The Cat From Outer Space (1978)

You're probably asking yourself "Why on Earth is he reviewing a Disney movie about a cat?". I can assure you that your question is also your answer. I mean come on, it's about a talking cat from outer space who can fly in a spaceship and only cost me 99 cents at Goodwill- can you really blame me? The entire internet is essentially propped up by pictures of babies and cats, so just consider this as me doing my bit to shore it all up, okay?

Plot Synopsis: Spacefaring feline Jake makes an emergency landing on our planet and has only a few days to fix his ship (which by the way must be done with $120,000 worth of gold) or he'll be stuck here forever. Enlisting the help of oddball scientist Frank, His girlfriend Liz, and Frank's beer/sportsloving neighbor/colleague, considerable amounts of human/feline shenanigans commence forthwith. 

I know what you're thinking here, it's a kids movie, how complex can it get? Well not very but what's important here is how very unlike a modern movie for kids this thing turns out to be by the end. It even has doses of anti establishment lessons for your children. You think I'm kidding, right? The military (who of course take possession of Jake's craft with the gusto only they could manage- because it could be the RUSSIANS!) and a bunch of bumbling idiots who are the butt of many of the film's jokes. It might very well be intended as an extremely light hearted send-up of cold war paranoia, or maybe I'm just reading between the lines a little way way too much too much.

There's a goodly amount of jokes you really cannot put into a movie for kids anymore peppered throughout this thing. These include the neighbor /colleague who bitches about his wife wanting to watch something other than sports so he decides to watch it at our main character's house and continually drink his beers. When is the last time you saw a guy chugging brews while watching the game in a Disney flick? Did I just hear you say "Never"? This eventually leads us to Jake's need for 120K in gold. His collar lights up and lets him control anything and everything in his sight, so they decide to have the cat make the team they bet on win the games while they place bets with the local scumbag bookie. I should also mention Jake making a reference to being cooped up in a spaceship for five months after meeting Liz's cat Lucybelle. Yes, a feline sexual innuendo. What more can you ask for?

Yeah, you read that right. After a shenanigan involving Liz calling a vet friend over while Jake pretends to be sick to get Frank out of yet another date so they can fix his ship (and leaving him knocked out cold, unable to manipulate anymore games via the television), they take the next logical step- go directly to the bookie's scummy (and assumedly mob connected) pool hall. Jake eventually wakes up from his sedation and successfully manipulates the game, but yeah seriously- this is a movie for kids ala 1978?

Oh, I forgot to mention something: During all these escapades Jake & co. are routinely (both in regularity and ineptitude) spied on by Roddy McDowall, easily the most bumbling agent a movie of this caliber can muster. A movie like this simply cannot exist with a bumbling, shenanigan causing fool and McDowall doesn't disappoint, nose smashed up against windows in awe of what he witnesses and all.

The thing that surprises me the most about this movie is the surprisingly action packed climax where Jake and Frank chase down a helicopter (containing Liz and Lucybelle) in a biplane that Jake repairs with his collar. There's some really good stunt work in this sequence, involving stunt people hanging on between the plane's upper wing and a helicopter skid and even the helicopter bouncing its skids off the top wing which is a really dangerous and skills needed stunt just like in the film Capricorn One that came out only one week before this film did! It was a pretty ambitious stunt for a film with a 5 Million dollar budget, but for a Disney film with a budget undoubtedly a good deal lower it's a pretty impressive undertaking to say the least. I mean Disney stopped just shy of skid/wing contact but they were like inches away from each other, so you have to give them credit for doing it. Oh, and the biplace has a bunch of its fabric paneling missing leaving the frame exposed, talk about causing a lot of drag- that plane must have been a complete bitch to fly.

All this and a film score by Lalo Schifrin. It has a pretty long running time too, clocking in at 103 minutes. If this were made (or I shudder to think RE made) today , it would likely be both way shorter and probably mostly CGI if not completely animated. That in my opinion would take out a good dose of the fun this movie has by the bucketful. Not bad for 99 cents at Goodwill, if I do say so myself. It's nice to take a break from reviewing total bullshit/horror/exploitation/etcetera movies once in a while, and fuck it I like cats, so I call that a win/win scenario all around.

Go on, give it a go!

Death Of A Hooker aka Who Killed Mary Whats'ername? (1971)

Hello one and all, I am once again back once again to give you more glimpses into the underside of the film world. I've been trying to track this one down for a while (partially due to its frankly exploitative title seen on the Video Gems VHS release below), and because I have a soft spot for movies with very odd casting choices that you absolutely KNOW FOR A FACT will not add up to anything a lesser viewer could ever hope or dream (for another example of this, see my review of The Ultimate Warrior that I wrote ever so long ago). In this case it is the absolute dream team of Red Buttons and Sam Waterston. What could possibly go wrong?

Frankly?

Not much, but that's only because nobody was trying especially hard in the first place.

As is often the case with films of this grade, I cannot seem to find a trailer for it under either of its titles for you to peruse, My sincerest apologies, I always hate it when this happens for something so far below radar it might as well be pushing up daises, but so it goes.

PLOT SYNOPSIS: Somewhere in a grungy piece of old New York a prostitute is murdered in her apartment (hence the title). Enter Mickey Isador (played to flaccid im/perfection by Red Buttons), a once notable but now long retired boxer (who we are repeatedly reminded is diabetic, by the way) being released from the hospital from a bout with the flu. He is told to convalesce but as we pick up way later in the movie he was apparently reading the paper and was insanely bothered by the dead prostitute and that nobody cared, and seeings how he "knows what it's like to grow up in a place like that" decides he will solve it. Along the way he enlists the aid of his daughter, a wet drunk from a dive bar, and a secretive independent film maker (Waterston). You know how private citizen crime capers go, there isn't much more I can really say here.

We all know Red Buttons as a comedian, and sure he dabbled in drama here and there, but he must have really needed a buck to star in a two-bit gumshoe yarn like this one. He delivers some dry and ultimately tired sounding one liners a few times during the course of the film, but you can tell he isn't trying especially hard here so long as he got some greenbacks out of the deal (I warned you about that a couple of paragraphs ago, didn't I?). As far as Sam Waterston goes, he's not really in it very much and isn't exactly the most important secondary character, in terms of heavy plot value he might as well be made of mildly soggy napkins. The only reason I can see as to why he receives secondary billing on the front of the box is that in 1986 Video Gems was banking on people recognizing him from his part in 1984's The Killing Fields.

You have to hand it to the person who put together the cover art for this one. It really gives you the idea of some sort of madcap chase in the streets private eye crime thriller, doesn't it? Or maybe some sort of buddy cop movie? While as I have stated before, it is only a three weeks old but still in use scoop of coffee grounds version of either of these things while also being remarkably neither. But in the end, that's what is really great about 80's VHS packaging, am I right? A cursory glance at the back of the box (containing a nonexistent plot point I will tough on shortly) reveals the source of the portraits of Buttons and Waterston: two grainy ass and partially obscured stills of both actors.

Take a look below:

Two things one can glean from this:

1.) It is obvious that the artist took an image of Red Buttons' face in which one third of it is obscured by a phone.

2.) Somebody didn't bother to actually watch the film to see that Waterston actually has longer shaggy hair in the film, not a short on the sides hairdo.

As the still is pretty shitty I guess you can't blame the artist for taking some artistic license, but considering it is a 100% reverse of the shot from the film and he has a really bored and disaffected expression on his mug, you'd think they'd pick a better image for an action oriented cover, especially since the majority of the crime solving is either spent by Red all on his own, with the dead hooker's neighbor (who is also a hooker), or with his daughter.

