Amph What was the last movie you saw? (Ver. 2)

Halloween (2018) - I really enjoyed this, probably my 2nd favorite in the series now and a really solid modern take on the franchise. There are some fun callbacks but it never feels as corny or forced as some of the other sequels. It was fun to see in a packed theater; lots of laughs, gasps, and people jumping in their seats. Highly recommend checking it out before it leaves cinemas.

 

Spoiler

 

Quest's 13 Days of Halloween



Day 2, Part 2: The Shining (1980)-
Experience Format: Streaming (Netflix)

Starring:

Jack Nicholson


Shelley Duvall


and Scatman Crothers


Even though I've never had the opportunity to watch this before, I've obviously encountered famous scenes from it before- and the segment in Ready Player One also provided a nice set of context (I can already see how they repurposed elements from the film for their plot). I did see the more novel-accurate TV miniseries in the 90's as well, though I admittedly do not recall much from it. And, of course, The Simpsons spoiled the majority of the film for me long ago in Treehouse of Horror V's "The Shinning" segment (which, appropriately, aired almost exactly 14 years ago, minus 10 days).



So, first off, the big surprise is that this is a Stanley Kubrick film that is easy to actually enjoy watching. Which is great, as it allows you to take in the fantastic visuals, camera movement and atmosphere effortlessly. Some really good use of sound as well (the big wheel scene being a stand out example).

Cast is interesting. Even outside of the adaptation question, it's difficult to judge the performances. They work, but within their own individual context.

Jack is Jack cranked to 10, so he's thoroughly entertaining, but doesn't leave him much of a character arc as he comes across as disturbed and psychotic from almost the start (and the jump from the calm/rational aspect of the opening scenes to the angry jerk 1 month into the events of the film is pretty instant, as if about 30 minutes of story were cut out).

Shelley Duvall is an adorable alien creature stranded on our planet in the 1980's, being terrified by the Earthlings chasing her. Our atmosphere somehow makes her entire head look wet all the time. She sustains herself on Reese's Pieces. Then she was cast in The Shining.

(Ok, maybe not the Reese's Pieces part, but it’s plausible)

I was surprised at Scatman Crothers being involved in the film, since he's obviously most well known in a modern context for his voice over work in roles such as Jazz in Transformers Generation 1. He does well in the likeable role he's given here, small though it may be.

Probably the one really impressive bit of casting is Danny Lloyd as, well, Danny. You typically didn't get many really good child actor performances outside of a Spielberg film in this era. So whether that's Kubrick's directing or Danny's talent or a combination, it comes across more nuanced than one would anticipate for a film of this age.

While the story is more straight forward than most Kubrick films, there's nevertheless room to dig for interpretations within some of the vagarities- it's just not required to extract enjoyment out of the film like some of his other works. To that effect, it's somewhat amusing that, despite being the title of the film, the "Shining" ability itself is really inconsequential to the plot itself. You could excise everything having to do with it and it wouldn't alter the story at all (don't worry, unlike 2001, I don't have plans to re-edit The Shining ), as the film intentionally includes contradictions on multiple levels to create a sense of unease. So, any explanation or justification for events transpiring that the Shining power is used to establish are either contradicted or in direct conflict with other events potentially taking place.

(Really, by comparison, between the role of the Shining ability and Crothers's character in the film, anyone who professes a love for this film can never complain about the Canto Bight sequence of The Last Jedi seeming unnecessary .)

A good ghost house story overall, even if the actual supernatural content is low, random and there lacks a clear driving force or intent to it's actions. There are crumbs sprinkled about, but the film never fully grabs onto any one or two. However, I can see how the Indian burial ground concept may have influenced Spielberg for Poltergeist, given Ready Player One and his history with Kubrick (which apparently started on the set of The Shining).

That said, there should be life-sized cutouts of the twin girl ghosts available to post around corners of long hallways to scare the crap out of anyone turning those corners.

 

Quest's 13 Days of Halloween



Day 3, Part 0*: Frankenstein (1931)
Experience Format: Blu-ray
*This one I actually watched a couple months ago, but was holding onto it for the pairing titles.

“Have you never wanted to do anything that was dangerous? Where should we be if no one tried to find out what lies beyond? Have your never wanted to look beyond the clouds and the stars, or to know what causes the trees to bud? And what changes the darkness into light? But if you talk like that, people call you crazy.”

