Don Coscarelli’s “Phantasm” (1979) begins with its title in red letters and nothing more.

We’re off and running, which sums up what the film is like overall. Welcome to Wonderland, Alice, enjoy your free fall into a strange new world.

The setting is a small town that seems to center around Morningside Cemetery, where young Mike (Michael Baldwin) is snooping around. Mike is often tailing his older brother Jody (Bill Thornbury), who seems to be headed for better things in his near future. However, a puzzling mystery is presenting itself to both Mike and the audience.

• Why is Morningside Cemetery and its inner workings so bizarre?
• Why is the undertaker, known as The Tall Man (Angus Scrimm), so gosh darn strange?
• Can he really lift a coffin by himself when no one else appears to be watching?
• Who are the small, hooded creatures who work for The Tall Man?
• Why is the cemetery a go-to place for teen sex in this nutty town?

Coscarelli’s $300,000 indie horror film, shot in one year over many weekends with pals, sometimes feels like they were making it up as they went along. Some stretches reflect that, but the genuine shocks and overall ambition of Coscarelli’s vision (which involves dimension hopping and extraterrestrials) points to a method in his madness.

Actually, the further “Phantasm” digs its heels into sci-fi, the stronger its overall story gets.

“Phantasm” maintains its edge as an atmospheric, off-kilter independent horror film. It’s also very-1970s, far more so than classics like “Don’t Look Now” (1973) or “Halloween” (1978). Few films made during that era capture the big, wavy hairstyles, bell bottoms, groovy vernacular and societal unease of that lost era better than this one.

The fear of death is a frequent source of dread infused in many horror films, though writer/director Coscarelli takes it even further. While it is ostensibly about a boy being chased by a monster through a graveyard (literally, at times), it’s also a coming-of-age fable and a wacko sci-fi/horror hybrid portrayed as a waking nightmare.

The subtext is rich, as this isn’t just about a young man failing to keep up with his older brother, as he’s literally outpacing him and planning to move on. The dynamic between the younger and older brother is poignant – the reason Mike is seemingly always following his brother is that he either senses or knows outright that he will leave him soon.

The obstacles the brothers face represents the grind and disappointments of adult life. In particularly, it could be interpreted that The Tall Man is a stand in for any authority figure, the oppressive nature of cemeteries and death in general.

PHANTASM (1979) Shot and directed by Don Coscarelli pic.twitter.com/drHrKMAAx8

— One Perfect Shot (@OnePerfectShot) November 1, 2016

“Phantasm” is also a glimpse at a post-Watergate youth culture, barely post-Vietnam, living an uneasy existence. The horrors of the story are thrust upon teens with counter-cultural views and attitudes, but they are unable to get ahead of the baffling supernatural occurrences they witness.

This is far from the first genre film to vividly explore not just the subject of death but the sterile confines in a “place of rest.” The pacing is sometimes an issue, as the film finds its footing as it keeps moving along from one seemingly disconnected but compelling sequence to another.

Some of the performances are amateurish but endearing (particularly Reggie Bannister’s). The dialogue is oh-so-70s, such as “I don’t get off on funerals, man, they give me the creeps!”

The story offers nods to Tolkien (note those little monsters in robes, akin to evil Hobbits, already under Gollum’s spell) and Frank Herbert’s “Dune” (the black Pain Box is explicitly referenced early on). The villainous Tall Man has superhuman strength and is omnipresent, like imposing Death in the form of a grim-faced servant.

“Phantasm” has lots of cool moments that don’t connect initially (in fact, the first viewing of the film tends to be the most off putting, even for confessed longtime fans), like a visit with a fortune teller. Then there’s the random front porch jam session, which is irritating as an unwelcome musical interlude, but also as a jarring tonal shift.

As a horror film, the effectiveness is on and off, though there are many jolting moments, such as that great final scene. The memorable theme music by Fred Myrow and Malcolm Seagrove cleverly plays throughout the film in varying iterations.

#OctoberMovieThon continues! #NowWatching Phantasm (1979) w/ @Whorror_Fiend. Here we go!#phantasm #horror pic.twitter.com/6KplFX0EI0

— Jackie Daytona. Hootie Tootie Disco Cutie (@evil_toast916) October 31, 2024

To Coscarelli’s credit, his film doesn’t peak early and is weird and intriguing enough to keep a hold on skeptical viewers. I was among those who thought this film didn’t work the first time I saw it. Now, the disjointed quality to the screenplay seems like a major asset, as you just can’t get ahead of the story.

When it seems that the narrative has taken a distinct direction, Coscarelli is always trying something wild and new. In fact, he’s literally throwing silver balls at us, which is probably the film’s most unforgettable visual signature.

Yes, the mechanized, very-alive and drill-ready balls are vicious little monsters. So are the glowing-eyed insects that turn up. Willard Green’s Silver Sphere is every bit as iconic as Scrimm’s Tall Man.