One thing I am curious about is the title. Originally I assumed that Video Gems had changed the title for VHS release (as was common practice to make something pop off a shelf in the grindhouse tradition), but when I finally saw it the "Death Of A Hooker title" (in the glossy, puffy font on the box) is right there in the beginning credits inserted into the title sequence. When video companies changed titles there was always an obvious ported in on grainy video title  inserted into the titles of a film, so maybe this one had a good title and an exploitative one? Searching the VHS title on the internet returns the aka title I listed in the title for this review, so the jury is out to lunch on this one, with no clear answer in sight. Although: thanks to a Video Gems Showcase Collection catalog I have from 1982 however, I discovered it also has a clamshell case release a few years before this one but using the original (ie, the aka) title. Why they would release the film at separate times with separate titles? Who knows?

The ending really leaves something to be desired. Red Buttons sits in a near diabetic coma (as foreshadowed several times throughout the film) when he finds out who the killer is, and you aren't exactly sure if the killer gets caught or not as it is only hinted at by sound effects which could be either the cops or an ambulance coming to save Mickey. The box, in true rental fashion, promises a "Hitchcock style program" and I can say this falls pretty far from the mark.

Conclusion? I'd say it is OK at best. Not exactly a repeat watcher (for me anyway) when all is said and done.

Grim (1995)

Sometimes you write a vhs/dvd review blog for two years then stop, other times you come back because you are in the middle of watching a film so incredibly insipid that you cannot help yourself. Yeah, I am 33 minutes into this while typing it. I'm barely paying attention and haven't missed a thing in between typing and fisfulls of pizza rolls (combination kind, if you're curious, because that is infinitely more interesting than this) and home made guacamole.

Plot synopsis: Some bullshit having to do with an ancient demon that looks like a cross between the goblins from Troll 2 and Rawhead Rex but on a budget that would make Dollar Tree blush getting awakened by some assholes in their 20's with the lamest looking ouija board I have ever seen terrorizing them when they go back into the cave for lord knows why (something to do with the caves causing problems with the community above). Completely uninspiring occult-lite mayhem ensues forthwith.

Trailer:

Okay, now that I have finished watching it, I can come up with some very non constructive things to say. I will start with the only positiveish thing I can: It has an all to brief but sort of alright head squashing scene. That's it really. The score is composed of nothing but soulless MIDI keyboard orchestra, and acting that I would call wooden but wood isn't made out dog turds now is it?

Why does this film even exist? It makes soft core porn look like Citizen Kane. What's even more confusing is that the guy who directed this managed to make several other films after this. Even in the direct to video market I have a hard time believing that this made more than twenty bucks total since it was jismed out onto hapless video store shelves in early 1996. But really I could be wrong, way worse films have made a LOT more money than this one did in major theaters, so it wouldn't be surprising to learn that in the end this somehow turned a tidy profit.

See the equally shitty "Cover B" (opposite to the clearly labelled "Cover A" as seen at the start of this review) below:

It's worthwhile for me to note that since it has two covers, there is absolutely NO information regarding the film or its contents. What a.....Shame?

Why did I subject myself to this then? 1- My friend Jason gave it to me last week, how could I not? 2- for what I unknowingly now know was the reason I am writing a post on this blog again (lucky you, internet), and 3- it has a 1 star rating on imdb. You'll notice by the artwork in the picture above that this happens to be a screener copy, how it got past screener is anybody's guess, but for those of us familiar with them, they generally have a "for screening purposes only" message of one sort or another that pops up on screen from time to time. Granted I only half paid attention for half of t, but I only saw that message appear TWICE, and that was in the first half an hour. Even the company who marketed this (a heretofore unknown to me budget label named A-Pix Entertainment) didn't care enough to make sure nobody would bootleg it. But then again, why would anybody want to?

Tax write off anyone?

The two taglines for this, as I understand, are:
1. "Don't Mix This Movie And Pizza"
(correct, pizza is better used on movies that contain at least a bare modicum of entertainment value, why do you think I opted for pizza rolls?)
2. (as clearly seen on the box)"This Is No Fairy Tale..."
(correct, it "is no fairy tale", it's a  FESTERING BOIL OF WOULD-BE CINEMATIC DETRITUS)




In closing, all I can really say is: Don't.
Seriously.
Just don't.

Ator The Fighting Eagle aka Ator The invincible (1982)

Great fantasy movies are great. Do you know what else can also be great? Low budget rip offs of great fantasy films. This where every sleazy rip off movie aficionado's favorite director comes in: Joe D'amato. He's responsible for other not rip off of something else films like the glorious cinematic dung pile that is Anthropophagus (1980). Only a man with his eye so keenly on the profit margin of a total knockoff of Conan The Barbarian (also released in 1982, strange?) could ever manage to produce, along with two of its three sequels.

I can always come back to all that later, I think what all of you really want is to see the trailer:

For the eagle eye/eared viewer, you may notice that the trailer features a piece of music which sounds vaguely familiar but not quite how this one sounds. What is it? Oh I don't know, maybe a complete copy cat effort of the Conan The Barbarian theme?

Naaaaaah, couldn't be. Total coincidence (it is worthwhile to note that the music in question in the trailer does not appear in the actual film, talk about marketing genius).

In case you haven't already guessed, this review is going to regularly feature the term "rip off" and various synonyms. There will also be regular comparison to the film which begat this beyond bizarre gem of Italian daring-do, because quite frankly it is unavoidable (and for the sake of ease will be referred to for much of the rest of this review as CTB). The sequel has quite a few more parallels (maybe one day I will discuss that too) but I will point out a few of them but not all- as I' like to leave you with a few surprises.

Plot synopsis: The story begins with an ancient legend involving a spider cult ruling the land for something like 1,000 years. It states that a mighty warrior by the name of Torren (for some reason spelled Thorn on the back of the box) will come forth to challenge them but will ultimately fail. His son will be a mighty warrior named Ator who will destroy the mighty high priest of the spider and free the land once again. Funny how an ancient prophecy can be so specific that it features exact names that apparently nobody would fake anybody out before it becomes true by naming their kids that, anyways back to the movie- Torren "casts his seed upon the wind" (didn't make that up, will discuss after plot is described) and young Ator is born. He is taken to a foster family by a wigged skeezoid named Griba who silently watches over him as he grows up. Later on follows a quest to rescue his wife to be (awkwardly the daughter of his adopted parents), where as the legend explains to you at the start, concludes with Ator winning out over the evil spider cult and restoring freedom to all the land.

There, now I can go on to point out the parallels. You'd like that wouldn't you? Let's face facts, I really beat around the bush with the plot synopsis (but don't I usually?) as what I really want to write about are the overarching similarities with CTB. Actually the first place the similarities begin is on the box for the tape itself.

Take a look below at a section of the image you saw at the very start of this review:

Yes I know fantasy movies pretty much have the same cover when taking a jab at the success of Conan, but this being one of the earliest that I know of really goes for it in a subtle yet tremendous way courtesy of one particular element. It's as if D'amato was attempting to challenge the far superior and better made CTB single handedly. Notice that helmet there, buried in the earth at the highly idealized image of Ator's feet? Tell me it doesn't resemble the helmet Conan wears on the poster/vhs cover (which by the way is only briefly seen during the pit fighting sequences early in the film)? It's not an exact match by any means but the resemblance is striking.

Decide for yourself:

At any rate, the art is done in the truest traditions of low budgeted Italian exploito cinema. He not only is not this ripped, but he also never wields a multi ended morning star, wears that insane cloak, has a scantily clad brunette nymphette as a side kick (we touch on the movie sidekick in a bit), and also doesn't have a cool sabertooth tiger as a battle beast. Instead he has a bear cub that somebody painted a skunk stripe on its head. Misleading? Not particularly, but a cute bear bear cub instead of a cool sabertooth tiger is pretty lame if you ask me.

