The Long Dark Marathon of the Soul 2017 - Forbidden Zone (1980), directed by Richard Elfman

The Trailer
and
The Appropriate Tune: "Forbidden Zone", by Oingo Boingo

     As a young, disaffected child, riddled with neuroses and personality disorders, it should come as no surprise that I was drawn to the darkly comical, slightly morbid and otherwise gothic (as in the post-punk subculture and not the East Germanic tribes) films of Tim Burton. I was a weirdo who liked weird stuff, something that’s become even more true with age, and so I consumed movie and movie with reckless abandon like some great and terrible beast. Which is the best way to appreciate the works of Tim Burton, in my opinion; Quickly, deeply, and at a young enough age that it doesn’t register in your mind that the man is a magician with one trick. In some cases (looking at you Dark Shadows), it might be the only way.

     A lot of the enjoyment that I get from those early Burton years has a lot to do with the music of those films, and in particular the work of composer Danny Elfman. Whether it’s Beetlejuice, The Nightmare Before Christmas, Batman (still the iconic theme for the character, in my opinion), his work has this dynamic, vital energy that never fails to get me into a good mood. You know it’s a Danny Elfman joint the second you hear it (it’s probably the one that sounds like a bottom-heavy Chernobog polka), and that’s something of a rare thing in these modern times. Of course most of the movies I watch are about 30 years old minimum, so the relative diversity and quality of modern film soundtracks might be lost on me. Maybe.

     Fury Road was pretty good though.

     It was a few years later that I learned that Mr. Elfman had actually got his start in a band, Oingo Boingo, originally known as The Mystical Knights of Oingo Boingo and later known simply as Boingo. Born from the glam/art rock scene that was raging in Los Angeles in the early 70s, Oingo Boingo went from a staple figure in the local concert scene into a fully-fledged album releasing band of the 80s new wave. They put out a decent string of albums in that era, including my personal favorite, 1985’s Dead Man’s Party, which featured the title track of the popular sci-fi comedy Weird Science, but shifting musical tastes and Elfman’s other priorities led them to call it quits in the early 90’s. Not a bad run for a band that was likely cursed with the ‘One Hit Wonder’ label at some point, all things considered. Only A Lad is a pretty good song too.

     It was a few years after I discovered Danny Elfman had a band that I learned that he had been in films, specifically Forbidden Zone, released in 1980. Directed by Richard Elfman, Danny’s brother and founder of the group, co-written by Matthew Bright (another member of the band) and starring several other bandmates, Forbidden Zone not only served as a replication of the unique experience the band brought to its live shows, but as a love letter to that era of the band’s history. Around the time of FZ’s release, Richard would quit the group permanently to focus on filmmaking, the Mystic Knights of the Oingo Boingo would shorten its name to the still unique but easier to remember Oingo Boingo, and their bizarre, cabaret on LSD vision would get passed through the filter of new wave as it made its way onto record store shelves and MTV screens. The last bow, you could say, as one chapter of the band closes and a new one begins. Very dramatic, believe me.

     Anyway, the story of Forbidden Zone revolves around the Hercules family: The Swedish Jed Clampett-looking Pa, the overburdened Ma, precocious son Flash, absentminded Gramps, and “Frenchy” (played by Marie-Pascale Elfman), the beautiful and demure daughter. The Hercules are your typical American family, living the typical American dream in your typical American town, who just so happen to have a portal to the 6th dimension in their basement. The 6th dimension, referred to as the Forbidden Zone, is a place of madness, rampant nudity and overt BDSM, populated by deviants and frogs of variable shapes and sizes and ruled over by the French nationalist King Fausto (Fantasy Island manservant Hervè Villechaize) and the megalomaniacal dominatrix Queen Doris (Susan Tyrell). In an act of youthful rebellion, and to help school nerd/outcast Squeezit’s transgender sister Renè (not as progressive as it sounds), Frenchy decides to enter the Forbidden Zone, and almost immediately becomes entangled in the chaotic mess that is interdimensional politics. It’s up to Flash, Gramps and Squeezit to brave the perils of the Forbidden Zone and the menacing Queen Doris and somehow rescue Frenchy, all the while singing cabaret songs and making raunchy sex jokes.

     Given how much the band is involved with this movie, it should come as no surprise that a significant portion of the movie is centered around music, a couple by the band itself (the theme song to this movie would later be reworked by Elfman into the theme song for the Dilbert animated series) and more than couple interpretations of popular cabaret songs. These songs are far and above the highlight of the movie, each one featuring a level of choreography and performance that you’d expect from such a theatrically-minded group. If I had to choose just one, I’d have to go with Danny Elfman’s far too short cameo as Satan, as he serenades Squeezit with a rendition of Minnie the Moocher. It’s almost a throwaway scene, having very little to do with anything before or after it in the movie, but Danny gives such a delightfully sinister showing as the Prince of Darkness, possibly foreshadowing the macabre direction his music would take years later, that it hardly matters.

