Tuesday, October 17, 2017

The Long Dark Marathon of the Soul 2017 - The Killers (1946), directed by Robert Siodmak



     Try as hard as you might, but in my opinion, there’s no genre of film more American than film noir. Yes, I know that its origins lie in German Expressionism and that it was German directors who crafted the earliest and often best examples of that genre, but the imagery, the feel is undeniably American. The streetwise, no nonsense detectives, the women that are as beautiful as they are deadly, the cold and empty streets, the ravenous consumption of cigarettes and whiskey, film noir speaks to a darkly romantic vision of the United States in the 1930s and 40s just as the western genre speaks to the wild, untamed America of the 1890s. Idealized as well as unrealistic of course, but since its creation it has become an indelible part of our country’s mythology. Film noir is as much folklore as Johnny Appleseed, Davey Crockett, and Ted Bundy.

     In the world of film noir, you can’t talk about the classics (at least classic enough to be in the Criterion Collection) without mentioning The Killers, directed by German-American director Robert Siodmak. Adapted from a story by Ernest Hemingway (another piece of America’s romanticized vision of itself), the film stars Edmond O’Brien as Jim Rearden, an investigator who works for an Atlantic City Life Insurance company, who stumbles upon case in the town of Brentwood, New Jersey where a man named Pete Lund, otherwise known as the Swede, was murdered in his hotel room. Not too unbelievable even in a small town, but the crime seemed less like a robbery gone wrong and more like a professional hit, and Pete’s life insurance policy paid out to a cleaning woman who only met him a few times, and only by the name of ‘Mr. Nilsson’. Intrigued, Rearden decides to dig deeper into the life of the Swede, and as he digs the long, sad, strange story of the death of Pete Lund, a.k.a Nilsson, a.k.a Ole ‘Swede’ Anderson. His friends, his lovers, his highs and his lows, and directly in the center of it all a young woman named Kitty Collins and her green handkerchief.

     Of course, although Edmond O’Brien and the rest of the cast put in good work, the big names this time through are that of Burt Lancaster in his film debut as Ole Anderson and Ava Gardner, who was just then starting to get credited roles, as Kitty Collins. Obviously Burt had the looks to get into movies, but I think what really stands out here is this gloomy aura that seems to surround him. Ole Anderson is a man whose life can be described as a string of failures each greater than the last, and that’s what Lancaster looks like: A man who looks like he had a lot of potential in his younger days, a lot of big dreams, but the moment passed a long time ago and he could never move past it. Young, but paradoxically very weathered. A good first step on what would be a very successful career in film.

     Unlike Lancaster’s Ole, the ultimate failure, Ava Gardner’s Kitty Collins is, appropriately enough, untouchable. I don’t know if you can find a more textbook depiction of the femme fatale archetype in film, and this was an era that played fast and loose with them. Kitty is beautiful, obviously, but it’s a cold beauty; A mask that she puts on in order to hide a devious mind. You can see the moments when she slips it on and it’s fascinating to see, wondering just how deep this deception goes. Pretty deep, but I’ll let you see the movie for yourselves to see what form it takes.

     If you’ve ever read a work by Hemingway, then you understand what his writing style is like: Terse, active rather than descriptive, full of that prewar listlessness. Similarly, Robert Siodmak is a very unpretentious filmmaker, so when the time came to do a movie of The Killers, Siodmak just straight up took the original story and put it on film. No muss, no fuss, no major alterations in order to fulfill the whims of a focus group, just a book that was adapted into a movie. We’ve got entire franchises based on books that don’t bother trying to keep things accurate to the source material, but here we see a movie from 50 years ago or so managing to do just that. Not so hard if you actually try, now is it?

     Siodmak’s adaptation is definitely a no-frills type of noir experience. There are no internal monologues about the city set to Miles Davis style jazz, rain and fog coating the streets like a blanket, that has been assosciated with the genre (and Frank Miller’s try-hard reproduction of it). You’ve just got a mystery to solve and a collection of bad people doing bad things to each other, and that’s it. A bit simplistic on the surface, but in spite of a lack of these more artsy touches Siodmak has made up for in strong characterization and story (although I suppose some of that credit goes to Hemingway). Pretty much every major character that comes on screen, from Rearden and Ole all the way to the nameless Killers are visually distinct, with clearly defined characters, relationships and motivations. There’s no muddled narrative here, no confusion as to why characters are doing what they’re doing (aside from what the mystery requires), it’s all very straightforward, and that’s great. It’s amazing how calming it can be to sit down and watch a movie that isn’t trying to blow your mind or reinvent the wheel , but just wants to tell a story about love and murder. No pressure, no sense that you just didn’t ‘get it’, and so easy to get invested for a while with these people’s lives. What a time.

