The Long Dark Marathon of the Soul '26: What Lies Beneath (2000), directed by Robert Zemeckis

 

The Trailer

and 

The Appropriate Tune - "What Lies Beneath", by Breaking Benjamin 

 

 

Here’s another one that I picked almost entirely because I wanted to draw the poster, but in my defense this one appeared to be much more of a sure thing. I mean you’ve got Harrison Ford, who went from an incredibly successful career in the 80 with movies like Raiders of the Lost Ark and Star Wars to an incredibly successful career in the 90s with movies like The Fugitive and Air Force One, and Michelle Pfeiffer, who had been making waves with Batman Returns and The Age of Innocence. Plus Robert Zemeckis in the director’s chair, who would release Cast Away later that same year and then prove the end of his prime by putting out Polar Express a couple years later. That’s an impressive pedigree, you have to admit.

What Lies Beneath stars Michelle Pfeiffer stars Claire Spencer, a former concert musician living in Vermont with her husband Dr. Norman Spencer (Harrison Ford). Feeling a bit out of sorts with her daughter having recently left for college, Claire is looking for ways to spend all her free time. However, something finds her instead: the wife of her neighbor mysteriously goes missing, doors opened and close without anything acting on them, and other strange happenings. Is it just a series of coincidences, or is there something more bizarre, more supernatural at play? Well the movie is over two hours long, so you hope something will happen.

So yeah, that’s a fun little twist to the story. You think at first that the movie is going in a Rear Window kind of direction, it even has that kind of string-heavy orchestral score that you saw in lot of those thriller remakes in the 90’s like Cape Fear, but then it gives you the ol’ swerve and puts you in a different, equally thrilling lane. Which I appreciate, because if you’re doing the whole ‘someone knows something but no one believes them’ trope, it’s a lot more tolerable to not believe in ghosts rather than domestic violence.

It is a slow burn movie, to be sure. Seems like Claire really takes her time being freaked out and thinking she’s crazy before settling down and trying to be proactive about things, which is realistic, but there’s a lot of time treading water waiting for the plot to movie forward. Plus, while Claire is freaking out, I don’t know if there’s really anything for a thrill-loving audience to chew on up until the last 15 minutes or so. Some jump scares, but nothing that would get the dander up of someone who had seen a Friday the 13th movie, or even previous movies on this list like Lake Placid. Just enough juice to get those folks on the Oscar committee to jump, if those people actually watched movies.

What Lies Beneath is an okay thriller. Pfeiffer and Ford put in a good performance, and Zemeckis tells a competent story. If you’re a fan of these kinds of women in distress movies, there’s no reason not to give this one a try if you’re curious. Double feature it with Cape Fear or something like that, you’ve got yourself an evening.

STATUS: RECOMMENDED

The Long Dark Marathon of the Soul '26: Fade To Black (1980), directed by Vernon Zimmerman

 

The Trailer

and

The Appropriate Tune - "Fade To Black", by Metallica 

 

 

        Fun fact, I had never actually heard of this movie until a few days before writing this review. I’ve taken up drawing as a hobby, and I was looking around the free streaming services for movie posters to draw, and I stumbled upon this movie here. The poster looked cool, so I decided to watch the movie as well. No reviews, no rotten tomato score, just based purely on the poster, just as god intended.

Fade To Black stars Dennis Christopher as Eric Binford, the worst, most degenerate kind of person you could imagine: A movie fan. Eric leads a life of quiet desperation in Hollywood, harangued by his invalid aunt, bullied at his deadend job at an advertising firm, until one day he happens to meet aspiring model Marilyn O’Connor (Linda Kerridge), who is the spitting image of Eric’s favorite actress, Marilyn Munroe. Despite the odds Eric actually manages to score a date on that first meeting, but little does he or anyone else know that this will be the catalyst for Eric’s spiral into insanity and murder. Also Tim Thomerson is in this movie, which is cool.

You remember that movie High Fidelity? It was pretty popular among some of my friends at the college radio station, because it took place in a record shop and the characters namedropped bands that a specific breed of music nerds were familiar with, the exact kind of nerds my friends were at the time. That’s kind of what Fade To Black is, but if instead of John Cusack complaining about his love life he was a cosplaying serial killer instead. Just about every scene in this film features some kind of reference to a movie; there’ll be posters on the walls, characters will drop names or say lines, sometimes they’ll just insert clips of other films into this one. Even Scream seems tame in its cinematic obsessions when compared to Fade To Black. I mean Matthew Lillard didn’t pretend he was James Cagney for half of his movie.