Occasionally, the film’s scrappy quality leads to unintentionally funny moments, but sometimes the dialogue is genuinely funny on purpose (like, “This guy’s not gonna leak all over my ice cream, is he?”). As low-budget cult horror films go, “Phantasm” is cornier than “The Evil Dead” (1983) and less polished than “Halloween,” but its best passages are unforgettable.

Bannister, of all things, is to this ongoing franchise what Bruce Campbell is to the “Evil Dead” saga.

In full disclosure, the action-heavy, always-on-its-feet and truly exciting “Phantasm II” (1988) is my favorite of the series. Nevertheless, the first two are meant to watched one after the other. I recommend planning a double feature and seeing why a generation of disco-loving teens were once petrified of a very Tall Man, in search of his “Boooooy!”

The post We Still Can’t Crack ‘Phantasm’ 45 Years Later appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Dominique Othenin-Girard’s “Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers” (1989) immediately grabs us with an opening title sequence riffing on the “pumpkin carving reveal” of prior installments.

It also establishes its most distinct quality. It’s willing to take chances. Not all of them will work, let alone make sense.

We briskly revisit the climax of the prior film, where the masked and seemingly unstoppable serial killer (Don Shanks) is relentlessly pursuing his niece, Jamie (the remarkable Danielle Harris) and her babysitter Rachel (Ellie Cornell).

A car crash, in which Myers is thrown from a vehicle, leads to an odd police shootout and Myers falling down a mine shaft. From there, the movie makes some strange choices, and it doesn’t end there.

Following the “Previously on Halloween” flashback, we watch as the wounded Myers goes into hiding. It’s always interesting to watch Myers outside of the stalk n’ slash story confines.

Jamie now has a clearly defined psychic link between her and Myers, and she hasn’t spoken since Myers’ prior attack on her life. Much worse? The film briefly references the devastating final scene from “Halloween 4,” then discards it, seemingly telling us to just forget about it.

What?! Can you imagine a sequel to “The Sixth Sense” that begins with the reveal that the final twist was just a dream?!

“Halloween 5” survives this early misstep but really, if the filmmakers were unwilling to follow up on the giant whammy the last movie left us in its final reveal, they should have avoided following Jamie as a character.

Thankfully, Harris is so good in this (as she was in the prior installment), that the movie leapfrogs over a bad first-act creative decision.

RELATED: ‘HALLOWEEN 4’ REVIVED SLEEPY SAGA 

Othenin-Girard is clearly a demonstratively stylish filmmaker, though not all of his touches work. The weird inclusion of the supernatural (mentioned in “Halloween II” and overtly portrayed in the wild “Halloween III: Season of the Witch”), some extensive world building (more on that in a bit) and some daring and not always successful creative choices make this one of the most interesting, if not entirely successful, of the “Halloween” sequels.

Shanks is a very good Myers, who sports the thorn tattoo that becomes a major storyline of the equally interesting, often baffling “Halloween 6: The Curse of Michael Myers” (1995). The latter is far more satisfying and battier in its extended, preferred Producer’s Cut.

Myers’ face can be clearly seen from the distance in one shot, in a great, surprising moment where he faces Jamie. There’s also a knockout bit when Jamie falls down a laundry chute, which we see from her perspective. It’s a breathtaking shot.

“Halloween 5” is lively but unpleasant, devoid of heart (they really needed to keep Cornell’s welcome presence in the movie), as well as lacking the hometown feel of the original. Haddonfield is misshapen, clearly a series of locations, sets and odd spots, whereas Carpenter’s original and the earlier sequels made it seem vivid and real.

With or without dialogue, Harris is still excellent in this and acts her heart out. Pleasance’s big acting choices are exactly right – Loomis desperately wants Myers to stop killing but he mostly succeeds in burning bridges with everyone he meets. You could make a comedy out of how Loomis might be the most obnoxious, unlikable and hilariously unhinged “hero” of any movie.

Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers.

Any fans? pic.twitter.com/Z8j99BBXxL

— Michael Myers (@MichaelMyersIM) October 30, 2024

Both ambitious and underwhelming, this rushed sequel sports plot twists both promising and ill considered. When it goes through the motions, it drags. Placing two small, sweet, screaming children in peril for most of the movie (they’re even chased by a car while they scamper on foot) is a dubious touch, even for this franchise.

The third act is on stalk n’ slash autopilot, except for two scenes: Jamie’s aforementioned escape down a laundry (seriously, that POV shot is amazing and must have been a nightmare to set up) and the final, apocalyptic closing scene.

The cliffhanger finale would take too long to finally resolve, a major reason why the most daring touches in “Halloween 5” didn’t pay off – imagine finding out the final episode of “Lost” and its biggest secrets…this year.

