Arthur (1981)

Arthur (1981)
Looking over my recent posts I realized that this is the first comedy (not counting Manborg) film I've talked about in 2014. Arthur is slow paced for a comedy and features a lot of dry humor. The story is pretty basic but told well with good acting to support the solid writing. The jokes are great but the writing is more than just funny with well-developed characters and good setups and payoffs.
Dudley Moore plays Arthur, a rich drunk who will only inherit his family's fortune if he marries Susan, the daughter of a wealthy businessman. However, Arthur instead falls in love with a working-class woman named Linda (Liza Minnelli). The relationship between Arthur and his butler Hobson (John Gielgud) is surprisingly touching for a comedy. Hobson is much closer to Arthur and a better father figure for him that Arthur's actual father. Hobson is the typical British butler, but truly cares about Arthur like a son (think Jeeves from the stories of P.G. Wodehouse or Alfred from Batman) thanks to Gielgud's top notch performance and wonderful chemistry with Dudley Moore.
It's impossible for me to pick a favorite scene or line as I found the movie hilarious as a whole. One scene in particular that I loved involved a moose!
The Academy Awards tend not to recognize comedies but Arthur proved to be an exception. Gielgud won an Oscar for Best Actor in a Supporting Role and the theme song by Christopher Cross won Best Original Song. Dudley Moore was nominated for Best Actor in a Leading Role and Steve Gordon received a nomination for Best Original Screenplay.
Sadly, Arthur is the only film directed by Steve Gordon (who also was the writer) as he died the year after it was released.
8/10

My Bloody Valentine (1981)

I've gotten pretty busy with classes and work so I haven't had time for a post in awhile which means I am really far behind and have a lot of catching up to do. I'm not sure when my next post will be so enjoy this Valentine's Day special!

My Bloody Valentine (1981)
I watched this movie with a bunch of friends in honor of Valentine's Day and we all agreed that it was better than expected. Usually we watch bad movies but this one was good and I legitimately liked it!

This Canadian film is set in the mining town of Valentine Bluffs. In 1960 there was an explosion at the mine after the foremen left early to attend a Valentine's Day dance. Some miners were trapped in a shaft for weeks and by the time they were rescued only one was still alive, Harry Warden. Warden had to eat his dead fellow miners to survive and went insane as a result. One year later he escaped from a mental institution and killed the guilty foremen by ripping out their hearts. Harry Warden left a warning that anyone else celebrating Valentine's Day in the town would suffer the same fate. Twenty years after these murders the town decides that enough time has passed and plan on holding a Valentine's Day party. However, some people planning the party get killed and there is a warning to stop the partying or else. Is Harry Warden back? Or is somebody else picking up where he left off? If so, why? You'll have to watch the film to find out!

The movie takes place over the course of three days: February 12-14th. And of course the 13th is a Friday! I actually haven't seen any of the Friday the 13th movies so unfortunately I can't compare the two.

Although this movie is by no means a masterpiece, it is well written and competently directed. Like most slashers this was made on a low budget but it doesn't really show. My Bloody Valentine is a slasher with a solid mystery and could be described as Halloween meets a "whodunit." Honestly I was not sure how it was going to play out as there was plenty of ambiguity and red herrings setting up a couple different possibilities that get narrowed down by the end.

The miner outfit of the killer is not only intimidating but quite memorable. The gas mask, construction helmet with headlight, and big leather boots are frightening. Unlike some slasher flicks, the killer's outfit was not chosen just to be scary or conceal the identity of the killer, but fits in perfectly with an interesting back story and motives. The main instrument of death for the killer is a mining pickaxe which is different than your typical slasher weapons, although to be fair the killer carries a knife as a back-up plan! Probably the best part of the movie is the isolated atmosphere with its unique setting of a small mining town and the mine itself of course. The movie was filmed in an actual mine (on location in Nova Scotia) which is already dark and claustrophobic without a killer trying to get you! The deaths are imaginative and gruesome with some nice special effects work.The creepy soundtrack also works well. Unlike a lot of 80s slashers which tended to go with a heavy metal theme, this one has a twisted folk song. Check it out here!

There are parts of the movie that are over the top (a crazy old bartender trying to warn the young miners, paper hearts turned upside down by the killer) but its still enjoyable. We have a decent amount of slasher cliches here such as typical jump scares, those who are promiscuous die but the virgin lives, and the movie's focus on a holiday/event. 1981 was just when the slasher genre was kicked wide open, so the movie manages to get away with them. My Bloody Valentine does break some slasher cliches though. For example, instead of the killer just going after high school or college students, the targets are anybody celebrating Valentine's Day, which makes perfect sense given the back-story. Of course several twenty-somethings are killed, but a couple of senior citizens bite the dust as well!