     Therein lies the major issue with Forbidden Zone, which is the same issue that Frank Zappa’s 200 Motels, The Who’s Tommy, and the rest of these rock ‘n’ roll type movies: In order to get to the entertaining parts (i.e. the music), you have to sit through a bunch of crap (i.e. the actual movie). In that way Forbidden Zone has vastly outpaced its competitors, as it’s been a long time since I’ve sat through such an astoundingly shitty movie for so little payoff. Not since the days of Flesh for Frankenstein (not officially reviewed, but it’s an addendum on one of the lists) and The Seduction of Dr. Fugazzi have I been so thoroughly unimpressed by a movie, a feat which I thought and hoped would never be equaled. Coffee & Cigarettes had a more compelling narrative, and the original Mad Max thrilled me more than this flick. It’s that dull folks.

     Perhaps it’s a question of demographics. I, as a modern kind of guy, have been immersed in wild & crazy stuff since I was a kid. I watched Nightmare Before Christmas enough times to memorize the songs, I perused Newgrounds back when celebrity torture porn videos were all the rage, I read Grant Morrison’s Doom Patrol and Alan Moore’s League of Extraordinary Gentlemen like a bible, and every night shows like Aqua Teen Hunger Force and South Park lit up my television screen. So when I watch Forbidden Zone and a walking African-American stereotype in blackface waltzes on screen, it is any wonder that I roll my eyes? When it throws out racist jokes, homophobic jokes, misogynist jokes, rape jokes and other such things like a 14 year old with Tourette’s during his first Overwatch stream, is it all that surprising that I’m bored to tears? Nothing in this movie is really shocking anymore, I’m not sure it was ever funny, so why should I care? It’s weird and low budget and all that, yeah, which is enough to give anything at least a moderate cult following, but there has to be some element of goodness in there to counteract the flaws, so you have something to celebrate. The Rocky Horror Picture Show is weird, but it has amazing music, great set pieces, and Tim Curry in fishnets. Buckaroo Banzai is weird, but the world it creates is so vibrant and unique that you don’t want to leave. Young Einstein is weird, but it’s bizarre Aussiefied version of history and steampunk-inspired technology sets it apart from its peers. Forbidden Zone is weird, but it’s so busy trying to be edgy and cool that it never stops to consider that maybe it’s had its head up its own ass for so long that it can’t tell shit from maize. With a proper cult movie, I should be lamenting the fact that the general public overlooked this hidden gem, not wondering what the general public got right after all these years.

     Obviously that’s just one king’s opinion though, and you’re free to watch to Forbidden Zone at your own discretion. There’s certainly some degree of enjoyment there, in the music interludes, and a good deal of animation that I hadn’t mentioned before, but it’s up to you whether you want to invest that time into it or not. If you’re just looking for a weird movie to watch this Halloween though, just something ‘far out’ to share with your pals down at the sock hop, there are plenty of other, more exciting fish in the sea.

     Might I suggest the works of Tim Burton?

The Long Dark Marathon of the Soul 2017 - The Raid (2011), directed by Gareth Huw Evans

The Trailer
and
The Appropriate Tune: "Indonesian Traditional Music", by Wayan Loceng

     I have to admit, the reason The Raid is on this list because I got it confused with The Purge, and I didn’t feel like changing it once it started playing. Now, you might be thinking to yourself “How could you possibly confuse The Raid with The Purge, Mr. Thunderbird? They’re two completely different films, released in different years, from different countries.” I don’t know what to tell you folks, the mind is a strange and multifaceted enigma. The same thing happens when it comes to The Mist/The Happening and Richard Dean Anderson/Jeffrey Dean Morgan too. Can’t explain it, won’t explain it, that’s just the way she goes.

     Anyway.

     So what is The Raid, or The Raid: Redemption as it’s known in the West? Well, it’s an Indonesian film, directed by a Welshman, and it’s about a raid (this is why I get paid the big blog bucks). Specifically, it’s a police raid on an apartment complex owned by Tama Rayadi. Tama is a big name in the criminal business, particularly in the field of narcotics, and his apartment building is more of a fortress, with the machete-wielding army to match. The team, extremely inexperienced in these types of scenarios, is extremely murdered by the crooks, leaving only a few survivors left. With no supplies and no reinforcements coming, it’s up to our unnamed protagonist (at least I think he is, I don’t recall them ever bringing it up) and the remaining police officers to fight their way through hundreds of murderous thugs, capture Tama, and get the hell out of there. Of course, just because it seems simple enough doesn’t mean it can’t get complicated really quick.

