller / horror film, "What Lies Beneath" (2000) gives a lot of its secrets away in its title. Here is a film about how things aren't always what they seem to be on the surface and the secrets and lies people live with.

That of course was a trademark of Alfred Hitchcock's movies - "Shadow of a Doubt" (1943), "Suspicion" (1941) and "Psycho" (1960) - and Zemeckis and "Beneath" are more-or-less up to the challenge along with the terrific lead actors Harrison Ford and Michelle Pfeiffer. The late and great former Chicago Tribune movie critic Michael Wilmington described it this way - "It's one of the more successful pieces of Hitch mimicry I've seen in recent years, right down to the spine-tingling slow pace, the signature stairway and bathroom scenes and an Alan Silvestri score that eerily echoes the moody, racy tension of Bernard Herrmann's soundtracks for "Vertigo" and "Psycho"." 

Zemeckis' films often invoke elements of the past. His "Back to the Future" (1985) was a nostalgic look at the 1950s. "Forrest Gump" (1994) brought back memories of the 1960s counter-culture. "Romancing the Stone" (1984) is kind of a throwback to Hollywood action movies and swashbucklers. "What Lies  Beneath" (2000) doesn't just pay homage to Hitchcock - it also throws in references to Henri-Georges Clouzot's "Diabolique" (1955) and "The Bad Seed" (1956) - but is a throwback to the suspense genre of the 1940s and 50s a la films like "Gaslight" (1944).

Harrison Ford and Michelle Pfeiffer play middle-aged married couple Norman and Claire Spencer. Their only child (Katharine Towne) is heading off to college causing a bit of an emotional meltdown for Claire, whose daughter humorously reassures her, she can always call and school isn't too far away. With a lot more free time on her hands, Claire soon is consumed with the idea a murder has occurred next door between her newly arrived neighbors (James Remar and Miranda Otto). Spying through her bedroom window, Claire believes she has seen the husband murder his wife.

The question the audience and Norman has is, is it true? As in Hitchcock's "Rear Window" (1954) - where a wheelchair bound Jimmy  Stewart spies on all of his apartment complex neighbors - we only see what the lead character sees and therefore jump to the same conclusions. However Norman remains a skeptic. Being a scientist we are supposed to believe he has a rational mind and can explain that all things happen for a logical reason. One explanation Zemeckis and "What Lies Beneath" suggest is Claire is letting her imagination get the best of her and is using this incident as a coping mechanism due to her daughter leaving home. 

But all the clues seem to add up. Norman and Claire see the couple arguing. One day Claire hears the wife crying, seemingly over come with fear. On a rainy night the husband dumps a large bag into the trunk of his car. The wife hasn't been seen for days. If not murder, what else can it be?

Claire begins to believe the spirit of the wife, Mary, is trying to communicate with her. Perhaps to tell her how she died. This is how the movie is able to get in some nice jump scares. Doors mysteriously swing open after being shut. Picture frames fall off shelves. Computer screens suddenly turn on in empty rooms.

Zemeckis and his screenwriter, Clark Gregg - better known as an actor for his roles in a number of Marvel Universe movies as Agent Coulson - are also able to find moments of humor in the story.

To the extent "What Lies Beneath" works, the credit goes to Zemeckis and Pfeiffer. Pfeiffer has the juicier role compared to Ford, is given more screen time, and goes through a greater emotional range, gaining our sympathy. For Zemeckis' part he sets a proper tone creating enough jump scares and slow build ups to keep the audience interested.

Ford and Pfeiffer do have a nice chemistry between them, making the audience believe they could be a wealthy Vermont couple. In their early scenes together the two feel like a comfortable old couple and their star power carries the film. Although former Chicago Sun-Times movie critic Roger Ebert wrote a negative review of the film, he did write of Pfeiffer, "she is convincing and sympathetic and avoids the most common problem for actors in horror films - she doesn't overreact."

It was often remarked on Ford's part that he was playing against type. He is not the Indiana Jones hero of the film. Nor is he necessarily likeable, remaining skeptical of his wife's claims of supernatural visits. It doesn't endear him to the audiences by not being more sympathetic. Michael Wilmington saw it differently stating of Ford, "Ford is a perfect skeptical husband. gruff on top, anxious on the below, and he gives layers and depth to what initially seems a simple part." 

One of the elements in the film that has been routinely criticized is the supernatural aspect of the plot in regards to it's relationship to Hitchcock. Several critics noted Hitchcock's films weren't supernatural, which is where this homage goes wrong. Tracking back to Ebert, he expressed it this way, "Hitchcock would have insisted on rewrites to remove the supernatural  and explain the action in terms of human psychology, however abnormal." As I noted however "What Lies Beneath" isn't exclusively a tribute to Hitchcock. Viewing it primarily as such allowed an opening for "critics" to pounce on it and come up with one way to knock it down. If you didn't view the movie in Hitchcockian terms, how much sense would the supernatural analysis make? 

Unfortunately, "What Lies Beneath" wasn't a hit with "critics" (AKA sheep) when it was released. Elvis Mitchell, reviewing the film for the New York Times, said of Zemeckis, "his heart isn't in this kind of material" and added "His reflexes are a little slow". I saw this film in theaters back in 2000 and thought it was a good, watchable film. Oddly enough, the film had a lasting impact on me that I wasn't expecting. I bought it on DVD and watch it now and then. Twenty-four years later, I remember this film more vividly than some of the critically acclaimed films released in that most horrid of movie years. That says something about this little film. It has stood the test of time. That speaks to something in favor of it.

Audiences on the other hand approved of the film, reaching number one at the box-office, and going on to gross more than $150 million domestically. Of course, as I have always said, box-office appeal doesn't equate to quality but it does show enthusiasm for the film on the public's part, which was my only intention to illustrate.

"What Lies Beneath" may be a satisfying viewing experience this Halloween although I really never considered this a horror movie. Instead I have characterized it as a supernatural thriller. However one identifies the film it is a well made piece of filmmaking on Zemeckis' part. If you are looking for a non-scary, Hitchcockian imitation from Zemeckis, I prefer his "Allied" (2016), which  I declared as the year's best film. A prime candidate during this year's theme of Was I Right? - my year long look at movies I placed on previous top ten lists to determine if I was right about them. "What Lies Beneath" doesn't qualify since I didn't place it on my year end list in 2000.

Here is a well made, well acted film that does create genuine suspense and does offer some jump scares. Although there are definite overtures to Hitchcock's work, I view this as a homage to the thrillers of the 1940s and 50s more broadly. Pfeiffer is in many ways the heart of the film, pulling everything along. "What Lies Beneath" isn't great cinema but it is crowd pleasing cinema, for whatever that is worth.  

