Jamie Alexandre Hall's Blog, page 3

Halloween Shelf: The Frighteners (1996)

I haven't watched our copy of The Frighteners in some time (and not only because of the terrible, terrible DVD cover that this official release of the movie received).


PLOT: Many years ago, a small town was rocked by a mass-murder. A young female doctor arrives in town in present day 1990's and is startled to discover that one of her patients was actually involved in the long-ago murder -- but was this gal a willing participant, or an innocent dupe? Meanwhile, people in the town begin to mysteriously die -- is it natural causes, or somehow connected to the murders? Then we meet Frank (Michael J. Fox) a man making a living as a psychic investigator who can purge ghosts from your house -- a hoax incorporating his friendships with a couple "real live" ghosts pals. Can he team up with the young doctor to stop the mystery plaguing the town?

Minor Nitpicks

First minor nitpick: okay. This movie was made during the early days of CGI. Therefore, most of the effects look hideously primitive.

Um. Yeah.In truth, it bothered me less than I thought it would (even though watching most early CGI films are now an experience not unlike rubbing a bunch of jello and nachos into your eyes). After the initial moments, and some terrible CGI "jokes" (one of the ghosts is going to THROW UP! Oh, he covered his mouth, so his face expands -- and then vomit shoots out of his ears! It happened because he's a ghost, you get it? And ghosts are apparently just balloons so they don't have brains or guts or skeletons or anything to keep the contents of their stomachs in the right places -- except, wait, they have stomachs? And can eat food? Wait, this "joke" doesn't make any sense...)

Second minor nitpick: You see this image? This image that looks like a non-professional badly photoshopped together a few images from the movie for the release that was going to go in the $3 bin at Wal-Mart?

This was an actual, official DVD release cover -- which graces the DVD I own. It ANGERS AND DISGUSTS ME. Somebody photoshopped together three unrelated photos from the movie and called it quits for the day, and I'm assuming received a paycheck for this work. Question: WHY DIDN'T THEY JUST USE THE ACTUAL MOVIE POSTER? Granted, it's not a lot more complex, but at least it looks as though it was purposefully done and planned by professionals. This thing above is just shameful.

Overall Thoughts

Basically... This movie holds up pretty well. The meat of the story is about Michael J. Fox recovering from a dark backstory and the mystery behind these murders -- and those parts are all right. It's an enjoyable and entertaining story, surprisingly heart-felt at times, and Michael J. Fox gives a good performance (which was at once the same Michael J. Fox we've seen many times and a more broken, vulnerable version of the same character, which worked).


That said... the majority of the "ghosts" in this movie (except for a solitary scary one) are basically the comic relief. That's not necessarily a bad thing, except that the comedy goes excessively low-brow (and that is said by a person who adores The Three Stooges -- i.e. poke-in-the-eye, pants-fall-down-level humor). There's an old cowboy ghost played by veteran actor John Astin (aka the original Gomez Addams) -- and one of the "jokes" we are treated to seeing him perform is his humping a mummy in a crypt (followed by him uttering the "not-creepy-in-a-good-way" line, "I like it when they lie still like that.") Granted, John Astin got to make a paycheck that day -- and that's about the best thing you can say about that.


Most of the "jokes" for the ghosts are not far above that level (like the vomiting ghost thing I mentioned above. It doesn't even really work as a joke, because it immediately begs the question of the mechanics behind ghosts which cuts any potential comedy from the situation short...) In other words, we're talking "Garbage Pail Kids" trading-cards level humor -- i.e. gross booger hanging out of nose = comedy.

Also: our heroine in this movie comes across somewhat poorly. Now, I'm not saying that in a surface sense; on the surface, she was a cute little lady with a pleasant, sincere, Andie-MacDowell-ish quality.

And, admittedly, the story needed her to be open to the idea of ghosts and the supernatural -- and to believe the best about certain people when it wasn't really merited -- but the way she's written, she comes across as a bit of a naive dunderhead who will believe anything that is told to her -- regardless of the really unreliable source.

Ultimately...

I liked the movie. But that isn't to say that it didn't have its faults -- mainly in the writing and certain beyond-lowbrow attempts at "comedy". But our hero and heroine are very pleasant to watch, the story is basically entertaining, and there's a satisfactory wrap-up to the story. So, yeah! If you haven't seen it, and you like Michael J. Fox, it's worth it to add to your Halloween-viewing this season.

RECOMMENDED(With Reservations)

Halloween Shelf: Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)

I've seen Bram Stoker's Dracula twice now -- and it's never what I want it to be.



Plot: First we get the backstory: Dracula was once a successful king/warrior thing in the middle ages. But then his enemies sent word home that he'd died (he hadn't) so his overly impulsive wife jumped out a window. When he got home from the war and saw what had happened, he (also overly impulsively) decided to stab a cross and declare that he would never die out of sheer spite at God for letting bad things happen. Evidently, at this point God turns him into a vampire out of spite (??)... Then, several centuries later: Jonathan Harker is a lawyer who going to Transylvania to help out an old weirdo with some property purchasing. (SHOCK! IT'S DRACULA). Dracula notices that the photo of Jonathan's fiancee, Mina, looks just like his old, overly-impulsive wife, and from there the story spools out... 

Okay, it's worth noting that not only have I watched another version of Dracula already this year, I'm actually reading the book "Dracula" by Bram Stoker. I've never read it before; it's a first. And reading it makes me really... perturbed at this movie.

Mainly, because -- why call your movie "Bram Stoker's Dracula" (thus implying it's the author's true vision) when you are totally going to jack with the story?

"What are you talking about? I totally wear a muscle suit
in the book!"And I'm not talking about minor points of dissension, like leaving out a certain character or abbreviating certain moments -- or even making things bloodier or sexier than they were in the book. (Did you know the primary symptoms of vampirism in ladies are writhing around in red lingerie and breast-exposing?)

(Wrestler Bret Hart added to this scene for modesty.)One simply must allow, in literary adaptation to film, for the freedom of the filmmakers to make certain scenes more "visual" than they might have been previously (even if, on a personal level, I don't think we needed quite so much writhing around, or quite so many boobies). I acknowledge that a strict adaptation of the book would be twelve hours of people sitting around writing in their diaries, and probably not very interesting.

THAT SAID, my problems go far beyond issues of translating the written word to the screen.

2. Characterisation:

It seems like almost every character in this movie has elements that make them the moral inverse of the character that they are in the book. Let's go down the list, shall we?

Book Dr. Seward: A kind doctor who runs a mental institution, and is very in love with Lucy.
Film Dr. Seward: More or less the same... except now he's kind of a jerk, a stumble-bum and a morphine addict.
"AND a steampunk icon, thank you."Book Van Helsing: A kindly old man who happens to know all the ins and outs of vampire killin'.
Film Van Helsing: A blunt, inconsiderate old perv (who happens to know all the ins-and-outs of vampire killin'.)