     So what does The Raid bring to the table as a movie? Action. That kind of hyper-kinetic, oftentimes hyper-violent action that’s been so popular these days, like a Jackie Chan movie on speed. It’s jonesing for it in fact, there’d not a minute that goes by in The Raid that’s not a fight scene or a suspenseful build-up to a fight scene. Not just any fight scenes either, but intensely choreographed experiences that makes the hallway fight in Oldboy look like a Dolemite movie by comparison. People are getting their brains blowed out left and right, getting their throats cut with jagged glass, tossed face/spine first into walls and filing cabinets, and occasionally engaging in martial arts. It’s an amazingly tense spectacle, with the director attempting, and succeeding, to one-up himself every fight. If any movie could be called the Metal Gear Rising of film, The Raid makes a strong case.

     Unfortunately, while The Raid delivers in terms of action, it falters when it comes to story and characters. While predecessors like Hot Fuzz and Kung Fu Hustle had the advantage of being comedies, and thus had access to larger-than-life characters and events, and Dredd (which borrows heavily from The Raid’s plot) centered around super-serious, super-satirical Judge Dredd, The Raid really...doesn’t. At all. The plot is simple, which is fine for a martial arts movie, but most characters are just kind of there, with very little dialogue, lacking even the basic traits that would make them a archetype. They exist only to fight and/or die, which would be fine if this were Streets of Rage and not a movie, which needs strong characters in order to keep the audience engaged. If your film is almost indistinguishable from someone editing together a bunch of clips of fight scenes on youtube, can you really call it ‘good’? The late Roger Ebert said said no, and although I don’t feel as harshly about it as he did, I don’t disagree with him.

     However, if what you want is balls-to-the-wall excitement, a popcorn flick you can put on and entertain a crowd, than that is what you get with The Raid. It’s not a film that you watch by yourself in a dark room (my life in a nutshell), it’s a film that, like the gladiators of ancient Rome, lives and dies by the roars of the bloodthirsty crowd. If that’s the kind of world you’re living in this Halloween, then throw The Raid on the TV and have some fun. If you’re not, then start living it. You’ll thank me later.

The Long Dark Marathon of the Soul 2017 - Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984), directed by Leonard Nimoy

The Trailer
and
The Appropriate Tune: "By Myself", by Leonard Nimoy

     At the time I’m writing this, things are pretty nebulous in the world of Star Trek. The latest in JJ Abrams lens-flaring, Beastie Boys-blaring, wishing they were Star Warsing film series, Star Trek Beyond, has been out for a while, and despite a decent showing at the box office it seems unlikely that we’ll see another one. The newest addition to the Star Trek TV canon, Star Trek: Discovery, seems to be suffering from a multitude of problems; Loss of its showrunner, being locked behind CBS’ streaming service, and being yet another prequel series set before TOS being just some of the more noticeable issues. Add in the general lack of supplemental material, video games, comic books and other franchise type things, and it seems like Trek’s star has definitely diminished since the glory days. Which is saying something, since that glory is in spite of Voyager and Enterprise.

     Perhaps Trek fans in the 1970s felt much the same way as we do now. After all the show had been canceled near the beginning of the decade, a rather meek ending to the show that not only helped to popularize sci-fi TV in America, but had also been saved once before from the executioner’s axe by an outstanding level of fan support. There was an animated series in 1973 which was okay, it even featured Will Shatner and the rest of the cast as voices, but it was a far cry from the Trek that we had grown accustomed to up till that point. Plus it’s a bit hard to call Ruby-Spears does ‘animation’ with a straight face. Other than that though, the future of Star Trek was far less optimistic than the future in Star Trek.

     Then in 1979, it all changed. Star Trek: The Motion Picture arrived in theaters, solidifying Trek’s position in pop culture that had begun a decade or so previous. Although a bit heavy on the philosophy and light on the action, recalling 2001: A Space Odyssey more than new competitor Star Wars, TMP was a visual spectacle and a love letter to those long suffering fans who were hoping beyond hope to see Kirk behind the wheel of the Enterprise again. It was also the first time the Trek audience got to see the new and improved model of Klingon, spikes, head ridges and all, which would later become their standard look in the franchise moving forward. No matter what your opinion of the film, the spirit of Star Trek, ‘seeking new life and civilizations, where no one has gone before’ is undoubtedly there.

     The success of Star Trek: The Motion Picture meant a sequel was more or less inevitable, and a few years later movie audiences received Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Starring Ricardo Montalban as the genetically augmented villain Khan Noonien Singh (reprising his role from the TOS episode “Star Seed”), WoK could be seen as a reaction to the criticism of the first movie. While both film feature theme of mankind’s grand aims being used against them, V’GER in TMP and the Genesis Project in WoK, Khan is dedicated much more firmly to action than its predecessor, with plenty of shooting, killing, and ship combat to go around. Which totally worked, as it turns out. Wrath of Khan not only was a huge success at the time, it has since become known as arguably the best Star Trek film in general. Certainly it has the strongest presence in our collective consciousness, with Kirk’s tortured scream of ‘Khan!’ having achieved gold-level meme status in the years since. A bit dodgy in the plot department, I mean this is Star Trek not Cervantes, but overall I found Wrath of Khan just as entertaining as The Motion Picture, and in some areas even moreso. A worthy addition to the canon.