Consider my hands up in the air.

 This film features a lot of plot exposition that is simply thrown at the audience with no explanation, such as the secret talismanic weapons Ator must find. Some of it might have been told to me before but it is a Joe D'amato movie so probably not, speaking of Joe (allow me if I may, to completely diverge from the topic at hand for a hot minute if you will)- it's a good time to mention that he uses several aliases in this particular production. While that's nothing unusual for many a director who finds themselves on a budget, for D'amato (whose real name by the way is Aristide Massaccesi, so far as we are all aware anyway) this was standard operating procedure, which including the D'amato alias equals 40 odd names, several of which were used on more than one production. Fella has a history of sometimes sketchy behavior if you look around, just sayin'.

Now that that is off of my chest, I can afford to be fully on topic again. Like I was saying there's some tools Ator needs to obtain to defeat his foe that aren't really revealed to you until he is close to going to get them. One is the sword of Torren, which when spoken about sounds like they are saying Turin (you know, like the shroud). The other (I'll just spell it the way it sounds) is the shield of Mordor. I swear they say Mordor, just like in The Lord of the Rings. Anyways all it is is a mirror with a handhold on back that summons shadow warriors when uncovered. Kinda cool and kinda lame at the same time but it is there so what are you going to do? After he gets it he has to fight his way out of a cavern of dangerous sword wielding blind men. Don't ask, just watch it.

While there are similarities to CTB aplenty in this film, I will just mention three that immediately stand out in my mind (I also promised this review like a week and a half ago) and leave the rest for you to discover on your own should you decide to watch it for yourself (which I recommend doing, by the way, because why the hell not?). I'm typing these stream of consciousness, so there's no semblance of chronological order, not that it really matters all that much, right? Don't worry about it.

Maybe the biggest similarity is giving him a blonde lady sidekick who is a warrior/thief much like Sandahl Bergman's character in CTB. The only differences being that while not stellar, Sandahl is by far the better actor (which says A LOT) and actually has blonde hair, unlike the really terrible drag wig the lady in this is wearing. She couldn't act her way out of a wet paper bag, so it is probably for the best that she isn't in it for more than say a third of the movie. It also doesn't help that she has a lame character name like Roon, but what more can you really say about that? Both Ator and Roon have would be witty one liners (much like our heroes in CTB) but there is no love affair between them. I'll get to that at the end of the review. There's more to the pairings that is similar, but I don't want to give it away as the goose needs to live so you can have the golden egg and eat it too.

Earlier in the film Ator's village gets attacked by a group of horsemen and his parents get savagely murdered (sound familiar?). This is where another bit of film rippery occurs. I am a sucker for film scores now and then, and couldn't but notice that the piece of music that plays during the scene is a direct mimic of this track from the score for Star Wars that plays over the scene where Luke finds the smoldering Jawa sandcrawler. Similar imagery, similar music. Coincidence? I wouldn't bullshit you on this one.

Watch the Ator, but listen out for this:

The bad guy also happens to be a man of African descent who has a respectably low timbre in his voice and also worships a beastly creature. Only this time instead of turning into something cool like a giant snake he is the keeper or whatever for a small tarantula army that crawls on him often and a very VERY hokey looking gigantic spider puppet that builds somehow not at all sticky when extricating someone from it but sticky when you fall onto it webs that consist of very well woven together rope. He's much less of a Thulsa Doom as he is a Thulsa D'oh.

So yeah about that no love affair thing I mentioned while talking about Roon, Ator's heart belongs to another he says. This other awkwardly happens to be his sister (but he's adopted so in this fantasy world it somehow isn't considered weird when you are adopted and grow up with someone as a sibling and you want to marry them. not. weird. at. all.). He has to rescue her so he can get married and blahblah. Here's proof of their awkward interaction just below, along with proof of that damn skunk striped bear cub:

Nope, NOT WEIRD Ator.

While I can't find video proof of this I might as well tell you to stick around until the end of it as the end credits theme is sung pretty much to the tune of and has similar lyrics to the theme to the James Bond movie For Your Eyes Only. NOT KIDDING.

Don't believe me?

Watch it! With all of the ridiculous fantasy costumes featuring chest medallions and furry boots how can you really go wrong? There is also some A class fantasy dialogue that I don't dare give a line of away without you hearing it first.

DEFINITELY WORTH THE WATCH WITH OR WITHOUT BOOZE.

You heard it here first, maybe.

After Hours (1985)

Everybody knows who Martin Scorcese is. We best know him for his Mob films and his grittier fare such as Taxi Driver but my favorite era of his was a magical point in the mid 80's I will hereby refer to as his "gonzo period". He made some real top notch (and dark!) comedies during this period of time that for casual fans either take the back burner or have disappeared from consciousness entirely. After Hours is one of these mostly forgotten gems from the cinematic nether regions of 1985.

Trailer anyone?

And yes, the film is just as frenetic as this trailer would lead you to believe.

Plot synopsis (or the best I can do? this shit really IS nuts): Paul Hackett (Griffin Dunne of An American Werewolf In London fame) has a job in a big mid 80's New York conglomobusiness as a word processing guy (you know, back when computers actually were rather difficult to use). He obviously hates his-no pun intended-programmed day. He decides to blow off some steam later that night by reading some Henry Miller at a coffee shop, only to find a beautiful woman named Marcy (Rosanna Arquette) chatting him up. Getting her number and retiring to his apartment, he calls her and begins a dowardly spiraling journey into the night of NYC full of art weirdos, burn cream, suicide, and enough crazies to fill hell's handbag.

Make no mistakes- this movie is really nerve wracking to watch. I don't recommend it to anyone that has anxiety problems because this movie is a tense situation from end to end and you just might wind up bursting into flames midway through it. I fidgeted like you wouldn't believe. I also sat completely stiff for ten plus minutes at a stretch for a good part of it.  Nail biters need not apply here.

There's a serious seat of the pants energy in this film that I find lacking in Scorcese's work in the formula we are presented with in After Hours. The editing is super hectic. Tons of snap zooms and quick shots, coupled with practically every style of cinematic lighting ever dreamed of. I don't think I have seen another film quite like it, certainly no other film in the catalog of Mr. Scorcese looks anything even remotely like it. I hope you are curious by now, because I don't know how much further I am willing to tip the hat as you should really be as surprised as I am as to how this film occurs.

The film was made as many genius things are- out of necessity. What do I mean by this? Scorcese had been trying for a good while to have a version of Nikos Kazantzakis' novel The Last Temptation Of Christ come to fruition (he had optioned it back in the 70's), and after the first attempt at production fell through in 1983 poor Martin was devastated. He needed a project that he could just do quick and dirty, experimenting all the way. Tim Burton was originally slated to direct this, but when he caught wind that Scorcese was interested he stepped aside. One wonders what the film would have been like had Burton taken it. Maybe similar but definitely not like this I think.

The casting of this film is really spot on, I simply cannot stress that enough. Look up the list and you will see what I mean. Not one of them is the least bit unmemorable, and their performances only serve to stoke the melting pot of frustration that is the film itself. I should mention that Teri Garr is a total babe in this movie as a Monkees obsessed mod girl, the lady has taste. So is this the movie for you? I cannot rightfully say, but if you enjoy a film that has enough tension to choke a camel (like I do) then this is definitely something you should poke your nose into.

Also, I highly recommend getting this DVD edition of it as it has some really neat special features, including a description of the unshot but would have been super raw ending sequence. I like the way the films ends just fine (it is over all way less psychedelic and more fitting than the alternate one) but catching a glance at what could have been is always a joy.

YES!