(Not pictured: Actual scene where he humps someone's leg
I'm not even joking.)Book Jonathan Harker: The strong, true-love of Mina Murray. He is tempted to kiss the vampire brides of Dracula but doesn't.
Film Jonathan Harker: Keanu Reeves with a bad accent (I don't blame him; it wasn't a matter of not having the pronunciation -- it was a matter of not having the right inflection) who allows his parts (all his parts, if you get my gist) to be chewed on by the vampire brides of Dracula. Movie Jonathan Harker is a wimpy, easily-swayed non-entity.

"What? What did you say? I'm just, like, mellow, man."Book Lucy: A character very much like Mina. She's good and pure, and beloved by all -- until Dracula drinks her to death, at which point she becomes a gross vampire.
Film Lucy: She flirts with all the guys, makes out with her female best friend, has sex with Dracula when he's half-transformed into an ape thing, writhes around in a red neglige and exposes her boobs to all and sundry -- and then is transformed into a vampire. (There would be little difference, except that vampire Lucy has terrible taste in clothes and is actually somewhat less skanky.)

This is her when she's not a vampire.Book Dracula: An evil monster who drinks people's blood until they also transform into monsters.
Film Dracula: A poor guy with a broken heart. (Who drinks people's blood until they transform into monsters.)
He just wants to be loved, folks!1. The Love Story: Okay, so, in the movie Dracula sees the picture of Harker's fiancee, Mina, and she's the spitting image of his dear dead wife -- so, that definitely means that she is the reincarnation of dear, dead wife (because that's how it works in movies).

"Couldn't possibly just be a superficial physical resemblance!"So, Dracula goes to London, seeks her, romances her, (and because she is, of course, definitely the reincarnation she totally falls for him) and isn't even really concerned with drinking her blood -- he just really, really likes her (and in the meantime, wants to get it on with some other gals, too. Which doesn't really work with this iteration of the plot, but, you know -- don't let a minor thing like "plot making sense" get in the way of taking people's clothes off). This climaxes (literally, it would appear) with Dracula swooshing into her bedroom and the most heinously self-indulgent "Dracula turning girl into vampire by making her drink his blood" scene ever. This is how it's described in the book:

"His face was turned from us, but the instant we saw we all recognized the Count, in every way, even to the scar on his forehead. With his left hand he held both Mrs. Harker's hands, keeping them away with her arms at full tension. His right hand gripped her by the back of the neck, forcing her face down on his bosom. Her white nightdress was smeared with blood, and a thin stream trickled down the man's bare chest which was shown by his torn-open dress. The attitude of the two had a terrible resemblance to a child forcing a kitten's nose into a saucer of milk to compel it to drink. As we burst into the room, the Count turned his face, and the hellish look that I had heard described seemed to leap into it." (Chapter 21, Dracula.)

...In other words, Dracula is a gross monster and victimizing Mina. She's being forced into vampirism not because she's his long-lost reincarnated love (a plot element not in the book)... but because Dracula is a creep and he really wants to hurt the people who are bent on taking him down (i.e. all Mina's friends).

Whereas, in this movie, she's in love with him so she's totally into it, and Dracula appears to get a lot more enjoyment out of the process than one would be comfortable with one's grandmother watching...


Bret Hart intervenes again to keep it from looking quite so dirty.
(He's also kind of disappointed with you for looking at pictures like this.).... AND THE SCENE GOES ON FOR A REALLY, REALLY LONG TIME. Long to the point of you checking your watch, wondering when this embarrassing hot mess is going to end.

Turning Dracula from a horror into a sympathetic character (and turning Mina from an unwilling participant into a... well, willing participant), completely messes with the tone of the film. Dracula's not the least bit scary anymore -- he's just a pathetic person who wants some lady action. It turns this from a horror movie into a really lame, overwrought love story about a total sad-sack who doesn't get how theology works (and turns Mina from a chaste victim into a nasty, monster-sucking weirdo who doesn't mind cheating on her husband and is just mildly put out that her handsome prince also murdered her best friend).

IN OTHER WORDS, the "romance" COMPLETELY RUINS THE STORY. It's ruined. It's done. It doesn't even matter that the ending is a wash-out now, with a lame wrap-up and a child's understanding of how Christian theology is supposed to work -- because the story was irrevocably broken from the point that Dracula is introduced at the very beginning as a sympathetic character. You need moral absolutes in a proper horror movie in order to make it really work; this movie is a murky, morally-confused mess.

Ultimately...
I have to give this movie props for its visual look (which is a treat for the eyes); they include more of the book than most adaptations (although they also ruin some of the elements they did include); and for some of its casting -- Gary Oldman is always good to watch, of course, and basically makes a good Dracula (in spite of the fact that they ruined him with the changes they made to the story).

So, in a nutshell -- the liberties they took with the story just ruin it. That's all there is to say. I'm not going to tell you not to watch it, because the movie does have surprises, good acting, and isn't a terrible film -- but it is a terrible adaptation of the book Dracula. In the end I can tell you that you will be entertained if you watch this movie... but maybe not for the right reasons, and you might not find it a wholly satisfactory experience.

RECOMMENDED(With Severe Reservations)

Halloween Shelf: Dracula (1931) - *Alternate Spanish Language Version*

The story of how this movie was made is an interesting story in itself.


Plot: It's the Dracula story. Pretty sure you're already aware.

So, it turns out that in 1931, they didn't quite have the concept of dubbing-over movies with a foreign voice track. (Talkies were pretty new, remember; The Jazz Singer had just come out in 1927, four years earlier). In fact, they were so new to the idea of sound, that when they made the 1931 version of Dracula, they just filmed a more-or-less identical version using Spanish-speaking actors on the exact same set, but during the night when the English-speaking actors weren't using the set.

In addition to having a different cast, the film was acted slightly differently and directed slightly differently. So, in addition to being in a different language, it's like watching a completely different take on the exact same movie, story, and script.

Oh, and the guy playing Dracula looks like a cross between
Bela Lugosi and Nicholas Cage.Interesting, right? There's even a debate about whether or not the Spanish-language version is better than the Bela Lugosi version -- and, with that debate in mind, we finally watched our copy.

Comparing the Two
Okay.... It's really hard for me to say whether the Bela Lugosi Dracula is better than the "Carlos Vallarias" version. Partly, because they are shot on the same set, with essentially the same script. But there are clearly different choices being made by the actors and directors.

I would probably say that Bela Lugosi is more eerie and sinister -- and Carlos Vallarias is more creepy and threatening. Bela Lugosi is more otherworldly -- while you wouldn't be all that surprised to find Carlos Vallarias peering in your bathroom window while you conduct your morning toiletries.

With this expression on his face.Bela comes across as spooky, while Carlos comes across as disturbingly crazy. Both are frightening, but frightening in different ways. So does that make the Bela Lugosi version better, or vice versa? I don't know! It's rather hard to say. Kind of an apples-to-oranges type situation. If anything, I would say (in spite of the wacky facial expressions in this version) that the Spanish-language version is a little more subtle, and a little slower-paced. So, whether or not you would like this version or not really depends on what mood you're in (and, of course, whether you enjoy reading subtitles and/or have a good grasp of the Spanish language).