Film Review: Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter - 40th Anniversary

  "Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter"

   ** 1\2 (out of ****)

 Does violence beget violence? What are the emotional and psychological effects violence has on us? It's a question I believe "Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter" (1984) - which I will simply refer to as "Friday the 13th" - asks us to consider, as we look back on it for its 40th anniversary.

I'm a little late in the game when it comes to the "Friday the 13th" horror series. I've seen the first and second movie. The first one I didn't like. It was a predictable, by-the-numbers slasher gore fest that had the primary objective of killing its attractive teenagers one by one. It also referenced the work of Alfred Hitchcock from its musical score by Harry Manfredini to its ending. For some reason I liked the second one.

The '80s slasher genre doesn't interest me in general, from the "Nightmare on  Elm Street" series, to "Halloween" and  "Friday the 13th". These movies wore out my interest because the villains won't die. How many movies around these characters can you possibly make? How many new scenarios can you create until the movies begin to repeat themselves? On top of which these movies are too gory. I don't find watching characters get sliced and diced scary. Disgusting? Sure. Thrilling and exciting? What am I? A sociopath?

But we are supposed to find it thrilling and exciting, aren't we? We are supposed to want to see the characters get killed one by one at the hands of the serial killer. We hope and wait in anticipation that each death will become more gory and bloody than the last one, right? What does this say about society and movie fans that relish this kind of "entertainment"? Oh Alex, you stupid Hungarian bastard, it's only a movie. Then explain the last shot of this movie? What does it suggest? And socially speaking, what impact have these violent images had on society? Before you yell out "nothing", think for moment. Does the world seem okay today? Well, it's all the politicians' fault and don't forget inflation! It has nothing to do with the sight of watching movies where people get slashed by a machete! My mistake. Damn you price of eggs!

By the time this sequel of "Friday the 13th" was released, three others had come out before it. This we are told in the title will be the conclusion of the franchise. Although from the initial reviews I read of this movie, it seems critics weren't fooled. In her New York Times review, the great critic Janet Maslin started things off writing, "A promise is a promise, or at least it ought to be. But despite its title, "Friday the 13th - The Final Chapter" shows no signs of being the last in its none-too-illustrious line." Forty years later, I know for certain it was all a sensationalist gimmick.

This "Friday the 13th" begins by recapping the first three movies as a camp counselor explains to his kids what has previously happened. Jason's body was never found, he witnessed the death of his mother, the young girl that survived the first attack has been killed. Jason is still out there. It is actually an interesting montage that lead me to sit back and believe I may actually enjoy this installment. 

The counselor wasn't wrong. Jason is still out there. Paramedic workers are called to a scene where the body of Jason is among those claimed to be dead. After being taken to a hospital, we discover Jason isn't dead. I initially thought the movie was going to be similar to "Halloween II" (1981), which took place primarily in a hospital setting. Jason goes on a quick killing spree before shifting focus to other characters. But how does Jason escape the hospital? No one sees him? Are we to assume many more deaths took place as Jason gets from point A  to B?

The hospital sequence begins a staple of '80s horror movies - needless sexual references and mild attempts at titillation. Jason kills a horndog coroner (Bruce Mahler, whom I will forever associate with his role on "Seinfeld" as a Rabbi) and a willing nurse (Lisa Freeman). Which is something I always found to be a weird combination - sex and violence. I suppose the thinking is each causes a rush of adrenaline? On the flip slip I would imagine it can cause confusion for some people as to which of these two things is causing the rush?

The promise of sex and violence continues as the movie shifts its focus to a group of teenagers headed to Crystal Lake. The theme of masculinity is introduced when Jimmy (Crispin Glover) explains a recent breakup with his girlfriend to his friend Ted (Lawrence Monoson). Ted tells him the breakup was probably the result of a sexual issue, and tells Jimmy he is most likely a "dead fuck", a term  I have never heard used before, which I interpret as a boring lay. This ties sexuality and masculinity together which really hits at a man's pride and self worth. Jimmy is going to have to have a sexual experience on this trip if for no other reason than to prove himself as a man. I had a little difficulty distinguishing the rest of the teenagers, due to lack of personality, but they include Paul (Alan Hayes), Sam (Judie Aronson), Doug (Peter Barton),  and Sarah (Barbara Howard). They all have hooking up on their minds.

Two other characters not associated with the horny teenagers are Trish (Kimberly Beck) and her younger brother Tommy (Corey Feldman), who we can assume will be the heroes of the story because they aren't part of the visiting group of teens at the lake. Tommy is presented as something of a video game whiz and Trish is the closest thing we get to a standard "all-American girl"

In Maslin's review she summed up the character development by commenting "there is nothing to do during the second half of the film but watch them die." Can't we basically describe all slasher movies the same way? What separates a good slasher movie from a bad one is character development. If the audience can identify and relate to some of the characters, giving us someone to root for, audiences will enjoy the movie. "Friday the 13th" didn't do that for me.

One of my biggest problems with "Friday the 13th" is the structure of the movie. It is almost too much set-up and not enough payoff. The movie sets all the chess pieces in place with the teenagers and our anticipation of their demise. The majority of the characters that die however have no idea that Jason is after them or that other characters have previously died. That means the majority of them aren't working towards stopping Jason. It is as if the story goes from act one to act three. The characters gaining an understanding of what is after them and actively working to save themselves would have been a second act. Once this became obvious to me, I lost interest. It's not as if the characters are that interesting that they alone could carry the movie.

The only thing the movie would have going for it is the suspense of how this franchise would end, if we believed the "Final Chapter" moniker. What would be a suitable ending to this story? How would Jason meet his end? And which character will be the one to end this "chapter". The movie isn't even smart enough to tease us and create cliffhangers around who could be the character to kill this villain. Could it be this character or that character? That's what happens when there is a lack of a second act.

The movie's screenplay was written by Barney Cohen, whose credits include "The Happy Hooker Goes to Washington" (1977) and one episode apiece for two animated series that are special to my generation - "He-Man and the Masters of the Universe" (1983 - 1985) and "Thundercats" (1985 - 1989). Not to mention the TV movie, "Sabrina the Teenage Witch" (1996). With such a pedigree it may be easy to understand why the storytelling is a bit weak.

Director Joseph Zito went on to direct "B" action movies, some of which starred another unstoppable force, Chuck Norris. This "Friday the 13th" sequel is his best known movie and nearly nothing about it indicates a talented visionary was behind it. Zito and his cinematographer know enough to keep the action in frame. Some defenders of this movie will get mad at me and say I'm not being fair. No one watches a movie like this for its directing or its screenplay. First of all, you just insulted the movie and don't even realize it.  Secondly, I hate this defense that someone doesn't "understand" a movie. It suggest a movie is above criticism. If you only understood it, you would like it. Why even bother talking about movies unless you're only going to say something positive? Every movie can't be good. There has to be some metric to measure quality.