Some scenes are pretty slow although just when it starts to get boring something interesting happens. The acting is not bad but there are no noteworthy performances either. I liked fat guy as he was a fun character but nobody else really stood out. This isn't totally an acting issue as I wish we got to know the characters better. One reason for this problem is that there are simply a lot of characters to keep up with. We also switch back and forth from the young miners to the police chief. To play devil's advocate, this does work a bit in the movie's favor as it heightens the uncertainty of who the killer is. Although we never root for the brutal killer, I didn't find myself caring for these characters as much as those in better horror movies like Halloween for instance.

As an film junkie I must mention that in this movie some of the characters play the same stab a knife between the fingers game that is played by Bishop and Pvt. Hudson in Aliens. I wonder if James Cameron got the idea from this movie. I have only seen and heard of this game in these two movies. Do people actually play this game?!

Back in the 1980s, film critics Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert went on a crusade against slasher movies which they perceived to be misogynist. In 1980 they even dedicated a whole episode of their TV show to the subject, which they entitled "Women in Danger." You can watch it on YouTube here.
Maybe if I watch more slasher movies I'll make a post to further weigh in on this topic, but I didn't see My Bloody Valentine as anti-female at all. The killer takes out both men and women equally and the two survivors are one man and one woman instead of the typical lone "final girl." The surviving woman is feminine, but she is strong enough to fight back and unmask the killer at the end. The murderer in this movie doesn't discriminate based on gender, just don't go to a Valentine's Day party or have a tattoo of a heart! There also is no nudity in this movie which seems to be unusual for early 80s slasher flicks. There is a shower scene but its all men from the mines! I couldn't find out what Siskel and Ebert thought about this movie but I hope they weren't too quick to judge it based on other slasher flicks.

Siskel and Ebert liked Halloween but generally hated the other "dead teenager movies" as they often called them. While I can't comment on if a lot of these movies were misogynist since I haven't seen too many of them, I disagree with some of the assumptions Siskel & Ebert make in the above YouTube video. These movies weren't made to appeal to audiences who wanted to see women attacked and killed, but because they could be made very cheaply and therefore would almost always earn a profit no matter what. Slasher movies still exist today, but the ubiquity of the genre from about 1979 through 1984 was mainly due to the popularity of Halloween and Friday the 13th. Popular movies always indirectly create knock-offs since producers see it was a way to make a quick buck. This was always the case going back to the early days of cinema and is certainly still true today.

The ending is open for a sequel although it stands fine on its own. I'm glad My Bloody Valentine did not turn into a franchise as the sequels probably would've sucked. This movie had a lot cut out on its original release because it was too violent. Ironically I think is probably why it didn't do so well in theaters. I saw the Uncut version which is what I would recommend. Just be aware that the scenes which were originally cut from the theatrical release are much rougher than the rest of the movie. I think it works in favor of the gritty tone but is noticeable and a bit jarring at first as these scenes look like they were filmed on Super 8. It kinda takes the viewer out the experience, especially because you know something bad is going to happen when the film switches to these low quality scenes. That said, I always like to see the filmmaker's original intent so I'm just glad this footage survived.

My Bloody Valentine has gained a cult following over the years which led to a 3-D re-make in 2009. There is even an Irish rock band named after this movie! Who is the most famous fan of My Bloody Valentine you ask? Why it's none other than director Quentin Tarantino! Here is what Tarantino has to say about the film: "as far as slasher films go, of course, I love Halloween and all those. But as time's gone on, I think My Bloody Valentine may be my favorite."

I don't watch too many slasher films but this is a solid movie that deserves more attention. You certainly could do a lot worse within this sub-genre (Silent Night, Deadly Night Part 2).
6/10

Summer Movie Round-Up Part 3 of 3

This will be the final post covering the movies I have seen so far this summer. Like the previous posts, this one includes 8 brief reviews.

I love Bill Murray, and he is at the top of his game in Stripes. Murray stole the show in Caddyshack (1980) but this time his is the leading man. Murray's character, John, loses his job and his girlfriend so he convinces his best friend Russell (Harold Ramis) to join the army with him. Ivan Reitman directed three films in a row with Bill Murray: Meatballs (1979), Stripes (1981), and Ghost Busters (1984), which also starred Harold Ramis. Although Stripes is a Bill Murray vehicle, we are also treated to early roles  from John Candy, John Larroquette, Judge Reinhold, and Sean Young who all add to the hilarity. The first two thirds of the movie takes place at boot camp where hi jinx ensue. However, it is the last act where the movie really shines. Murray and Ramis steal a secret government vehicle in order to meet up with their girlfriends only to have things get out of hand... and "That's the fact, Jack!"
Stripes joins a 7/10!