SPOILERS BELOW


     Star Trek III: The Search for Spock takes up pretty much directly where Star Trek II left off. Spock is dead, having sacrificed himself to save the crew after the end of the last film. The Genesis Project has transformed a once dead moon into a vibrant garden of Eden, which is now the subject of scientific studies by Kirk’s son David. Enterprise and her crew manage to limp all the way back home, but what they find there is no hero's welcome. Turns out that Genesis is somewhat of a controversial issue in the Federation, and Starfleet is eager to keep a lid on it. Not only are Kirk and the crew ordered to keep quiet on the issue, but they’re being reassigned as well, pushed off to desk jobs and other such exciting tasks. Enterprise, after 20 years of service, is set to be dismantled. The dream is dead, and life goes on.

     Or so it would seem. Just as Kirk seems to accept his new fate, Spock’s father Sarek arrives and drops a bombshell. Although Spock’s body may be dead, according to Vulcan religion his katra (the equivalent of a soul, basically) is still alive, just transferred into the mind of another, in this case Leonard McCoy. The rules dictate that Spock must be taken to Vulcan so that he can be laid to rest and his katra removed from McCoy, and it just so happens that Spock’s coffin landed on Genesis. Of course, Starfleet has forbidden Kirk from going to Genesis. Not to mention that the Klingons (led by Kruge, played by the great Christopher Lloyd) have found out about Genesis, and they’re very interested in weapons that can destroy entire planets. Oh, and it turns out that Spock may not be as dead as events would imply. Still, when has something like insurmountable odds bother James T. Kirk?

     If Star Trek I was Asimov/Matheson style science fiction, and Star Trek II was the big budget action thriller, then Star Trek III is the TOS call back. It’s all your favorite cast members having one last adventure on the Enterprise (in fact it’s pretty much only your favorite cast members, apparently you only need three people to pilot a starship), fighting classic Star Trek villains for serious but largely personal stakes, all the loose ends from Wrath of Khan are all tied up with a nice little bow, and we leave off on a happy ending. Well, aside from the fact that Kirk and the others are likely headed to space prison for a very long time.

     However, although Star Trek III is pretty fun, it also feels rather superfluous. While The Motion Picture and Wrath of Khan had the benefit of being their own separate stories, Search for Spock is stuck stitching together the leftover bits from the previous movie without being given the chance to stand on its own two feet. Not to mention, honestly, those loose ends are tied up pretty sloppily. Kirk’s son,which is a nice change of status quo? Abandoned. Genesis? Abandoned. Spock being dead, the biggest bombshell of Wrath of Khan? Nah, we’re bringing him back, even if it smacks more of Doctor Who than Star Trek. Sure, bringing back Kirk vs. the Klingons is fun in theory, but they don’t really do all that much to be honest, and they’re not nearly as bloodthirsty and ridiculous as Klingons eventually became. Kruge is the only one with any sort of personality, Christopher Lloyd earning that paycheck, and even he ends up falling short as a primary antagonist. I mean compared to Khan, who was eating up as much scenery as he could every time he was on camera, blowing up ships, sticking worms in people, Kruge seems downright tame in comparison. They’re so extraneous that I believe it’s fully possible to remove them from the film entirely and there’d barely be any difference. Not so good for one of the major member of the Federation rogue’s gallery.

     That’s not to say it’s a bad movie. The visuals and the music are up to par with previous Trek films, and despite the serious events that happen on screen there’s a general feeling of humor and light-hearted adventure that wasn’t apparent in its predecessors. However, as I said Star Trek III feels like a film made specifically to appeal to fans of the original TV series, and not necessarily to build potential new fans like the first two films. Whether or not you decide to watch The Search for Spock then is dependent on how interested you are in the TOS-era, or how invested you are in the events of Wrath of Khan. The choice is yours, as it always is, but as someone who got into the franchise through Star Trek: The Next Generation, I’d say you’re not missing much by skipping out on this one.

The Long Dark Marathon of the Soul 2017 - Fright Night (1985), directed by Tom Holland

The Trailer
and
The Appropriate Tune: "Fright Night (Nevermore)", by Ariel Pink's Haunted Graffiti

     Upcoming worst review ever. Don’t know what happened, all attempts to write this completely snowballed, and this is the end result. Sorry.

     Fright NIght follows the story of Charlie Brewster, a typical teen in your average American suburb. Charlie has a girlfriend that he likes to neglect (Amy), he has a friend who treats him like shit (Ed, commonly referred to as ‘Evil’), a mom who has a fixation on sex, and a favorite public access television show, ‘Fright Night’, hosted by in-universe horror movie actor Peter Vincent. Who could ask for more? However, things take a turn for the worse when Jerry Dandridge moves into the house next door. Strange things start happening, people start disappearing, and Charlie is a witness to events that defy description. It’s looking like Dandridge is a vampire, a member of that damned race of blood-sucking fiends. If that’s true however, then how can he stopped? Not only that, but what happens when he knows that you’ve discovered his secret?