     That’s part of the reason why The Killers is such a great movie, and if you want the rest of it you’ll just have to see it for yourselves. Highly recommended, whether it’s the Halloween season or not. Probably would make for a far easier cosplaying challenge than The Avengers, if we’re being honest.

Sunday, October 15, 2017

The Long Dark Marathon of the Soul 2017 - A Girl Walks Home Alone At Night (2014), directed by Ana Lily Amirpour



     When I first heard of this film, A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night, which I believe was last year, I was very much interested in covering it on the Marathon. I mean when you’re more-or-less stuck with covering only horror and science fiction movies (with a couple of exceptions), it’s rare that you get to see women directors or films with a strong Middle Eastern influence, and even rarer that you get both in one go. Plus it was apparently critically acclaimed, which as a horror/sci-fi fan is also uncommon, unfortunately. Overall it seemed like a nice change of pace and, much like it was with Trollhunter, this felt like the year to do it.

     Unfortunately, I didn’t like it. At all.

     I can see why it would be popular, of course. Great cinematography, good use of lighting and music, it’s very atmospheric. Or rather it would be if it wasn’t used up on scenes where emotionless 20 somethings stare at each other, occasionally speaking a few sentences before lapsing back into silence. At least with Coffee & Cigarettes, another movie I reviewed and didn’t like, there was plenty of dialogue to sift through and analyze, in fact that was the only thing available. In A Girl Walks Home Alone At Night it’s exactly the opposite, you spend your time sitting there praying that something it going to happen, that there’s going to be some kind of conflict that initiates action, but no. 140 minutes of a complete non-climax ladies and gentlemen, really makes you feel like you spent your time wisely, right?

     Also it turns out that this isn’t really a horror movie after all, despite the fact that I keep finding this thing in various horror sections. Yeah the titular ‘Girl’ is a vampire, and she does kill a couple people, but the fact that she is a vampire is such a non issue in the overall plot it might as well not even be in the film. She never has to rush home before daylight, never confronted with garlic or holy symbols, never exhibits any real vampiric powers, she could just be some weird woman and literally nothing would change about the plot, so what’s the fucking point? They also throw around terms like ‘western’, which doesn’t really make any sense beyond the stark landscape and the occasional Morricone-esque music sting, and romance, which I assume refers to these two protagonists who barely talk to each other over three conversations and never smile once (shows what I know about love, I guess), but I’m not really buying it. Also that it’s a feminist movie, which...I guess is true? I mean the main character seems to have barely any emotions, threatens children and murders several people without remorse and gets away with it, but two of the three people she kills you could say were asking for it, so maybe that’s where that comes from? I dunno.

     Not the best review you’ve ever read I imagine, but I think it’s obvious my heart just isn’t in it to try and expand on my thoughts. Just a movie where you watch people staring at each other and the points don’t matter. Who knows, you might find something great in here that I didn’t. It’s not really much of a Halloween movie though, so keep that in mind when movie night rolls around. And if you’re going out that, remember to use the buddy system. For your sake as well as ours.

Saturday, October 14, 2017

The Long Dark Marathon of the Soul 2017 - Night of the Creeps (1986), directed by Fred Dekker



     As I’ve mentioned far, far too many times already, the 1980s were the golden years of horror when it came to the cinema. The state of special effects and make-up advanced to such a point that you could get some pretty amazing looking stuff for relatively little cost, which coincided with a more relaxed, gore-friendly audience, but more importantly, filmmakers were able to have fun with it. Comedy and horror goes as far back as the Abbott & Costello films of course, but what I mean is that the genre had been around long enough that deconstruction and satirization of horror was possible. When people are taking the time to dig into the formula and tropes of your genre, then you know you’ve hit the big time.