As far as the supporting cast... I definitely preferred the English-language Renfield to the Spanish one. The Spanish one was more subdued, and Renfield is a character who just doesn't need to be subdued. I also preferred the English-language Van Helsing: the Spanish language one just didn't come across as quite as strong a character. (And looked a bit much like Eugene Levy).

Not that Eugene Levy wouldn't make a good Van Helsing...As for the leading ladies.... I might have liked the Spanish-language leading ladies just a little better. I think they came across as less stagey and more natural, which works in this story. And they had nicer costumes!



One thing I can say: my favorite scene in the English language version (when they attempt to get Dracula to look in a mirror in a cigar box and he flips out) is just as effective in the Spanish-language version. Different, (possibly... less surprising... but more violent?), but just as effective.


Draculas don't like mirrors!Ultimately...
I don't want to come off as demeaning when I call this film an "oddity" -- but that really is a good term to describe it. Oddity. You might argue that the alternate, Spanish-language version of Dracula is worth watching mainly from a film buff's perspective: I can't think of any other classic horror films that had a duplicate filmed in a different language, with different actors and director, but on the exact same set. A non-film buff might find comparing the two semi-identical films a tad on the tedious side.

To a film buff, however, it's fascinating. That said, while many parts of it are very fun, but I'm not sure I would watch it just for fun, on its own; I would ultimately prefer the English-language version. I do recommend that you see it, though -- and I would hope that you have already seen the English-language 1931 Dracula when you watch it. If not, please watch that soon afterwards for comparison's sake, and tell me how it compares when this is your first frame of reference. There's a chance it makes the English-language version look somewhat stilted and stagey by comparison (but, with a story like Dracula, that kind of works?) It's a tough call, so, in the end I'm going to say it's....

RECOMMENDED(With Minor "Film Buff Only" Reservations)

Halloween Shelf: It (2017) - An Off My Shelf Review

I have seen very few horror movies in the theatre. And since everybody in the world thought "It" sounded like a good movie to go see, we thought we'd check it out.



Plot: Children in this town keep disappearing, and it's not just due to the ridiculously evil school bullies. It's up to a ragtag team of misfits with vile vocabularies and terrible parents to figure out the mystery.

We went into this with three potential concerns: "jump-scares" (i.e. the moment when a thing in a movie jumps out and surprises you - hence, makes you jump); the makeup for this darn clown; and the knowledge that I have seen very few really good Stephen King adaptations.

Why do I have a problem with "jump-scares"? Because they are the cheapest possible way to scare your audience. "Argh! Something jumped at me real fast and it made me jump!"

Jump-scare.I saw a quote recently that compared a movie full of jump-scares to a stand-up comedian who goes down into the audience and tickles everyone, then claims to be a good comedian because he succeeded in making everybody laugh. It's pretty much the same thing. There is no sustained sense of horror or terror from the jump-scare experience -- nobody goes home afraid something is going to jump at them real fast. A sustained sense of horror comes from someplace else, a psychological and possibily spiritual place, and the majority of modern horror movies can't figure out where that place is. (I have to assume it's because they are written by completely shallow people.)

The makeup for the clown was also a concern for me, because it was so patently "supposed to be scary"; not unlike the design of the Annabelle doll (does that look like a toy any parent would purchase for a child? NO! Truly scary dolls are dolls that were supposed to be cute or funny but went horribly wrong, and some not-paying-attention parent couldn't see past the failed attempt at cute-funniness and brought the horrible thing home...) Tim Curry's "It" was just an ordinary-looking clown who was made unsettling by the fact of Tim Curry's actual face (that's not an insult; he has a different face). So, what I'm saying is, putting "scary makeup" over a clearly handsome man is much less spooky than putting "benign, whimsical makeup" over a clearly weird-looking man.

See? He doesn't need makeup. Tim Curry just smiling and
stroking a broom like a pervert is scary on its own.My third concern -- the Stephen King adaptation problem. The Stephen King adaptation problem is that sometimes, out of a misguided sense of fealty to the author, people adapting Stephen King stories leave in too much; they put things into the film that might have been scary when you imagined them in the book, but, when translated into film, just plain look silly. Children of the Corn's ending was ruined by a goofy explosion. The Langoliers is ruined by the accurate (if horribly computer-animated) adaptation of the monsters. Christine is just dull. And the original TV movie of It (1990) just plain gets goofy at the end. (No spoilers... but it's not scary at all. I don't know what they're going to do about that in the sequel...)

I'm not saying there are no good Stephen King adaptations, because clearly people respect the movies The Shining and Misery. But you know what both of those movies had? Moments from the books that the filmmakers judiciously chose to leave out. So what would happen with the 2017 version of It? Would it go too far? Would it make all these mistakes?

The 2017 "It"

.... Long story short, I basically enjoyed this movie.

In the first ten minutes, I didn't think I was going to. The first little boy who gets taken by It isn't convincing (i.e. he's not a good actor. When he's laughing he's not convincing, when he's scared he's not convincing). And then we start getting introduced to our "heroes" -- they talk like the vilest of college fratboys. Is that what 12-year old boys talk like? Or, as the case may be, talked like in the 1980's? (Granted, kids in the Stephen King version of childhood always seem to have appallingly filthy vocabularies.) All can say is, I was almost the exact age of the kids in this movie during that period, and I didn't talk like that. Although I was also homeschooled, and not a boy.


Yes, the problem with the clown makeup still stands -- too patently "scary" over a relatively handsomely-built face. And Mr. Hall would have enjoyed him doing more actual clown-capering. Some of my favorite parts of his were when he was just being a jerk to the kids, rather than trying to be outright scary -- because those were the parts where we began to get a sense of the personality of Pennywise the Clown (outside of the "I'm a Scary Clown!" business).

And there ARE jump-scares.

However, the movie isn't just a solid wall of jump-scares, it's not ruined by the makeup, and although the kids start out appalling and unappealing -- they get better. (The vocab remains in the gutter, but the kids become a bit more sympathetic as the film wears on).

The middle of the film does an effective job of working childhood fears.

As the story progresses, the kids go from being shallow representations of vague 1980's culture to actual kids with actual problems -- and we understand why they are scared and sympathize.

Halloween Shelf: Poltergeist (1982)

Poltergeist is a movie I did not grow up watching. So I feel fairly confident that I'm talking about it in an unbiased fashion.


Plot: An ordinary family is going through the motions of their ordinary lives, when weird things start happening in their house. Furniture moves around on its own. Their youngest daughter starts talking to the TV in a very peculiar fashion -- when the TV is just switched to static. And then a tree tries to eat their son and things just spiral out of control from there.

I basically like the movie Poltergeist. In fact, I would go as far as to say I quite enjoy watching the movie Poltergeist. But there are some parts of it that just confuse me (and not in a good, "What an interesting mystery!" kind of way, but in a "...I can't tell why they did this, it seems like a filmmaker misstep," kind of way).

