Jamie Alexandre Hall's Blog, page 10
October 10, 2016
Communion (1989): Unsettling and Weird and Resolution-Free
I recall that we watched Communion for Halloween about ten years ago, and it didn't have much of an impact on us. We decided to watch it again this Halloween, and for some reason, this time I liked it more.
Story: Whitley Strieber (Christopher Walken) is a safety-paranoid novelist. He takes some friends out to his country house for the weekend... and has a weird, unsettling dream about prowlers and lights. His son has the same dream. And his country guests get really freaked out, say lights were coming in the window all night making it hard to sleep, and then get upset and demand to be taken back to town. Time passes -- Whitley and family go back down to the cabin for Christmas, and Whitley has a really bad dream... that his whole family also seems to experience on some level. He starts having weird changes of personality, hysterical episodes, hallucinations, inexplicable terrors, and finally goes to a psychologist for help... and has some very scary revelations.
I think this is exactly what living with Christopher Walken would be like .
This is a rather peculiar movie. Some parts are so naturalistic, I really can't tell whether it was scripted or improvised. People are just saying weird stuff and doing weird things, and it's unclear what's going on. You see the scary, thin, classic-alien-looking guys. Then, these guys make an appearance:
Seriously. What is that thing? Nobody talks about those guys in pop culture. They're the least scary part of the movie -- because they're just silly and confusing. They remind me of these little guys in Phantasm (I can't remember what they're called, and can't find a good picture, but hopefully you know what I'm talking about). There's a lot of head-scratching, "What the hell?" moments. (Kind of like Phantasm, actually.)
If you're hoping for questions answered about the alien phenomena, and a clear-cut ending... this movie isn't going to give them to you. I'll just say that right out. Very few things are clear-cut about this movie, and the moments that try to make things more clear are probably the weakest parts. Also, don't look for any sound theology in this film -- although the Striebers appear to be Catholic, their approach to things is Agnostic at best (which, I suppose, does go with the "no clear-cut answers" theme of the film).
Not behind the scenes. Actual shot from the film.
But it is an engrossing, very entertaining story, with some very frightening moments. In fact, there was one moment I found extremely frightening (I won't describe it in detail, because I don't want to ruin it for you) which was a pretty novel experience -- I mean, how often have I been legitimately frightened by a movie in the past few years? Basically not at all. Modern movies don't frighten -- they just gross you out, or waste your time with cheap jump-scares.
And I'm still not certain why it was so frightening. But both I and Mr. Hall were really scared by that scene. But here's what ultimately makes the movie Communion the most scary:
... The part over his name that says "A True Story." Alien abductions are one of those things that I don't believe in... because they scare me. And, unlike ignoring politics or crime or some of those things that scare you but can actually hurt you and affect your life even if you ignore them, ignoring the possible reality of alien abductions doesn't seem to particularly impact my life. So I'm going to go right on with that.
The main fault with this movie? Like I said, it doesn't have much of an ending. So there's that. But, I guess, really, if it's based (at least in theory) on a true story, you can't have an "...And then the Aliens told me the secrets of the everything," ending if it didn't actually happen.
P.S. Yes, despite lacking a bit in the ending area, I do recommend this movie. Please watch it and let me know what you think.
Story: Whitley Strieber (Christopher Walken) is a safety-paranoid novelist. He takes some friends out to his country house for the weekend... and has a weird, unsettling dream about prowlers and lights. His son has the same dream. And his country guests get really freaked out, say lights were coming in the window all night making it hard to sleep, and then get upset and demand to be taken back to town. Time passes -- Whitley and family go back down to the cabin for Christmas, and Whitley has a really bad dream... that his whole family also seems to experience on some level. He starts having weird changes of personality, hysterical episodes, hallucinations, inexplicable terrors, and finally goes to a psychologist for help... and has some very scary revelations.
I think this is exactly what living with Christopher Walken would be like .This is a rather peculiar movie. Some parts are so naturalistic, I really can't tell whether it was scripted or improvised. People are just saying weird stuff and doing weird things, and it's unclear what's going on. You see the scary, thin, classic-alien-looking guys. Then, these guys make an appearance:
Seriously. What is that thing? Nobody talks about those guys in pop culture. They're the least scary part of the movie -- because they're just silly and confusing. They remind me of these little guys in Phantasm (I can't remember what they're called, and can't find a good picture, but hopefully you know what I'm talking about). There's a lot of head-scratching, "What the hell?" moments. (Kind of like Phantasm, actually.)
If you're hoping for questions answered about the alien phenomena, and a clear-cut ending... this movie isn't going to give them to you. I'll just say that right out. Very few things are clear-cut about this movie, and the moments that try to make things more clear are probably the weakest parts. Also, don't look for any sound theology in this film -- although the Striebers appear to be Catholic, their approach to things is Agnostic at best (which, I suppose, does go with the "no clear-cut answers" theme of the film).