Another problem with "Friday the 13th" is Jason doesn't look scary. The character essentially looks like a middle-aged man in a hockey mask. And when his mask is taken off, he looks like he belongs in the "Goonies" (1985), which coincidentally enough, Cory Feldman would appear in. Michael Myers looked more menacing and creepy with his built and mask. Jason looks like he could lose a few pounds.

Being unable to create suspense, all the movie really has going for it, is the promise of sex and nudity. The movie is so desperate to show nudity there is a long sequence where the characters find a 8mm nudie film from what looks like the silent era. I entertained the idea this was done to demonstrate how movies have always been exploitive when it comes to sex. But am I giving the movie too much credit?

Looking back on the movie 40 years later, we can see how some of the clichés of the genre still exist today but the movie also feels dated in its approach and visuals. Contrary to my opinion there are some "critics" that feel in retrospect, this movie is one of the better ones from the franchise. Taking their own retrospective look at the franchise on the website Film Frenzy their review states the films "seem less worthy of controversy in the wake of the truly sadistic torture-porn cycle that erupted over the course of the 21st century." Is that the legacy of "Friday the 13th"? The violence depicted here caused other writers to raise the stakes and gives us torture-porn horror movies?

"Friday the 13th" showed some early promise and I was willing to go along with the characters on this adventure, even if it was going to go over familiar terrain. But the lack of interesting characters created a lull in my viewing experience. When it came apparent there was no second act, I lost all interest. I can't imagine people will be scared watching this but there will be moments you may want to look away from the screen because of the gore.

Film Review: Sleepy Hollow - 25th Anniversary

  "Sleepy Hollow"

  ** 1\2 (out of ****)

 Tim Burton's "Sleepy  Hollow" (1999) wages a beautiful and sinister Gothic battle between head versus heart and science versus superstition.

"Sleepy Hollow" is Burton's adaptation of Washington Irving's famed short story, The Legend of Sleepy Hollow published in 1820. Many however may best remember the story as an animated Disney short from 1949 with Bing Crosby as the narrator. 

Neither is a faithful adaptation of Irving's work but if we could somehow combine both of these versions together we'd get something close to Irving's short story. While Burton's interpretation takes more liberties it does hit on a central theme in Irving's story that Disney ignored - science versus superstition. And yet Burton gives us a more "Disney" ending than the animated short!

Johnny Depp reunites with Burton to play Ichabod Crane, who is no longer a school teacher but now a constable in 1799 New York. As a new millennium approaches and we enter the 19th century, Ichabod is in a constant struggle to get others to come around to his way of thinking and accept a more scientific method for solving crimes. This, interestingly, doesn't necessarily make Ichabod more enlightened than those around him. In fact Burton and "Sleepy Hollow" go to great lengths to make Ichabod the butt of several jokes and present his scientific inventions as oddball devices. Science isn't something to be warmly embraced but suspiciously looked upon and aggressively questioned. Can you imagine living in such a time?

Ichabod's theories will be put to the test when a Judge (Christopher Lee) suggest he go upstate to a small town called Sleepy Hollow, where there have been a series of murders. Three bodies have been found decapitated. The Judge would like Ichabod to find the killer so he can face the long arm of justice.

When Ichabod arrives in Sleepy  Hollow, he makes his way to the home of Baltus Van Tassel (Michael Gambon), a wealthy farmer and respected member of the community. There he also meets the rest of the Van Tassel family, Baltus' wife (Miranda Richardson) and daughter Katrina (Christina Ricci), whom we are supposed to conclude is instantly attracted to Ichabod and vice-versa. Also at the Van Tassel home are the important community elders - Rev. Steenwyck (Jeffrey Jones), Magistrate Philipse (Richard  Griffiths), Dr. Lancaster (Ian McDiarmid), and Notary Hardenbrook (Michael Gough). After meeting these men, Ichabod is given the background story of who is believed to be behind the murders, a Headless Horseman. Once thought to be a Hessian soldier, he was beheaded by his own sword and now 20 years later is on the prowl for his lost head, collecting those of others.

Here we are given a glimpse into the dichotomy of the Ichabod character. A man of logic, unwilling to believe in such a thing as a headless horseman is never-the-less terrified upon hearing the story. His mind tells him one thing and yet his emotions tell him another.

While Ichabod is not exactly presented as Inspector Clouseau - the famed character from "The Pink Panther" movies played by Peter Sellers - the townsmen and the audience suspect Ichabod may be in over his head. He doesn't seem to have a real plan for his investigation, simply going in whichever direction the wind blows him. Critic Stephanie Zacharek for Salon described this element of the Ichabod character in her review as "His stammering and fake confident strutting give the movie a touch of brightness, without disturbing its brooding undertones."

One of the many ways Burton and the film's writer Andrew Kevin Walker alter Irving's story is by creating a backstory for Ichabod, meant to explain how he became the person he is today. The story involves a relationship between Ichabod and his mother (Lisa Marie). Ichabod describes her as a innocent almost child like woman, who seems to have dabbled with magic and spells. She was killed by her husband (Peter Guinness) on suspicions she was a witch. First, this opens up the theme of religion within this story. The townspeople of Sleepy Hollow invoke religion quite a bit and one of the characters is a Reverend. The Headless Horseman is a character intended to represent pure evil. It creates a contrast between science and religion. Second, Ichabod's story reminded me of "Edward Scissorhands" (1990) in ways a young Edward was left alone in the world after his creator (Vincent Price) died. Which made me think this has become a staple in some of Burton's films - "Batman" (1989), "Scissorhands", "Dumbo" (2019), "Frankenweenie" (2012). All examples of the effect death has on children. Third, it is meant to explain Ichabod's attraction to Katrina. She is also a student of magic and spells. It sadly implies all men are looking for women that remind them of their mothers. I'm sure Freud would approve.

While I believe Christina Ricci is a fine actress, she was miscast in this role. I understand Ricci had garnered a reputation after appearing in movies like "The Addams Family" (1991) and "Casper" (1995) for dark-ish supernatural material, which would seem to make her a perfect fit for "Sleepy Hollow" but she is too young for the role. In 1999 Ricci was 19 while Depp was 36. Their age difference is noticeable to me and distracted me from accepting their romance. The age difference may explain why Ichabod and Katrina have no real love scenes to speak of. Their feelings for each other are implied rather than discussed in a forthright manner. Perhaps Winona Ryder would have been a better choice. However Katrina is supposed to be a young woman, so Ricci's age would be appropriate for this character. Depending upon how committed we are to having Ricci in role, dare I say Depp should have been recast, even though I like his performance. The romance is the weakest link in the story for me.