Miracle Mile (1988)

I was told repeatedly over a number of years that if I loved nuclear apocalypse movies then this was one I needed to see. I finally did see it, and my only regret is not being able to unsee it. At first I thought "hey I'm glad I watched this just to find out its deal" but a few days later it became "this movie blows and I am going to tell the internet why I think so in selfish and base terms". For those of you out there that actually like this film, that's okay by me- you can keep it.

Plot synopsis: Harry (Anthony Edwards of Top Gun fame) meets Julie (Mare Winningham) at the La Brea tar pits and immediately falls in love with her. They spend a sappy romantic almost John Hughesian day together and set up a date for later that night. The power goes out in Harry's apartment so he misses the date (via a HUGE PLOT GAP I will discuss momentarily) and showing up to the coffee shop he leaves a message on her answering machine explaining what happened. Shortly after he hangs up the pay phone begins ringing and he finds the caller (who has misdialed at the worst possible moment) is attempting to warn his dad about the nuclear holocaust that will begin in roughly 50 odd minutes. All hell and insipid mushy love bullshit that would never ever actually occur begin to take place.

Like I mentioned, I have heard from various friends over the years that this was a cult film I needed to see. Too bad all of them were (in my opinion anyway) completely wrong. This movie could have been really honestly good in the most disarming of ways, but really got done over by what seems to me to be the screenwriter/director's (both the same person for this film) unwillingness to really go for it and leap off the edge. Starting out the film paces like a mushy love story which made me very weary indeed, but then the whole pay phone thing throws the film on its head and I was really hoping for it to continue on a maddeningly fast trip downwards into the hell that we all imagine would ensue from the knowledge of catastrophic nuclear armageddon, but...

NOPE.

Sure we do get that for a little while, with lots of jarringly illogical actions by the main characters peppered in to make things unentertaining as possible, but the director goes back to the ridiculous and overused idea of "love conquers all". No it does not, sorry bub. In fact, the way this film was handled made it come out to be nothing more that an apocalyptic date movie. It's like dudes who want to act like they are in to bleak shit want to take their girlfriend who isn't to something they can both enjoy so they pick this.

BOO!

A better title for this film, once all of its romantic trappings are considered, would have been "Love Is Nice". It's almost as if the initial idea for this story was a very bottom of the barrel boy meets girl affair but considering how incredibly worn out that story is it was decided to take the unfinished middle and lackluster end of the nuclear war movie also being scribbled on cocktail napkins at the same time and combine them into one movie that was worse than if both were watched separately.

I had better give you some nitty gritty to back up these accusations, as painful as they are to recount. First things first- the HUGE PLOT GAP I brought up a bit ago: Yes the power in Harry's apartment fails so his alarm clock doesn't work. How is this a problem you ask? HE WASN'T USING A PLUG IN CLOCK. Willing suspension of disbelief is often a very important part of stories that use extreme plot elements like nuclear war, but if you think I'm so fucking stupid that I won't notice the fact that the prop master couldn't spend the extra $4.99 to get a plug in style alarm clock to carry your story to fruition (because the alarm not going off in the first place is what propels this story to its unfortunate conclusion) then you are dumber than you think I think you are. It was a very potent warning sign that this film would not turn out as I had initially hoped.

What else? Well there's a lot but I shut most of it out of my memory in the wild and likely unattainable hope that some day I will forget about this train wreck, so I will narrow it down to a couple of things for the ease of explanation. Harry really fucks up his nuclear escape plan six ways from sunday. How?

(In no particular order, in case you are curious. There are lots more ways than this sure, but these two stick out in my mind most of all)

1) By continuously separating from Julie and saying "Wait here I'll be right back".

THAT SHIT NEVER WORKS IN REAL LIFE, EVEN AT A GROCERY STORE WHEN THERE IS NO NUKE THREAT. Seriously, you tell someone you are going off to grab a tin of pinto beans while you are shopping at Fred Meyer and you tell them to wait for you by the ice cream you are currently standing in front of and they wander off almost immediately making what should have taken thirty seconds go into a fifteen minute long search to find them so you can get back to proper shopping. Why are you doing this to us over and over Harry? Oh yeah I know why- because you're an ignoramus, that's why. That or more likely the screenwriter wasn't nearly creative enough to find a different way to build tension or flesh out what was likely (sans craptastic fluff like this) a 70 minute movie with hum drum "I have to go find this person because I am an idiot and didn't take them with me on my pointless errand" type garbage. Never ever separate in moments of crisis- EVER.

2) By telling everybody about it creating a general atmosphere of insanity and desperation because they want to bring someone with them too.

Everyone he beseeches for help winds up discovering what is about to happen (or at least a version of it because Harry is a lying sack of shit who doesn't even tell the girl he is madly in love with that he has known for like 12 hours the actual truth) and immediately says "I need to get this or that such person". The problem with this is he has less than 50 minutes to get the hell out of dodge and LA is fucking HUGE. How on earth could any of this even work? Think about it for a second.

Try as I might to find the original first draft of the script in hopes that it provided a better bleaker story, I was disappointed. Considering the fact that this film was being touted around Hollywood for a good ten years before it was made and was referred to as one of the best unmade screenplays in 1983 by American Film magazine you would think it would have been posted somewhere by someone. Nope. I can only assume the story sucked this bad the entire time and that was why no studio would pick the thing up. That and the fact that the screenwriter put a clause in there that he would get to direct it. Considering that Steve De Jarnatt (there, I finally gave you his name) had never directed anything before it is unsurprising everybody turned their noses up. Maybe I should have mentioned that bit earlier, but I didn't want to give you any ray of hope for the proceedings here.

I have to say it- the choice of filming locations made me bored as hell. Plenty of films have used bits and pieces of this iconic section of Wilshire Boulevard but it just added to the boredom for me. Granted some of the locations used appeared in movies that came later (which unlike this movie, are actually entertaining in some regard), but I just don't care about would be iconic southern California architecture. Maybe I just don't like affluent rich people areas of cities- yeah, maybe that is the problem because I for one am usually broke. Johnie's Coffee Shop for instance hasn't been open for anything but filming business since 2000. I won't lie I wouldn't half mind drinking a malted in there but it will never happen. There's a yelp.com page entry for it where three people give some reports on what's what.

Perhaps the best one reads as follows:

"Pretty sure this place is only used for filming. I live right by it and have only seen homeless  guys peeing on it. Never seen it open, although they do run the lights on the sign at night, my guess is it's an effort to drum up more film business."

The ending is just so sappy and ridiculous I am surprised I didn't taste bile surging up my throat in protest. It was composed of all this mumbo jumbo of our two would be lovers slowly sinking into the mire of the La Brea tar pits and going on about how they will either be preserved by tar to be found by a future race or something (DUMB) or turned into diamonds if they get a direct hit from a nuke so their atoms will be smashed together forever (DUMBER). Even a room full of monkeys hammering away at typewriters couldn't come up with this...

There you have it. I think now is an appropriate moment to give you a very brief rundown of what I would do in the event of an impending nuclear war that I by extreme serendipity of the worst possible kind. As I am disabled by Multiple Sclerosis in real life and to go any appreciable distance over say a block on completely level ground I will give you two separate scenarios based on that and if I were able bodied.


Here goes:

A) Make-believe able bodied me
-Probably panic a bunch.
-not try to lie to everybody I force into helping me
-not tell anyone to "wait here I'll be right back"
-Probably be selfish and just leave everyone I know and love behind as survival instinct (no matter how displaced) kicks into full gear
-or sit there and wait to be atomized

B) Real life disabled me
-Probably panic a bunch
-Hope I might find some way of escaping knowing I will likely die a horrible slow death from nuclear fallout
-go hang out with my girlfriend if I had one at that particular moment
-or sit there and wait to be atomized

Face it- nuclear war would be pretty messed up and the rawest of raws. If you don't believe me watch the really excellent BBC TV film Threads made in 1984 for what is likely a very realistic portrayal of what a nuclear strike on Britain would play out like. Expect a review of that in the future when I manage to track down a copy of this rather scarce and bleak gem of television history.