There’s also the unseen Man in Black, with steel-toed shoes and matching Thorn tattoos, is such an intriguing, welcome and strange touch. It’s a shame that the mystery of this character was belatedly resolved, finally, six years later, when “Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers” unveiled the secret in a manner resembling busy work instead of a proper Tah-Dah!

Alan Howarth’s electronic score makes some bad calls – most notoriously providing wacky sound effects whenever we get an appearance from two Mutt n’ Jeff cops. Why the music choice and what are those characters even doing in this movie?

Part 5 isn’t anywhere near as bad as “Halloween: Resurrection” (2002) or the worst parts in the past two Blumhouse Halloween sequels. The franchise was on seriously shaky ground at this point, not gaining proper momentum and a series high of “Halloween: H20” in 1998.

Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers (1989).
Art by Aaron Fulcher. pic.twitter.com/71wBtxz4ti

— The Retro Reminiscer (@RetroReminiscer) October 23, 2024

“Halloween 5” was a turning point and impresses for taking some wild swings but was also a step down from the Hitchcockian touches of “Halloween 4.”

The filmmakers probably should have waited longer after the success of “Halloween 4” to properly plan and map out this sequel, rather than rush it into theaters with it feeling like an unfinished and quirky cash-in.

If nothing else, “Halloween 5” sports the core problem that plagued subsequent sequels: the premise is best kept simple. John Carpenter knew not to pile on too many subplots or lean into the overtly supernatural…or give us wacky sound effects.

“Halloween 5” wound up underperforming at the box office and not initially impressing longtime fans, hurting the momentum gained by the prior installment. It wouldn’t be the last time the series had to take a hiatus, before coming back strong years later, sporting a new direction.

The finest of these later episodes, “Halloween: H20” (1998) and “Halloween” (2019) discarded the tonal and narrative miscues, though the follow-up sequels piled them on again. Clearly, it was the screenplays, and not a plump pumpkin, that needed some additional craving on Halloween.

The post ‘Halloween 5: Revenge of Michael Myers’ Shows Face of Franchise appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Will CGI wonders never cease?

Last year, Harrison Ford looked like his old self in “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny.” The de-aging effects weren’t perfect, but it still felt like Doc Brown’s DeLorean had taken us back to 1981.

Magical.

“Here,” based on the graphic novel by Richard McGuire, takes that visual approach to a new level. However, much like “Dial of Destiny” the film supporting it can’t measure up.

Director Robert Zemeckis reunites “Forrest Gump” alums Tom Hanks and Robin Wright for a cloying drama set in one expansive room.

Really. That’s both a spoiler alert and a warning.

“Here” literally spans millions of years. The story opens with dinosaurs rumbling over a green expanse of land. We fast forward through the centuries until we end up watching that very space taken up by 20th-century Americans.

Yes, Zemeckis and co. are needlessly flexing the production’s CGI budget here for no discernible effect.

We land on several overlapping stories, including the saga of Richard and Margaret (Hanks and Wright). We watch Richard, or Ricky as a boy, grows up before our eyes. The action plays out in the family’s living room, where a long, cozy sofa dominates the room.

Get used to that setup. It’s the only one you’ll see.

F/X gurus de-age both Hanks and Wright to convincingly show them as a young couple, a budding family and, years later, a duo struggling in their empty nest years. It helps that the static shot means few close-up shots.

The milestones come at us fast – life, death, marriage, job woes, health complications and more. It’s corny and lacking nuance, and it’s all shown in that very same living room.

Our leads are more than game, and their combined star power intermittently keeps our attention.

The single setting wears out its welcome early. The claustrophobia is palpable, and there’s still plenty of story left to be told.

Paul Bettany hams it up as Richard’s father, playing a character straight out of Central Casting.

Several other narratives vie for our attention, offering little in the way of humor or insight. An amorous couple dances across the screen while marveling at his furniture inventions. It’s breezy, no doubt, but why do we care again?

Another tale follows a black nuclear family just before the COVID-19 pandemic struck. Yes, we get to watch masked-up characters to remind us of that awful period.

This clan gets precious little screen time, save for a scene where the parents instruct their teen son how to respond if a cop pulls him over. Did Black Lives Matter get a screenwriting credit?

Another story, discarded swiftly, involves an airplane owner and his worried spouse. Did we mention appearances by Native Americans and Benjamin Franklin?

“Here” didn’t need its signature gimmick. The story could have followed the main couple while allowing them the space to visually flesh out their evolution. Instead, we feel as cramped as Margaret, who longs to move out of a home she spends far too long in.

Robin Wright joins TODAY to discuss her upcoming film “Here,” and shares details about working with former “Forrest Gump” co-star Tom Hanks and director Robert Zemeckis 30 years later.

“It’s like getting the band back together,” she says. pic.twitter.com/eOd8UTYgUu

— TODAY (@TODAYshow) October 28, 2024

Zemeckis, who co-wrote “Here” with Eric Roth, finds something of consequence in Richard and Margaret’s later years. They seem like the perfect couple, but something gnaws as Margaret that many women of her era can appreciate.