There will be those that say, we don't watch "Sleepy Hollow" for a love story. Point taken but don't tell me American viewers don't make an issue of age differences in movie romances, always implying it is a wet dream of the older male filmmakers. In the few reviews I read of "Sleepy Hollow" no one mentioned the age issue. The biggest complaint was how unfaithful the film is to Irving's story.

The real treat watching "Sleepy Hollow" is to be found in Burton's production team. In Roger Ebert's Chicago Sun-Times review he wrote of the film, "This is among other things an absolutely lovely film, with production design, art direction and cinematography that creates a distinctive place for the imagination." He even states "This is the best-looking horror film since Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula." Burton and his team have given "Sleepy Hollow" the combined look of a beautiful Gothic love story and a Hammer horror film rolled into one. I would almost recommend watching the film with the volume turned off and just allow your eyes to soak in the aesthetic. Of course if you did that then you would miss out on Danny Elfman's score, which as always is worthy of praise.

Ultimately however that explains my impression of "Sleepy Hollow" as an example of style over substance. The plot of the film doesn't live up it its end of the bargain making it deserving of all the craft that went into it. I'm nearly tempted to just advise seeing the movie for the visuals alone and bump up my star rating. But that wouldn't be fair. As a horror movie, there is just something slightly off with "Sleepy Hollow". There are no big scares. As a love story, there is no passion and outburst of emotion. As a kind of satire, there are no big laughs. 

And while we can see what influenced Burton in the making of this film, rewatching it again was the first time I became aware of Burton's "stock company" and how the appearances of certain actors made me think of previous Burton films. I loved a pre-credits sequence involving Martin Landau (who won an Oscar for his performance as Bela Lugosi in Burton's "Ed Wood" (1994) as a Nobleman who encounters the Headless Horseman. It could have been a stand alone five minute short film. The appearance of Jeffrey Jones will make you think of "Beetlejuice" (1988) as seeing Michael Gough will make you think of "Batman", he was Alfred. But don't forget, he too was in a Hammer horror film.

Looking back at "Sleepy Hollow" for its 25th anniversary and for its horror elements for the month of October, there are very few live action movies I can think of that have been inspired by "Sleepy Hollow" and Tim Burton in general. Maybe Guillermo del Toro and his "Crimson Peak" (2015) but I see Burton's influence more so in animation - "ParaNorman" (2012) and "Coraline" (2009). In fact the only two times Burton has been recognized by the Academy Awards has been for his animated work - "Frankenweenie" and "Corpse Bride" (2005). And yet Burton has such a distinct style and vision, you would have thought younger directors would try to clone it. It is difficult to believe there is not a generation that has been influenced by his body of work. Burton's films are unique experiences.

Perhaps the answer to this is explained by the questionable "critic" Jonathan Rosenbaum, who in his Chicago Reader review of "Sleepy Hollow" wrote of Burton he "is only secondarily a storyteller, which is why someone else generally writes the scripts. Like many of the best movie comics, he tends to think in terms of shots and sequences rather than longer stretches." 

"Sleepy Hollow" earned three Academy Award nominations - Best Costume Design, Best Cinematography and Best Art Direction-Set Direction, for which it did win the Oscar for. Most critics liked it but it hasn't gained a reputation as one of Burton's best films. It may get lost in the shuffle as audiences usually name films like "Batman", "Beetlejuice" or even "Ed Wood" as contenders for their favorite Burton film.

Despite its best intentions "Sleepy Hollow" has a kind of lackluster plot, turning Irving's story into something resembling a Jack the Ripper serial killer movie. Its nod to Gothic romance, Hammer horror movies, and German Expressionism are appreciated but its not enough to make the film succeed. I am usually not someone that complains about films not being faithful adaptations of books but I do wonder what in Irving's story was interesting to Burton and why did he feel the need to make the changes he did? Would any of us consider these changes "improvements"? A true adaptation of Irving's story with the Burton touch may have been something wonderful to see on-screen. The always wonderful New York Times critic Janet Maslin noted "Offering a serenely unrecognizable take on Washington Irving's story...the film brings its huge reserves of creativity to bear upon matters like the severing of heads." Can this be a critique on society and our lack of respect for classic literature? How modern adaptations of classics merely cheapen the originals in order to accommodate less literate audiences? If you want to see a better adaptation of Irving's story, watch the animated version instead.

Film Review: Elvira: Mistress of the Dark

 "Elvira: Mistress of the Dark"

  *** (out of ****)

The first image we see in "Elvira: Mistress of the Dark" (1988) - which I will refer to as "Elvira" going forward - is footage of the Roger Corman "B" movie "It Conquered the World" (1956). From that moment you may think that is a tip off of what to expect from "Elvira", which will turn out to be an equally bad and campy movie. You'd only be half right.

Movies like "Elvira" are actually smarter than some audiences may give them credit for. It's easy to criticize something like this and not try to meet it at it's level. "Elvira" is much more self aware than "It Conquered the World". Those actors - a young Peter Graves stars in it - play their roles too straight. It makes us in the audience believe these actors are really taking this serious and that's what makes it unintentially funny. "Elvira" knows the Corman movie is bad. And it probably knows it too is a bad movie but it scathes itself with a wink and smile so we don't have to.

"Elvira" is part comedy / horror but also a social satire, which I found to be the more enjoyable aspect of the movie. That was an unexpected move. As many of us know Elvira (Cassandra Peterson) was a very popular cultural figure in the 1980s as the host of a television show airing campy horror movies which she would crack jokes about. Despite a heavy dose of cleavage the character was essentially a horny 12 year old boy. Or I guess we could say a more bawdy version of Mae West with dialogue flooded with sexual innuendos. Given the gothic nature of the character and its association with horror, you would expect Elvira's big screen movie debut to be a flat out horror movie spoof, like what was eventually done in "Elvira's Haunted Hills" (2001). The social satire however I thought gave the movie a little more depth.

The comedic approach here seems to have been lets take the Elvira character and instead of placing her in the natural environment of a horror movie, lets juxtapose her against a real world setting a la 1950s suburbia. Great comedians from the past did this with their well beloved and established comedic personas. Once the audience became familiar with a character, say like Woody Allen, the fun was to then take that character and throw him in different surroundings to see how he would interact. And so you get Woody in the future or as a character in Russian literature. This is what was decided with Elvira. The greatest contrast for this character would be suburban life setting up a conflict of social and sexual morals. In the "Haunted Hills" movie the unlady like manners of Elvira is set against the Victorian age.