That's about all I have to say about this movie. I don't consider this to be underrated as some online reviews state, and calling it a cult film I feel gives it credit it richly does not deserve. How this has an 86% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes I will never ever know come to think of it. Watch it if you are curious, but don't expect anything worthwhile out of this farce. That's all there really is left to say about it. You be the judge, but you were warned ahead of time.

***********************************************************************************************************POST INITIAL POST UPDATE (Timed at or around 2:35pm Pacific time): I forgot to mention that this movies has a surprise appearance by Denise Crosby, most famously known as Tasha Yar from Star Trek: The Next Generation. Terrific, but not enough to make this movie good.
***********************************************************************************************************

Invaders From Mars (1986)

When I finally got to see this movie (I seem to remember watching it as a kid, but only actually SAW it when I saw it in 35mm a while back) I thought for sure this was a movie every self respecting sci-fi/horror fan loves to bits. Unfortunately my smug sense of who likes what couldn't be further from accurate on this one. As such, I am here to defend its honor for anyone who cares to read this.

Trailer:

FUN! The plot to this movie is pretty cut and dry but I suppose I will give indulge myself. Young David Gardner has a very active imagination. When he sees a giant UFO land over the hill from his house one night, his parents wave it off as a simple nightmare. As the days go by his parents- followed by all the adults (and at least one kid too) that he sees- begin acting very strangely and all seem out to get him because he knows what's up with the invasion. Enlisting the help of the school nurse (the only adult he can trust, played by the legendary Karen Black), David sets out to right what has gone horribly wrong.

That plot synopsis I just wrote kinda sucks, but I rewrote it three times already and am just going to let it be and hope that you trust me here because the movie is actually pretty fun to watch. How many movies can you name where a school teacher gets taken over by evil aliens and gets eaten by their creepy looking soldiers in one tremendous gulp? Anyways, it seems that a decent majority of the moviegoing public really didn't seem to care very much about this film when it was released. The film barely made half of its budget back, and critical response was and generally still is rather lukewarm towards it while the public opinion (based upon my own research) seems to be very mixed and in some cases inaccurate (more on this in a hot minute).

I think one of the bigger reasons this film failed in the box office was that our good old bottom of the barrel friend Cannon produced it (for you readers who have been here since the beginning of this blog you might remember my reviews of two other Cannon films- The Hitcher and Allan Quatermaine and the Lost City of Gold) and for any of you out there savvy to the stuff this company churned out you will know it was done on the cheap end of the scale nine times out of ten.

Lucky for us, Tobe Hooper was at the helm of this picture and he has absolutely no fear of budgetary constraints and pulls off a pretty impressive picture. He is a film maker that in my opinion thrives on such constraints. The original 1953 version of this film had the budget of a pint of potato salad at Fred Meyer (which adds to its schlocky entertainment value to the maximum) so to give this the budget of a major blockbuster would have made it look completely ridiculous. The estimated cost of production is in the 12 million dollar mark (sadly, it only managed to make about 4 million in theaters, but Cannon nearly always recouped its losses in home video rentals and sales anyway). With the crazy looking aliens, sometimes expansive sets, and for a bit some gregarious gunfire, one would think the budget would have been more in the 15-20 million area. Such is the glory of Mr. Hooper. I definitely don't like a lot of his films, but I can say this- they are all pretty well made.

Okay I got a bit sidetracked there but remember like a minute ago when I was discussing response to the film? When one looks it up you find a pitiful response in favor of it. I don't know what people are expecting when they see this besides i don't know, SOMETHING FUN, but they apparently did not find the pseudo intellectual HJ they were hoping for. One would be critic claimed the ending is a "middle finger to the audience". Whoever this fella is obviously has no idea that the original film ends exactly the same way. Middle finger indeed. I feel this is a film that somehow managed to slip through the cracks for 90% of the Earth's population.

I know this is a cult movie, but I wish it were one with a far wider audience than it has as I don't feel like it gets the respect it deserves. The casting is spot on, even Louise Fletcher (if you don't know who she is, you better google it immediately) is in the mix. I should also mention a Devo related cast member for all you you spoudboys and spuddesses out there- Laraine Newman. For those not in the know, she played Donut Rooter (daughter of Rod Rooter of Big Entertainment) in a few inbetweeners on one of their video collections. Anyways Devo time over. Suffice to say the cast is awesome.

I think people really have a problem with this movie because of the childish tone of the story. In case nobody noticed, the events are all viewed through the filter of a little boy, of course it plays out halfway like a cartoon. When you are about four feet tall the world is a very different place, think back on that for a second. You can't drive a car, and adults are already weird to begin with. Everybody needs to drop the logic and get with the program here, this movie is fun period.

The moral here?

Don't take things so damn seriously all the time and enjoy life once in a while.

That includes this movie.

Penitentiary II (1982)

My brother picked this up from a VHS swap meet here in town last week. Obviously we were drawn in by the insanely vivid box art but the pictures/description on the back only made things worse. By worse I mean this movie could be one of two things: really unbelievably awful or honestly really good in a not very scummy or entirely exploitative way. We got column B much to our deep satisfaction. While I haven't seen any other films in the oeuvre of director Jamaa Fanaka, this one definitely makes me want to take a closer look.

Trailer:

Yes this movie is as good as the trailer would lead you to believe. Maybe you won't agree and think this movie is shit anyway, but that's fine by me because I know a diamond in the rough when I see one as far as my own personal tastes are concerned.  Giving a proper plot synopsis as it relates the the first Penitentiary movie made in 1979 is impossible, as I have yet to see it and frankly didn't know it existed until I saw this copy of the sequel. But by information from friends who have seen all three of these films (yes, it's a trilogy!), the second one is the best of them. IMDB user/critic ratings show the opposite is the case but I obviously don't agree with their assessment insofar as the quality of the second film is concerned. I want to see the first one to be sure things are in line. Expect me to get back to you about that at some point maybe.

Plot synopsis: Martel "Too Sweet" Gordone (Leon Isaac Kennedy) has just been released from prison on parole and is struggling to set his life in order. He shacks up with his sister Ellen and her husband Charles (Glynn Turman of Cooley High fame!) and gets employment at a boxing gym. Too Sweet refuses the owners attempts at getting him to box like he did in prison, as he wants to get on the straight and narrow and put the past to rest. Unfortunately for Too Sweet, his former cell mate and prison rival Half Dead (Ernie Hudson, just two years before being in Ghostbusters!) is out for revenge. After Half Dead rapes and murders his girlfriend, and tries to kill our hero, Too Sweet vows to return to boxing in her memory. With the help of his trainer Mr. T (obviously played by Mr. T, right after his appearance in Rocky III) he gets into fighting shape. But Half Dead never dropped his revenge scheme...

Considering the significant blanks I had to leave (an audience update is provided by and obviously Star Wars influence angled opening crawl even!) I think that gives you enough to figure out how this movie works. It's really strange to see a film made in the early 1980's that still utilizes tried and true Blaxploitation style dialogue. It made me think the film was made several years earlier until I looked it up, leaving me doubly surprised as you can very well imagine.