It’s too little, too late.

Zemeckis remains fascinated by Hollywood’s expanding tool kit. He delighted us with “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?” broke new ground with “The Polar Express” and left us scratching our heads while watching “Death Becomes Her.”

He’s so enamored with the de-aging possibilities that he embraced a graphic novel’s gimmick without realizing the film medium made no sense for it.

HiT or Miss: “Here” dazzles us with its de-aging effects, but the main storylines are dramatically inert.

The post ‘Here’ Collapses Under Weight of Its Gimmick appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

The border wall Kamala Harris says she’s itching to build gets a workout in “Line in the Sand.”

Journalist-turned-filmmaker James O’Keefe shows parts of the finished wall getting cut in the documentary’s opening moments. It’s just one of many shocking sights in a film made outside the Hollywood ecosystem.

Of course.

The riveting documentary’s blend of O’Keefe’s undercover work and shoe-leather reportage leaves a mark. The takeaway? The U.S./Mexico border is a crisis unfolding in real time. It’s even worse than we imagine.

Greed. Corruption. Government excess. Human trafficking. Drugs. Lost children. O’Keefe’s camera captures it all, with melodramatic asides from our on-screen host.

O’Keefe and a small crew go south of the border to investigate the existing border wall and the parties that feed off immigration chaos.

They interview plenty of migrants, finding some eager to share their stories and destinations. The dangers are immense for the wannabe Americans, from falling off moving trains to knowing children can disappear at any step in the journey. 

Nothing stops them. They keep on coming, hoping for a sliver of the American dream.

The right-leaning O’Keefe has plenty of empathy for the migrants. They’ve been told by Team Biden to come on in. Heck, we’ll pick up the tab, the future president vowed during the 2020 campaign.

You might risk it all, too, for a better life for your family.

O’Keefe is on hand every step of the way, narrating his journey and putting himself in harm’s way to glean information.

“I’m just doing my job,” he hears more than a few times. Buck passing abounds. Moral lines are crossed over and again. And people react poorly when O’Keefe’s camera crew shows up.

The latter proves revealing. It also gives “Sand” some storytelling friction. The subject matter does the rest.

This clip from James O’Keefe’s “Line in the Sand” (you can watch the full documentary on the Tucker Carlson Network) will blow your mind.

An undercover journalist walked into NYC’s Roosevelt Hotel (which, btw was a beautiful, luxury hotel not so long ago) and asks for… pic.twitter.com/22Rq2wOkF3

— Communism Survivor (@communismsurviv) October 22, 2024

Not all of the revelations land as squarely as the film may hope. Sometimes O’Keefe’s sensationalist brand makes an unwanted cameo. He’s still doing the digging that so many journalists won’t, and he uncovers a treasure trove of despair and deceit.

Hidden microphones do some of the heavy lifting. O’Keefe’s one-on-one exchanges gather serious intel.

A few revelations shouldn’t come as a surprise. Venezuelan criminals are flowing into the U.S., something Aurora, Colo. residents have learned the hard way.

As if ANY apartment complexes being commandeered by Tren de Aragua in Aurora is acceptable. There must be ZERO tolerance on this. Incredible mental gymnastics by Martha Raddatz on behalf of Coffman’s weak sauce statement. https://t.co/WIIlulzsqO

— Ryan Schuiling (@RyanSchuiling) October 13, 2024

Other migrants have better intentions, but they arrive knowing the exact towns where they’re headed. How does that happen? And we watch buses taking the illegals to various drop-off points, all on Uncle Sam’s dime.

Some border patrol agents express frustration with doing a job with one hand tied behind their backs. Others simply shrug and get back to “work.” 

BREAKING: Federal Government Whistleblower Exposes $347M Contract for Transporting Unaccompanied Minors – “What You Know, You Cannot Unknow,”

“My line in the sand moment was when I found out that GSA had awarded a contract to a company to transport unaccompanied minors,” shared… pic.twitter.com/FVvMJg7kmK

— James O’Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) October 22, 2024

The segments involving children hit the hardest. Trafficking abounds. Parents aren’t automatically reunited with their children, while “sponsors” often take children from the various sponsors. Last year’s sleeper hit  “Sound of Freedom” touched on the issue and got mauled by the press.

That tells you how radioactive the topic remains. Few, if any, media outlets will follow up on what O’Keefe uncovers. Anyone shocked?

Is some of the material in “Sand” distorted or otherwise tweaked to heighten the dramatic stakes? Possibly. Is all of it fake? Impossible.

We’re left with trouble questions. Why is this broken system only getting worse? Why is one party fine with the status quo and the other lacking the political will to bring real change to the border.

“It’s just all about the money. It’s not about people,” O’Keefe says in disbelief at one point in the film. Watch “Line in the Sand,” and you’ll nod in agreement. 