Seemingly understanding her limitations, Peterson plays a late night horror program TV host named Elvira who quits her job after fighting off the advances of the station owner. This proves to be bad timing because she needs to secure $50 thousand dollars in order to launch her Las Vegas show. But the God's are smiling down at her when she discovers her great aunt, Morgana Talbot - Talbot was the surname of Larry Talbot, who would become the Wolf Man - has died. Elvira must travel to the small town of Fallwell - a reference to the Moral Majority leader Jerry Falwell - to attend the reading of her aunt's will. Elvira fantasizes she will be the beneficiary of a great inheritance. One large enough to cover the money she needs for her Vegas act. 

When at the reading, Elvira also discovers she has a uncle, Vincent (W. Morgan Sheppard) - perhaps a nod to Vincent Price, another king of "B" horror movies and reportedly offered this role. Suspiciously Vincent is left completely out of the will with the majority going to Elvira. However not receiving a flat out large sum of money, she finds the inheritance disappointing. Uncle Vincent meanwhile becomes obsessed with getting his hands on his departed sister's "cookbook". 

If that isn't enough for Elvira to deal with the entire Massachusetts town is at odds with her thanks to the actions of the community leader Chastity Pariah (Edie McLurg) - whose name should say it all. She is appalled by the sight of Elvira and her blatant sexuality. Outside of some randy teenage boys, the only adult Elvira is able to make friends with is Bob Redding (Daniel Greene) - named after a close friend and collaborator of Cassandra's, Robert Redding, to whom the film is dedicated. Bob, who runs the local move theater, and he only permitted to show G rated movies, becomes the love interest, though he too is shy about sex.   

The "horror" element of the story reveals itself in the Uncle portion of the plot. The cookbook isn't really a cookbook but rather a book of spells, which Elvira finds out too late, after trying to impress Bob with her cooking. If the book gets into Uncle Vincent's hands, it could spell disaster, making him all too powerful. 

For me the horror plotline is the weakest portion of the movie with the social commentary being the strongest. I don't know if "Elvira" necessarily means to be a homage to Roger Corman and his horror movies, but I thought of another campy director as I watched "Elvira", John Waters. Waters, who if we are being charitable, also made movies that were social critiques of suburban middle-class morality, as most evident in what his devotees would call his "lesser" movies such as "Serial Mom" (1994) and "A Dirty Shame" (2004).

The reason the horror plotline doesn't work is because the movie doesn't take it serious. There is nothing scary about the Uncle being a warlock. No fear is built around this and we don't fully understand all the implications of Vincent getting the book and his ultimate plans if he should get it. "Elvira" also does nothing in way of atmosphere and working within the clichés of the genre. Which creates a missed opportunity. Elvira could have starred in her own really bad and campy horror movie.

It seems screenwriters Sam Egan, John Paragon and Peterson had the most fun and interest in the social satire and making their own version of a teenage sex comedy. A lot of the humor in "Elvira" is juvenile at best. Because of Elvira's low cut dress and ample bosom there are a lot of breast jokes. The camera almost seems fixated on them. As if to imply they are too big not to be in any given shot.

Because of the juvenile nature of the movie, the adult relationships aren't dealt with in a mature manner either. We don't accept Elvira and Bob really care about each other. In fact it is kind of difficult to see what Elvira even finds attractive about him. What we see on-screen is like an innocent high school romance where kissing is about as far as you're gonna get.

And yet I do like "Elvira" and its comedically broad and silly nature while also appreciating the social commentary, which isn't as compelling and hard hitting as something by Tennessee Williams. It uses a broad brush to mock the social conservatism movement brought on by Falwell and Ronald Reagan. It's clear the performances are meant to be almost cartoon in nature and Peterson is funny and has a good screen presence. Peterson got her comedy start as a member of the improv troupe, The Groundlings which included Paul Reubens (Pee-Wee Herman) and Phil Hartman. Other members of that troupe appear in "Elvira" like Edie McClurg, Lynne Marie Stewart (whom my generation will know as Miss Yvonne, the most beautiful woman in Puppetland) and co-writer John Paragon (Jambi the Genie on "Pee-Wee's Playhouse").

Supposedly Peterson wanted Tim Burton to direct "Elvira", as he had directed her friend Reuben's project, "Pee-Wee's Big Adventure" (1985), making his directorial debut. But by the time "Elvira" was in production, he was busy with other projects. Instead Saturday Night Live segment producer James Signorelli was brought in. His only other feature-length directorial effort was the Rodney Dangerfield comedy, "Easy Money" (1983). "Elvira" would be his last feature film as a director. As much as I love Rodney - he's on my Mt. Rushmore of great stand-up comics - I actually prefer Signorelli's work on this film.

Unfortunately, "Elvira" didn't do well at the box-office or with critics. Siskel & Ebert gave the movie two thumbs down. And in a major case of over-reacting, Peterson was nominated for a Razzie Award for "worst actress", which she lost to Liza Minnelli for "Arthur 2" (1988) and "Rent-a-Cop" (1988). 

Younger viewers probably won't like this movie either because of the Elvira character and the overt sexuality. On the website Irish Film Critic, a "critic" wrote a contemporaneous review of the movie and actually stated, "I want to talk about how insanely male-centric the gaze of this camera is as it sweeps back and forth across Elvira's exposed legs and thighs." He goes on to add, "The whole thing exists within the macrocosm of the '80s." I guess I am such a product of the '80s that I hadn't really considered Elvira could be a controversial figure to today's viewers.

Elvira was very much a product of the 1980s and has had an enduring legacy and a career that has lasted more than 40 years. Peterson debuted her Elvira character on a local Los Angeles TV show in 1981 before going national. While it is difficult to deny the influence of Maila Nurmi's Vampira, who is credited as being TV's first horror host, Peterson created a distinctly different character. With the passage of time people have forgotten not only Nurmi but her Vampira character - if interested watch Ed Wood's infamous "Plan 9 From Outer Space" (1957) - making Elvira the horror host most are familiar with and influenced by. A modern example would be Sarah Palmer's Gwengoolie, seen on the show Svengoolie. Although Palmer's character isn't sexual.

"Elvira" isn't a great movie or even a great comedy but it is a satisfactory one that manages to succeed in large part because of Peterson's charm and screen presence. The script tries to elevate itself with the social satire but I do wish it would have worked harder on the horror aspect of the plot. "Elvira's Haunted Hills" made a greater effort but didn't fully capitalize on it either. 

Film Review: The Conjuring

  "The Conjuring"

  **** (out of ****)

When I first saw "The Conjuring" (2013) more than a decade ago in theaters, I didn't know there was going to be a sequel. I didn't know it was going to be the beginning of a cinematic universe. What I did know however was that "The Conjuring" was one effective horror movie. I even went as far as to call it one of the best films of 2013! 