This movie really doesn't fuck around at any point. I did not find a single minute where I was checking my watch to see how long it had been on, because it has a capable cast and a pretty decent script. Sure the cinematography is really pedestrian, but when the cast is pulling their weight like this all things fall by the wayside. It's a pleasure to see a film like this that doesn't drag anywhere like so many do. The director (who had several films under his belt at this point) had a pretty respectable budget to work with, and hired some really terrific actors. On top of that, there's a few surprising cameos too- including Rudy Ray Moore and a very early film role for Tony Cox (billed here as Joe Anthony Cox). As a HUGE Tony Cox fan, I was stoked beyond belief to see him appear out of nowhere.

The soundtrack for this movie is really truly amazing. What's perhaps more amazing is the fact that it was never commercially released. A cursory internet search reveals absolutely nothing sans other people looking for it. While I have not researched this thoroughly, at least a couple of the songs in the film by the later era disco/funk group Klique (who also briefly appear in the film at a night club) are likely available on one or more of their albums or singles of the era. The real killer track that nobody can track down so hard that even the title eludes us is linked below. I think any self respecting DJ would kill for this:

If anybody out there finds a lead on info for that track you must let me know IMMEDIATELY. I'm pretty fucking serious about this. I'm fairly certain the main riff would be pure hip hop sample gold. For all of you that never seem to watch the youtube clips I ever so carefully select for my reviews, you just missed an unknown classic.

One thing I really have to comment on is the unintentional homoerotic undertones in this movie. I don't really think I have to explain further than it's a boxing movie featuring shirtless sweaty dudes with lots of muscles. If you need a plainer picture than that, maybe it's high time you took a few steps outside the third grade. Repeatedly showing how Too Sweet is desired by the ladies makes things seem forced but in a really hilarious and understated way. I know this was not the director's intention but I can't help but bring that sort of thing up.

If Jamaa Fanaka were still alive (he unfortunately passed away on April 1st of this year) I would definitely shake his hand to no end. I think that about does it, because I'm leaving the rest of the movie as a surprise for the faithful. It is readily available on DVD and at least three (though probably several more than that) VHS editions.

Enjoy!

Bad Dreams (1988)

This review is late as I decided to scrap the review I was going to post due to circumstances beyond anyone's control. Actor Richard Lynch died last Tuesday at the age of 76, and I felt it only proper to do a review dedicated to his memory. In fact I received this film in the mail just last wednesday which happens to be the day his death was officially confirmed to the public. It was a creepy experience to open this package and find this tape in with another one I had bought (it was a surprise bonus thrown in unbeknownst to me) and turned out to also be a pretty creepy movie too. Win/win situation.

Trailer:

This trailer gives away two of the grosser bits of gore in this movie. The hand impalement was a bit too much for me and I had to purposefully blur my vision and squirm around and moan a bit while it happened to make it through that few seconds of film. I hate shit to do with knives- they're sharp, pointy, and dangerous. But before I get side tracked even further I should probably give ou a rundown on what this movie is about. Be warned, there are maybe going to be some spoilers later on, but I will mark the section containing them beforehand so if you haven't seen this yet, it won't be ruined for you.

Plot synopsis: In the mid 1970's Cynthia (played by Jennifer Rubin, known for her roles in Nightmare On Elm Street 3, Screamers, etc.) narrowly escapes a group immolation (headed by cult leader Harris, played by Richard Lynch) and winds up in a coma for thirteen years. Awakening to the extreme bummer that is the late 1980's, she finds herself in a mental ward undergoing treatment for hallucinations she keeps having of the long dead Harris stalking her everywhere. A series of grisly deaths of other patients at the hospital uncovers something far more sinister than what she might have suspected.


This film seems to be ignored by most people, or simply derided. Much of this is due to some similarities (which are mostly on the surface if you really stop and think about it) with Nightmare On Elm Street 3. I think this is mainly due to the casting of Jennifer Rubin and the reliance of a mental health clinic for the main setting. That is pretty much where the similarities stop. I will get to that a little bit later though because it involves plot spoiling, so instead I will talk about the gore effects. Trade off? Anywhat, this movie has some simple yet extremely cringeworthy bits of gore in it. One of which you may have seen in the trailer if you are one of the people who reads my reviews as intended rather than skipping about willy nilly. 


As I said earlier a lot of it is to do with knives which I really hate when it is this realistic looking. The only thing that is really a shame is the effects in horror films of this era seldom match the film that accompanies them (this one I feel is an outstanding exception) leaving us with nothing more than lackluster films with good gory bits in between. This came after horror had mostly abandoned showing topless women running everywhere (breasts are great and all, but I want to watch a horror film not a nudie cutie reel), and there really wasn't much of a middle ground at this point of the 80's. The 1980's as most of you know is really the last gasp of consistently good horror movies. Major studios were all in on the act and as they usually do they start out doing some really ace stuff and then completely flood the market with trash so bad that true gems like this film get lost in the flotsam and jetsam of lame imitations. I know I got a little off track there but this is all stream of consciousness so go along with me on this. Back on point: The blood in this movie looks really real and it actually almost made me curl up into a ball because I was really grossed out.


This film begins with a really unexpected but awesome musical choice but ends with a VERY 1988 (read: shitty) musical choice. It was really disarming to hear The Electric Prunes play right at the beginning, and I really applaud the film makers for doing that. Unfortunately Sweet Child Of Mine by Guns N Roses was chosen for the end credits play out which dates this film more than the now hilarious fashion choices laden throughout. To give pause before I go on my short spoiler rant, here's that Electric Prunes track from the movie I like so much.

Listen:

SPOILER DISCUSSION BELOW THIS TEXT.

Don't you go and say I didn't give you fair warning now. I was mentioning how this film is often compared to Nightmare On Elm Street 3. I think the comparisons are all on the surface (I had already stated earlier), because the actual plot of the movie revolves around not a bullshit serial killer who attacks you in your slumber after making a would be witty pun but is about drug induced hallucination. Harris isn't actually killing anyone, he only appears in Cynthia's mind. It's the head of the clinic that is doing everything, not some would be emo dude in a striped sweater. Another difference would be that this movie unlike NOES 3 is actually pretty good.

A doctor doing fucked up drug shit to less fortunates is the real story here, and to me it resonates further- into the medical community as a whole. How many doctors would rather treat a symptom than an actual cause by throwing pharmaceuticals at the issue than actually dealing with said cause of trouble? As someone who has had this happen repeatedly I can tell you that it happens quite a lot. While health care commentary is very likely not what the film makers had in mind, the magic of film brings these thoughts up to anyone who has their mind open to them.

SPOILER SECTION OVER.


Oh wait, the review is over too... whoops. I think you should go watch this movie if you haven't already. Just be prepared for the gross bit with a hand getting stabbed over and over with a syringe. Those things hurt period, and I didn't really need to see that.

RECOMMENDED? 


YES.

California Axe Massacre AKA Axe (1977)

***********************************************************************************************************ANNOUNCEMENT: Apologies for having been away for so long, but after over a year straight of writing a review each week I was rapidly approaching burnout and had to take a break. We're back, and we're bad. ***********************************************************************************************************

I watch a lot of movies if you haven't guessed already. Seldom have I actually sat all the way through one that turned out to be such a raucous test of my undeniable patience. Usually I will just stop watching (because I could be spending my time watching good movies instead) or I get shitfaced drunk in order to make things passable, but this one was a gift from a friend and I was therefore obliged to sit all the way through it just so I could see what's what. I regret that decision.

Since trailers are often inconclusive I will do my best to tell you what this was about. The plot is pretty much a cookie-cutter run of the mill deal full not of "total terror" but total predictability. Several murdering psychos are rampaging about the land killing innocent folks they come across at will. They come across a nice country and home and get more than they bargained for after they rape Lisa who begins to ruthlessly kill each of these scumbags in turn.