HiT or Miss: “Line in the Sand” is bleak, harrowing and necessary. And it took one of the original citizen journalists to make it possible.

The post ‘Line in the Sand’ Reveals Border Chaos on Steroids appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

James Ward Byrkit’s “Coherence” (2013) begins with Em (Emily Foxler) on her cell phone, which suddenly cracks for no apparent reason.

Em arrives at a dinner party with an eclectic group of friends, many of whom are fascinated by reports that a comet is about to pass by. As the evening continues and friendly, casual chat ensues, members of the dinner party come and go, sometimes not returning.

More unsettling is, that despite appearances, the ones who return don’t always seem to be the same ones who left. Someone protests, “We just have to make it through the night.”

Is that really the solution?

While made on a low budget, the filmmaking, acting and cinematography are polished and naturalistic. There are few films shot digitally in the early aughts, even ones with substantial budgets, that look this good.

None of the actors appears as if they’re acting. Everyone in the small ensemble evokes a group of old friends who know each other well.

“Coherence” has built a small cult following over the years, standing out for being a title film buffs carry around. That’s despite it never getting much more beyond a tiny theatrical window and frequently popping up on streaming sites.

This is a truly eerie story about discovering a potential doppelganger, a double that one can either work with or distrust entirely. Byrkit and his actors sustain tension and present a delicious mystery, resulting in one of those rare occasions in a film that gets better every time you see it.

Annnd… day 5, the entire cast and crew of COHERENCE… before it devolved into madness pic.twitter.com/1YTNW9zOUD

— James Ward Byrkit (@JamesWardByrkit) April 15, 2021

Because the actors aren’t giving mannered turns, and the twists come fast, it never seems like a filmed play or a self-indulgent actor’s stunt. In fact, doing some casual research and learning that Byrkit allowed his actors to improvise and find the story as they went along doesn’t seem possible or plausible.

This is such a tight, well-shaped work, that it never comes across as something found in the filming process.

Byrkit made this in five days with a cast of eight actors, and it is currently the only film he’s made (he wrote and directed the 2023 Apple TV+ series “Shatter Belt”). I mean this as a compliment – imagine giving Christopher Nolan complete creative control and very little money to make a sci-fi drama that takes place in one setting, and you’d have this movie.

The actors are so good, in fact, that we sense the change of mood, even at the most subtle level, that could indicate someone is not who they say they are. I guess you could say it’s kind of like “The Thing” (1982) crossed with “My Dinner with Andre” (1981), except that’s a crass summation (plus, “Coherence” has no visual effects like the former and isn’t a patience tester like the latter).

WARNING: Story spoilers featured in this video essay

“Coherence” offers playful verbal references to “Sliding Doors” (1997), Schrodinger’s Cat and it is quite similar to the classic 1961 episode of “The Twilight Zone” titled, “Will the Real Martian Please Stand up?”

With the conversation sometimes leaning toward multiple realities existing at once, Byrkit questions the notion of an additional self, the “other” that may or may not be trustworthy. Perhaps “Everything Everywhere All at Once” (2022) is the last word on this kind of sci-fi puzzle, though Byrkit got there first – if anything, they would make an ideal double feature.

Byrkit’s film, in addition to being a feature-length puzzle, is also quite funny, as the humor comes easily. Someone reasonably questions whether the events of the dinner party can be explained by a drug-induced hallucination. Someone else makes the announcement that suddenly has multiple meanings: “We can’t trust ourselves.”

My suggestion to figuring out the core mystery is to keep an eye on the glowsticks and who is holding them.

In addition to the aforementioned, Best Picture-winning “Everything Everywhere All At Once,” Byrkit’s film is also favorably comparable to Shane Caruth’s fantastic “Primer” (2004), Mike Cahill’s underestimated “Another Earth” (2011) and Denis Villeneuve’s early, phenomenal “Enemy” (2013).

“Coherence” is inventive with the ideas it presents (especially in the disturbing final stretch) and manages to be clever without seeming pretentious. We are invited to partake in the same game of observing and identifying the possible doubles, on screen and in our lives.

After all, how well do we really know our closest friends, and ourselves? Would you want to meet your double, let alone befriend it? Byrkit is also reflecting on how far good manners go. To put it another way, everyone is polite until we’re stuck on the elevator together.

In addition to being a standout example of low-fi sci-fi, “Coherence” is seriously creepy. It may inspire you to turn down the next dinner party you’re invited to and not regret it.

The post ‘Coherence’ Offers Master Class in Cinematic Brain Teasers appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Gary Nelson’s “The Black Hole” (1979) was a transitional film for the Walt Disney company.

Here is the first PG-rated Disney film, a lavish sci-fi adventure intended to compete with “Star Wars” (1977). It also showed the Magic Kingdom attempt to make movies that appeal to a more grown-up audience.