     Well, call Peter Vincent of course!

     This is a strange film to pin down, because all the interesting things seemed to be matched with an equally bad thing. I like the idea of having a horror enthusiast thrust into the role of monster fighter, like in fellow Marathon film Monster Squad, but the ‘neighbor does weird stuff but no one believes the protagonist’ concept has been well-worn ever since Alfred Hitchcock’s Rear Window (if you’ve seen The Burbs from last year’s list, you’ve seen about 70 percent of Fright Night). I like Roddy McDowell’s performance as Peter Vincent, but I want to strangle the kid who plays Evil Ed. The film goes for a laugh in one scene, but then has an excruciatingly long death scene the next. Great special effects and makeup, but the music is standard fare. It even has its own theme song, which seems like a thing all horror movies had at the time. Good cinematography etc.

     Fright Night is worth a watch. Hell, you might even really enjoy it, considering it has a decent cult following. When you consider how many horror movies from the ‘80s have that distinction however, it gets hard to say that it’s a must-watch movie. If you liked movies like Monster Squad, The Burbs, The Frighteners, maybe a bit of The Lost Boys too, then you’re in good hands. Otherwise, just add this queue and get to it eventually.

The Long Dark Marathon of the Soul 2017 - Son of Frankenstein (1939), directed by Rowland V. Lee

The Trailer
and
The Appropriate Tune: "Son of Mr. Green Genes", by Frank Zappa

     Although the Universal Monster movies are very much the foundation of horror in film (at least in the sound era), and some might go as far to say the pinnacle of the genre, they were not impervious to to the fine art of exploitation. Before Hollywood had perfected its formula of endless reboots and nostalgia plays you see, film studios dabbled in pumping out as many films in a series as they thought they could get away with, and Universal was no exception. Dracula, the start of the Universal Monster trend? Two sequels, the oft-overlooked Dracula’s Daughter, released in 1936 and 1943’s Son of Dracula, the originator of the ‘Alucard’ concept that would later be revisited in the Castlevania series of video games. The Creature from the Black Lagoon, featuring the grisly Gill Man? Two sequels, 1955’s Revenge of the Creature and 1956’s The Creature Walks Among Us. The Mummy, a tale of lost love, gruesome death, and a dessicated Egyptian corpse? 5 sequels, 1940’s The Mummy’s Hand, 1942’s The Mummy’s Tomb, 1944’s The Mummy’s Ghost, later in 1944’s The Mummy’s Curse, and of course 1955’s infamous Abbott and Costello Meet The Mummy. I know we’re used to a deluge of movies in this era of cinematic universe, but 4 Mummy movies in 4 years is still a lot of Mummy to take in.

     Similarly, Universal’s adaptation of Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus” also enjoyed a multi-film run back in the day, including his own run-in with Abbott and Costello. After the wildfire success of the original Frankenstein back in 1931, the film that launched the career of the legendary horror icon Boris Karloff, the idea of doubling down wasn’t even in doubt. The end result, 1935’s The Bride of Frankenstein, was also a success, and arguably even better than the original. Directed by James Whale, who also directed the original, Bride takes what was already a weird movie and takes it into bizarre and surreal new directions. It was also the first film I ever reviewed on this blog, so if you want to read more about it you should check out that entry.

     After the success of Bride of Frankenstein, Universal decided to double down again, and four years later we got Son of Frankenstein (nothing else was really happening in 1939). Set years after the events of the previous films, SoF centers around Wolf von Frankenstein, the son of the infamous doctor. Having inherited the barony from his late father, Wolf and his family arrive to a cold reception to the village of Frankenstein. The townsfolk have had enough of guys named Frankenstein to last a lifetime, but Wolf is convinced that all those stories about a killer monster have been exaggerated over the years, and that his father’s reputation has been unfairly besmirched. The mad science apple doesn’t fall far from the mad science tree however, and when he finds his father’s secret notes he becomes very tempted to continue the family business. Then he meets Ygor, the resident corpse stealer and social pariah, who just might know what happened to that infamous monster...

     When you look at it, Son of Frankenstein has a lot of things going on. It’s the last appearance of Boris Karloff as the Monster, one of the most iconic performances in horror history. It’s the first of anyone named Ygor/Igor in a Frankenstein property, which would later be adopted in pop culture as the name of Frankenstein’s assistant (even though the assistant’s name was Fritz in the original movie). It was one of the few films to feature both Boris Karloff and Dracula actor Bela Lugosi, who played Ygor, as well as Sherlock Holmes star Basil Rathbone, who played Wolf. It posited the idea that it was cosmic rays and not lightning that brought life to the Monster, and we know how prolific cosmic rays came to be in movies and comic books. Best of all though, the plot of Son of Frankenstein is a definite inspiration for the Mel Brooks film Young Frankenstein, which is in the upper echelons of the fantastic comedy hierarchy. As far as contributing to the lore goes, Son might be the most influential film in the Frankenstein franchise since the original. How many other third films in a series can you say that about?