The title of this film is really pretty bothersome to me. It actually has several of them- the two listed above and others such as the very weak "The Virgin Slaughter" to the much more whimsical (and frankly better in my opinion) "Lisa, Lisa". The title of the VHS seen above is obviously trying to capitalize on the success of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre which came out three years previous to this.

This was done by using the following formula:
1. Name of a state to indicate location
2. Name of implement primarily used to kill during feature
3. Use of the word 'massacre' to imply unwholesomely large entertainment value for those of     us on the exploitative viewing tip

I don't believe this was done by the folks who originally made the film though, as the trailer provided clearly illustrates. I believe it was done by the company releasing the video to try and squeeze more rentals out of what they knew was a pretty mediocre movie to start with. I do not have a way of doing screen grabs because if I did I could show you the lame insert done during the opening credits with the new title that is done in cable access quality to show you just what I mean. Trust me though, it is nothing to write about on a blog write home about.

The pacing of this film is somewhere between grass growing and a three toed sloth going at a full on charge. It is easily one of the most boring horror films I have ever had the patience to sit through. Yes, European horror is generally pretty slow moving plot wise, but that is generally because they are busy building atmosphere where this film is just plain insipid. It is also NOT European. I could have more fun watching a scab harden than I could watching this ever again. The running time is an overly generous 74 minutes. I feel like the movie could probably have skirted by with being only about half an hour long. The plot content in this movie is pretty thin so the amount of crap shoveled in to try to pad things out a bit really doesn't help anything.

Character development is next to zero- which is never really much of a problem with a film like this, but considering the fact that it also happens to be completely bereft of pretty much everything else an entertaining horror flick is supposed to have I am more than prepared to hold that against it. When my friend gave it to me (he already had a copy) a while back he said "it sucks". I really should have taken his warning to heart but what else was I going to do NOT watch it to see what the fuss is about? Merely saying something like this "sucks" is not enough for me sometimes, and as you can tell I can sufficiently measure its suck factor.

"At last... total terror!" whoever came up with that tagline obviously meant it to mean this was a film filled to the brim with and unbridled amount of terror. Instead: I think they might have been thinking about going to go get lunch after finishing up one last tagline before digging into a decadent submarine sandwich the size of a zeppelin. Maybe "Really... totally terrible" would have been a better and more accurate one. Most people would counter my claims about this movie by saying "then why don't you make a better movie?". Well I have to be perfectly honest and admit that if I did go do that it would probably resemble this one to some degree and because I know that for an almost definite fact I feel it's better I not invite such an abomination into this world.

What else more is there to say really?

Oh yeah,

NO.

Incubus (1966)

It has been far too long since I reviewed a film I actually didn't like, so I figured I had better get off of the "this movie is great and you should see it" kick for a hot minute to deliver a write up on a hot steaming turd of cinema instead. That sounds fair, right? This one has been lurking on my movie shelf for far too long, mocking me weekly and daring me to write about it so like it or not its time has come. Please do not claim that I gave you no warning...

Trailer:

There is no proper theatrical trailer for this so far as I am aware (the only country it received wide distribution in was France- more on that later), so instead here is the home video release trailer from some time ago. It's a bit cheesy yes, but at least shows you a little of what you might get yourself into. I have done so many reviews that have no trailer available it's a pleasure to find one for a film this esoteric whether I like the movie or not. But enough meandering, I should tell you what it is all about.

Plot:

In a small village there lies a well which legend has it can make people young again and heal the sick. many conceited people come here and are victimized by succubi who lure them to their deaths in the lands surrounding the village. A young succubi named Kia tires of luring drunkards and corrupt whinos to their deaths and wants to destroy a purer soul. Along comes Marc (Shatner), a target which Kia cannot resist. She fails to heed the warnings that with a pure soul comes the danger of love (something the succubi cannot combat), in what is an ultimately predictable and boring fairy tale.

You might have noticed from the trailer up above (unless you are one of the MANY slouches who apparently think I put clips in these reviews for no reason at all so you just skip over them like a tremendous ninny) that this movie has the added bonus of not only being bogus but also being entirely in Esperanto. I don't know a lick of that language at all, and I don't think the cast does either. 95% of the time it sounds like they memorized the lines phonetically just to get paid. William Shatner is perhaps the one exception here, as he is also a halfway decent actor, but even he seems to struggle with this strange language much of the time. Apparently Esperanto was chosen to make the film feel more mysterious and ethereal but unfortunately the opposite is true, so instead the film becomes tedious and unintentionally hilarious. It is said that when this was premiered the portion of the audience that spoke Esperanto roared with laughter the entire time, which says all I need to know.

Example:

It's like watching a bunch of 14 year olds do Shakespeare, am I right? Now would be a good time to mention the dude who plays the Incubus. The actors name is Milos Milos, and his career is very short indeed (two whole movies). He had an affair with Mickey Rooney's wife and was found-along with Rooney's wife- shot dead in her home. One wonders why that happened as affairs generally do not end in suicide but theorize all you like. The cast is made up of actors who mostly did television work, and this makes sense when the forces vehind it are taken into account. The film almost feels like it was made for TV (it wasn't), which is kind of interesting in my opinion. It was written and directed by Leslie Stevens, who was the creator and also executive producer of The Outer Limits throughout its entire run. After the series was cancelled in 1965 he wanted to make a film with his now seasoned production crew with the idea of marketing it to the art house circuit. Needless to say it didn't really work.

The crew involved were no slouches though, and included people such as Dominic Frontiere writing the score (he later went on to do music for such films as Hang 'Em High and Hollywood superturd The Color Of Night which was unfortunately his final score) and cinematographer Conrad Hall (Electra Glide In Blue, Marathon Man, American Beauty). But no amount of talent could save the film thanks to the ridiculous choice of language used for shooting and the Milos Milos murder scandal, along with the suicide of actress Ann Atmar just weeks before the premiere, made it so nobody would touch it. It apparently enjoyed a good run in France (like I said earlier) which turned out to be quite fateful later on.

When Stevens wished to do a home video release in 1993 he found out the negatives, etc. had been lost and were presumed to have been destroyed by a fire. As not many prints of the film were struck, it remained a lost film until a print showed up in 1996 in the Cinematheque Francaise. The only problems were A) the condition of the print and B) the fact that burned in French subtitles were on the negative. After an exhaustive restoration (partially funded by the Sci-Fi Channel) everybody can marvel at just how bad a seemingly good idea can get. The French subtitles being part of the print used are why the English titles have a black border around them, which has the added consequence of blocking out a significant portion of the frame during certain scenes.

I think the idea of this film is compelling. The finished product is sluggish and actually almost painful to watch, and I do not recommend it to anyone but the curious or the Shatner completist. Art house horror movies are usually pretty bad with very few exceptions (The original version of The Wicker Man  is an example of a good one so far as I see things) and you can probably guess where this one falls in my opinion. I don't think being drunk while watching it would help much, come to think of it I don't think anything would. BUT: I am glad that this film wasn't lost forever no matter how bad I think it is, because there is nothing worse than having a piece of cinema good or bad disappear so that it can never be viewed again.

RECOMMENDED ONLY TO THE BORED/CURIOUS AMONG US

Out Of The Past (1947)

How I lived so long without having seen this film is a really really good question. I have always had a deep love of film noir and all of its trappings and I cannot readily think of a film that really sets the bar for the rest more than this one. I know that is a bit of a blanket statement considering how many really terrific titles there are in this genre but I am not the only one who feels this way. I wish movies still had snappy hard boiled dialogue like this today, I would be more likely to shell out the pocket money for a ticket.