One of my new favorite directors is David Cronenberg. I absolutely love Videodrome (1983) and Dead Ringers (1988) and have been seeking out more of his films. They Came from Within (1975), also known as Shivers, was Cronenberg's first full-length film. Not surprisingly it is pretty raw, although since the movie is about parasites that infect the residents of a high-rise and turn them into sex-crazed zombies, it works in the film's favor. The special effects and gore are pretty good considering the low budget. Probably the best example is the horrifying bath tub scene which is depicted on the poster. It is interesting to see Cronenberg's body horror at an early stage and how the themes of flesh and technology would be further developed upon in his later films. Like most of Cronenberg's movies, this was filmed in Canada, specifically in the city of Montreal. Almost the entire movie takes place in an apartment complex. Even though it is a huge building, it leads to a claustrophobic setting since all the rooms and hallways are small to accommodate so many people, which helps add to the suspense. So far this is the weakest film I have seen by him, but I still enjoyed it. Cronenberg's next film, A Dangerous Method, will be released later this year and is about Freud and Jung.
They Come From Within infects a 6/10!

The last two round-ups have featured many movies from the last year or two, so now I get to change things up a bit with (so far) the oldest movie I have reviewed on this blog. The Mummy (1932) stars Boris Karloff as Imhotep and also features African-American actor Noble Johnson as "The Nubian." The film starts out with a fantastic scene in which the mummy is discovered in 1922. The screams are haunting and this creepy opening still holds up today. After this great beginning, the story jumps ahead ten years and unfortunately the story slows down. Imhotep pretends to be a modern Egyptian, and finds a woman who was his lover has been reincarnated. While the final scene is just as good as the first, most of the movie is dialogue heavy with not much happening. I am not asking for non-stop action, but it felt a repetitive at times. I did enjoy the flashback scene, although it was heavily cut for its theatrical release and that footage is sadly lost. Critics have never put The Mummy on the same level as Frankenstein (1931) or Dracula (1931) and although I haven't seen those films yet, I think I can see why. Simply put, not enough happens, although I think the explanation is that unlike those two films, this one was not based on a novel. I have a feeling that audiences in 1932 would have had a greater appreciation for the characters simply talking than we do today. But all things considered The Mummy is still a classic early horror film with great cinematography and atmosphere. Karloff manages to make his character an intimidating force to be reckoned with, yet one the audience feels bad for as he literally waited thousands of years to get back the woman he loves. Although Karloff had already hit the big time as Frankenstein's monster a year earlier, it was films like The Mummy that helped cement his status as a star. "Karloff the Uncanny," indeed.
The Mummy wraps up a 7/10!

I got to admit I was pleasantly surprised by Devil (2010). Although directed by John Erick Dowdle, M. Night Shyamalan is credited as a writer and producer. While I haven't seen Shyamalan's more recent films, I have not heard good things about them. However, Devil is a solid contained thriller about group of people trapped in an elevator who apparently have Satan himself in their midst. Like many of Shyamalan's films, this one takes place in the Philadelphia area, specifically center city. While I would have made the devil stuff more ambiguous, I did like it. The characters stuck in the elevator were well written and it was interesting to them interact with each other as the situation got increasingly worse. The detective investigating the situation is not played by the best actor, but I did like how his storyline coincided with one of the people in the elevator. Even if Shyamalan did direct this, I still wouldn't call it a comeback, but it is a step in the right direction.
Devil doesn't go to hell with a 6/10!

Time to take a break from horror movies and thrillers. I always thought that St. Elmo's Fire (1985) was a John Hughes film, I guess because it features so many members of the "Brat Pack" who were in movies like The Breakfast Club (1985). In fact we have almost half the cast from that movie here! St. Elmo's Fire is actually a Joel Schumacher film. Having recently watched The Lost Boys I was curious to see another of his pre-Batman Forever and Batman and Robin movies. St. Elmo's Fire is about the trials and tribulations of recent college graduates. As a recent college grad myself I felt it was the right time to see this one! Overall this wasn't really my cup of tea, although the characters were interesting and the directing was fine. What I want to know is how these seven guys and girls all became friends in the first place since they were all pretty different and it therefore felt like an unrealistic group. Also I don't understand how Rob Lowe's character got into Georgetown, but whatever. Anyway I'm glad I saw this since I had heard the quote "You cannot have the Pretenders' first album!" and now know its from this movie. Also featuring Andie McDowell and Jenny Wright (Near Dark).
St. Elmo's Fire burns up a 5/10!
   