     If you’ve followed my Marathon series in the past, then you might recognize the name Fred Dekker from Monster Squad, a fun little film wherein a rambunctious Goonies-style group of kids fight against Golden Age era monsters. He was also involved in the Tales From the Crypt TV show, which was good, Robocop 3, which was crap, and Star Trek: Enterprise, which was meh, so he doesn’t have the most pristine of track records. Still, to make even one good movie is a feat in and of itself, and in the 80s Dekker managed to distill his personal flair for the more comedic side of horror into three films, spread out over 1986 and ‘87: Monster Squad (which I mentioned above), House (not based on the Japanese film, unfortunately) and Night of the Creeps. As Dekker is only credited as a writer for House, I decided to take a look at the latter in order to get a more complete picture of Dekker’s creative vision. Plus it was really convenient, so yeah, it gets a spot.

     As far as plots go, Night of the Creeps follow the example of its influences by not complicating things too much. In 1959 a device containing an alien parasite crash lands on Earth. The leech-like parasite enters the human body through the mouth and lays eggs in the brain, which ultimately leaves the victim a zombie with very high head explosion potential. Hidden away in its first victim, who just so happens to be in cryogenic stasis in a science lab in the exact same college town it landed in 30 years ago, the parasites are accidentally set loose upon the unsuspecting world by students Chris and J.C. in a hazing ritual gone awry. Now it’s up to Chris and Detective Cameron (played by Tom Atkins, who also starred in oft-forgotten B-movie Halloween III:Season of the Witch) to unravel the mystery of these seemingly random deaths and eventually try and save the human race from these creeps. As James Cameron’s Aliens would say, it’s time for a bug hunt.

     Aside from the glaring plothole of how and why the parasite’s first victim has been cryogenically frozen in a college science lab, as even one of those old B-movies Dekker is homaging would have given at least a few lines about it, Night of the Creeps is a enjoyably campy, delightfully gory movie in the vein of such films as Return of the Living Dead and The Stuff. I hesitate to call it good, just as in those old movies the most enjoyment you get out of this one is in the last 20 minutes or so, but those last 30 minutes are fucking amazing. That and there’s just this ever-so-slight undercurrent of cartoonish absurdity that heightens things in just the right places. The Fallout-esque parody of the 50s at the beginning of the film, Detective Cameron’s obsession with film noir and pulp mysteries, Dekker isn’t getting as jokey here as he would be in Monster Squad but you can definitely tell his tongue has touched his cheek here. Oh, and seeing obviously fake heads getting blown up by gunfire is always a treat.

     Of the two Dekker directed films I’ve seen I have to side with Monster Squad, but Night of the Creeps was also a pretty fun. Classic ‘Movie Night With Friends’ material I think, especially if you make it a double feature with James Gunn’s Slither, which takes the basic premise of NotC and tosses in a little bit of The Thing for flavor. Just don’t scream too loudly, you probably don’t want to keep your mouth open for too long.

Friday, October 13, 2017

The Long Dark Marathon of the Soul 2017 - John Wick (2014), directed by David Leitch



     The major complaint that I hear tossed around the film forums these days, and it’s a complaint I’ve had myself in the past, is there are no original IP’s anymore. Everything is adapted from a comic book or some other property, everything is a sequel, everything is a reboot, it’s all the same things constantly being recycled every year. In this new modern world of film, how can one truly be excited? Where is the tension when you know all the protagonists are going to live, because they have to show up in films until 2028? Where is the motivation for seeing a movie you’ve seen before in a new coat of obvious CGI? When you add the exorbitant prices for theater tickets, the issues with theaters themselves, and it certainly doesn’t paint a good picture of the future of cinema. When it comes to genre films at least.

     Of course not all licensed films are bad, just as not all original IP’s aren’t great, but when a good one comes along seemingly out of nowhere we tend to latch ourselves onto it. Your Pacific Rims (a past Marathon inductee), your Get Outs (a possible future inductee), and so on. Of course only a few of these original properties, beloved though they were, have the right combination of critical success, commercial viability and story potential to make the transition to a proper franchise. For that, you need to go to John Wick.