Pot-Heads
Okay. This is a little thing, but it's a problem for me. They do a lot of things to depict the family in this movie as just your average, run-of-the-mill, wholesome, ordinary family. We see them going through their daily routines. The kids are not incredibly well-behaved, but not so poorly behaved as to make us not like them. A pet bird dies and Mom has to go through the kid/pet funeral experience. The kids go off to school. Dad is shown doing his job (selling houses in the connected housing tract). THEN, later in the evening, we get to see Mom and Dad hanging out on their own, while talking over their day and relaxing... and smoking pot.


I am so confused as to why that particular element was included in this movie. It's not referenced again. It's not a story element; it's not like Mom and Dad's reliability is ever questioned later on (you know, in a "They're potheads, so maybe they didn't actually see a ghost!" way). So why was it included? Why not just have Mom and Dad have the exact same scene together while not smoking pot? Is it the filmmakers displaying their own warped notions of homelife by implying that "That's just something ordinary folk do! They smoke pot while they're relaxing at the end of the day!" ... Or is this a very clumsy way of the filmmakers going, "See, they used to be hippies, hence the pot, but now they're squares -- hence, the Ronald Reagan book." And Mom does have a moment, later on, when she says to Dad after she first notices the weird happenings in the house, "Think back to when you were open-minded," or something to that effect.

But his being open or closed-minded, or hers, never really enters the picture. There are never any doubts about whether or not there are ghosts, or whether they're just imagining it. A few minutes later, a tree attempts to eat their child, and whether or not they are open-minded to the paranormal is completely a moot point, because they are having to save their child from a supernaturally-possessed tree.

I'm not saying this figuratively. The tree is literally trying
to eat the kid.So why the pot? What was the point? The only purpose it serves, in the end, is to make Mom and Dad seem a little less wholesome and a little less responsible. And if this were a movie about unwholesome, irresponsible people becoming responsible, that would be fine -- but it wasn't! It was a totally useless moment!

Special Effects
For the most part, the special effects in this movie are quite good and pretty effective. You don't see all the ghosts, because it's just plain scarier that way -- but most of the ones you do see are portrayed in such a way that they are frightening.

However, there are three bad special effects moments in this movie:

This cartoon skeleton hand.
Stuff flying around in the bedroom.
A guy suddenly has a rubber monster face.
... Those are the three kind of bad-looking moments. The hand coming out of the TV looks like a cartoon; the stuff flying around in the bedroom looks like crappy, early computer effects; and the guy with the "suddenly rubber monster face" looks like a rubber monster face (although, regardless of its realism or lack thereof, I won't say that it isn't a nice surprise when it happens in the movie). In fact, whether or not these moments are effective despite their somewhat sketchy looking qualities is a whole other question -- I think, of the three, only the "stuff flying around the room" fails to achieve the desired result due to the quality of the effects.

That said, there are a lot of really good, impressive special effects. It's just that these three particular things kind of stand out.

Double-Endings (***Spoilers!***)

There are two endings in this movie.

1. The daughter, Carol-Ann, is sucked into the netherworld by the monsters. A psychic little person comes in and instructs them in how to get her back. They do so. BIG EMOTIONAL ENDING, EVERYBODY IS HAPPY, YAY. (That's the first ending. It feels like a full and complete ending in itself.) The psychic little person says, "This house is clean." THE END.

Maybe she just meant the house was surprisingly tidy.2. ...After that ending, the next day, they are moving out of the house and moving on with their lives. Dad goes to work to quit his job, and is gone for a really long time. Mom stops packing and decides to take a bath, dye her hair, and put the kids to bed (even though they previously agreed they were going to spend the night in a motel rather than spend one more night in this house). NOT SURPRISINGLY, since movies seldom tack on a fifteen-minute addendum to a film in which nothing at all happens, THE MONSTERS COME RIGHT BACK AND ATTACK THE FAMILY AGAIN. It's weird to me, then, that they had the little person (who was portrayed as an authority) shown as only half knowing what she's talking about. Yes, it's a good "surprise" ending and effective and scary -- but casts aspersions on a character in such a weird way that I'm not sure what they were going for. (THE END II). (***End of Spoilers***)


Ultimately...
I think this is an enjoyable movie to watch, mainly on the strength of the adult leads and the two smaller children. (The teen is basically a non-entity, included only for laughs). It is a story about the love of parents for their children, and it's touching and effective. The story is a little oddly structured, and there are some moments that seem to be making rather unclear points about the characters (the pot and the "this house is clean")... But it's still an enjoyable movie to watch.

In the end, therefore, it's...

RECOMMENDED(With Very Minor Reservations)

Halloween Shelf: Suspiria (1977)

Suspiria is another film by Dario Argento, director of another recent bit of viewing - Phenomena. Mr. Hall and I thought this would be a perfect film for some Halloween-viewing.



Actually, Suspiria turned out to have quite a few similarities with Phenomena... Except that I think Phenomena was considerably more entertaining.

Plot: Susie arrives at a German dance school from America. Initially, no one is there to let her in, and she sees a student leaving and acting weird (and then in a separate scene we get to see that other student getting violently murdered at the place they had sought refuge). The next day, Susie finally gets into her school, and is treated rather peculiarly, and the staff is downright weird. Then, Susie has a fainting spell and starts bleeding from the nose and mouth. A doctor comes and she is prescribed bed rest and plenty of wine. After drinking the wine every night, she gets excessively sleepy... other students at the school begin to disappear... weird, violent things happen... And a weird, out-of-left-field ending happens. THE END.

I think this movie actually suffered a bit from having seen Phenomena first. I think Phenomena moves better, has stranger music choices and more bizarre, "out-of-left-field" moments. By comparison... Suspiria, although I have to say that it's a very nice-looking horror movie which is very visually intriguing and highly atmospheric... and gets boring.

Let me repeat that: BORING.

It doesn't look boring, does it? NO! Visually stunning!
But just... not quite fulfilling in spots.It's hard not to compare Suspiria to Phenomena. They're both about an adolescent girl who arrives at a boarding school and feels weird and has some problems -- and there's murders and weird stuff going on there. The actresses who played both girls are somewhat similar looking (compare Jessica Harper, the star of this, to the star of Phenomena, Jennifer Connelly. Not twins, by any means, but clearly very similar "types").

Don't get me wrong; this movie is extremely visually striking, and it does have that going for it, and does a good job of creating a creepy, other-worldly atmosphere...

I'm not sure if this picture illustrates that or not....But not as much "stuff" is going on in this movie as in Phenomena.

The music in this one, although (like Phenomena) by "Goblin," gets (unlike Phenomena) unpleasantly repetitive. Towards the middle/end, the "suspenseful" theme really, really began to get on my nerves.

But it is a visually stunning movie.There were definite "slow parts" in this movie. There was a dull, expository part in the middle. And while I was surprised by the ending of the film (in that it more or less came out of left field) it wasn't as much fun as the ending of Phenomena, which was absolutely ridiculous. (Which is a positive in the "so bad it's good" type of movie.)

