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!