Partially resuming my monsterthon begun back with The Mummy, Dracula and The Invisible Man, I now turn a sinister eye towards Frankenstein’s monster. I'm not familiar with the original book, so where these films stray, i cannot say.

The film opens with a curtain talk intro, paring well with the deleted original Dracula ending. Dwight Frye plays Not-Ygor and the Van Helsing actor returns as well. With Bela almost cast as the Monster, it almost made this a Dracula cast reunion.

But the real star here, is, of course, Boris Karloff in that amazing makeup. He’s pretty expressive in it, as well. Does a fantastic job of making the monster sympathetic.



The lead character is Henry Frankenstein, while the leading “friend” character is Victor. I wonder if the role was split like they did with Dracula’s leads? Doesn’t really matter, as Vincent is a complete waste of a character.

The female lead repeats her lines a lot… and her premonitions functioning as narration or leading the audience and it gets a bit too obvious.

(knock knock knock knock) “What’s that? What’s that?!”

It’s someone knocking on your door, you twit.



These angry villager mobs sure are dedicated to the angry part- they’re all yelling seemingly the entire way from town out into the woods and beyond. Man, that’s gotta be exhausting. You gotta have a lot of pent-up anger to have that sort of endurance.

There are some technical glitches, but for such an old film they’re not bad. There’s some odd jump cuts over lost footage as well as some kind of weird boom mic shadow or something as Henry talks to the doctor about the rays and machines. And, later in the film, a mountain backdrop curtain is clearly wrinkled.

But those are minor points- the key sequences are still effective, such as the famous lake scene with the girl (though how he hurts her is unclear- they just cover it up with her “You’re hurting me!” line layered on top).

There’s a shot of Frankenstein and the monster staring each other down through the rotating cage/gear/cog/whatever that is really pretty cool. I rather wish they could have explored that moment more.

I’m honestly shocked that the movie didn’t cut to The End from the windmill on fire. But, man, what we get instead isn’t much better. I know I complained about the abrupt endings to the previous films, but that really was a pointless last scene featuring none of the major characters and one annoying supporting one.

Overall, it’s lacking in the supporting characters compared to Dracula, but it’s more polished overall. I was probably most surprised to discover that Ygor was not the henchman in this movie- it’s weird to think of a character so heavily associated with the story not being introduced until the lesser-known sequels.

Speaking of which, back in the summer when I reviewed Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman, I mentioned how heavy editing to that film altered the perception of the character and cultural legacy for all time.

As the sequels to these films went on, some crazy plots went down. Basically, Ygor (played by Bela) had his brain put into the monster’s body, allowing it to talk with Bela’s voice. The side-effect of this, however, rendered the monster/Ygor blind.

FMW continued that idea, only now with Bela actually playing the monster. However, the studio wasn’t happy with the results so they had almost all of the shots of the monster talking (and any references to his blindness) removed from the film. However, everything had still been shot with the idea of a monster that couldn’t see, which is why his arms are out and he lumbers around (literally) blindly. And with the dialogue removed, the monster was mostly mute.

So, in the end, what I find pretty fascinating is that the general popular perception of how Frankenstein’s monster behaves- with his arms out, lumbering and of little words, does not really originate from the classic original film that everyone knows of, but rather the fifth movie in the series- and a crossover at that. Not only that, it’s effectively entirely unintentional and simply the result of studio interference.





Day 3, Part 1: The Evil of Frankenstein (1968)
Experience Format: Streaming (Amazon)

“Why can’t they leave me alone? Why can’t they ever leave me alone?”



After sampling clips from The Horror of Dracula during the Dracathon, I decided to give one of the Hammer films a go for my “mid-era” selection this go-around. And I’m quite glad that I did.

This one is a sequel story but acts as a standalone (in fact, it retells the monster’s origins in new flashbacks that apparently retcon out the previous 2 Frankenstein Hammer films- and uses some cool camera shots in the process). But what makes it truly unique (AFAIK) is that Frankenstein is really the star of the film (played by Grand Moff Tarkin, of Rogue One fame )- and not only that, but he’s its hero. The monster isn’t even in half of the film. And I really enjoyed that take on the character- outcast from his home, trying to rebuild his lab, having to avoid being recognized by locals, etc.