Not behind the scenes. Actual shot from the film.But it is an engrossing, very entertaining story, with some very frightening moments. In fact, there was one moment I found extremely frightening (I won't describe it in detail, because I don't want to ruin it for you) which was a pretty novel experience -- I mean, how often have I been legitimately frightened by a movie in the past few years? Basically not at all. Modern movies don't frighten -- they just gross you out, or waste your time with cheap jump-scares.
And I'm still not certain why it was so frightening. But both I and Mr. Hall were really scared by that scene. But here's what ultimately makes the movie Communion the most scary:
... The part over his name that says "A True Story." Alien abductions are one of those things that I don't believe in... because they scare me. And, unlike ignoring politics or crime or some of those things that scare you but can actually hurt you and affect your life even if you ignore them, ignoring the possible reality of alien abductions doesn't seem to particularly impact my life. So I'm going to go right on with that.
The main fault with this movie? Like I said, it doesn't have much of an ending. So there's that. But, I guess, really, if it's based (at least in theory) on a true story, you can't have an "...And then the Aliens told me the secrets of the everything," ending if it didn't actually happen.
P.S. Yes, despite lacking a bit in the ending area, I do recommend this movie. Please watch it and let me know what you think.
October 3, 2016
American Werewolf in Paris (1997)... Should Not Be Watched By Anyone, Ever.
"This movie is like they took everything that was good about the original, and went, 'Let's do the exact opposite! After all, that was the 80's... this is the 90's! We know better!'" -- Me, directly after watching this film.
Three American dopes are on their way to an "daredevil vacation" in Paris (???) You know, to do things like bungee-jump off the Eiffel Tower. But right as our hero is about to do this, he spots a "beautiful" girl who is about to commit suicide by jumping off the tower -- and saves her life. He then spends a while with his dopey friends trying to track her down (and comedy ensues. Comedy where his dumb friends have filled his pockets with condoms, and she spots the condoms, and he tries to pass them off as fancy American chewing gum. The joke goes on when she insists that he blow a bubble through this condom he is chewing on -- and it shoots out of his mouth and flies around the room. Ah, la comedia!) ... And it turns out she's a werewolf, and there's this underground werewolf society in Paris that is slaughtering groups of people, etc. etc. blah blah blah... it doesn't matter.
See the expression on her face? That's how I felt,
watching this scene.This is how to do a movie badly. Apparently they went, "You know, that American Werewolf in London movie was too tonally inconsistent... we'll make ours real consistent! And that movie had weird music choices... we'll make ours real banal! That one had kind of a downer ending... we'll make ours uplifting! And that one had clunky, practical special effects... we'll use state-of-the-art CGI!"
They could not have made a worse movie if they were trying. And I'm not convinced that they weren't trying.
Cases in point:
1. Characters: In London, they introduced our characters and told us everything we needed to know about them in the first few lines of dialogue -- they are a pair of goofy, ordinary, American boys who are backpacking across Europe -- and they have ordinary likes and dislikes, and we get a sense that they have a past and are excited about their plans for the future. In Paris -- we are introduced to three obnoxious dopes who are going on an daredevil vacation to France -- wait, what? A daredevil vacation? Who are these guys? Why do they have the money for this? Why are they on a daredevil vacation? What the heck is a daredevil vacation? Are they college students? Adults? Teenagers? Where are they staying? Where are they going after Paris -- were they just going to jump off the Eiffel Tower and then leave? And it would have been so easy to throw in a line like, "Man, it was nice of your Mom to send us on this trip." "Well, she wanted to get me out of her hair somehow this Summer..." But no. All they do is establish that the two friends are shallow dopes... and our hero is a slightly less shallow dope.
"See this, right there? That's where the movie begins to fall apart."And that's just our main character. Our female lead was a dishrag with a completely unexplained backstory (okay, there was vague implication that she was the daughter of the hero and heroine of London -- mainly because at one point it's pointed out that her mother [seen for three seconds as a corpse, so not even visibly the same actress] has a British accent, and her "father" is actually her "step-father"). That's all! Could be just a coincidence, really! Nothing for people who haven't seen the original. Not, "My father was bitten by a werewolf, and when I turned thirteen, we discovered it had been passed along to me." Nope. No statement at all about how she became a werewolf. (And, you know, that's kind of important.)
2. Special Effects: London had spectacular, award-winning special effects. In Paris, we are treated to computer generated cartoon gorilla-dog-people:
Which way to the The Scorpion King set?
3. Music: In London, they used a lot of vintage music (okay, when I say "vintage", it was less vintage in those days... but it wasn't quite modern, either) to make interesting tonal changes and set a mood. In Paris, they started out with a "scary" orchestral piece to set mood (it failed), and then used a lot of crappy 90's music to set scenes. It was just plain bad.
There are no pictures of the music, so here's another
picture illustrating (on the right) what I looked like while listening to it.
4. Story: In London, the plot made sense. It was relatively simple, but there were tonal jumps that kept things interesting. In this, there were no tonal jumps -- it was consistently stupid -- and the plot made no sense. Where did this "underground werewolf subculture" come from? Our heroine mentions offhandedly that the leader of the group "stole her blood". Okay.... how did he know you're a werewolf? Was he your boyfriend? How, exactly did he "steal" her blood? And did he get the idea for a werewolf subculture from what? (Maybe he saw Blade, who knows?) What was he motivated by? Also, they made up a new rule in this movie -- that you can un-werewolf yourself by eating the heart of the person who turned you into a werewolf. Convenient, right?