Even the murders were visually stunning.On some level, I kind of want to blame the lead actress, Jessica Harper -- because when I try to think of what her character was like in this movie, I can't come up with many descriptive "character" elements to describe her, which could be a sign of bad acting -- but can also be a sign of a poorly written character. And that's really what she was. "Susie" barely has a backstory and spends most of the film passed out.
She does a good job of looking scared, though.... But there wasn't a lot for her to work with. So, this is the one element where I don't feel like it's fair to compare her to Jennifer Connelly in Phenomena, because Jennifer Connelly was given a whole lot more to do. Jennifer Connelly's character had issues with sleepwalking and could control bugs with her mind! Jessica Harper... drank drugged wine and spent a lot of time asleep.

Ultimately...

The main problem with Suspiria is that it's a bit dull in spots, and nowhere near as crazy as the movie Phenomena. I really probably would have liked this movie better if I had seen it before I saw Phenomena -- because then Phenomena would have seemed like a really crazy, amped-up version of Suspiria. But having seen them in reverse order, Suspiria seems like a more visually appealing but watered-down version of Phenomena.

Many weird, bizarre things happen in the movie that seem to follow no logical trail... and that's fine. Good, in fact, in this type of movie, because it keeps things interesting. It's fun, even -- because this does come across as one of those movies that feels like it was written by a space alien... while it succeeds in being well-shot and well-designed. (Reminds me a bit of the film Troll 2 in that respect; it looks like a real movie, but doesn't sound or act like a real movie.)  But more weird, bizarre things happen in Phenomena, so I'm going to call Phenomena the more enjoyable experience film.

I would recommend this movie if set design and general atmosphere are major reasons as to why you would watch a movie. Also, I'd recommend it if you happen to like weird Italian films. ALSO, I'd recommend it if you like "So-Bad-It's-Good" movies -- and haven't seen "Phenomena" yet.

RECOMMENDED(With Reservations)

Halloween Shelf: Scanners (1981)

So, everybody in the world has heard about the movie Scanners.





... But nobody really seems to have seen it. Everybody knows about it because this happens in it:


...A really great special-effect of a guy's head exploding. I had always assumed, therefore, that the movie was about scanners (whatever they might be) that go around making people's heads explode, and the movie was all chock-full of heads exploding. And that seemed to be everybody else's general impression of the movie, too -- and yet none of us actually seem to have seen this movie. So, to kick off the Halloween-viewing season, Mr. Hall and I decided to finally watch it.

Plot: A doctor (Patrick McGoohan) is investigating the power of "scanners" -- a group of social misfits with ESP strong enough that they can use it to hurt people -- and their capabilities as a "weapon" for the government. He captures Cameron Vale, one of these weirdos, who he calms down with injections of a drug that helps him control his ESP ("Ephemeral") and convinces him to become a spy to check out the leader of the weirdos, Darryl Revok, who seems to be amassing an army of scanners to take over the world. 

General Issues

Well... First of all, if you're hoping to see bunches of heads exploding in this movie, you're going to be let-down. There's just one outright head explosion at the beginning, and that's about it.

That said, the movie starts out really promisingly. I was intrigued. It was a nice sci-fi scenario. But -- after the exciting beginning of the film, which is one of the two parts people remember -- it bogs down in the middle. The story becomes a bit unfocused and you're not sure why our hero is going places or what he hopes to accomplish. But honestly, the biggest problem is that this guy who plays our lead, "Cameron Vale" (actor/artist Stephen Lack) -- although he does an excellent job of convincingly looking as though he is using telepathic powers and/or having telepathic powers used on him...
Gnnnnnghghghghghhghghgh.He just isn't super strong at delivering lines of dialogue. Not to put too fine a point on it, but when he's talking like a regular person and doing "normal people" stuff, he comes across as a bit of a... well, bad actor. It  hampers the film. Where a stronger actor could have given an edge... he blunts the effect. (I was a little reminded of Bruce Campbell, who [for me] is a bit of a similar case. When he's saying normal human stuff, he's just a so-so actor. But when he's asked to laugh and cry shriek like a possessed maniac, he's brilliant.)
Don't waste Bruce Campbell on lines like, "What's for dinner, honey?"SO! As I was saying, Stephen Lack was cute and harmless, and very good at all the grunting and groaning, so I can see why they hired him. But not an A+ actor.
[image error] See? Cute and harmless. And he grew up to look like an
old Mike Rowe of "Dirty Jobs".The other actors were pretty strong. I enjoyed Patrick McGoohan; he was pleasantly enigmatic; and the villain (Michael Ironsides) was pretty strong. And it was directed by David Cronenberg of The Fly fame, so you know there's going to be some gross stuff in it!

The Ending (**Spoilers in Pink!**)
Okay. There is one other part of the movie I especially liked... the ending. I also didn't like it. I liked it because we finally got more of those extreme special effects that we saw at the beginning (it wasn't heads outright exploding, but plenty of other stuff exploded) -- it's from that section that we get the other most famous image from scanners, this guy: 



... Excellent special effects in that part. I couldn't even quite figure out how they did some of those effects, given that this was made in a time before CGI. So, yeah! Wholly worth it for the special effects!

That said, the actual story climax left a bit to be desired. I liked that, in the beginning, it was kind of ambiguous why the "Scanners" exist -- but that is entirely clarified by explanations in the ending, with a touch of Luke-I-am-your-father-type situation thrown in. Bit of a let-down, that. But a let-down mixed with super good special effects!

All and all...
The whole move was kind of a mixed bag. Some parts of it were dull mis-steps. Some parts of it were super exciting and really well done! Ultimately, then, it was a solid... C+? Maybe scrapes by with a B-? It was definitely worth watching once, at least for the special effects, but I'm not sure it's worth watching repeatedly or owning. In the end, then, it's

RECOMMENDED(With reservations about dullness and mis-steps!)

On My Shelf: Spider-Man 3 (2007)

For a long time after we saw it in the theater, my measuring stick for movies was, "Was it as bad as Spider-Man 3?"



Spider-Man 3 was one of the biggest movie disappointments I've experienced in my life (and I say this in spite of at the time having already seen X-3, which was a horrendous disappointment -- and even in light of having seen the The Matrix sequels, and, since then, having seen all three "The Hobbit" movies). The first Spider-Man movie was good, the second movie was very enjoyable (enjoyable enough to really really get our hopes up for the third movie) and then third movie crashed and burned. Burned BIGTIME.

Plot: Peter Parker is still Peter Parkering around, but then some Venom (black suit monster) stuff crashes on a meteorite near him! And kind of doesn't do anything for a while! And then it turns out the guy who killed Peter's Uncle Ben was really the villain SANDMAN! And Peter feels messed up about that. And then Peter makes some really bad relationship choices (and comes across as an idiot.) And then Mary Jane makes some bad choices, too! And then Harry Osborn turns into Green Goblin (three times!) and then nothing interesting happens for a really long time -- and then all three monsters kind of crash together at the same time and the movie is abruptly over! And then Sam Raimi shook the dust of this movie off his sandals and never tried to make a fun movie ever again.