While history has rendered “The Black Hole” as a Mouse House cult film that maintains a divisive reputation, it is fascinating to see how closely this aimed to be Walt Disney’s “Star Wars,” decades before the studio would wind up making The Force one of their own.

In the distant future, the crew of the USS Palomino (which includes Robert Forster as the Captain and Ernest Borgnine, Anthony Perkins, Joseph Bottoms and Yvette Mimieux as his co-pilots) discovers a legendary vessel floating through space. Not only is the discovered spaceship gigantic (it includes a massive topiary and resembles a Victorian castle) but is commanded by the mysterious, brilliant, and long-lost Dr. Reinhardt (Maximillian Schell).

Reinhardt’s intentions seem vaguely sinister, as does his crew, which includes a large, blood-red, praying mantis-like robot named Maximillian. While Reinhardt initially seems dotty from being lost in space for so long, the Palomino crew learns that he has dark intentions that relate to a nearby black hole.

Schell is exceptional playing the creepy, possessed doctor. He’s another Frankenstein searching for the “ultimate knowledge.” Otherwise, the performances aren’t very good, with Perkins and Borgnine faring best.

The main characters are ill-defined and might as well be identified as “Astronaut #1” and “Astronaut #2.” A character remarks that he didn’t know he was playing second banana to a robot. It’s a funny, accurate line.

The mid-section drags and is too talky, testing our patience and taking too long to build suspense. John Barry’s grim waltz of a score is memorable, if a bit much.

Disney released its first PG-rated film, The Black Hole, in 1979. pic.twitter.com/PVjVKPP4vg

— Horror4Kids (@horror4kids) November 16, 2022

The ample bluescreen special effects don’t always convince, but the model and optical F/X are still excellent. A moment where a group runs across a platform and barely escapes a glowing, mountain-sized meteor as it rolls towards them remains jaw-dropping.

Once you get to the all-stops-out finale, there’s the hugely satisfying battle between V.I.N.C.E.N.T. and Maximillian; however, this rousing scene underlines the film’s core weakness. We’re always drawn in by the robots and spectacle, not the humans.

There’s no Luke Skywalker or Han Solo equivalent in this crew.

The wild finale includes otherworldly visions, not quite on the level of “2001: A Space Odyssey” (1968) but crazy enough – the bad guy ends up in a literal hell, merging with his most foul creation, in an unsettling, Dante-esque landscape.

Almost as unsettling but too brief is a drive by the pearly gates. It’s not Kubrick but, like “The Black Hole” overall, it’s still majestic and admirably bonkers.

References made early on to Cicero and David and Goliath are wasted; I wonder if the filmmakers considered who their audience is and how young the demographic was? Likewise, the decision to establish a character’s psychic connection to her robot, which is headier a concept than the movie knows what to do with.

FAST FACT: “The Black Hole” disappointed at the US box office, failing to capture that “Star Wars” magic. The film earned $35 million in 1979.

We see that V.I.N.C.E.N.T. and B.O.B. can fly but it takes the heroes far too long to take advantage of this. Sometimes human characters appear to be breathing in space (!) and sometime the pull of the black hole can be defeated and sometimes not.

Neil degrasse Tyson gave a pass to “Interstellar” (2014) for accuracy but likely wouldn’t be as gracious here.

“The Black Hole” was a wild contrast to the likes of “Unidentified Flying Oddball,” “The Cat from Another Planet” and the other live action goofs the studio was releasing that year. Aside from the “Night at Bald Mountain” segment of “Fantasia” (1940), few Disney films (even the scariest bits from “Pinocchio,” “Bambi” and “Darby O’Gill and the Little People”) were ever this dark and somber.

The murder of a character by Maximillian’s circular saw is a stunning bit of violence. While not entirely removed from the Disney output of its era, Nelson’s film gets across its desire to be taken seriously and stand out from the likes of “The Shaggy D.A.” or the usual Kurt Russell-starring farces of the time (not that there’s anything wrong with those movies).

RELATED DISNEY ‘SOMETHING WICKED’ DESERVES ‘DUNE’-LIKE REBOOT

Thematically and even visually, there are strong reminders of “Forbidden Planet” (1956), particularly with Robby the Robot a clear influence on V.I.N.C.E.N.T, B.O.B. and Maximillian as much as C-3PO and R2-D2. I like the clunky comic relief robots, V.I.N.C.E.N.T. and B.O.B., but Roddy McDowall (“Fright Night”) and Slim Pickens’ bantering is no match for Anthony Daniels and a series of bleep-bleeps.

Maximillian, on the other hand, is chilling and intimidating, particularly when we witness the kind of mayhem it can create.

Considering the animatronic puppetry of the onscreen robots and the sit and ride nature of the ship, much of the film plays like a promo for an eventual “The Black Hole” ride. Aside from a projected reference to the film on the People Mover at Walt Disney World, it seems we’ll have to wait for a proper theme park adaptation (though, come to think of it, Spaceship Earth at Epcot Center is pretty close).