     A man by the name of John Wick (Keanu Reeves), has just recently lost his wife to a terminal illness. For a brief moment his grief is assuaged by the arrival of an adorable puppy, the last gift from his departed wife, and he starts to believe that he’ll be able to move on, pick up the pieces and rebuild his life. However, that hope is quickly and brutally dashed after a home invasion by some Russian mafia leaves him with a bruised and battered body, a stolen car, and a dead dog. Like a ten year old Bruce Wayne fresh off of a Zorro movie, John Wick’s entire being is dedicated to vengeance.

     What those Russian punks didn’t understand is that John Wick isn’t just a man, he’s an assassin. One of the deadliest, most efficient killing machines in the world, which in a world that has a very wide-reaching and powerful assassin organization is really saying something. You can’t run from John Wick, you can’t hide or try to pay him off. All you can do is try to kill him or hope he kills you quickly. Either way, you’ve just walked into hell.

     Action-wise, I think John Wick takes a bit more from The Raid than it does from films like Jason Bourne, combining quick, high tension gunplay sequences with longer, tightly edited fight scenes. Which is good, as even though the action is never as over the top as it is in The Raid, there’s a certain shocking viciousness and brutality to it that you don’t get all that often. When Wick is using CQC on somebody, although there’s a certain flashiness to it, you really get the impression that these two folks are trying to kill each for realisies. At least for the fight scenes, the gunplay never seems as bloody and gorey that it should be, despite the fact that John shoots about 60 people directly in the fucking face. Earn that R-rating folks.

     I think the reason for Wick’s success is not so much in the action scenes, good as they might be, but rather in the world that David Leitch has presented to us. Who is John Wick, beyond the little we are given about his past? What is this mysterious organization of assassins and just how wide-reaching is their influence, given the power they seem to wield in the film, with their own hotels and nightclubs? What is the significance of the gold coins that members of this organization trade between themselves? John Wick is a movie that leaves you with a couple answers but far, far more questions, and it’s that desire to dig deeper and deeper into the world of Wick that really gets you invested. I don’t know how good John Wick: Chapter 2 is as a movie, but I do know that immediately after finishing John Wick, I wanted more of it.

     John Wick is weird, as darkly violent as it is darkly comedic, and it’s one of best action films I’ve seen recently. If you’re in that kind of mood where you want to see people who deserve to get hurt get hurt, then this is the thing you’re looking for. Unless you’re a dog fan I suppose, but Halloween is all about facing your fears, right? And if you hate dogs, you better watch your fucking back. You never know just who is going to take offense to something like that.

Thursday, October 12, 2017

The Long Dark Marathon of the Soul 2017 - The Amityville Horror (1979), directed by Stuart Rosenberg



     Even though I’ve seen a lot of movies (over a hundred just going by this blog), many of those in the horror genre, there are plenty of big name films that have passed me by completely. I’ve never seen any of the Friday the 13th movies for example, despite being one of the biggest franchises of the genre. Never experienced the joy of Pumpkinhead, never spent long nights pondering the philosophical implications of Child’s Play, never filled the forums of fanfiction.net with a 17 part Puppet Master/Gingerdead Man crossover epic. That’s the hard truth when it comes to movies: There will always be more movies that you haven’t seen than ones you have.

     So it was with the Amityville series, up until this entry. For years I had heard the name Amityville, seen it name dropped when horror movies came up, but I had never actually seen one of the movies. Hell, I didn’t even know it was (technically) based on a book, or that Amityville apparently was a real place in New York City. All I had was a name, and a reputation for being shit, generally speaking. What horror franchise doesn’t have a few clunkers in there though, am I right? Remember that one time Michael Myers got beat up by Xzibit? I don’t, because that’s another movie I’ve never watched.

     Anyway, the flagship of the Amityville series: The Amityville Horror, starring James Brolin (father of Josh) and Margot Kidder (girlfriend of Superman) as George and Kathy Lutz, a married couple who move their family into a big new house in Amityville, Long Island in late 1974. A house that just happened to be the scene of a gruesome mass murder of an entire family by a member of the family. And is definitely haunted. And definitely wants to drive this family to insanity and eventual murder. When religious people vomit uncontrollably in the mere presence of something, that’s usually a sign that might want to reconsider making that down payment. In my limited experience at least, I don’t know where the limit is for the average prospective home owner. Is black ooze coming out of the toilet a deal breaker or not?