That’s the crux of what would make this film a cult classic, I suppose. If you are a movie buff, particularly older films, then there’s an extra level of enjoyment to get out of this compared to non-buff viewers. If there’s a scene where dresses up as Dracula and quotes Bela Lugosi (despite the clips used being the Christopher Lee Dracula), does it mean more if you’ve seen the ‘31 film? When Eric falls into delusions of being James Cagney, does it matter if the audience knows who James Cagney was or the type of characters he plays? Is there even a movie without these references? Is the only reason this movie stands out in a sea of slashers is this association with film history? I don’t know, maybe. Kinda seems like it.

I got most of the references, so I guess I’ll recommend it. It takes a while to shift into gear though, and Tim Thomerson’s character feels like both a jab at social workers and an afterthought with how irrelevant his role is, but otherwise it’s an okay quirky little horror movie. And no naked breasts either, if you’ve got issues with female nudity. You will have to see Dennis Christopher jack off instead, but hey, you can’t have everything.

 

STATUS: RECOMMENDED 

The Long Dark Marathon of the Soul '26: Lake Placid (1999), directed by Steve Miner

 

The Trailer

and

 The Appropriate Tune - "Crocodile Rock", by Elton John

 

 

    Humanity has been menaced by a lot of big things across cinematic history. Giant ants, giant grasshoppers, giant rabbits, giant women (though some might find that less menacing than others and so on and on. Occasionally the giant thing is even something that was already pretty dangerous to begin with. Like remember The Meg? The one where Jason Statham plays Jason Statham fighting a giant shark? Or Meg 2: The Trench, where Jason Statham plays Jason Statham fighting a giant shark, again? You might as well show Jaws to your five year old, no one is gonna be scared of some normal ass fish anymore.

Enter Lake Placid. Bridget Fonda stars as Kelly Scott, a New York paleontologist who, after an awkward situation with her boss/ex, is sent to Maine to study a tooth found in the half of a diver dragged out of a very placid lake. The result? Crocodile, but who ever heard of a crocodile setting up camp in Maine. So Kelly joins up with Fish & Game Warden Jack Wells (Bill Pullman), local sheriff Hank (Brendan Gleeson) and eccentric mythology professor Hector (Oliver Platt) to locate and take down this beast. As long as it’s a regular sized crocodile and not some kind of huge super croc, I think everything will turn out all right.

If I were some kind of weirdo who grouped movies into lists and I needed entries for ‘popcorn horror movies’, then you’d definitely see Lake Placid in a prominent. Not in the derogatory way that the term often implies, but in the way that it is a very accessible horror film. There’s gore but not excessively so, there’s suspenseful moments and more action-packed thrills, there’s some explosions, it’s funny, just a little bit of everything that builds up to a solid picture. The kind of movie that you’d pick during movie night when no one can agree on something and everyone ends up having a great time. Well, the kids might be a bit traumatized seeing a dude’s head get bitten off, but hey, they might be better off in the long run.

And yeah, Lake Placid is pretty funny. Not in the gross out humor way, like in that plague of Scary Movies that infested the 00’s, it’s just well-written with good actors bouncing off each other. It’s also hard not to love seeing the late Betty White calling a cop ‘Officer Fuckmeat’, just an atomic blast of a line that comes out of the blue. And importantly, these bits of levity don’t undercut the tension that the film has built. When these people are in danger they behave like it, they just have the ability to crack jokes about it if they survive.

If there’s any nits that really need picking, I suppose it’s the CGI. Lake Placid has scenes using a crocodile model (done by Stan Winston’s studio), and ones that use a CG croc. The crocodile model looks fantastic, the CGI looks like CGI. Not bad CGI really, there are certainly worse examples of it in 1999, but it’s there. That being said, the big danger in CG is overexposing your monster, allowing the audience to recognize its artificiality and breaking the suspension of disbelief, and I don’t think Placid reaches that point. I don’t know if Miner is following the Jaws mindset, but I think the balance he ended up with works out.