     Lore aside, SoF’s greatest strengths lie in its story, like watching a house of cards fall apart, and the performances from its primary characters. Basil Rathbone’s slow degradation from the honorable if naive Wolf into a nervous wreck all too aware of the situation falling out of control is brilliantly done, every bit as manic as Colin Clive in the original film. Bela Lugosi, known for his suave and seductive manner in Dracula, is totally transformed in his role of Ygor, a bestial savage with a penchant for gallows humor and a neck to match. Inspector Krogh, played by the Lionel Atwill, is the consummate soldier and detective. Sure the child actor isn’t great, but otherwise it’s a very strong movie in that regard.

     As for cons, well you’ll notice that I didn’t mention Boris Karloff as the Monster, which is 99% of the reason folks bought tickets to this movie in ‘39. That’s because the Monster isn’t really all that good in this movie. In the previous movies, the Monster was a terribly tragic figure, a creature just intelligent enough to be tortured by the nature of his existence and his inability to change it. While there’s a hint of that Son of Frankenstein, mostly he’s just devolved into a dumb brute who murders folks. If he shows up at all, for a Frankenstein film you’d be surprised at how little the Monster actually shows up on screen. I know at some point Karloff said that doing the Monster was too physically intensive, and maybe that accounts for his diminished presence. Still, it’s not an easily forgotten absence.

     Also, this movie doesn’t look as creepy as the previous films in the series in my opinion. Every now and then you get a hint of that German expressionist design that made Frankenstein and the rest of the early Universal Monster films feel so otherworldly (the shots of Castle Frankenstein look pretty good, and I remember a really nice hallway shot near the end of the film I liked), but I dunno, Son of Frankenstein feels like a grander film in some areas and a more mundane. Like they have these big, open spaces with nothing weird to put in them. The end result of Rowland Lee attempting to ape James Whale’s aesthetic preferences and stumbling at the finish line, perhaps.

     Those problems aside, Son of Frankenstein is still an entertaining movie, and it easily earned its place in the Universal Monster canon as well as a recommendation from me. For those interested in exploring old school horror, you would be doing yourself a service by throwing this film into the queue. Throw the whole Universal Frankenstein series into the pot in fact, you won’t find much better. Well, maybe not Frankenstein meets the Wolf Man, but it wouldn’t be Frankenstein without a few abnormal pieces, am I right?

The Long Dark Marathon of the Soul 2017 - Christine (1983), directed by John Carpenter

The Trailer
and
The Appropriate Tune: "Bad To The Bone", by George Thorogood & The Destroyers

     There’s an episode of Family Guy where, when asked about his next book by his publisher, Stephen King grabs a nearby lamp off of the desk and starts waving it around, claiming that it is a ‘haunted lamp’. I paraphrase of course, a Family Guy joke doesn’t really deserve any more than that, but the idea behind it is clear: Although Stephen King has written several stories of significant depth, like The Black Tower and The Stand, he also has a history of seemingly tossing out stories where normally mundane things end up murdering people. There’s a story where a dog murders people, one where a monkey kills people, a trucker kills people, a fangirl kills people and so on. A very simple formula and easily exploitable formula, which is where Family Guy’s ‘humor’ comes in, but one that works principally because King is someone who understands the art of suspense. Much like how Alan Moore turned a cheap British homage to Captain Marvel into the pioneer of modern comic storytelling, a talented enough writer can take any subject matter and turn it into something original and compelling. I think after years of being known as one of the most prolific authors of the modern age, King has more than proven that.

     The perception of Stephen King as the ‘haunted lamp’ guy most likely got its start with “Christine”, a 1983 novel of the pain of adolescence, obsession and love, and also about a car that kills people. Later that same year, no doubt inspired by the success of Brian de Palma’s adaptation of “Carrie” and Stanley Kubrick’s adaptation of “The Shining”, “Christine” was also transformed into a major motion picture. The director this time round? John Carpenter, who just a few years previous had reinvented the horror genre with Halloween, and reinvented it again with his remake of The Thing from Another World. A fantastic choice, not just because Carpenter is an amazing director, but because he obviously understood how to craft a great horror film, whether it was rather minimalist (Halloween) or effect-heavy (The Thing). Carpenter has already been praised many times on this blog, so there’s no need to blow any more smoke up his ass. Suffice to say, getting John Carpenter attached to your project in the early 80s was a good sign.