     Released in 1979, The Amityville Horror comes at the tail-end of what I’d call Satan-o-rama, a period in Hollywood’s history where the key to a successful horror movie seemed to involve not masked serial killers, but demons and other members of the supernatural. Starting with the award-winning Rosemary’s Baby in 1968 (a notoriously despised movie within this blogosphere) or arguably Leslie Stevens’ Incubus in ‘66, the 1970s and early 80s saw a string of films with a strong Satanic focus. From critical and commercial successes like William Friedkin’s The Exorcist and Richard Donner’s The Omen to cult favorites like The Wicker Man total flops like The Devil’s Rain, starring Ernest Borgnine as a goat man. People were obsessed with the devil man, I don’t know what to tell you. If it wasn’t movies, it was in Dungeons & Dragons or metal music, or later with Pokemon and Harry Potter. It’s really dumb.

     Problem is, The Amityville Horror suffers from the same issues that Rosemary’s Baby had: It’s really fucking boring, and nothing fucking happens in it. At least with Rosemary’s Baby there was this atmosphere of hopelessness by the end that I can sort of respect, even though I don’t like that movie. Amityville Horror is two hours of waiting for shit to pop off, it finally popping off in the last 20 minutes, and it having no consequence. No one dies, no one even gets severely injured, and the subplots are just abandoned like orphans on a church doorstep. Interested in seeing what happens with the priest? Wondering when the detective is going to stumble on a clue? Convinced that the psychic friend might become possessed by demons? Hoping beyond hope that that whole ‘George is being driven insane by the house’ thing would actually result in a scene that’s more than five minutes long? Well tough shit, because this house is about as horrifying as Eddie Murphy’s The Haunted Mansion, with a few extra flies.

     You might think I’m being harsh, but there’s nothing that The Amityville Horror does that hasn’t been done better by other films. You want a haunted house? Try House, the 1977 cult classic from Japan. You want something kids being contracted by spirits or demons? Try The Exorcist, or Poltergeist if you like 80s movies. How about a movie where the father goes insane and tries to murder his family? Look no further than Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, and it gets bonus points for also taking place on a desecrated Native American burial ground. So watch one of those better movies for Halloween instead, and avoid this three-story stinker if at all possible. You’ll be a lot better off.

The Long Dark Marathon of the Soul 2017 - Trollhunter (2010), directed by Andre Ovredal



     Some of you diehard fans of the blog might remember a little write-up I did back in the day of a Scandinavian film called Rare Exports. Released in 2010, directed by Jalmari Helander, Rare Exports was a weird little combination of a Christmas movie and a horror film, involving a young boy and his father combating terrible trollish creatures who just so happened to have inspired the legend of Santa Claus. It’s not a perfect movie by any means, in fact I seem to recall the child protagonist being something of an annoying little shit, but it was entertaining, and a nice reminder that the U.S. is not the be all end all when it comes to cinema. Other countries may not have the same film budget or the resources of the States, but they have the imagination and the determination, and that’s really all you need when you’re making movies. Especially when it comes to the horror genre. A big budget might actually be a detriment in that case…

     Now the Marathon has come around again and I find myself back in Scandinavia, Norway to be specific, for a film that was released the same year as our Xmas horror flick: Trollhunter. It’s a movie that’s been on my radar for a while actually, I’ve thrown it in the first drafts of two prior Marathons, but I’ve held off on watching it until now. I’m not sure there’s a concrete reason why, other than there are a whole bunch of movies out there and my mood changes like the tides. It can be rough at times, it lead me to watching Flesh for Frankenstein and Beyond Re-animator after all, but it’s to Trollhunter’s credit that it’s always been on the backburner, always in consideration. With a name like that it was only a matter of time.