As I said, if you’re looking for a fun evening, maybe you’ve got a few friends and a few beers, then you’re going to be okay with throwing Lake Placid on the screen. It’s got that Jurassic Park everyman quality. If you’re looking for sterner stuff, then this probably won’t satisfy. And avoid the sequels. I haven’t seen any of them, but it’s a horror movie franchise man, if you’re trying to find a good sequel you might as well test your luck panning for gold instead.

 

STATUS: RECOMMENDED

The Long Dark Marathon of the Soul '26: Inland Empire (2006), directed by David Lynch

Better late than never. 

The Trailer

and

The Appropriate Tune - "Black Tambourine", by Beck 

 

 

Generally speaking, I’m not the type that gets upset when I hear about a celebrity passing away. Already feel too much grief during my everyday life perhaps, that there isn’t much left for people who are way better off than I am. However even I was left in a melancholic daze for a while when I heard that David Lynch passed away, because it really felt like the world had lost a true artist. Someone who couldn’t help but push forward on his own creative path, whether he was doing original works, big budget adaptations or PS2 commercials, and gathered critical and commercial success along the way. It’s the archetypal vision of a filmmaker, or at least the kind of filmmaker that I would have wanted to be, and losing that meant losing a small part of me.

Lynch’s last major work was Twin Peaks: The Return, the follow-up to his famous crime drama series from the 90’s, but his last feature film was actually all the way back in 2006, with Inland Empire. Frequent Lynch collaborator Laura Dern stars as Nickie Grace, an actress who lands the female lead of a new film called “On High with Blue Tomorrows”. When the time comes to start filming however, Nikki learns something: that the film she’s acting in is not original but is in fact a remake, which itself is adapted from a Polish story. That previous film was never released, supposedly because the two leads were murdered. A morbid but otherwise innocuous fact, until the lines between reality and story start to collapse

Blurring the lines in such a way is not unusual for David Lynch. Both Lost Highway and Mulholland Drive move in similar directions, with Lost Highway literally featuring the main character being rewritten in the middle of the story. Stylistically too, there are visual aspects that would later be familiar to those who have seen The Return, but it feels like Lynch was trying to push things to another level here. Lost Highway was dreamlike but it was still a film, it felt like a film, whereas Inland Empire is a film that feels like a dream. Nonlinear time, actors playing multiple roles, repetition of sounds and images, the changing of POV from the traditional shots to shaky cam and awkward closeups and back again, as if we were seeing parts of a bizarre home movie. Lynch’s films are often described as giving one a sense of unease or dread, but Inland Empire is the most disorienting of his filmography, to an aggressive degree.

As for what the film is about, if Lynch were alive he wouldn’t tell you, so your only recourse is to analyze it yourself, or to find some film nerd’s opinion and accept that as truth. I’m out of practice with this stuff though, so unfortunately if you’re looking to me for definitive theories then you’re out of luck. Certainly a story that revolves around infidelity, betrayal, murder, perhaps we’re seeing a tale of catharsis. In movies we are often made to empathize with the characters, perhaps we are seeing a literal reproduction of that, as Nickie Grace loses herself in her role, takes on the suffering of the character, in order to exorcise the emotional trauma of the viewer? Maybe. Or maybe I’m completely off-base. Better to think about these things than not think, I suppose.

David Lynch never made a bad film. That’s not me blowing smoke up his ass now that he’s dead,I genuinely think that every movie he made is worth watching. Even Dune, the movie he reportedly did not like making, shines through its flaws. However, if I were dipping my toes into Lynch’s filmography for the first time, or introducing someone to it, I would not choose Inland Empire as the first watch. It’d be a bit like taking someone who wants to try coffee and giving them espresso and cough syrup. Other than that scenario though, definitely give it a shot.

 

STATUS: RECOMMENDED 

     

A Brief Return

     If anyone regularly reads this blog, I'm sorry that I dropped off the face of the Earth there with no warning. Hadn't planned to at the time, but I was suddenly overcome with a sort of existential crisis that effectively destroyed my desire to continue on. I still love cinema, in fact I've watched more films this year than the last couple years combined, and I still love talking and writing about cinema, but I just feel no drive to keep plugging away on the blog. I mean half the time I was just using this page to vent about self-loathing and depression, and it turns out there's this thing called 'therapy' these days that's much more helpful with that.

    I'm not going to say that this page is totally done, I might toss out some pieces from time to time if I'm feeling nasty, but if you prefer consistent updates in your film blogs then you might consider moving on to greener pastures. Either way, thanks to everyone who bothered to read my rambling nonsense over the years, if I helped anyone find a new favorite film or try a movie out that they otherwise would have never tried, then it was worth it.