Perhaps “Forbidden Planet” was the strongest narrative model but “The Black Hole,” in terms of its three-act structure, has a lot in common with “Event Horizon” (1997).

Now there’s a double feature!

If “Forbidden Planet” provided the strongest story and visual influence, then the marketing was right out of George Lucas’ playbook: the line of “The Black Hole” products, with action figures, bed sheets and books, took up as much Toys R’ Us shelf space as any of those Tie-Fighters and Darth Vader masks.

Alongside Disney, the other major studios making an obvious grab for the “Star Wars” audience with “Star Wars”-influenced films was UA/MGM, with the 007-in-space “Moonraker,” and Paramount Pictures’ “Star Trek- The Motion Picture,” neither of which are considered classics or on par with the adventures of Luke Skywalker, but both are glorious 1970’s relics.

Not to be outdone, 20th Century Fox, which was looking like the king of the hill after the unprecedented success of “Star Wars,” had their own outer space event film open in ’79…the one with Ellen Ripley, where John Hurt gets the mother of all tummy aches.

That one.

Peter Ellenshaw concept art for Disney’s THE BLACK HOLE, 1979. #scifi pic.twitter.com/trW5Zayb5T

— Humanoid History (@HumanoidHistory) July 18, 2018

Despite the flaws, “The Black Hole” remains grand, incredibly silly and loads of fun. A standing rumor that it will be remade resurfaces every few years, and the suggestion that Joseph Kosinski may helm it is appealing. Yet, seeing an all-out space opera from Walt Disney Pictures is no longer the novelty that it once was. Besides, the retro-cool visuals and startling darkness of “The Black Hole” remain its two greatest assets.

The post ‘The Black Hole’ – Disney Couldn’t Copy That ‘Star Wars’ Magic appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

The Filipino import “Outside” respects George A. Romero’s golden zombie rule.

Yes, the undead are flesh-famished monsters. Humans, alas, are the real villains.

The zombie drama follows a family trying to make their way following an outbreak. Domestic dysfunction takes center stage, giving life to a movie with a ghastly running time for a genre film.

We hang in there thanks to an impressive look at the PatriarchyTM under duress.

The story opens with home video footage of a couple on their wedding day. Francis and Iris (Sid Lucero, Beauty Gonzalez) are deeply in love, and their future couldn’t look brighter.

Fast forward 15 or so years, and they’ve welcomed two sons into the fold. Except nothing about their life now is “normal.” A zombie outbreak hit some short time ago, and the clan is seeking a safe harbor to wait out the storm.

That’s assuming the infection ever runs its course.

Right away we’re told their marriage has had its rough patches. You’d think that background would take a back seat to their current situation – living another day in Zombieland.

Not exactly.

They’re safe enough and disconnected from the rest of society. That leaves far too much time to explore what went wrong.

At times, the fixation feels silly. Some of the character reactions follow suit. Shouldn’t we be planning on another supply run? Can we save the therapy sessions for another day?

We eventually learn more about the personal drama and how it impacts their fight for survival. It’s here where “Outside” finds its purpose and stands apart from other zombie films.

Outside, the first ever zombie film produced in the Philippines, has revealed its first full trailer. https://t.co/Yrx7qhMd8y

— The Hollywood Reporter (@THR) October 4, 2024

If you’re looking for new genre wrinkles, the undead sputter phrases that appear to be things they said just before they turned. These zombies aren’t wise in any fashion, but repeating certain words grants them an eerie bond to their old lives.

It’s creepy but hardly revolutionary.

And, yes, they’re generally faster than your average Romero zombie for those keeping score. The runners from Brad Pitt’s “World War Z” would still beat them in a foot race.

“Outside” takes some curious, and detrimental detours but always circles back to the main drama. What would a family, already suffering behind the scenes, do when put in the ultimate pressure cooker?

Can we forgive and forget in the worst of times? What if a post-apocalyptic nightmare made your flaws much, much worse? Lucero’s nuanced turn sells the theme better than expected.

“Outside” has plenty to say about the male ego, from its commendable ability to protect loved ones to the bruises that never quite heal. A subplot involving Francis’ brother isn’t given enough screen time. Perhaps a flashback or two would have helped.

Then again, “Outside” checks in at two hours and 20 minutes. That’s more than enough time to get the narrative job done.

The family focus may scare some genre fans away, but director Carlo Ledesma stages a few tasty sequences to keep them on edge. One escape scene is short and brutal, with a frenzy that recalls “Train to Busan.”

Otherwise, it’s the personal demons running wild in “Outside.” And Romero taught us they can be the scariest monsters of all. 

HiT or Miss: “Outside” lacks the wall-to-wall tension of the best zombie films, but its hyperfocus on a family in despair will keep your attention.

The post ‘Outside’ Offers Dark Look at the Patriarchy appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Mark Cousins’ “My Name is Alfred Hitchcock” is a peculiar documentary/visual essay on films by The Master of Suspense.