I actually haven't seen the movie since it came out in theaters. Recently, we got mildly excited about the idea of the new Spider-Man reboot (until we saw it, of course)... and that made me think that maybe, just maybe, I should give Spider-Man 3 a chance. Perhaps, in the light of all the terrible movies that I've seen in the last ten years, it looks a bit better.


Well.... no. It doesn't. It's still bad.

But now I think it's bad for different reasons than I did initially. Initially, I just couldn't get over the let-down of how it didn't live up to any of the expectations that had been building up over the years between it and Spider-Man 2. I thought there was some bad acting, and I recall being really upset about Kirsten Dunst's hair (although I don't know why).

Watching it now, I just feel a mellow sadness at the missed potential -- and THE HORRIBLE MUDDLE THAT IS THE STORY IN THIS FILM.

All the pieces of a good movie are basically there -- but they're all jumbled up and edited so, so poorly. In fact, I would almost say that this movie could have been saved in editing. Almost.

PROBLEM 5: MARY JANE
The problem with Mary Jane is that Mary Jane's character arc makes her seem like a terrible person. Mary Jane and Peter Parker are in love, as we've been informed by previous films. Mary Jane gets jealous when she sees Peter kiss another girl (which is a pretty reasonable response). However, Mary Jane is also portrayed as being an inexplicably hated actress on Broadway -- portrayed as being furious about how much more famous Spider-Man is than she is -- and is very easily buffaloed into almost cheating on Peter with an old friend.
She seems to be saying, "I just hate him so much..."She's frustrated by how poor Peter is, she doesn't want to listen to him talk, she's constantly like, "But what about MY NEEDS?!", she's annoyed by his fame, she's a bad actress and she isn't entirely trustworthy with other men. AND THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE OUR LIKEABLE HEROINE? (**Spoiler: They do abruptly reconcile at the end of the movie... but it is EXTREMELY ABRUPT, and it's really not clear why they reconcile.**)

Problem 4: GWEN STACY
The character Gwen Stacy is featured in this movie as Peter's alternative love interest when he is under the evil influence of the Venom suit. I question the need for a named character (much less Gwen Stacy -- who comic-book readers will know was Peter's original girlfriend who died tragically as he was saving her from the Green Goblin. Why include Gwen Stacy in the story at all if you're not going to have the Green Goblin break her neck? If nothing important happens with her, her name needs to be Jane Q. Normal and she can slip in and out of the story without causing any ripples whatsoever). Instead, we're treated to a pleasant, bland Gwen, who realizes "Venom" Peter is just using her to make Mary Jane jealous and immediately exits the film. Including her character in the film in the first place was pointless and unnecessary.

There was even a scene where Gwen is falling and Peter saves her.
Why not, instead, have Gwen die and provide Peter's character with
some inner turmoil and angst?Problem 3: PETER PARKER - IDIOT.
Peter Parker is supposed to be a hapless everyman -- not an idiot. For this story to have worked, Peter had to be infected by the "venom" suit (i.e. the bad personality-amplifying alien suit) early in the story, so that all of the dumb things he does, and all of the cruel things he wants to do to his enemies, are really a result of the suit (even if he does have some latent desires to do those things, when he is his normal self, he should have the sense to avoid doing evil and stupid things. But this Peter Parker is downright brain-damaged in his approach).

Why is my girlfriend so mad at me? Derp!Problem 2. TOO MANY VILLAINS. The main villain should have been Venom -- the evil black suit from outer space that (when Peter wears it) amplifies all of Peter's worst traits. It could have accentuated the problems he was already having with Mary Jane... etc. etc. Instead, Venom is watered down. All he does is make Peter dress in black and punch a bit harder than normal. And he doesn't really become a thing until halfway through the movie -- and when Peter wants to shake it off, he pretty much easily shakes it off.

The worst thing Peter does under the influence of Venom is
take part in a wholly inexplicable music number. Apparently,
Aunt May not only taught him to play Jazz piano, but some sexy dance moves.And then, we have Sandman. Sandman is immediately ruined by being given a sympathetic backstory -- i.e. "he's just a guy who was trying to do what was right for his sick daughter!" If you need that to be part of the story, fine, but don't tell us that right off the bat -- the first time we saw Sandman should have been when he was running from the police and falling into the scientific experiment that turned his body into sand. Give us the sympathetic backstory later to make Peter Parker torn about whether he should exact revenge on him or not. (If, that is, he even needs a sympathetic backstory.)

Does this look like a guy who needs a sympathetic backstory?AND, then we have to wrap up Harry Obsorn's story. In the course of this film, Harry becomes the Green Goblin -- is brain damaged and forgets he's the Green Goblin -- then becomes the Green Goblin again, fights Spidey while Spidey is under evil Venom's influence, gets burned in an explosion, stops being the green Goblin -- and finally BECOMES GREEN GOBLIN AGAIN to help wrap up the story. The whole "Harry Osborn/Green Goblin" sub-plot could easily have been totally removed from the film and been the plot in some other Spider-Man movie. OR, if you DESPERATELY need him to make an appearance, tease the fact that he's finally followed in his Dad's footsteps and become the Green Goblin at the beginning of the film -- and then have him unexpectedly save the day as GOOD Green Goblin at the end!

Coincidentally, this is also my face while watching this movie.AND we have the dumb schmoe who the Venom suit ultimately takes over -- Eddie Brock (as played by Topher Grace of That 70's Show). Eddie is portrayed as cartoonishly greedy, selfish and stupid, so you're not upset when (under the influence of the suit) Peter is mean to him -- and when he himself is taken over by the suit, you're not really concerned about whether he can be cured or not, because he's so "I'm so eeevvilllll" that you're really just waiting for him to die (in spite of the fact that, ostensibly, this movie is about Spider-Man learning to forgive people). Obviously, after Spider-Man removes the suit, it needs to take over somebody else so it can fight him -- so, since (by mis-using Gwen Stacy) you've demonstrated that you don't care about comic-book accuracy -- just have the darn suit take over HARRY OSBORN! He already hates Peter/Spidey, so it would have made sense for the suit to attach itself to him -- and given us a way to dispense with the stupid, one-dimensional character of Eddie Brock. That would have been a twist, wouldn't it?!

Pictured: Dumb, dumb, dumb.Ultimately, the real villain in this movie is Peter Parker's terrible choices (like kissing another girl in front of his already insecure-feeling girlfriend. You don't need spidey-sense to suspect that THAT MIGHT BE A REALLY BAD IDEA). Take some already bad choices, and the amplification of his bad nature by the Venom suit, and YOU HAVE A PLOT. If you need a sub-plot, throw in Harry and have him taken over by the Venom suit. So, we didn't really need Sandman, Eddie Brock or Green Goblin!

1. THE ENDING (Spoiler!)
So, the three big dumb villains' plots crash into each other, and out of nowhere, the ending is happening -- in which we go from reconciling with a friend (Harry/Goblin), violently murdering an enemy (Venom/Eddie Brock), and forgiving an enemy (Sandman). So, really, instead of an ending, we get three endings, and none of them are in the least bit satisfactory.