     Just as the novel “Christine” is a story of love, obsession and the pain of adolescence, so too is the film Christine. Specifically the pain of Arnie, the biggest nerd in Rockridge California, 1978. Abused by school bullies, lorded over by his parents, ignored by women, Arnie doesn’t have much going on in his life, until he comes across a very interesting car for sale by the name of Christine. Arnie takes an immediate liking to Christine, deciding to buy it and build it back up as good as new. At first this seems like a good thing, Arnie has become more cool and outspoken, he’s starting to attract attention from the opposite sex, but it all falls by the wayside because of Christine. Arnie is becoming obsessed with this car, devoting all of his time and attention to it, to the detriment of everything else. Thing is, seems like Christine might be just as possessive about Arnie, and she has a tendency to get a little more...physical to get her way.

     So yeah, a movie about a car that kills people. Ridiculous in theory, but this is John Carpenter we’re talking about, the man who kickstarted a multi-film franchise on the back of a character that never says a single word. When you see a guy walking down a street at night and those headlights pop on, that is prime A-grade level slasher material. A lot of killings themselves are kind of downplayed, which is certainly a shame, but I think they make up for it with the car violence. Much like Michael Myers, Christine is a single-minded murderer, and no matter how damaged she gets, she just fixes herself up and keeps on going (a relatively simple effect I imagine, but in my opinion an effective one). Seeing Christine ram into a wall at full speed, getting set on fire, ramming into other vehicles...Sure, we don’t get the gruesome details of seeing someone get turned into street pizza, but the visceral power of those scenes manage to be just as thrilling as seeing Jason Vorhees stabbing a guy with a machete. Like a demolition derby with great cinematography.

     Cast wise, it’s all pretty okay across the board. Dennis(played by John Stockwell) and Leigh (played by Alexandra Paul) seem a little flat for main characters, but Keith Gordon’s slow descent from lovable nerd Arnie to rebel psycho Arnie is done pretty well. This is also kind of weird, but I think Christine does old men characters really well for some reason. Will Darnell (Robert Prosky), George Lebay (Roberts Blossom), Rudy Junkins (Harry Dean Stanton) to a lesser extent, they’re such distinctive characters that your attention is drawn to them whenever they’re on screen. Is that another common theme in Stephen King’s writing? Entertaining old people? I honestly don’t know, but if Christine is any indication, I need to read more of his books.

     Music wise, we have a combination of a classic Carpenter soundtrack, minimalist synths, pulsing beats and so on and a collection of 50’s rock ‘n’ roll hits, which act as Christine’s method of communication. I also have to wonder whether there were many films before Christine where they take golden oldies style music, which typically invokes feelings of wistful nostalgia and simpler times, and subverts it to some degree. It’s a common theme now, the scene in Predator where Little Richard is playing over someone firing a minigun in a military camp, the later editions of the Fallout video game series, but I wonder if Christine is where that ball started rolling. As for the rest of the soundtrack, I love synths with a passion that borders on the strange, so a John Carpenter film rarely disappoints in that regard.

     Despite an absurd premise that’s stretched over a standard slasher-style framework, Christine is a fun movie. It looks great, it sounds amazing, it all runs like a well-oiled machine. Like an automobile, if you will. Those looking for a film that’s more suspenseful than outright scary, or have a passion for vintage cars will find this film right up their alley.

     You’ll never think about jay-walking the same way again.

The Long Dark Marathon of the Soul 2017 - Compulsion (1959), directed by Richard Fleischer

Has it been another year already? I certainly feel 365 days closer to death, but then that just me getting character for the season. That's right, it's October again here in the Thunderbird estate, as well as the rest of the world, which means it's time for another 31 movie reviews/impressions/musings. You're gonna see horror, you're gonna see sci-fi, you're gonna see a whole bunch of weird shit I watched that can loosely relate to the celebration of Halloween. There's a couple clunkers, quite a few gems, and everything in between. Check them out, you just might find your next favorite movie.

The Trailer
and
The Appropriate Tune: "The Mercy Seat", by Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds

     Before the advent of psychology and psychiatry, humanity had a very limited understanding of itself, why we act we do. Before we knew what epilepsy was, we assumed that person was possessed by demons. Before we knew what post traumatic stress disorder was, we assumed that those people had shellshock or were even cowards (the British army in WWI even had a habit of shooting those they believed to be ‘cowards’ and ‘deserters’ in fact). Before we knew that the lack of certain chemicals in the brain could severely impact human behavior, we assumed that those people were evil, or monsters, rather than those in need of medical attention. To be fair, since ‘medical attention’ in those days could mean ‘get a hole drilled through your skull’ or any other sort of horrific bullshit you could imagine (amputating limbs and infecting people with tuberculosis was also pretty popular), maybe they were better off being left alone.