To praise "The Conjuring" all these years later may not be such an unusual statement, given the box-office success the film achieved and its cultural impact. But it wasn't such a given back in 2013. The "movie critic" at the New York Daily News ended his "review" stating "If "The Conjuring" were less of a con job, horror fans would not feel equally as trapped." Sullying the good name of film critic Roger Ebert, the "critic" that "reviewed" the film on Ebert's website actually wrote, "There's nothing really scary about Wan's latest because there's nothing particularly mysterious, or inviting about its proceedings." This "critic" even called the film's scenario "thunderously stupid"! Of course these opinions haven't aged well because the overwhelming majority of critics and audience members enjoyed "The Conjuring", leading me to wonder about the ability of these writers to assess film and art in the first place. But given that this is the year of Was I Right - my year long theme of rewatching movies I previously placed on various top ten lists to determine if I was right to chose them - I decided to take another look at the film.

When I think of the golden age of horror movies my mind races back to the Universal monster films of the 1930s and 40s - "Dracula" (1931), "Frankenstein" (1931), "The Mummy" (1932) and "The Wolf Man" (1941). I would argue however that around the time of "The Conjuring" was the beginning of another period of horror movies that could be labeled a "golden age". After the release of "The Conjuring" came "The Babadook" (2014), "Lights Out" (2016), "Annabelle: Creation" (2017), and several other films associated with the Conjuring Universe. Practically all of which made my annual top ten lists. The last decade was a real high mark for the horror genre. And like it or not but a lot of that was due to "The Conjuring" and its success. 

What made "The Conjuring" such an impressive horror film was its cinematic approach and sensibilities. It was a throwback to another golden age of horror films, the 1970s, which is the time period "The Conjuring" takes place in. That isn't merely my own observation but was routinely cited by better critics than the ones referenced above as to what made this film work. New York Times critic Manohla Dargis noted in her review, "The Conjuring" isn't just primarily set in the 1970s, it also taps into the paranoia that is both an evergreen American trait and a crucial characteristic of the films of that era, horror and otherwise." While over at USA Today critic Claudia Puig declared "it brings to mind '70s supernatural horror films such as The Exorcist with its stillness, steady build of suspense and handsome cinematography."

I've often said, usually when talking about food at restaurants, so many chefs want to "update" classic dishes and "improve" them. Frequently I find the "improvements" disappoint. My feeling is learn to perfect the dish the proper traditional way and then, if you must, update it. The point is to understand the foundation of something. It is the same thing with movies and directors. So many times filmmakers want to avoid being "old hat" that they want to come along and reinvent the wheel but they haven't perfected the fundamentals. Director James Wan understood this with "The Conjuring". Wan and his film didn't reinvent the wheel. "The Conjuring" wasn't a game changer in terms of its techniques. It simply took the so-called clichés of the genre and presented them in the best way possible. Clichés get a bad name because we more often than not see them presented badly in films. Nothing terribly original is being done in Hollywood. People are still using the old standby clichés but merely altering them around the edges. Gender and racial recasting of roles is an example. Combing tropes from two different genres is another. But the clichés are clichés for a reason, they work. We just don't see directors effectively use them because they want to be edgy. But by simply telling his story calmly, logically and straightforward Wan turned "The Conjuring" into something special. It wasn't a relic. Instead it set forward a new path. Just learn the fundamentals.  

"The Conjuring" like so many horror films before it, is a variation on our fears of the dark and sounds that go bump in the night. Roger Perron (Ron Livingston) and his wife Carolyn (Lili Taylor) along with their five daughters (Shanley Caswell, Hayley McFarland, Joey King, Mackenzie Foy, and Kyla Deaver) have moved into an old Rhode Island home they bought at an auction. On the surface the home looks fine but slowly things start to go amiss. The family dog refuses to enter the home. All the clocks in the house stop every night at 3:07 am. The home is always chilly despite the furnace properly working. And on and on it goes. Wan is building the tension, almost like winding a clock. And while perhaps some in the audience will say they have figured out the issue, that misses the point. Knowing that something supernatural is causing these disturbances isn't a secret or a plot twist. We knew that even in 2013 before we bought our ticket. It is watching how the tension snaps that will please audiences.

 

The added layer here is the film is credited as having been based on true events, as documented by self-proclaimed demonologists Ed (Patrick Wilson) and Lorraine (Vera Farmiga) Warren. One of their most famous cases was the inspiration for the movie "The Amityville Horror" (1979) however as the marketing for "The Conjuring" indicated - go and watch the trailer - this case was kept a "secret" because of how disturbing it was. Only now could the story be told.

Yes, that may be an example of gimmicky sensationalism but everything else in "The Conjuring" is simple and well told. And that, in some ways, makes the story believable. We accept these characters as a family. Ron Livingston and Lili Taylor are a realistic couple and parents. Their reaction to the events around them come across as natural. We relate to them. Taylor in particular is a standout and has some great moments.

Pay attention to a wonderful sequence involving the discovery of a basement. Notice the acting, the framing, and Wan's usage of tried and true techniques. The daughters are playing a game and accidentally knock over a board in their closest. The noise gets mom and dad's attention and soon it is realized there is a doorway being hidden in the closet that leads to a basement. The viewer is already ahead of the characters, the basement was boarded up as a preventive measure to keep spirits away. The father goes down the stairs to the basement to investigate. Mom and the daughters back away so what we are seeing in the distance of the shot is doorway of the basement, which is pitch black. Mom calls out to dad to find out what is down there as the uneasiness reveals itself in her voice and her and the daughters' behavior. All the while the audience is waiting for something not only sinister to happen but for something to come through that black doorway. Why else would it be in frame? That's one example of Wan's understanding of the horror genre. We've seen shots like it before in various other films but it works here because it is done well.

In a sense Wan is playing the audience like a piano. He knows how to build anticipation. Not every moment will be like the one with the basement, as the viewer waits for something to to pop out of the darkness. Wan knows he must switch things up. He takes two approaches. On the one hand he will have only the characters be able to see ghosts and spirits and deny the audience of their presence. The characters will describe the horrific site in front of them which is meant to play on our imagination. It is an old technique that was perfected in such 1940s B horror movies as "The Cat People" (1942) and "The Leopard Man" (1943). The idea being what our minds will imagine will be scarier than anything that will appear on the screen. The second approach is to actually show us a demonic spirit. This of course hits us like a jolt and gives us what some might call a "cheap scare". But not knowing which approach Wan will take in any given scene adds to the anticipation. Wan is also smart enough to know there are times he must defuse the situation to give the audience a breather and find humor.

Like the best horror films of the 1970s, "The Conjuring" also adds a religious undertone to the film, solidifying this battle between good and evil. Ed Warren is not a priest or a member of the church in any compacity. Nor is Lorraine. But they are presented as believers. Making them kind of the moral center of the film. Lorraine is seen with a rosary in her hand. They even suggest to Roger and Carolyn that they may want to baptize their children. 