Well, convenient for our hero, Not-Sean-Astin, anyway,Now, I had to be honest; I had to ask myself, would this movie have been as terrible if it had no connection to American Werewolf in London -- if it was just some, dumb 90's werewolf movie? The answer is no... it would not have been as violently repulsive and insulting. It would still have been BAD, but not as violently.
However, it is connected to American Werewolf in London, and therefore, you can't look at it on its own, and it is extra violently repulsive and insulting, on top of just being bad.
... Not Shelf-Recommended, to say the least. This disc is leaving my shelf post-haste.
Three American dopes are on their way to an "daredevil vacation" in Paris (???) You know, to do things like bungee-jump off the Eiffel Tower. But right as our hero is about to do this, he spots a "beautiful" girl who is about to commit suicide by jumping off the tower -- and saves her life. He then spends a while with his dopey friends trying to track her down (and comedy ensues. Comedy where his dumb friends have filled his pockets with condoms, and she spots the condoms, and he tries to pass them off as fancy American chewing gum. The joke goes on when she insists that he blow a bubble through this condom he is chewing on -- and it shoots out of his mouth and flies around the room. Ah, la comedia!) ... And it turns out she's a werewolf, and there's this underground werewolf society in Paris that is slaughtering groups of people, etc. etc. blah blah blah... it doesn't matter.
See the expression on her face? That's how I felt,watching this scene.This is how to do a movie badly. Apparently they went, "You know, that American Werewolf in London movie was too tonally inconsistent... we'll make ours real consistent! And that movie had weird music choices... we'll make ours real banal! That one had kind of a downer ending... we'll make ours uplifting! And that one had clunky, practical special effects... we'll use state-of-the-art CGI!"
They could not have made a worse movie if they were trying. And I'm not convinced that they weren't trying.
Cases in point:
1. Characters: In London, they introduced our characters and told us everything we needed to know about them in the first few lines of dialogue -- they are a pair of goofy, ordinary, American boys who are backpacking across Europe -- and they have ordinary likes and dislikes, and we get a sense that they have a past and are excited about their plans for the future. In Paris -- we are introduced to three obnoxious dopes who are going on an daredevil vacation to France -- wait, what? A daredevil vacation? Who are these guys? Why do they have the money for this? Why are they on a daredevil vacation? What the heck is a daredevil vacation? Are they college students? Adults? Teenagers? Where are they staying? Where are they going after Paris -- were they just going to jump off the Eiffel Tower and then leave? And it would have been so easy to throw in a line like, "Man, it was nice of your Mom to send us on this trip." "Well, she wanted to get me out of her hair somehow this Summer..." But no. All they do is establish that the two friends are shallow dopes... and our hero is a slightly less shallow dope.
"See this, right there? That's where the movie begins to fall apart."And that's just our main character. Our female lead was a dishrag with a completely unexplained backstory (okay, there was vague implication that she was the daughter of the hero and heroine of London -- mainly because at one point it's pointed out that her mother [seen for three seconds as a corpse, so not even visibly the same actress] has a British accent, and her "father" is actually her "step-father"). That's all! Could be just a coincidence, really! Nothing for people who haven't seen the original. Not, "My father was bitten by a werewolf, and when I turned thirteen, we discovered it had been passed along to me." Nope. No statement at all about how she became a werewolf. (And, you know, that's kind of important.)2. Special Effects: London had spectacular, award-winning special effects. In Paris, we are treated to computer generated cartoon gorilla-dog-people:
Which way to the The Scorpion King set? 3. Music: In London, they used a lot of vintage music (okay, when I say "vintage", it was less vintage in those days... but it wasn't quite modern, either) to make interesting tonal changes and set a mood. In Paris, they started out with a "scary" orchestral piece to set mood (it failed), and then used a lot of crappy 90's music to set scenes. It was just plain bad.
There are no pictures of the music, so here's anotherpicture illustrating (on the right) what I looked like while listening to it.
4. Story: In London, the plot made sense. It was relatively simple, but there were tonal jumps that kept things interesting. In this, there were no tonal jumps -- it was consistently stupid -- and the plot made no sense. Where did this "underground werewolf subculture" come from? Our heroine mentions offhandedly that the leader of the group "stole her blood". Okay.... how did he know you're a werewolf? Was he your boyfriend? How, exactly did he "steal" her blood? And did he get the idea for a werewolf subculture from what? (Maybe he saw Blade, who knows?) What was he motivated by? Also, they made up a new rule in this movie -- that you can un-werewolf yourself by eating the heart of the person who turned you into a werewolf. Convenient, right?