     Then again,just because we understand something, or believe we understand it, doesn’t mean we can’t make assumptions. In fact it is that arrogance, that belief that we know more than others and are better than them, that has lead to the biggest blights on our record as a species. Colonialism, holy wars, genocide, corruption, all the way down to plain old simple murder, it all boils down to ‘I’m better than you, so submit’. Even if we don’t believe in witchcraft and demons anymore, even if we’re now ‘genre-savvy’ in regards to the universe, in many ways it’s like we never left the trees.

     Arrogance is the name of the game for 1959’s Compulsion, directed by film great Richard Fleischer (20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Fantastic Voyage, and so on), and starring Orson Welles, Diane Varise and a very young Dean Stockwell, decades before he played a cigar-chomping hologram on Quantum Leap. Based on a novel by Meyer Levin, which was itself based on a 1924 Chicago court case, Compulsion centers around two rich college students: Arthur Straus, a charming yet domineering extrovert and compulsive liar and Judd Steiner, an antisocial wunderkind with an obsession for all things Nietzsche (this was before douchebags flocked to the works of Ayn Rand, you see). Possessed of wealth, status and popularity, convinced of their own innate superiority to their fellow man through modern philosophy, Artie and Judd engage in a series of crimes based on the desire for ‘experiences’, or in the case of Artie, ‘shits and giggles’. Breaking and entering, robbery, attempted hit-and-run, attempted rape, culminating in the kidnapping and violent murder of a young boy named Paul Kessler. The perfect crime, or so they think, until a pair of glasses is discovered on Kessler’s body. Glasses that happen to belong to Judd Steiner.

     When the case eventually reaches court, which it must as a movie based on a court case, and threat of capital punishment seems less a possibility and more a reality, the wealthy parents of Straus and Steiner retain the services of Jonathan Wilk (Welles), a well-known and talented attorney. A noted atheist and humanitarian who champions causes rather than bank accounts, Wilk decides to tackle the case, building a case that Artie and Judd are mentally ill, and should be imprisoned rather than being put to death. However, two prominent state psychiatrists have already dubbed the two ‘completely sane’, and so are fit to stand trial. Sane or insane? The answer to that question holds two lives in the balance, and would set a precedent for the years to come.

     In a lot of ways, Compulsion is very similar to another film that’s been discussed on this blog, to the extent that they might have been based off of the same case: Rope, by the great Alfred Hitchcock. Both featured two young high-society men, the affable mastermind and the silent genius who decide to murder someone because they can, and much of the movie is centered around the unraveling of that so-called perfect crime. Both feature the affable character egging people on, playing fast and loose with the victims and the investigators, while the genius character slowly cracks under the pressure. Both deal heavily on Nietzsche's idea of the superman, of not being bound by the laws of other men in a postwar society. Hell, the actors in Rope even look a bit like Artie and Judd, albeit in color. It can’t be a coincidence.

     Were I to compare the two though, I’d have to go with Rope as the better film, in large part because it feels like you’re only getting half of a movie in Compulsion. You find out that Artie and Judd murder Kessler but you never see it happen, you get a hint of the investigation but not all that much, you see a glimpse of the trial but mostly the end of it, it all goes by the wayside to focus on Artie and Judd’s rocky relationship. Which is fine to a degree, because the actors do a terrific job of highlighting Artie and Judd’s personality disorders, making them definitely seem capable of the act of murder, but it all feels like a lost opportunity in retrospect. I mean the driving force of the film is this murder, you’d think it would be more than a footnote in the film. I could understand why Fleischer wouldn’t show the act or the body, this was still the 50s after all, but couldn’t there be a scene at least hinting it? Showing them case out the area perhaps, choosing Kessler as the one they would kill? Wouldn’t be much, but it would keep the film from feeling truncated.

     Orson Welles puts on a subdued but excellent performance as you’d expect but his part of the film, in particular his closing statements at the end of trial, ends up feeling incongruous with the first half of the film. It’s a great monologue, and were I in the courtroom that day I would certainly been affected, but that speech came after an hour of seeing Artie and Judd living it up. Not once do they appear remorseful of what they did or worthy of sympathy, although Fleischer tries to claim it by mentioning absentee parents and how Judd seems ‘so sad’, neither of which are ever really addressed all that much. They don’t even appear insane, which is the crux of the case for and against them, so by the time that Wilk appears in the story you’re kind of already rooting for them to get what they deserve. Which might have been the point all along, maybe Fleischer was making us root for the death penalty like the public in the film (again, implied not shown) and then having Wilk pull us back from the brink. Which I appreciate, but for me it wasn’t all that effective. Artie and Judd were too good at being unlikable, and I’m a guy who is already completely unsympathetic to rich assholes trying to get away with blatantly ignoring the law.

     That being said, it is a very well-made film with some equally great performances, so I’d say it’s worth a watch. Perhaps in a double feature with Rope, so you can compare and contrast at your leisure. Just don’t get it into your head that you could get away with it, that you could find a way around the law, where these characters failed. If you learn anything from this film, it’s that being an ubermensch just isn’t worth the hassle.