     Presented to the audience as found footage, Trollhunter presents the story of three journalism students from Volda College (an actual school, by the by), Thomas, Johanna and Kalle, as they film a documentary about a rash of bear poaching that has struck the area. What little evidence there is seems to point to a man known only as Hans, a mysterious fellow who constantly travels the land in a battered jeep and a small trailer home. When confronted with these accusations Hans ultimately reveals that he’s not a bear poacher at all, he’s a troll hunter, a conservationist of sorts employed by the TSS (Troll Security Service) to kill trolls that wander outside of their respective territories. Yes, trolls exist. Yes, the Norwegian government is aware of their existence and is engaged in an elaborate conspiracy to hide the truth. Yes, the Norwegian people apparently have never noticed 20 foot tall monsters walking around in their own backyard. Sounds like a groundbreaking and horrifically dangerous scoop if you ask me. Might as well film it!

     Modern movie audiences are no stranger to the concept of the ‘found footage’ subgenre of horror films. Ever since the whirlwind success of The Blair Witch Project, you see these types of movies pop up every now and then and try to ride its coattails. Paranormal Activity, Cloverfield, Monsters (by Godzilla director Gareth Edwards), you know the kind of movie I’m talking about. A cast of ‘real’ people, shaky camera movements like it’s a ‘real’ camcorder, more shots of things rustling in the background and people filming the ground as they run than showing the monster, and so on and on. I can understand it considered something of a change of pace, the ‘horror movie as documentary’, and that not seeing the monster is a major tenant of horror, but a glance at some CGI while the camera whips back and forth like it’s in a Home Depot paint mixer or watching a door open is not my idea of a good time.

     Trollhunter still suffers from running sequences from time to time, but it counters that by devoting a lot of screen time to actually showing off the titular trolls. A very diverse collection of trolls too, from the squat, hairy Mountain Kings (who look like those one aliens from Bill & Ted’s Bogus Adventure) to the office-building sized, Marvel’s The Mighty Thor style Jotnars. All pretty obvious CGI of course, the choice of blockbuster and indie films alike, the the fact they do actually show the trolls and human interaction with the trolls heightens the realistic, documentary feel that the movie is going for. A bit like the Jurassic Park movie we all wish we had, rather than most of the Jurassic Park movies we got.

     Of course the characters aren’t exactly what you’d call...interesting, or engender any emotion that would endear them to you in any way, except for Hans, whose multi-layered personality is covered in pounds and pounds of stoicism. Also I’m not entirely sure of the logic behind trying to define trolls in a naturalistic way, even giving a scientific explanation for why they petrify (or explode) in sunlight, but then also give them the ability to smell ‘Christian’ blood and react to Christian imagery. Which never gets explained at all. Two major scenes revolve around this Christian thing too, including the climax, so I don’t know why they would go to the trouble of explaining their gestation and eating habits and all of this real biological stuff and then throw some magic in there for shits and giggles. It’s bad writing. If you’re trying to make the supernatural into the natural, don’t stop halfway through.

     Did Trollhunter live up to two Marathon’s worth of hype? No, not really. It was a fun little film for what it was though, and like Rare Exports, gives us a little glimpse of how our Scandinavian brothers reimagine their folklore for the modern age. Not really scary, which is something it has in common with most found footage films, but I give it points for a good concept. If you can avoid feeding the trolls, you just might something to watch this Halloween.

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

The Long Dark Marathon of the Soul 2017 - Return to Oz (1985), directed by Walter Murch



     Just as L. Frank Baum’s Oz series of novels have gone on to become one of the most popular children’s literature of all time, the 1939 film adaptation of “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz” has become one of the most popular, most successful movies in the history of cinema. Nominated for 6 Academy Awards (winner of two), as well as an honorary Juvenile Award for future star Judy Garland, The Wizard of Oz’s combination of breathtaking Technicolor, distinctive characters and outstanding soundtrack was able to push beyond a relatively poor showing at the box office to become an indelible part of pop culture, and in particular American pop culture. If a person knows anything about Oz, and you’ll be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn’t in some capacity, it’s because of this movie.

     Strangely enough, despite the success of the film and it’s near-universal name recognition, the land of Oz has been largely ignored by Hollywood. Oh there’s been countless references in video games and novels, that famous play Wicked, the popular TV prison drama Oz, and I think Alan Moore has Dorothy bang a bunch of Munchkins in one of his comic books, but in terms of film adaptations it’s sorely lacking. It can’t be that film studios are showing respect for a property, I’m not sure they know the meaning of the word, so what’s the reason for the Oz absence. Is it because it’s in the public domain, and less personally exploitable? Do they think it’d be too expensive, or that fantasy movies wouldn’t sell well enough for their tastes? Hard to say, although the lukewarm reception to Sam Raimi’s Oz the Great and Powerful certainly didn’t help matters. Then again that was a prequel, backstory that we didn’t really need or request. Are movie audiences desperate for some post-Wizard content, in the same vein as Trekkies thirsty for a Star Trek that takes place after Nemesis?