        --King Thunderbird

Movie Movie (1978), directed by Stanley Donen

 

The Trailer

and

The Appropriate Tune - "Movies" by Alien Ant Farm

    Work has begun on Marathon ‘23 and I’m actually in a decent mood at the moment, so that means posts that aren’t exclusively in the month of October. Some of these might be from Marathon alums, in order that they get their annual spotlight, while others might be films that I’ve been wanting to watch but kept putting off, or spur of the moment shit as is my style. Our first film of 2023 falls into the second category, almost entirely because it’s certainly one of the most annoying films to try and search on google.

    Released in 1978, Movie Movie was directed by Stanley Donen, written by Larry Gelbart (of M*A*S*H) fame and Michael Keller, and produced by Donen through ITC Entertainment. A satirical sendup of classic Hollywood double features, Movie Movie presents us with, funnily enough, two films. In the first story, ‘Dynamite Hands’, Joey Popchik, an aspiring lawyer who enters the world of boxing in order to pay for his sister’s eye operation, but soon gets in over his head when the promise of fast money and even faster women rears its head. In the latter half, ‘Baxter’s Beauties of ‘33’, Spats Baxter, a famous Broadway producer who has just been given one month to live, and is determined to put out last one hit to support his daughter (who he has never met) before he goes. With the help of rookie dancer Kitty and bookkeeper turned composer Dick (Barry Bostwick), he just might do it. Sandwiched between the two features is the short ‘Zero Hour’, a trailer for a WWI era aviation drama. All three stories feature the same cast playing multiple roles, and includes the likes of George C. Scott, Harry Hamlin, Trish Van Devere, Red Buttons, Eli Wallach and Art Carney.

    Movies parodying movies were not uncommon by this point in time, of course. The Kentucky Fried Movie had been released a year before, with the landmark comedy Airplane! Coming a few years later, but it’s clear that the shadow of Mel Brooks loomed large over this production over anyone else. How could he not? Brooks was the King of Parody in the 70’s, making movies based on classic westerns, silent films, Alfred Hitchcock and most famously Universal’s Frankenstein, if you tried to enter that field half-assed then you weren’t going to make it. Which in hindsight I guess they didn’t, since it’s not like Movie Movie is spoken of in the same breath as Young Frankenstein or Blazing Saddles, but to Donen, Gelbart and the rest of the crew’s credit they do make a try of it. The cinematography, the set design, the music, the use of color (Dynamite Hands and Zero Hour are filmed in black and white, while Baxter’s Beauties is done like Singing in the Rain and those other Golden Age musicals), the little ‘Warren Bros.’ logos before each feature, there is a concentrated effort to replicate the feel of that era of filmmaking. Which is exactly why Brooks’ films were so successful, because it wasn’t just about jokes and musical numbers, it was about encapsulating the essence of the subject that was being parodied. At his best you could feel the passion Brooks had towards his subject, encapsulating the essence of the thing and showcasing why it was popular enough to be parodied to begin with, and I think you can feel that same kind of passion in Movie Movie.

    While Brook’s cinematic success wasn’t just about jokes however the jokes were no doubt an important factor, and that’s where Movie Movie stumbled. Not that there’s no humor to be found, there’s definitely comedy in this comedy movie, but it’s very noncommittal in how it goes about doing it. There are moments when you can tell they want to go full on Brooks’ screwball style, but then they almost immediately fall back into playing things straightforward. Which isn’t necessarily bad, George C. Scott can do silly and serious things with no trouble, but it’s also not necessarily funny. Really where the film excels is in the quips and one-liners, which makes sense if you’re familiar with M*A*S*H, and they’re sprinkled enough throughout the picture that you can’t really tune out, because you’ll be blindsided by one.

    Of the three skits, I’d say that Zero Hour is the best one. It’s the shortest and by extension the strongest comedically, and George C. Scott has a good British accent. Then it’s Baxter’s Beauties, which aside from being pretty funny features some impressive choreography and catchy musical numbers. Last and least is Dynamite Hands, which can be funny but feels the most muddled in terms of consistent tone. A shame, because it was the more daring of the two in terms of presentation, the musical having firmly fallen into Brooks territory years ago.