Personally I've always appreciated the religious undertone in films such as "The Exorcist" (1973), "Rosemary's Baby" (1968), and "The Omen" (1976). In fact you could make the case Christianity and the horror genre go hand in hand. What's one way to stop Dracula? Show him a crucifix. If you are a believer, these films play to your perception of reality. And that's what makes them scary. The notion that this could happen. A person could be possessed by a spirit. Exorcism is real. "The Conjuring" plays into this. Ed and Lorraine Warren aren't presented as frauds. They are well meaning people. In the decades following the '70s there was sometimes a tendency to make the religious characters the villains instead of the heroes or try to make the films as secular as possible - think  "Scream"  (1996) and the teen horror films that followed.

And just as convincing as Livingston and Taylor are as a couple so too are Wilson and Farmiga and once again it is the female that turns in the more effective performance. While the Ed and Lorraine characters are the moral center of "The Conjuring", Lorraine is in many ways the film's heart. In Farmiga's hands she presents Lorraine as a nurturing mother figure. In fact much in the film's plot revolves around mothers and children. Which may explain why Carolyn and Lorraine are such intricate characters. In Sarah Mankoff's review in Film Comment she also picked up on the strength of the female characters phrasing it as "the men are mostly relegated to the observation deck, while the women prove to be far more empathetic and therefore more appealing souls for the demons to invade."

As a filmmaker James Wan can sometimes swing wildly at both ends of the spectrum. In addition to "The Conjuring", I really admired one of his prior films, "Insidious" (2010), also with Patrick Wilson. And "The Conjuring 2" (2016) got another four stars out of me. But I was put off by "Saw" (2004) and his most recent work, "Malignant" (2021), another 1970s, Dario Argento-ish inspiration. I actually placed "Malignant" on my worst films of 2021 list! Through it all though Wan has shown he has a good eye and knows how to create suspense and atmosphere. There were moments in "Insidious" that could only be described as eerie. 

"The Conjuring" is the kind of horror film I personally like best. It has a psychological element to it. It isn't a slasher movie, slicing and dicing characters. That never scared me. I just found it disgusting. I also liked films like "The Conjuring" that created a sense of impending doom with the threat of evil in the air. They didn't need to shock us by over using the presence of the villain, to the point we are immune to the sight of the character. A mistake I feel the "Nightmare on Elm Street" series and "Friday the 13th" make.

After taking another look at "The Conjuring", was I right to place it on my top ten list in 2013? Yes. Each and every time I have watched it I have found it effective. The style and atmosphere it creates always pulls in me and the performances always seem convincing.

Horror movies, to some Hollywood insiders and film critic snobs, lacks the cache of great cinema but there were some critics willing to recognize "The Conjuring" on their top ten lists including publications such as Entertainment Weekly, Time Out New York, and Variety. It was not able however to secure nominations of any major awards instead getting nominated by originations like Critics Choice Award, MTV Movie + TV Awards, and a People's Choice Award. The greatest indication of its success may have been its box-office. Made on a $20 million dollar budget, it grossed domestically more than $130 million dollars and over $300 million worldwide.   

And of course it was the beginning of The Conjuring Universe which has included films such as "Annabelle" (2014), "The Nun" (2018), and two additional "Conjuring" sequels. There can, understandably, be a tendency to view this "Universe" as nothing more than a cash grab. Normally I would agree but the difference is, I find each one of these films to be well made. It really did rejuvenate the genre and make the last decade a golden age for fans of horror films. I had never before placed as many horror films on my top ten lists as I did during the decade. I even had to include the "Universe" as a whole on my list of the best films of the last decade.

"The Conjuring" was a welcomed addition to both the demonic possession and haunted house genre. Wan expertly tells his story relying on the fundamentals of the genre. Carefully crafted there are effective performances from Vera Farmiga and Lili Taylor - who was in another haunted house movie, "The Haunting" (1999) - adding emotional depth to the story. Some may say it is predictable but I say it is an excellent example of genre filmmaking.

Film Review: Labyrinth

  "Labyrinth"  

** (out of ****)

Jim Henson's "Labyrinth" (1986) is a dizzying children's fantasy centered around themes of maturity and the balance between imagination and responsibility but it never sets off on a proper path.

"Labyrinth" was Henson's follow-up to "The Dark Crystal" (1982) a surprisingly dark movie, devoid of the playfulness and lightheartedness often associated with Henson's productions such as Sesame Street and the Muppets. As such it was a box-office flop and poorly received by critics. Seemingly eager to duplicate the experience, Henson and company made "Labyrinth", another visually and thematically dark and joyless movie. It too was a box-office flop and critically unpopular.

The late movie critic Gene Siskel, of Siskel & Ebert fame, for example awarded the movie one star in his Chicago Tribune review. When mentioning "The Dark Crystal" and "Labyrinth", Siskel described both of Henson's efforts as "really quite awful, sharing a much too complicated plot and visually ugly style." He further went on to compare the look of some of Henson's creations to the Garbage Pail Kids dolls. Which is not an inaccurate comparison, if we are being honest. Siskel's partner, Chicago Sun-Times movie critic, Roger Ebert felt the movie never came to life and really hit the nail on the head writing, "The movie is too long. Without a strong plot line to pull us through, all movies like this run the danger of becoming just a series of incidents."

Ebert's point illustrates why I always not only respected him as a movie critic but trusted his judgement. We often "saw the same movie" and picked up on similar flaws. It's why I sometimes dislike quoting him because I am afraid some readers will think I am merely copying his opinion. As I watched "Labyrinth" there is a sequence where David Bowie, who plays the Goblin King Jareth, begins to sing and dance with his legion of goblin muppets to a song called Magic Dance. Narratively the sequence serves no purpose. It primarily was an excuse to have Bowie sing a song but it is really filler. It helps to make the movie's running time longer. As I sat there watching this I thought to myself, nothing is holding this movie together. It's just a series of vignettes.

Over the years however both movies have gained a following and acquired defenders - I actually think "The Dark Crystal" was an ambitious and artistic undertaking - and yet at the risk of upsetting a lot of '80s babies (which I am one of) I must admit the "movie critics" were correct, "Labyrinth" is not a very good movie. It seems between both movies "Labyrinth" has the more devoted fan base, especially among my generation, which considers it a "beloved classic". Something I never regarded the movie as. My childhood memories of "Labyrinth" take me back to elementary school where almost every Halloween we would watch it in class, to my dismay and the rest of the class' delight.

"Labyrinth" is either an agglomeration or loving homage to a barrage of well known fairy tales and children stories such as The Wizard of Oz, Alice in Wonderland, Where The Wild Things Are, and Victor Herbert's Babes in Toyland. A discontented, bratty teenage girl, Sarah (Jennifer Connelly) is forced to babysit her brother while her parents go out for the evening. As the baby, Toby ( Toby Froud) begins to cry, Sarah can't handle the situation and wishes goblins would come to take away her brother, sparing her from a life of inconvenience.