Well, convenient for our hero, Not-Sean-Astin, anyway,Now, I had to be honest; I had to ask myself, would this movie have been as terrible if it had no connection to American Werewolf in London -- if it was just some, dumb 90's werewolf movie? The answer is no... it would not have been as violently repulsive and insulting. It would still have been BAD, but not as violently. However, it is connected to American Werewolf in London, and therefore, you can't look at it on its own, and it is extra violently repulsive and insulting, on top of just being bad.
... Not Shelf-Recommended, to say the least. This disc is leaving my shelf post-haste.
September 30, 2016
Off the Shelf: Movies That We Switched Off
Mr. Hall and I are (typically) very good about watching even very crappy movies through to the very end. There was a time that we could say that we had never, ever switched off a film half-way through. We wanted to switch off Peter Jackson's King Kong... and we didn't. We wanted to switch off Lady in the Water... and we didn't. We wanted to switch off For Your Consideration... but we didn't. We even sat through all three of Peter Jackson's Hobbit movies! (Not to slam Peter Jackson twice in a row, but... Well, sorry, Peter. It is what it is.)
That time of "non-switching-offness" is no more. Here's a short list of the films we never made it through... Mainly horror/sci-fi, so they're appropriate for October.
A Scanner Darkly. I thought the "cell painted" look of it was interesting... and that's about it. We got very tired extremely quickly of the annoying characters and didn't enjoy where the plot seemed to be going, so we shut it off.
Not even Keanu knows what this movie was about.Transylvania 6-5000: Oh, so bad. Nothing fails quite as hard as a comedy that fails. For the record, I wanted to like this movie! Look at that poster below -- doesn't it look fun? It has young Jeff Goldblum and Ed Begley, Jr.! But no... it fails to create any kind of atmosphere for a good horror comedy (apparently they were supposed to be in "spooky" settings, but everything was filmed in broad daylight, thus removing any potential for spookiness, and even any potential for comedy, because it doesn't make sense that the characters are supposed to be scared when things don't look scary).The only good part was young Michael Richards hamming it up, and even he wasn't worth keeping the movie rolling for. Shut off about half way through.
This is gonna be great! It'll be spooky, and funny,
and scary... Or maybe just embarrassing?Waxwork: Again, I wanted to like this movie. It's got the kid from Gremlins in it, and Dana Ashbrook of Twin Peaks fame. We were hoping for a good-bad, straight-up horror movie that we could laugh at. Well, we were horrified, but not for the reasons we would have hoped: we discovered that this is one of those self-aware, "we're trying to be goofy, ha ha, look how goofy we are" comedy movies that fails on so many levels. (Did I mention that nothing fails as hard as a comedy that fails? A drama that fails can turn into a great comedy, but a comedy that fails doesn't turn into a great drama -- it just turns into a hot, awkward mess.) We got embarrassed and shut this off about fifteen minutes in.
I would say that this poster is at least
78% more interesting than the actual film
Creepshow 2: Honestly, I think a lot of the problem with Creepshow AND Creepshow 2 is that the majority of Stephen King stories don't adapt well to the screen. When the real story happening is in the internal horror that a person is experiencing... it's just not going to transfer to a visual medium. The majority of Stephen King stories I've seen on the screen either a) wound up being exceptionally goofy in some spot where they were supposed to be scary, b) wound up dull, or c) had significant structural changes to avoid those problems. We didn't like Creepshow... and Creepshow 2 was more of the same but worse. (I'll repeat: morality tales don't work without morality. Example: An old couple that runs a convenience store [which happens to have a large cigar-store Indian in it] get tormented and killed by some thugs. The cigar store Indian comes to life and kills the thugs, and then everyone is dead. No, the kids weren't killed in particularly ironic ways. Yeah, the old couple is still dead because the cigar store Indian simply couldn't be bothered to come to life in time to save them. The End... Hooray?)
What a great story! It certainly teaches us that you shouldn't
murder old people. I'll have to change my plans for this evening.
The Witches of Eastwick: I'm not a big fan of what I would call "women's movies". To me, most movies that are made "for women" tend to be dull and insipid, have lackluster attempts at comedy, and often feature a weird, man-hating vibe. The Witches of Eastwick is no exception, and not even Jack Nicholson being about as Jack-Nicholson-y as he could possibly be could keep us watching this movie. (You know what? It is possible to make a film with strong women... without implying, by inference, that all men are pigs.) We didn't even realize the film was supposed to be funny until about halfway through when there was an awkwardly-attempting-to-be-humorous scene of the women discovering their witchy powers during a tennis game. (It wasn't even really clear that that's what was happening. It was just embarrassing. I didn't figure out the intent of the scene at all until I read a summary of the film afterwards.)
This picture is more fun than the movie.And after I read the summary of the film, I was like, "Wait, this was a comedy? Was the whole thing supposed to be funny? ... Wow, that really didn't come across." Nor did it come across that the movie was supposed to be charming and fun. It was just... well, frankly, I found it gross and unsettling. We made it more than half way through and then just had to stop.
So, those are the movies that we've shut off, and why. Needless to say, none of these movies reside on our shelf!
That time of "non-switching-offness" is no more. Here's a short list of the films we never made it through... Mainly horror/sci-fi, so they're appropriate for October.