“Well, what did I say, Hans?”
“You’re right, as always.”
“Not always, Hans. Frequently. But not always.”

But, he eventually does discover that his original monster has survived, preserved in ice like he was in Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman. In fact, the local carnival evokes the festival that took place in Frankenstein’s hometown in that film as well. This film was the first non-Universal film to be able to use a monster design resembling the Karloff design, as Hammer had a distribution deal through Universal by this time (one reason why they had to do new flashback scenes so that the monster design would match).

It’s not a bad design- it feels like Karloff’s look but adds some more boxier plate pieces. However, the makeup quality doesn’t do it any favors as it generally comes across as a paper mache mask.



The monster also is not given much personality until he decides to get drunk late in the film (lol), since he’s mostly being controlled the rest of the time. That aspect is kind of an interesting idea, as it evokes my mistaken perception of what the Mummy would be like that I mentioned back in that review, but here it’s not really the focus and more of a brief plot device.

“Well, let’s shake hands, then.”
“No need. I’ve given my word.”

The real villain of the film, other than the villagers always destroying Frankenstein’s stuff, is a hypnotist whose more of a gag villain and whom I found to be kind of distracting. He would have been much more interesting if they had continued to develop the initial partnership subplot.

This one goes with another quick ending, and the climax leading up to it doesn’t really have a point or message like these things typically try to do. Nonetheless, it leaves you wanting a sequel. And, on the upside, there are actually several with Cushing. The downside is, they apparently are very loose with their story continuity and portrayal of the character, so they don’t really form a cohesive series. Still, I recommend this one for a nice change of pace.





Day 3, Part 2: Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1994)
Experience Format: Blu-ray (at DVD quality)

"I do know that for the sympathy of one living being, I would make peace with all. I have love in me the likes of which you can scarcely imagine and rage the likes of which you would not believe. If I cannot satisfy the one, I will indulge the other."

Bela tried to break away from being Dracula by playing a gangster. Is De Niro trying to break away from being a gangster by playing Frankenstein?

The opening to this is different and intriguing, with a exploration ship seeking the North Pole finding itself icebound- giving us an iceberg seuence 3 years before Titanic (and it’s actually kind of amazing how much of a difference that made).

But the film goes down hill from there. I felt like I just watched a bad 2 hour cut of a bad 3 hour movie. Frankenstein himself is all over the place as a character, the monster is some kind of super ninja able to sneak into anywhere and catch up to anyone (and, really, how did he go from being outside the skylight to covering her mouth with his hand that fast?!) and it just doesn’t seem to have a coherent story direction or character decisions (why the demand to meet on the sea of ice? that has no connection to anything). Even the decision to move the story to the Revolutionary War era (but overseas) seems to only exist to give characters white wigs and ballroom dances (a ballroom with a giant staircase that I assume is meant to evoke the end of Dracula).

“If what you say is true, then surely this is a matter for the police.”
“They wouldn’t understand.”
“Well, neither do I.”
“Then just accept it.”

Now, De Niro actually has some good moments as the monster, and it’s cool that this version can speak, think and read (which makes for the one really good scene in the film where he sits down to talk to Frankenstein- adding something different from other versions). Although, ultimately, he comes across more like Roy Batty from Blade Runner with his attire and (kind of) general motivation. Now, obviously, Batty has a scene in BR that has heavy Frankenstein influence, so it’s somewhat ciclular, I suppose.



Still, outside of maybe the score, I really can’t recommend this one at all. I’m sure the 2 or 3 scenes kinda worth watching can be found on youtube, but this is not the 90’s companion to Bram Stoker’s Dracula that it no doubt aspired to be. The poster IS the warning. BE WARNED!

Brief spoilers:

Spoiler

The end of the film rushes into adding a Bride of Frankenstein segment (finally making you understand why Helena Bonham Carter is in the film). But, if only her heart/chest was damaged, why is her head and other parts all stitched up patchwork? I know her hair got burned but this seems unnecessary. That said, the fire sequence is totally crazy! It’s so over the top, silly and, yet, kinda awesome.

Lastly, with the coda, isn’t it strange that the Captain gives Frakenstein a more elaborate burial than his men?