Pictured: All the dumb storylines crash into each other.Additionally, the story as-written had not been building up to this climax, so you're kind of just like, "What? Huh? This is happening now?... Okay, I guess..."


ONE MORE THING...
In the most confusing plot element of all, during his second Green Goblin iteration in this movie, they spend a long time setting up how Harry is going to attempt to seduce Mary Jane with this play he has written for her. He's charming AND he has the money to produce this play for her... and both of these plot devices GO NOWHERE. After Mary Jane rejects him, Harry Osborn bursts in on her in full Goblin mode and basically threatens her life to get her to break up with Peter. Under duress, she does so. However, after that point, Harry never messes with her again and Mary Jane has ample other opportunities to tell Peter that it was Harry/Green Goblin who made her break up with him and that she didn't really want to... but for no clear reason she doesn't -- not even at the end of the movie. SO WHY WAS ALL THIS HARRY OSBORN ROMANTIC/EVIL COMPLICATION IN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE?

I don't remember why he bops her on the head. I guess
it makes just about as much sense as anything
else in this movie.It seemed like it was in there to give a reasonable explanation for why Mary Jane was acting so weird... And yet it doesn't, and isn't. Honestly, this feels like a half-written plot element that they forgot to take out of the final script.

ULTIMATELY...

I don't think the acting is as bad as I originally did -- mainly because I think what comes across as "bad acting" in spots is actually just a bunch of actors trying to make sense of a weak, nonsensical script. The story is the problem -- or, really, the lack thereof -- and the fact our heroine becomes shrill and unlikable, and our hero becomes a bumbling buffoon, and there are more unnecessary characters in this film than you can shake a stick at. I understand that Sam Raimi's original story was apparently compromised by the studios... but, I still don't understand why it had to be this bad. Okay, you're like, "I want Sandman to be the main villain!" and the studio is like, "No, we insist that Venom be the main villain!" So, you're mad about that. But does that mean that you just throw the pieces of the script up in the air and film whatever falls face up, and ruin everybody's careers?

"Except for mine! Thanks for the ride, idiots!"I would really like to see a re-edit of this film that removes almost all of Green Goblin, considerably edits Sandman, and re-orders the Venom stuff. It might almost be watchable.

Sam Raimi, would you explain this movie to me? Be honest! Why did this happen the way it did? Was it entirely spite on your part ("I don't want to make this movie now that I have to use a different villain, but I'm contractually obligated to... So I'll just make it as bad as possible!"), or did the studio take it out of your hands and make into what it is?

Until I get a response from Sam Raimi, all I can say is, this movie is bad and muddled and has while it has many features of a "good bad movie" -- ultimately, it's too boring in the middle to be "good bad". Only worth watching if you desperately need closure after Spider-Man 2, but even then it's going to be a pretty sour experience. Maybe somebody can give us a 30-minute "Closure Edit" of the film. Until then, though, it's...

NOT RECOMMENDED

Off-My-Shelf: Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (Director's Cut: 2017) - Fathom Events Broadcast

So, I went to see the special "Fathom Events" Broadcast of the Director's Cut of Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan for its 35th Anniversary. (I've tried to avoid spoilers -- so when they happen, they are clearly marked in pink!)


This is arguably the best Star Trek movie... ever. Oh, many of the others have their moments, and you could make a pretty good argument for Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, being the most fun and the best "stand alone" story for the franchise. But The Wrath of Khan is definitely where it's at.

Khan, in the movie! Same actor! Khan, in the TOS episode, Space Seed.(I'm uncertain how much of the plot I should describe for you -- because, if you haven't seen it, I'd definitely recommend watching it and I want as much of it to be a surprise as possible. To put it in a nutshell: the crew of the Enterprise has entered bland middle age, and some of them [Kirk, mainly] are not dealing with it well. They are on the Enterprise to supervise a routine training mission for young cadets when something goes terribly wrong -- Khan, an enemy of Kirk's from the original series, resurfaces. Kirk, who has been feeling old already, is forced to commandeer the Enterprise [with its crew of inexperienced babies] to combat the problems that Khan stirs up...)

It has the most emotional heart of the Star Trek films. It has a good plot and makes the most of connections to TOS without being unwatchable for people who never actually saw the episodes that it references. Apparently, the guy who wrote the script actually went through and watched every single episode of the original series in order to make sure it would be accurate... and it is. Choosing Khan as a TOS ("The Original Series") villain to bring back was a good call -- he's extravagant and interesting and motivated -- and was played (in both cases) by the always-fun-to-watch Ricardo Montalban. Would it have been as interesting if they resurrected "random Klingon standing behind other Klingon", or Gorn? I don't think so.
I suppose they could have made a movie about Gorn. It
would have been about how he's impervious to rocks.This cut of the film was broadcast to theaters by Fathom Events in honor of the film's 35th anniversary -- and featured a pre-show interview with William Shatner. Now, as I recall, Shatner originally had some issues with Star Trek (all the usual stuff -- felt he was typecast, felt the show ruined his career, etc. etc...)


...But over the years, the fandom kept him afloat and he has grown to take himself much less seriously -- so it was a jolly, jocular old William Shatner that we got to see in the pre-show interview. He joked, he regaled us with fun stories -- all and all, very enjoyable and positive.

As for the special "Director's Cut" of the film...


About three minutes of "new" material was added, plus alternate takes of things that we've already seen. In truth... I was not a fan. As with most scenes that get excised from the final cut of the film, what they added back didn't really help the movie at all -- if anything, it slowed things down and made things a little odd at times. And the "alternate takes" weren't necessarily anything to write home about. (Think: in the theatrical release it was a long-shot -- while in the Director's cut, it was the same shot, but slightly closer.)
Director's Cut ***Spoilers***: Okay, there were two additions in particular that I really didn't care for. One -- they added some extra conversation between Spock and McCoy about the Genesis Device; basically, McCoy freaking out about its destructive potential and Spock going, "Freaking out isn't logical," etc. etc. It was pretty trite, cliched dialogue, and if you've ever seen a sci-fi movie with a bomb in it, you've already heard this exchange. In fact, it was so cliched that I didn't even realize that I hadn't seen this scene before -- I watched it with a tilted head, going, "I remember the dialogue, but I didn't remember the scene being so lame." - Turns out, I hadn't actually seen the scene before. (In THIS movie.) 

You can actually watch the differences here.
The second addition was a few extra lines added so that it's clear that one of the young cadets, who winds up sadly dying, is actually Scotty's nephew. I CAN SEE WHY THEY REMOVED THOSE LINES FROM THE FINISHED VERSION. Because, after the nephew dies and Scotty shows some initial sadness... The nephew is completely forgotten, and Scotty is back to joking about fixing up the Enterprise, etc. etc. In other words, removing the nephew element from the original cut of the film failed to impact the plot in any way. So why was it there in the first place? Just makes Scotty and the rest seem kind of shallow when they evidently completely forget he existed. 