    Movie Movie gets a mild mild recommendation. With the amount of great and inventive comedies in the late 70s-early 80’s it was easy for a niche gimmick film like Movie Movie to fall through the cracks, and unfortunately I don’t think it has that spark that earns it the coveted cult following that other obscure films from the period enjoy. That being said, it's not a bad film, and if you happen to stumble across it while scrolling through your local streaming service, you might have some fun. If nothing else I’d say it’s worth a watch for George C. Scott alone, but that’s a decision you’ll have to make for yourself.

The Long Dark Marathon of the Soul 2022: Made in U.S.A. (1966), directed by Jean-Luc Godard

 

The Trailer

and

The Appropriate Tune: 'As Tears Go By' by Marianne Faithfull

       This only seemed appropriate, didn’t it? Although Godard isn’t a huge name on this blog, we covered Alphaville a while back and that’s it, he was most certainly a huge name in the world of film at large, easily one of the most influential artists in the medium next to fellow legends like Alfred Hitchcock and Sergei Eisenstein. Generations of filmmakers were inspired by Godard, inspired by those who had been inspired, and so on and on. His death leaves a hole in the fabric of cinema, and we are all the worse for it. So for the very last film of the Long Dark Marathon of the Soul 2022, let’s return to the work of Godard and see what the auteur has in store for us.

       Released in 1966, Made in U.S.A. was written and directed by Jean-Luc Godard and produced by Georges de Beauregard through Rome Paris Films, Anouchka Films and S.E.P.I.C., based on the film The Big Sleep directed by Howard Hawks, the novel ‘The Big Sleep’ by Raymond Chandler and ‘The Jugger’ by Donald E. Westlake. Godard muse Anna Karina stars as Paula Nelson, a journalist who has arrived in Paris to investigate the death of her former lover Richard. A heart attack, the official report says, but it becomes clear that Richard wasn’t felled by a coronary. There’s a mystery afoot, one that involves assassinations, political conspiracies, cover ups and Communist Parties, and Paula intends to get to the bottom of it.

       Made In U.S.A. is labeled as a thriller, a mystery, and a comedy, and I guess if you were feeling generous you could call it that. There are certainly absurd things that in other films would be considered comedic, like the reveal of Richard’s corpse, but which never cross the border into actual humor. There are elements which could leave the audience thrilled if the film ever had stakes, and the plot does involve a mystery, although the film is so free-wheeling with time and place that the audience struggles to care whether it’s solved or not, if it even was solved by the end. Really Made In U.S.A. is more a movie about people talking that occasionally has something happening on screen, and whether or not you find that interesting depends on if you find talk of French revisionism, the pointlessness of language and circular conversations about whether someone knows something interesting. I don’t, so this whole experience was akin to pulling teeth.

       Which isn’t to say that Godard is a bad filmmaker. He’s a very bold filmmaker, and there are things he does in film, the overt symbolism, breaking the 4th wall to have the characters tell the audience what they’re doing, which must have been very striking in ‘66. Hell it’s very bold even today, even after the legion of imitators. It’s just as a film, as a story that was meant to engage me on an emotional level as well as an intellectual one, it dropped the ball. It was white noise in the shape of dialogue, and as time wore on I became less and less interested in moving forward. I’ve complained a lot about movies being a bit too long, but I think Made In U.S.A. proves that even a 90 minute film can drag in the right conditions.

       Just so that this isn’t a completely negative post though, I will say that I enjoyed Marianne Faithfull’s cameo. Great singer, and Godard knew enough to just let her sing at one point. Anna Karina was also fairly interesting as a lead actress, and I don’t just say that because of her smoldering sensuality. I believe this was the last of Godard’s film to feature Karina in the lead role, whether she was aging out of the prime movie roles or Godard just wanted a change I don’t know, but it was enough to make me want to check out the rest of her work.

       Made In U.S.A. does not get the recommendation. A shitty send-off to a famous director, but I’m in a shitty mood so this is the best we’re going to get. Those interested in a better example of Godard should perhaps check out Alphaville, or one of his other films that probably won’t get reviewed on this blog since they aren’t genre films. Otherwise I’ll see you next year for another 31 films that you’ve probably already seen or don’t care about. In the meantime ebay some candy, dress like a ghost, have sex with someone dressed as a ghost, whatever. Go nuts, it’s a holiday.

Happy Halloween!!!