The film is all about the past of Jeff Bailey (Robert Mitchum), a seemingly normal bloke, and how it catches up with him. He operates a gas station in a small town of little significance, and leads a simple life with his fiancee' Ann Miller (Virginia Huston) until a man from out of town starts asking questions. A major flashback (involving 40,000 dollars and a dame to end all dames) through Jeff's seedy past reveals all to Ann as they drive toward a fateful meeting. Sensing a setup but with no choice left but to finish business he would rather forget, Jeff must confront his past love (Jane Greer) and her maniacal lover (Kirk Douglas) and finally put things to bed.

This movie is a great deal more complex than this of course. What I give you above sounds a great deal like most other noir films but trust me there is far more than that to chew on. Not all films that fit into film noir can boast that, as with anything there are 50 B grade trash fests for every A lister like what we have here. I think that is something that helps the film the most. RKO Radio Pictures had been focusing on the all to lucrative market of B movies for a good while and someone decided it would be a good idea to give Out Of The Past an A budget, and it shows. Director Jacques Tourneur made one hell of a masterpiece with the money they gave him.

But of course flashy cinematography and good casting simply are not enough, the script is what is really important here. Daniel Mainwaring (who later went on to write the screenplay for the original 1956 version of Invasion Of The Bodysnatchers) pulled out all the stops to deliver a screenplay so full of hard hitting dialogue and intrigue it makes my head spin. It is no surprise either, considering he also wrote the novel that the film is based on which was titled Build My Gallows High. The colorful speech used in movies like this has always been a major point of interest for me, and sometimes I wonder if everyone talked this way at one point in time and everyone was magically wittier in the 40's but somehow I doubt it. It's up to us clever folks to make sure that witty comebacks like the ones Robert Mitchum uses constantly in this film never go the way of the Dodo.

In case you have the memory of a goldfish, I mentioned a major flashback during the plot synopsis. The flashback is so major it actually takes up a vast majority of the running time. Much like an over extensive voiceover (think Apocalypse Now for an example of where it actually worked), a flashback of such epic length can be hard pressed to carry a movie. It happens so seamlessly that unless you stop and think about it you forget that a flashback is even happening. Try to think of another movie where this was done and done so very well, I bet you can't. Such a showcase of screenwriting skill is a rare occurrence indeed.

Most of the films I have seen lately have really incredible casting choices, and I have to say this is one more to add on the pile. Not a single dud to be seen anywhere. Robert Mitchum and Kirk Douglas' talents need no introduction. Seeing Kirk Douglas so young however was a real treat (he was around 30 or 31 at the time of release), due to the fact I didn't even read the DVD case to see who was in it in order to achieve maximum surprise. Jane Greer is a supreme femme fatale, displaying both fragility and also deadly cunning. Virginia Huston does an amazing job with the relatively small part she has, and it is a shame that she never got more successful. A car accident broke her back at the height of her fame, and by the time she was healed all she could muster were B level movie roles. A true shame indeed.

There is always so much more to tell with any film I choose to review, but I can never seem to bring myself to go all out (unless the movie in question is a stinker). Besides, part of the fun is letting you discover at least a little bit about a movie yourself. I can't find a single thing wrong with this movie, and I hope you feel the same way too. Color film is great but sometimes black and white can do more than any amount of Technicolor could ever hope for.

RECOMMENDED BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT.

Westfront 1918 (1930)

**Special thanks to Movie Madness in Portland Oregon for having this on their rental shelf!**

The First World War is a sadly neglected subject in our modern age. Films about World War Two have become quite popular in the past ten to fifteen years as a sudden awareness of how many veterans from the conflict are dying all the time, yet barely a note was played when Florence Beatrice Green-the last known veteran of WW1- passed away in early February of this year. One can speculate why no one (at least of my generation) seems to care all that much. To be fair it was a war that accomplished very little (besides being a major cause of WW2 that is), and this film illustrates that to a tee.

As a trailer for this epic does not seem to exist, you will have to do without. The film follows the activities of a squad of German infantrymen in the trenches of France late in the war. Their life is of course far from idyllic, with death surrounding them at each and every second- you are just as likely to get buried alive in an artillery barrage as you are shot by the enemy. Will the squadmates make it out alive? Watch and see.

You are probably thinking this sounds quite a bit like All Quiet On The Western Front (Also a talkie released in 1930 with similar anti war sentiments) and you would be correct. While the similarities between the two are numerous, both are based on different novels. The main difference between them is Westfront 1918 is by far the bleaker film in overall tone. AQOTWF however has a far more memorable ending and wider distribution which is likely why this film is the much better known of the two which is honestly quite unfortunate once you see both, as each has a very strong statement.

This is Director G.W. Pabst's very first talkie. For those of you who are woefully unaware, he directed many films- perhaps the most famous of which the three which feature silent film goddess Louise Brooks. Pabst does some incredible work in this picture. Whereas American talkies generally feature talking just for the sake of it, Pabst litters the film with normal chit chat and everyday interactions. There really is no plot necessarily, and the film plays like a series of long vignettes. This makes the film feel more like a documentary than a movie played out by actors, which definitely works to its credit.

One thing that really struck me was the amount of tracking shots present. Films of this era often feature static camera work (many early screen actors had theater experience, soit makes sense), and Pabst even went so far as to make sure he had a way for the sound to keep running along with the shot. How on Earth Pabst and his crew managed to do this with 1930's sound technology we can only guess at, but this achievement should not be overlooked. We take it for granted that movies just have sound now and it is easy to lose sight of just how difficult adding sound to motion pictures was in the beginning.

Remember when I said this movie was bleak? I meant it. There's loads of shots of the muddy and barbed wire strewn no man's land to exacerbate the death that surrounds our characters sure, but there's a whole lot more than that going on. One of the most memorable sequences for me was when the character Karl (played by Gustav Diessel, who appeared in Pabst's film Pandora's Box and Fritz Lang's The Testament Of Dr. Mabuse amongst other films) goes home on leave. Upon arriving home he finds his wife in bed with another man. Such an occurrence is most certainly common during wartime and for a film in the 30's to show such frank expression of human sexual needs is equal parts daring as it is accurate.

The DVD I viewed for this review is actually a DVD-R. For reasons unknown to me, this film has never had a DVD release, only VHS. A film of such seminal importance deserves better, and the print used to strike the copy is littered with breaks and abrasions. Interestingly the opening titles of the film are entirely in German yet there are several intertitles that appear throughout the film in English. Why this is I do not know, and I can only assume that they were added to the US theatrical release as the ability to add on screen subtitles simply did not exist. Do not quote me on that last bit, but I do know that redubbing films at this period of time was an incredibly expensive endeavour, so if adding intertitles in English was a way around this (however clunky the finished product) it would make perfect sense to me. Although I do know it was cheaper to reshoot an entire film in a different language than it was to overdub, and I have heard that at least three different versions exist (French, English, German) but cannot confirm this as the German version is the only one I have seen available.

The cut I watched is presumably also missing some footage (total running time for review copy: 90 minutes), as IMDB lists three different lengths for this film depending on where it was released- mot notably the original German cut ran for 97 minutes. That footage was probably lost during later re-edits of the film in its native Germany, where Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels had the film banned. The irony of banning an anti war film during war time really amuses me to no end. In the end, this film seems to have been all but forgotten by critics and film buffs alike which is a sad fate for a film with such a powerful message to deliver and such a technical and cinematic triumph as well.

If you are interested in talkies or films about WW1 I highly recommend this title. In fact I just recommend it period if you love movies in general. While finding a copy is not necessarily easy (some editions of this film lack subtitles, beware!) the end result of your search should prove worth it. Thankfully for those of you who don't necessarily want a physical copy, someone has uploaded it in its entirety onto youtube in a far better quality print than what I viewed and is from a Janus Films print as well. Considering that Janus is responsible for the Criterion Collection and has not released this yet is truly baffling.

Get to it already Criterion!