A Scanner Darkly. I thought the "cell painted" look of it was interesting... and that's about it. We got very tired extremely quickly of the annoying characters and didn't enjoy where the plot seemed to be going, so we shut it off.
Not even Keanu knows what this movie was about.Transylvania 6-5000: Oh, so bad. Nothing fails quite as hard as a comedy that fails. For the record, I wanted to like this movie! Look at that poster below -- doesn't it look fun? It has young Jeff Goldblum and Ed Begley, Jr.! But no... it fails to create any kind of atmosphere for a good horror comedy (apparently they were supposed to be in "spooky" settings, but everything was filmed in broad daylight, thus removing any potential for spookiness, and even any potential for comedy, because it doesn't make sense that the characters are supposed to be scared when things don't look scary).The only good part was young Michael Richards hamming it up, and even he wasn't worth keeping the movie rolling for. Shut off about half way through.
This is gonna be great! It'll be spooky, and funny, and scary... Or maybe just embarrassing?Waxwork: Again, I wanted to like this movie. It's got the kid from Gremlins in it, and Dana Ashbrook of Twin Peaks fame. We were hoping for a good-bad, straight-up horror movie that we could laugh at. Well, we were horrified, but not for the reasons we would have hoped: we discovered that this is one of those self-aware, "we're trying to be goofy, ha ha, look how goofy we are" comedy movies that fails on so many levels. (Did I mention that nothing fails as hard as a comedy that fails? A drama that fails can turn into a great comedy, but a comedy that fails doesn't turn into a great drama -- it just turns into a hot, awkward mess.) We got embarrassed and shut this off about fifteen minutes in.
I would say that this poster is at least 78% more interesting than the actual film
Creepshow 2: Honestly, I think a lot of the problem with Creepshow AND Creepshow 2 is that the majority of Stephen King stories don't adapt well to the screen. When the real story happening is in the internal horror that a person is experiencing... it's just not going to transfer to a visual medium. The majority of Stephen King stories I've seen on the screen either a) wound up being exceptionally goofy in some spot where they were supposed to be scary, b) wound up dull, or c) had significant structural changes to avoid those problems. We didn't like Creepshow... and Creepshow 2 was more of the same but worse. (I'll repeat: morality tales don't work without morality. Example: An old couple that runs a convenience store [which happens to have a large cigar-store Indian in it] get tormented and killed by some thugs. The cigar store Indian comes to life and kills the thugs, and then everyone is dead. No, the kids weren't killed in particularly ironic ways. Yeah, the old couple is still dead because the cigar store Indian simply couldn't be bothered to come to life in time to save them. The End... Hooray?)
What a great story! It certainly teaches us that you shouldn't murder old people. I'll have to change my plans for this evening.
The Witches of Eastwick: I'm not a big fan of what I would call "women's movies". To me, most movies that are made "for women" tend to be dull and insipid, have lackluster attempts at comedy, and often feature a weird, man-hating vibe. The Witches of Eastwick is no exception, and not even Jack Nicholson being about as Jack-Nicholson-y as he could possibly be could keep us watching this movie. (You know what? It is possible to make a film with strong women... without implying, by inference, that all men are pigs.) We didn't even realize the film was supposed to be funny until about halfway through when there was an awkwardly-attempting-to-be-humorous scene of the women discovering their witchy powers during a tennis game. (It wasn't even really clear that that's what was happening. It was just embarrassing. I didn't figure out the intent of the scene at all until I read a summary of the film afterwards.)
This picture is more fun than the movie.And after I read the summary of the film, I was like, "Wait, this was a comedy? Was the whole thing supposed to be funny? ... Wow, that really didn't come across." Nor did it come across that the movie was supposed to be charming and fun. It was just... well, frankly, I found it gross and unsettling. We made it more than half way through and then just had to stop.So, those are the movies that we've shut off, and why. Needless to say, none of these movies reside on our shelf!
September 27, 2016
American Werewolf in London (1981)
After watching The Fly, an (in my opinion) unsuccessful attempt at a "man transforms into monster" motif, I felt like watching a movie that successfully explores the "man transforms into monster" motif.
So we re-watched An American Werewolf in London.
The Trailer.
The plot is pretty much straight-forward werewolf movie: two college-aged boys are backpacking across Europe, and start (for some reason) in cold, dreary, northern England. They stop in a pub where all the locals are acting strangely. They are told to leave, and wind up walking out across a moor under the full moon (both of which they were advised not to do)... one is killed, and the other is bitten by a werewolf, and this is his story.
His story. The one on the right.Suffice it to say, it's a very peculiar movie, because it basically shouldn't work. The tone is a bit weird, because it goes back and forth a lot between cartoonish goofiness, extreme gore and tragic horror, which should really render it almost unwatchable. (You know, like The Fly.)
And yet it's not.
In fact, it's one of our favorite halloween-time movies, and I'll tell you why. (And why it's better than The Fly.)
For one thing, The Fly doesn't have the Doctor Pepper Guy in it.
1. Characters: It has likeable and relatable main characters. You understand the motivations of every single person in this film. It's pretty clear-cut. (Unlike The Fly).