 

Quest’s 13 Days of Halloween



Day 4: Wes Craven’s New Nightmare (1994)
Experience Format: DVD

Having only seen Nightmare 1, 3 & Freddy vs Jason (and maybe parts of 2), I had long been meaning to check this one out since it’s reputation for being something different compared to the others but a better result than, say, Jason X was for that franchise. Plus I had curiosity from being aware of the ad campaign at the time of the original release.



You can definitely pinpoint the era it came out too, because it’s leveraging a lot of tools from then-recent hits. You have a more sinister take on the “Thing” effects from The Addams Family here with the mechanical glove opening, a stunt oil tanker that has a good chance of being the same one used in T2, a premise that might share a bit in common with The Last Action Hero,
a small dab of CGI and even a toy T-Rex named Rex (ok, that one is generic enough that i could just be a coincidence but, c’mon, Jurassic Park and Toy Story just hit one year earlier).



As for the film itself, it has a really cool premise overall: there is a persistent demon that has been imprisoned by storytellers throughout history and that Freddy Krueger is just the latest incarnation to capture that creature through the Nightmare films. But, with Freddy killed off in the last film and the Nightmare series seemingly at an end, that demon is now starting to escape and cross over into the real world.

However, the film also has a hard time getting started or attempting to build itself up. It has a really cool opening sequence (the aforementioned “sinister Thing” moment) but after that, the film doesn’t really start clicking until about 45 minutes into the movie (which is about 2 hours long).

The problem is that first 45 doesn’t make an effort to really build up the mystery or suspense of what’s going on- the main character basically starts off the movie already suspecting Freddy might be behind events, is wary of going to sleep, etc. It comes across as too corny, convenient and, well, cheap.

The film could have really benefited from working the characters towards figuring out what is going on- or by following multiple characters experiencing the nightmares (and would have opened up the possibility of dual identities confronting each other with, say, Robert Englund facing Freddy [and, if he were in makeup, “fake” old school Freddy vs “real” New Nightmare Freddy]. Sadly it doesn’t take up that opportunity). Because, once it does that, even if it only does so briefly, the movie suddenly clicks into place. The rest of the movie takes on a different level of confidence and consequences after that point.

Early on, one thing I did rather like, is that Freddy is mostly represented or personified by the clawed glove- as if, not being able to cross over himself, that was all he could control or manifest. They’re not 100% consistent with that and they kinda abandon that approach after 30-40 minutes (if it was even an intentional approach to begin with- I could be reading into it more than was intended) and I certainly would have liked to have seen that concept played out in more depth. It could have even helped elaborate on the demon and its domain, which in of itself could have sustained more story outside of its Freddy persona.

The score isn’t bad, either- and even has a little Psycho homage at a certain point. I also wonder how real any of the earthquake wreckage was. I know from reading some behind the scenes books on Babylon 5 that there was a significant Earthquake around this timeframe, so it’s possible they worked that into the script here.

Overall, even though it bursts out of the gate and stumbles around for a bit, the film recovers enough to be pretty fun with some inventive, creepy visuals (as one comes to expect from this series). It no doubt has several nods to the other films besides the obvious ones played on a TV- I picked up on some of them (a ceiling sequence, claws rising between someone’s legs, etc) but obviously couldn’t pick them all given my incomplete history with the series.

The somewhat 4th wall-breaking, self-referential premise also no doubt influenced Wes Craven in developing Scream, which came out 2 years later and helped reinvent the slasher genre in the latter part of the decade. So, in a way, this film is almost a thematic passing of the baton from the (primary) end of the 80’s slashers to the semi-modern ones of the 90’s.

Of those films, i think The Shining is the only one to really stand out and rise above its legacy. The Omen holds up decently but both it and the classic Frankenstein (and other, non-horror, films like The Godfather) often have to deal with trying to get the viewer to disconnect from the cliches that those films originated and not "hold it against them" in the moment. With Frankenstein's legacy being longer and greater, in addition to its age, it has a tougher time between those two.

And Branagh's Frankenstein... man, it really is almost like watching a movie where you skip 3 or 4 DVD chapters every 15 minutes. And every one of them is weirder than the last. Brother and sister, no more.

Yeah, I think they were successful here in making him the protagonist. Beyond the fact that he's still stealing corpses at the start of the film, he is generally the one being wronged by everyone else throughout the film and he isn't actually doing anything evil (well, beyond the graverobbing, again). He just wants his stuff back, ha.