Finally I get to write about a truly awful movie, Robot Holocaust (1986)! I first heard about this one through Mystery Science Theater 3000, so when I saw it was in available for free in HD via Comcast On Demand, I had to see it. Once or twice I had seen a MST3K movie in its original form, but never has one looked so good when it comes to picture quality. The plot (or lack thereof) is about a rebel named Neo who teams up with a robot that makes Jar Jar Binks seem like John Wayne in comparison. Together they meet up with a woman warrior, a Beastmaster wanna-be, and a rebel girl in order to defeat an evil computer ("The Dark One" although it is a glowing orange ball and not dark at all!) that has taken over the world. This movie rips off everything from The Terminator to Star Wars to Mad Max to Alien. When a movie borrows music from Laserblast, you know its going to be bad. If you took a drink every time a character uttered "the Dark One" you would be in a coma in 10 minutes. As bad as this movie was, I got through it without too much permanent brain damage so it was still watchable. I was laughing at it and cracking jokes, but I've seen some movies so boring and bad that I couldn't even do that. Robot Holocaust is still in so bad its good territory, although barely.
After watching the movie I decided to see the MST3K episode. This is a first season episode and I noticed that Joel and the bots use more sight gags in the theater than in the later seasons. Also it was interesting to see Josh "J. Elvis" Weinstein who played Dr. Forrester's original sidekick Dr. Laurence Erhardt as well as Tom Servo. Dr. Erhardt would be replaced with TV's Frank (played by Frank Conniff) and Kevin Murphy took over as Servo. I thought he was fine (he was a little annoying as Dr. Erdhart though that was the point) but that the other two were simply better fits for the show. For an early episode I was surprised about how good it was. I loved the recurring jokes about Valaria's "accent" and the Ted Nugent references. One of my favorite riffs was "In the future, all robots will act like Don Knotts!"
Robot Holocaust craps out a 2/10. Stick with the MST3K episode.

I have now seen two movies directed by Wes Craven, but still haven't gotten around to seeing A Nightmare on Elm Street. Funny how that works out. I liked Craven's The Serpent and the Rainbow (a cool zombie flick) as well as his work on the 80s Twilight Zone (the show is nowhere near as good as the original but still a decent sci-fi/fantasy/horror anthology show and better than the 2002 version). However, Shocker (1989) was a bit of a mess. Shocker is about a serial killer who comes back from the dead after being killed on the electric chair. The main problem with Shocker is that it doesn't know what it wants to be. At first the main character, Jonathan Parker, can interact with the killer in reality through his dreams. This part is kinda like The Dead Zone meets Nightmare on Elm Street. Then after the serial killer, Horace Pinker (Mitch Pileggi) comes back from the dead, he can inhabit the bodies of other people and the dream aspect is mostly dropped. The first two acts are played pretty seriously but the movie turns into a horror-comedy for the last act when the serial killer uses a satellite dish to go inside television programs! While this was a huge tone shift that felt out of place, I must admit, it was funny. Horace sucks Jonathan into the TV in an attempt to kill him and they run through everything from war films to Leave it to Beaver! One of the things I did like was the revelation which established a strong connection between Jonathan to Horace. Mitch Pileggi was great as a serial killer and Ted Raimi had a fun but small role. I enjoyed the 80s metal soundtrack. Although the directing was fine, the writing could have been a lot better. When Horace's supernatural powers like taking over bodies and traveling through television signals are revealed to others, they buy into it way too quickly, even newscasters! I wouldn't mind this if the story was taking place in the world of Harry Potter or something, but this is clearly grounded in the real world and these are unrealistic reactions. Also the actor who played Jonathan, Peter Berg, wasn't very good and often whispered his lines for no reason. I think I'll stay away from Craven until I get to see Nightmare on Elm Street and Scream.
Shocker shocks its way a 4/10!

I loved the first Fright Night (1985) so I had been meaning to see Fright Night Part 2 (1988) for a long time. Although this is a fantasy-horror movie, unlike Shocker it clearly takes place in the our world as the movie starts out with Charley (William Ragsdale) seeing a psychologist who tries to convince him that vampires aren't real. The first one came out in 1985 so the sequel takes place in real time, three years later. This sequel has the two main characters (Charley and Peter Vincent, host of the fictional late night horror movie show, Fright Night) return and this time they have to deal with a vengeful vampire who wants revenge for her brother in the first film. Unlike many sequels, this movie is not a rehash but instead a good continuation with some nice twists to keep the viewer guessing. Roddy McDowell was fantastic as Peter Vincent in the first Fright Night and he is just as entertaining (as always!) this time around. I only wish that his character got a bit more closure. Like the original, this one does a good job of balancing humor with creepy horror. Overall Fright Night Part 2 is not as good as the first, but still a solid sequel that will please fans of the first movie, though its not as memorable as the original. Now I just hope that the Fright Night remake is good!
Fright Night Part 2 sinks its fangs into a 5/10!

I am now caught up with the movies I have seen this summer! I therefore probably won't have a post tomorrow, but should have one up for Wednesday 6/29. See you then!