2. Plot: Like The Fly, you basically know where this movie is going due to the title of the film (it's not like somebody isn't going to turn into a werewolf and be in London in this movie). And most werewolf movies, even when they throw in some other plot nonsense (I'm looking at YOU, Jack Nicholson's Wolf) seem to follow the same general story. HOWEVER, the only tension in The Fly is your waiting to find out how gross things are going to get, because you don't like or care about the main characters. This movie manages to have plenty of tensions and keeps you on your toes the entire time, because you're quite worried about (and also amused by) the unfortunate main character.
3. Special Effects: Okay, I won't complain at The Fly about its special effects -- they were pretty good. Mr. Hall was a big fan of the moment were Jeff Goldblum's eyes drool out of his head. However, as some guy once said:
... And that's how I feel about The Fly. However, the special effects are both great AND story-driven in An American Werewolf in London. I have seen a lot of werewolf movies (I like the concept, okay? It's interesting!) ... and this film has the single best man-to-wolf transformation scene. It's both abrupt and drawn-out, convincing and silly, hilarious and horrifying painful... You just can't beat it.
CGI simply can't compare.3. Humor: The Fly gets kind of funny at points when what's happening doesn't make sense, and when the gore is just over-the-top disgusting... and when Jeff Goldblum is standing there in his speedos, screaming at Geena Davis, "You're a f*****g square!"... And that's about it. An American Werewolf in London, on the other hand, has actual jokes. Now, they do switch around what type of humor they're using quite a bit -- it goes from shock laughs to broad, dopey "man falls down!" level humor -- and then cuts in dry, British wit. And then throws in a few cute laughs, with cute kids being cute, just for funzies.
Cutest and most harmless scene ever involving child
and stark naked adult.The tone switches around so much it really is a bit jarring when you first watch it, because it's hard to tell where it's going... but if you watch it, and then re-watch it, I think you'll like it.
4. Ending: In The Fly -- there are no real surprises in the very ending of the film, besides a slightly unanticipated level of gore. In American Werewolf... Well, I'm not going to spoil the ending. Suffice it to say, there is a tonal switcheroo, that messes with your overall feelings... Again, it really shouldn't work at all. I can't quite explain why it does.
Really, this whole film is a massive experiment in playing with the elements of tone: can you go from a moment of horrible tragedy to a joke, or vice versa, and have it work? (It utterly failed in the film The Lone Ranger a couple years back -- they tried to go straight from a scene of mass murder to a goofy scene of a horse wearing a hat and sitting in a tree, and it failed so hard.) Can you mess around with the varieties of humor that you're using? In this film, it does (in a strange kind of way). Can you have a joke within a moment of horrible tragedy? It's a very, very tricky thing, and would have been incredibly easy to get entirely wrong. But, for some reason, I think it works, and I think you should both watch and own this movie. Shelf-Recommended.
So we re-watched An American Werewolf in London.
The Trailer.
The plot is pretty much straight-forward werewolf movie: two college-aged boys are backpacking across Europe, and start (for some reason) in cold, dreary, northern England. They stop in a pub where all the locals are acting strangely. They are told to leave, and wind up walking out across a moor under the full moon (both of which they were advised not to do)... one is killed, and the other is bitten by a werewolf, and this is his story.
His story. The one on the right.Suffice it to say, it's a very peculiar movie, because it basically shouldn't work. The tone is a bit weird, because it goes back and forth a lot between cartoonish goofiness, extreme gore and tragic horror, which should really render it almost unwatchable. (You know, like The Fly.)And yet it's not.
In fact, it's one of our favorite halloween-time movies, and I'll tell you why. (And why it's better than The Fly.)
For one thing, The Fly doesn't have the Doctor Pepper Guy in it.
1. Characters: It has likeable and relatable main characters. You understand the motivations of every single person in this film. It's pretty clear-cut. (Unlike The Fly).
2. Plot: Like The Fly, you basically know where this movie is going due to the title of the film (it's not like somebody isn't going to turn into a werewolf and be in London in this movie). And most werewolf movies, even when they throw in some other plot nonsense (I'm looking at YOU, Jack Nicholson's Wolf) seem to follow the same general story. HOWEVER, the only tension in The Fly is your waiting to find out how gross things are going to get, because you don't like or care about the main characters. This movie manages to have plenty of tensions and keeps you on your toes the entire time, because you're quite worried about (and also amused by) the unfortunate main character.
3. Special Effects: Okay, I won't complain at The Fly about its special effects -- they were pretty good. Mr. Hall was a big fan of the moment were Jeff Goldblum's eyes drool out of his head. However, as some guy once said:
... And that's how I feel about The Fly. However, the special effects are both great AND story-driven in An American Werewolf in London. I have seen a lot of werewolf movies (I like the concept, okay? It's interesting!) ... and this film has the single best man-to-wolf transformation scene. It's both abrupt and drawn-out, convincing and silly, hilarious and horrifying painful... You just can't beat it.