There is a back story to Sarah that is never told in a forthright manner, only hinting at things. It is implied Sarah has a stepmother (Shelley Thompson). My impression was her biological mother died and was a actress, which would explain newspaper clippings on her mirror. Sarah, again merely implied, would like to become an actress and has a great interest in fairy tales. When we first see her she is reciting lines to a story involving a princess, magical kingdoms, goblins and a goblin king. Soon the realization she is late returning home causes her to run in the rain.

Exploring the background story a bit more, or at all, could have potentially made Sarah a sympathetic character, especially to a pre-teen audience, who may be the audience this movie is geared towards. Unfortunately, the impression Sarah gives is that of an overly dramatic, self-centered brat. It doesn't come across as your typical teen angst, just entitlement. The Sarah presented to us is at an awkward stage between child and adulthood. She likes her stories and stuffed animals and at the same time her parents expect her to accept responsibility, which she is reluctant to take on. By the end of the movie the character, we assume, will grow. 

It just so happens there is a group of goblins in the walls of Sarah's home waiting attentively for her to utter the words, she wishes the goblins would take her baby brother. And here we must stop again. Why are goblins in her home? Have they been following her for a while? Do all homes with children have goblins assigned to them? Are the goblins capable to doing household chores and what would be their rates?

As luck would have it - for the goblins anyway - Sarah does wish for them to take her brother. Within an instant, Sarah not only notices her brother is gone but also regrets her wish and wants her brother to return. This she learns cannot be after the Goblin King swoops into her home disguised as an owl (which for some reason made me think of Harry Potter). After he transforms into a man with Tina Turner like hair, he informs Sarah her actions have consequences and should accept her brother is gone. Her persistence however leads the Goblin King to present Sarah with an opportunity. She can have her brother back if she can reach his castle, located at the center of an elaborate labyrinth in 13 hours.

Everything I've described happens rather quickly in the movie. So quickly in fact I don't believe Sarah learned her first lesson, actions have consequences. The plot is being rushed. Sarah's growth is too sudden. She quickly feels remorse and concern for her brother. This is all done to immediately take us to what Henson must believe is a magical world.

But nothing in this Labyrinth world feels magical. Surreal, yes but I never really felt I was watching a truly magnificent spectacle. Not that I doubt the level of craft that the production team put in to create it. When Dorothy entered the land of Oz, you knew it was special if for no other reason the lavish colors. It presented such a contrast to the drab black & white world of Kansas. The Labyrinth world Sarah enters looks dreary and depressing. I wonder if this was an inspiration for Guillermo del Toro and his masterpiece "Pan's Labyrinth" (2006) a fairy tale gone wrong. The difference is del Toro's movie was for adults and he could lean into the nightmare qualities of his story. Henson is trying to have it both ways. He can't create such a nightmare-ish scenario and not scare children away.

One of the first creatures Sarah meets in this world is Hoggle, whom at one point Sarah mistakenly calls Hogwart, our second Harry Potter reference. He is a dwarf character who is crafty, cowardice, self-centered, and untrustworthy. He knows his way around the Labyrinth and could help Sarah if he chose to. There is a minimal level of suspense created making the viewer question if he works for the Goblin King or if he is befriending Sarah. It serves the purpose of creating another lesson for Sarah, not to take things for granted like her family and friends.

Sarah befriends two more creatures Ludo, a giant monster like character that recalls Where The Wild Things Are. Despite his appearance he is friendly. Then there is a fox terrier named Sir Didymus, who despite his diminutive size regards himself as something of a great medieval knight. In a scene recalling "The Adventures of Robin Hood" (1938), the fox will not allow Sarah and her friends to cross a bridge without permission.  

This sequence with Sir Didymus is another example of filler. When the gang meets Didymus they are in the "Bog of Eternal Stench", a kind of flatulent island. Perhaps it is meant to make really small children laugh but it serves no purpose and wears out its welcome. Establishing that "Labyrinth" is little more than a series of "adventures" strung together by a flimsy plot.

Besides the Magic Dance sequence and the "Bog of Eternal Stench" the most egregious of these mindless filler sequences is a ballroom sequence. Between this and Magic Dance it feels like we have placed two music videos in the middle of a movie.

This may also present a new issue with "Labyrinth" when watched with modern eyes, as it nears its 40th anniversary. The creepiness of the relationship between the Goblin King and Sarah. Is this man hitting on a teenage girl? Is she in some weird way attracted to him? Is this part of becoming a woman for Sarah? It may explain why in the Magic Dance sequence another older movie is invoked, "The Bachelor and the Bobby-Soxer" (1947) with Cary Grant and Shirley Temple, in her first role as a teenager. In that movie she has a crush on a older man (Grant) who is ordered by a court to take her out on a date, as a way to lessen her attraction. The movie has a famous exchange of dialogue:

You remind me of a man.

What man?

The man with the power

What power?

Power of Hoodoo

Hoodoo?

You do?

What?

Remind me of a man

At the beginning of the Magic Dance song the Goblin King recites this dialogue. But who is going to notice this? I didn't come across any reviews that pointed this out. With Jim Henson and David Bowie gone, research has shown I'm the only person alive that remembers "The Bachelor and the Bobby-Soxer". Which leads to the question, who is this movie for in the first place?

Performance wise, David Bowie seems to be having a good time but it isn't what I would necessarily call a "good performance". Gene Siskel said of Bowie, "(he) looks as out of place in this film as if he were hosting the Grand Ol' Opry." Connelly, whom Siskel described as "forgettable", does seem a little stiff and doesn't play a full range of emotions convincingly. She had made her acting debut two years prior in Sergio Leone's "Once Upon A Time In America" (1984) and also had a role in one of Italian horror maestro's Dario Argento's better films, "Phenomena" (1985). Nothing in "Labyrinth" however suggest to me she would go one to become a terrific Academy Award winning actress. For a while she was a hot commodity situating herself as one of our finest actresses.

I don't know if "Labyrinth" is a suitable movie to watch this "spooky season", as I don't consider it a horror movie. But it is often associated with Halloween. "Labyrinth" is a dismal movie not really meant for younger children and I wouldn't think interesting enough to hold the attention of teenagers and adults. There will be a nostalgia factor for some that saw this as kids in the '80s but with adult eyes, I really can't imagine many people finding this to be a great or worthwhile movie. It doesn't compare to the classic family movies before it, some of which it pays homage to. The characters aren't likable, the moral isn't obvious, and the plot is confusing at best and too weak for a feature-length movie.