     If that’s the case, then they need look no further than the 1985 Disney picture, Return to Oz, directed by Walter Murch and starring Fairuza Balk as Dorothy Gale and Piper Laurie (otherwise known as Catherine Packard on Twin Peaks). Dorothy Gale has been back home with her Auntie Em and Uncle Henry for a while now and she’s just not feeling it, as to be expected from a child who has went on a grand adventure in a magical land only to find themselves stuck in Kansas. She’s losing sleep, constantly rattling off stories about flying monkeys and talking scarecrows, what are a couple of late 19th Midwestern folks like Em and Henry supposed to do? Praise her vivid imagination, and maybe encourage her to explore creative writing? Nah, better to send her off to the loony bin and have some quack stick some electrodes to her brain. I guess trepanation wasn’t covered in their health plan.

     After a quick escape from the asylum, Dorothy ends up getting washed away in a flood and, amazingly enough, ends up in Oz along with her chicken Belina. However, this is not the same beloved magical kingdom that she remembers. The Emerald City is in ruins, populated by a violent bizarre gang known as Wheelers the people have been turned to stone, and the current leader of the land, the Scarecrow, has been kidnapped by a vicious tyrant known as the Nome King. It’s up to Dorothy, and her new friends Billina, Tik-Tok the Mechanical Man, Jack Pumpkinhead and the Gump to travel across the Deadly Desert and into the Nome King’s mountain, and somehow save Oz. A bit more dire than crushing witches and walking down a road, but that’s the thing about (spiritual) sequels. They always feel the need to raise the stakes.

     Return to Oz is not the visual spectacle that The Wizard of Oz was, partly because that film was built to be a visual spectacle and partly because Return consists mainly of a bunch of deserted ruins and about 5 rooms. Momby the Witch’s lair is rather exquisite, but otherwise there’s nothing that really stands out in that regard. However, what it may lack in settings I think it makes up for in costuming and special effects, specifically in puppetry and animation. Characters like Scarecrow are a bit less expressive than they were in the 30s (although they resemble their original novel design), but Tik-Tok, Billina, the Gump, they all manage to look and move as you’d expect from a copper bathtub, a chicken and a Gump, without ever breaking the immersion. I also really like that they use claymation to give the illusion of the Nomes moving through rock as if it were liquid, it’s a really nice looking effect. At the end of the day it’s still a fantastical land filled with magical creatures, even if it’s not as fantastical as the Oz we remember.

     It’s worth noting that Return to Oz does give the impression that it’s trying to be the ‘dark re-imagining’ that has plagued so many other fairy tales and children’s books across modern times. I mean Dorothy Gale is shipped off to an insane asylum where she’s almost subjected to electroshock treatment and killed (an “Alice in Wonderland” staple), she travels across a destroyed Oz with a living jack o’lantern, running away from nightmarish monsters like the Wheelers and the Nomes, the subdued lighting, it’s all vaguely Burtonesque (Timmy B made his directorial debut the year this came out, by the by). When you get right down to it however, it’s not really edgy or macabre at all. There are some bizarre moments, a lot of which is taken from the source material, but those moments never alter the fact this is a girl going on a make-believe adventure with her imaginary friends and that it all ends happily. If you go in expecting American McGee’s Alice, don’t be surprised when you get more of a Disney's Cinderella instead.

     Which is the basis for how I would recommend it I suppose. If you’re a Wizard of Oz fan, or you used up all your Burton bucks and you’re looking for some methadone to get you through the rough times, or if you want a movie that has a bit of a Halloween atmosphere without being too scary, perhaps for a child, then Return to Oz should be what you need. If you’re looking for something more morbid to match your mature dark fantasy tastes, then you’re better off looking somewhere other than Oz. Mass-murdering Alices and heroin junkie Wendy Darlings are a dime a dozen, really.

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...