CGI simply can't compare.3. Humor: The Fly gets kind of funny at points when what's happening doesn't make sense, and when the gore is just over-the-top disgusting... and when Jeff Goldblum is standing there in his speedos, screaming at Geena Davis, "You're a f*****g square!"... And that's about it. An American Werewolf in London, on the other hand, has actual jokes. Now, they do switch around what type of humor they're using quite a bit -- it goes from shock laughs to broad, dopey "man falls down!" level humor -- and then cuts in dry, British wit. And then throws in a few cute laughs, with cute kids being cute, just for funzies.
Cutest and most harmless scene ever involving childand stark naked adult.The tone switches around so much it really is a bit jarring when you first watch it, because it's hard to tell where it's going... but if you watch it, and then re-watch it, I think you'll like it.
4. Ending: In The Fly -- there are no real surprises in the very ending of the film, besides a slightly unanticipated level of gore. In American Werewolf... Well, I'm not going to spoil the ending. Suffice it to say, there is a tonal switcheroo, that messes with your overall feelings... Again, it really shouldn't work at all. I can't quite explain why it does.
Really, this whole film is a massive experiment in playing with the elements of tone: can you go from a moment of horrible tragedy to a joke, or vice versa, and have it work? (It utterly failed in the film The Lone Ranger a couple years back -- they tried to go straight from a scene of mass murder to a goofy scene of a horse wearing a hat and sitting in a tree, and it failed so hard.) Can you mess around with the varieties of humor that you're using? In this film, it does (in a strange kind of way). Can you have a joke within a moment of horrible tragedy? It's a very, very tricky thing, and would have been incredibly easy to get entirely wrong. But, for some reason, I think it works, and I think you should both watch and own this movie. Shelf-Recommended.
September 20, 2016
The Fly (1986)
For our Halloween viewing this year, we decided to try to catch up on a few movies that were 1980's sequels of 1950's horror movies... and, of course, an obvious choice in that category is The Fly. You know, the movie where Jeff Goldblum throws up in his hand.
When this is the single most famous image from your movie...
Well, let's just say, I should have known what to expect.
The Plot: Jeff Goldblum is a socially-inept scientist who meets Geena Davis, and blabs to her all about this teleportation device he's working on. She wants to tell the world, but he explains that it's not quite ready yet -- he hasn't successfully beamed a living creature. They use this as the very sound basis for a sexual relationship. Meanwhile, Geena Davis has some problems because her ex-boyfriend is a jealous weirdo. She goes to sort things out with him -- meanwhile, Jeff Goldblum gets drunk, and figures out the trick to beaming live stuff, and beams himself (while drunk, which is always a bad idea) and, of course, accidentally combines himself with a fly. Over the rest of the film, he gradually turns into a fly (sort of).
I was generally dissatisfied with this film, and it took me a while to figure out why. In the end, this is what I came up with:
1. This is an extremely minor point -- but, in both films called "The Fly" -- entirely too much time was spent on the conversion into being a fly, and not at all enough time on actually being a fly. In neither version of the fly does our hero actually sprout fly wings and buzz around (because in both eras that we've had a version of this story... it would have just been too hard of an effect to get right). He spent a grand total of about a minute and a half looking like a (wingless) fly, and the rest of the time, looked more or less like a caveman with severe eczema:
2. I knew this was going to be a movie with some gross stuff in it. The pictures above assured me of that. But, really, in the end, this movie had nothing to offer BESIDES those gross-out moments. The existential horror of turning into a fly was really nullified by the second biggest problem with this film, which was:
3. As soon as he started turning into a fly, our hero became a jerk (perhaps understandably, in one respect. Flies are definitely jerks). However, because he was a jerk, I wasn't all that upset for him that he was turning into a fly. Gone is the sympathy or horror that you feel for the main character in the 1956 version of The Fly... and without sympathy, you have no reason to buy into the rest of the film. Instead, you're just grossed out and annoyed, and wishing he would get it over with. "Okay, okay -- when does a fly pop out? How long is this movie?" I guess you're a bit concerned for Geena Davis, as she does seem to have bad luck with guys (and discovers, in the latter half of the film that she's pregnant.... not much of a spoiler there, as there's no real ending payoff for that plot element) but for our "hero", Jeff Goldblum? Not so much. He's just a jerk, and rather clinically amused with what's happening to his body (in true, stammering, Jeff Goldblum fashion), which doesn't really lead to much tension.
You feel genuinely bad for the guy with the fly head in the 1956 version.
And for the fly with the guy head.4. Their romantic relationship goes from zero to sixty in under six seconds. Okay, fine. That routinely happens in movies because it's necessary for the plot... even if it doesn't feel realistic. But that doesn't explain a bunch of jumps in time, scenes that end too abruptly, and weird edits, and people behaving in ways that people aren't supposed to behave. It felt... kind of badly put together. Not Tommy Wiseau bad, but unsmooth. I suppose some people might claim that that's the "visionary" approach of the director, but it just felt clunky.
He develops the massive upper body strength... of a fly!
(P.S. That's now how bones work.)