But, in the end, there wasn't so much extra material that it really impacted the film at all. I actually had to look up the video above to really clarify what was different (outside the spoiler scenes mentioned above in pink). In the end, seeing Wrath of Khan on the big screen for the first time was a pretty enjoyable experience, and I'd recommend it for any sci-fi fans -- or just people who like entertaining movies. Plus, everyone should see the TOS Wrath of Khan to wipe from existence the POS Wrath of Khan, also known as Star Trek: Into Darkness.


RECOMMENDED
P.S. By the way, as I was researching this particular post, I came across this surprisingly specific bit of fandom which definitely needs to be shared...

On My Shelf: Eraserhead (1977) ...And an Extended Twin Peaks (2017) Rant

So, in preparation for watching the last few episodes of Twin Peaks: The Return (aka Season 3)... We decided to do some other David Lynch viewing, and watched the movie Eraserhead.



First off, I'd like to say that I have avoided watching this movie (despite owning it) for a couple years, based on one of my relatives telling me that it was "kind of a downer." I tend not to enjoy downers (who is in the mood to get purposefully depressed? Not me!) so I put it off. After watching it, though, I was like, "Was that a downer? I can't actually tell."


The Plot: A sad, desperate man in an ugly world full of ugly sounds finds out he has impregnated his girlfriend (who has since given birth to something "they aren't sure is a baby"). He passively marries her at her parents' behest, and takes her and the "baby" home. (The "baby" is a mass of bandages with a head like a fetal calf). Initially, he escapes into a fantasy world (where a woman with massive papier-mache cheeks who lives inside his radiator sings to him) and is happy, but immediately things take a turn for the worse and the "baby" is disgusting and weird -- and then some stuff happens and it's really unclear what's going on. (Okay. When I say the ending is unclear, I'm not saying I didn't get what happened -- I'm saying I didn't get whether or not what happened was in our main character's mind or in reality -- or whether there is any distinction in this movie between the two.) ...The end?
Why does she have giant papier-mache cheeks? Who knows?By the way -- that description I gave above, vague as it is, is wholly open to interpretation. It's very unclear in this movie how many of the things in it actually happen and how many of them are just inside our protagonist's head. (And that's why I state that I'm not clear on whether this movie is a downer or not. If you take things a certain way - totally! If you take things another way -- it's not a downer at all.) The one thing that is certain is that David Lynch doesn't like living in the city, because he portrays it as a disgusting, dirty place full of constant horrible, metallic sounds.

Oh, and it's full of weird, upsetting people, too.It's very hard to apply traditional cinematic rules to this movie. Well, some of them, anyway -- mainly "storytelling" rules. From a traditional filmmaking perspective, I can say that this movie is that it's a well-made movie that clearly a painstaking amount of effort went into.

This scene just might give you an idea what you canexpect from this movie.
I can also say that your average Joe in the street (you know, the same Joe who poured all that money into Michael Bay's Transformers movies) probably isn't going to enjoy this film. That's not a criticism of Joe; he likes what he likes, and that's his prerogative -- but I can tell you, Eraserhead will probably not be an enjoyable experience for him.

I can also say, from one perspective, that I enjoyed watching it (because it was clever, strange, original and memorable, beautifully shot and full of truly remarkable, evocative sound design) and I can say from another perspective that I did not enjoy watching it (because it was also at times disgusting, unsettling, and painful).

So.... Do I like this movie?

Yes and no.

Do I recommend this movie?
Yes.... and no.

In truth, it's probably a bad time for me to be reviewing this movie. Having just finished Twin Peaks: The Return (aka Season 3)... I'm kind of upset at David Lynch stuff right now. I can't tell you why I'm upset at him (without spoiling the ending of the show for you)... SUFFICE IT TO SAY, I'm upset with him for some of the same reasons folks were mad at him over Fire Walk With Me.

My face, when people say, "The end of Twin Peaks was so artistic!
It was exactly what I wanted!"(...In that, since Season Two of Twin Peaks ended with a cliffhanger, people were hoping that Fire Walk With Me would continue the story and give them some closure. Turns out, Fire Walk with Me was a prequel that only explained things that had already been thoroughly explained on the show already... so, in other words...
Fans, left -- David Lynch, right.Well, The Return isn't a prequel, but, anybody hoping for closure -- that maybe, just maybe, the wound could finally be sewn closed and heal up -- is not only going to have to sit through a bunch of interminable waits in the emergency room, but have the dressing ripped off the wound, and have that followed by several half-hearted attempts at sewing it shut followed by tearing it open a bit wider and the doctor inviting random children to spit into it and jam sawdust in it.)

Does that metaphor make sense? It probably got too complicated. What I'm trying to say is that many parts of The Return were really good and really enjoyable -- but many parts of it also felt like they were edited with no sense of timing or pacing, and there was enough pointless fluff (I mean, stuff that literally did nothing and went nowhere) in the show to make you scream; especially in the middle of the run, and especially in the final episode.

Plus, I now have to endure a lot of extremely pretentious people talking about how "great" and "artistic" it was -- and how anybody who was left unsatisfied better go back to their precious Michael Bay Transformers movies for something a little bit more their speed.

I'm not going to say the new season didn't have its moments, but depending on how it is interpreted, the final episode either leaves us with a very interesting question -- or basically just renders everything else we just watched a moot point. If we're going to get a season four, that's one thing, but David Lynch did already give us the extremely unsatisfactory Fire Walk With Me as a terminal chapter to the show, so this might just be it. In which case --

David Lynch in black tights, fans in yellow tights.
Fans, left -- David Lynch, right. In case you can't quite tell,
he first delivers a stone-cold stunner, then flips us off.... But, oh, Eraserhead. Yeah, that thing.

I will say, after watching Eraserhead, some parts of Twin Peaks: The Return that had previously been kind of inexplicable actually do feel like scenes from Eraserhead. (EPISODE EIGHT. When you have seen both Eraserhead and episode 8, you will know what I mean). And that's not necessarily a good thing. The tone and structure seems wholly out of place


Like Eraserhead, episode 8 was in black and white, and had a lot of very weird imagery.
However, unlike episode eight of Twin Peaks: The Return, Eraserhead comparatively
moves along pretty well and has a clear narrative structure. As I mentioned, right now my opinion of everything David Lynch is colored by my annoyance with that very final episode of Twin Peaks. Maybe, over the coming days, things will change, as I read interpretations of the final episode and the series as a whole and people point out things that I missed... but not right now.

And I guess, for "film literacy" reasons alone you should probably watch Eraserhead -- and appreciate all the many things it did right. Not to mention the fact that this movie is 40 years old now, made in the 70's, but could be a brand-new movie in its timeless weirdness and sheer filmmaking quality. So, watch Eraserhead if you can handle really, really weird movies, and want to get a bunch of oblique pop-culture references that have been made in the ensuing years. (But, it's probably not going to be the casual movie-watcher's cup of tea.)

(And, if, like me, you're kind of upset with David Lynch right now, maybe you should give it some time before you watch this...)

RECOMMENDED(With Reservations).