5. But the single biggest problem with The Fly is this: YOU KNOW EXACTLY HOW IT'S GOING TO END. He turns into a fly. Granted, that's also a problem in the original version of The Fly (even more so, perhaps, because the 1956 version is one of those "Let's start with the end of the story and then go back and tell how all this happened" kind of plots. This one doesn't make that mistake, but was there any chance that you didn't think he turns into a fly in this movie?) Okay, there was a part with someone's limbs being melted off that was kind of unexpected -- and, of course, the always-enjoyable sub-plot about our heroine wanting an abortion (don't you just love that in movies? Gives you such a warm feeling on the inside). But all and all... where was the tension? You know, the thing that keeps a person watching until the end of the film? All that you had left by the end of the film was, "Okay, is just our hero going to die, or is everybody going to die? And how gross is it going to get? And is it going to make sense, unlike some other things that have happened?"
Ultimately... I didn't really like this movie. I suppose it's good to have seen it (for pop-culture awareness reasons)... but I don't think I need to keep a copy on my shelf.
When this is the single most famous image from your movie... Well, let's just say, I should have known what to expect.
The Plot: Jeff Goldblum is a socially-inept scientist who meets Geena Davis, and blabs to her all about this teleportation device he's working on. She wants to tell the world, but he explains that it's not quite ready yet -- he hasn't successfully beamed a living creature. They use this as the very sound basis for a sexual relationship. Meanwhile, Geena Davis has some problems because her ex-boyfriend is a jealous weirdo. She goes to sort things out with him -- meanwhile, Jeff Goldblum gets drunk, and figures out the trick to beaming live stuff, and beams himself (while drunk, which is always a bad idea) and, of course, accidentally combines himself with a fly. Over the rest of the film, he gradually turns into a fly (sort of).
I was generally dissatisfied with this film, and it took me a while to figure out why. In the end, this is what I came up with:
1. This is an extremely minor point -- but, in both films called "The Fly" -- entirely too much time was spent on the conversion into being a fly, and not at all enough time on actually being a fly. In neither version of the fly does our hero actually sprout fly wings and buzz around (because in both eras that we've had a version of this story... it would have just been too hard of an effect to get right). He spent a grand total of about a minute and a half looking like a (wingless) fly, and the rest of the time, looked more or less like a caveman with severe eczema:
2. I knew this was going to be a movie with some gross stuff in it. The pictures above assured me of that. But, really, in the end, this movie had nothing to offer BESIDES those gross-out moments. The existential horror of turning into a fly was really nullified by the second biggest problem with this film, which was:
3. As soon as he started turning into a fly, our hero became a jerk (perhaps understandably, in one respect. Flies are definitely jerks). However, because he was a jerk, I wasn't all that upset for him that he was turning into a fly. Gone is the sympathy or horror that you feel for the main character in the 1956 version of The Fly... and without sympathy, you have no reason to buy into the rest of the film. Instead, you're just grossed out and annoyed, and wishing he would get it over with. "Okay, okay -- when does a fly pop out? How long is this movie?" I guess you're a bit concerned for Geena Davis, as she does seem to have bad luck with guys (and discovers, in the latter half of the film that she's pregnant.... not much of a spoiler there, as there's no real ending payoff for that plot element) but for our "hero", Jeff Goldblum? Not so much. He's just a jerk, and rather clinically amused with what's happening to his body (in true, stammering, Jeff Goldblum fashion), which doesn't really lead to much tension.
You feel genuinely bad for the guy with the fly head in the 1956 version. And for the fly with the guy head.4. Their romantic relationship goes from zero to sixty in under six seconds. Okay, fine. That routinely happens in movies because it's necessary for the plot... even if it doesn't feel realistic. But that doesn't explain a bunch of jumps in time, scenes that end too abruptly, and weird edits, and people behaving in ways that people aren't supposed to behave. It felt... kind of badly put together. Not Tommy Wiseau bad, but unsmooth. I suppose some people might claim that that's the "visionary" approach of the director, but it just felt clunky.
He develops the massive upper body strength... of a fly!(P.S. That's now how bones work.)
5. But the single biggest problem with The Fly is this: YOU KNOW EXACTLY HOW IT'S GOING TO END. He turns into a fly. Granted, that's also a problem in the original version of The Fly (even more so, perhaps, because the 1956 version is one of those "Let's start with the end of the story and then go back and tell how all this happened" kind of plots. This one doesn't make that mistake, but was there any chance that you didn't think he turns into a fly in this movie?) Okay, there was a part with someone's limbs being melted off that was kind of unexpected -- and, of course, the always-enjoyable sub-plot about our heroine wanting an abortion (don't you just love that in movies? Gives you such a warm feeling on the inside). But all and all... where was the tension? You know, the thing that keeps a person watching until the end of the film? All that you had left by the end of the film was, "Okay, is just our hero going to die, or is everybody going to die? And how gross is it going to get? And is it going to make sense, unlike some other things that have happened?"
Ultimately... I didn't really like this movie. I suppose it's good to have seen it (for pop-culture awareness reasons)... but I don't think I need to keep a copy on my shelf.