Coming from an authoritative film analyst as Cousins, it sounds like a can’t miss idea, but there’s a catch: Instead of just dipping into Hitchcock’s films, Cousins has an actor provide an unceasing voiceover, pretending to be Hitchcock narrating a look at his work.

The problem isn’t the content but in the presentation.

The feature-length gimmick of an actor performing as Hitchcock is a feature-length irritation, not the novelty Cousins’ clearly intended. It reminds me of the time Rich Little provided vocals as David Niven for a Pink Panther cameo – you initially admire the hutzpah before groaning over what an obvious bit of mimicry it is.

In presenting a discussion on early films like “The Ring” (1927) and “The Wrong Man” (1956), Cousins encourages us to lean in and see the innovative camera moves that made Hitchcock’s style so distinct, even at the start of his career. Yet, hearing a faux-Hitchcock explain his cinematography choices to us is just … weird.

Since the narration begins with the fake Hitchcock announcing he’s been dead for 40 years, the faux Hitchcock babbles on in a cheeky fashion that is in no way a substitute for the real thing. As I listened to this impersonation playing over moments from some of the best movies I’ve ever seen, I often thought, Hitchcock would never have said this.

Alistair McGowan provides the voice in question – his impression is just that, a pantomime that never convinces. To be fair, it’s a tall order, as Hitchcock’s voice is one of the most recognizable in the world.

However, even Anthony Hopkins in “Hitchcock” (2012) did a better job of it. McGowan’s vocal performance is like listening to a Sean Connery impression. You can admire the attention to detail but never forget you’re hearing an act.

McGowan’s thick, phlegmy take is too mannered and self-conscious.

Cousins is obviously a highly accomplished and passionate film scholar, but this would be better with his or anyone else’s narration. Even when some interesting tidbit or more arcane bit of film history arises, I was irritated by having to listen to a second-rate impression of a director who deserved so much more.

If the idea is to provide “My Name is Alfred Hitchcock” as a learning tool for film students, then perhaps it will find an appreciative audience. Yet, everything from “Hitchcock/Truffaut” (2015) to any dozens of existing interviews with Mr. Hitchcock are better alternatives.

The amount of footage on hand is impressive, even staggering – a more conventional approach would have worked better.

Cousins has had trouble with narration in a film documentary before: I read his 2004 book, “The Story of Film,” which is wonderful, but I watched the 15-hour adaptation as a documentary, “The Story of Film: An Odyssey,” which is much less so, due to Cousins’ own narration.

In that case, he should have hired someone else to read his work. 

Some of the information provided is interesting, like the use of a ramp to make Claude Rains appear taller than Ingrid Bergman in “Notorious” (1946) and the mention of the original ending of “Psycho” (1960).

Breaking the documentary into chapters was wise but interspersing contemporary and mediocre footage that isn’t worthy of Hitchcock is yet another misguided idea. Opening on the reveal of a massive Hitchcock statue, for example, only allows for more cornball observations and gets things off to an odd start.

Hitchcock made some of the most magnificent films in the history of cinema. It’s always a pleasure to watch his work, whether in clips or, far preferable, the entire film.

Here, I was happy to watch a scene from “Vertigo” (1958) or “The Lodger” (1927) but found the Hitchcock impression the equivalent of sitting in a theater next to a nitwit who won’t shut up.

Two Stars

The post One Huge Problem Sinks ‘My Name is Alfred Hitchcock’ appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Richard Marquand’s “The Legacy” (1979) opens sweetly, with a couple in love (future couple Sam Elliott and Katherine Ross) and a gentle ballad, masking how truly insane the movie gets.

A gruff Elliott (post-“Frogs” and years away from being one of our most durable and consistently great film actors) and the lovely Ross (post-“The Graduate”) star as Pete and Maggie. They’re an L.A. couple who fly to England and are immediately involved in a car accident, which occurs during their cross-country motorcycle trip to a job.

While everyone in the fender-bender walks away unscathed, Pete and Maggie accept a ride from an eclectic group of socialites and are taken under the care of a wealthy family at the sprawling Ravenhurst mansion.

Naturally, Pete and Maggie accept the offer of a temporary stay.

The mansion has a spectacular swimming pool, giant sitting rooms and a weird secret down the hall. There’s someone in a hospital bed, behind plastic curtains, who sounds very old and is frequently visited by those who stay there.

Who is he and why is everyone doting on him?

Marquand’s film arrived after Tom Tryon’s 1973 novel “Harvest Home” and, coincidentally, Robin Hardy’s cult classic “The Wicker Man,” both of which came out the same year and have very similar story structures and plot twists.

“The Legacy” is pulpier than both, though it shares a thematic kinship with them (yes, I’m doing my best not to spoil the plot), as well as “Rosemary’s Baby” (1968) and Ross’ own “The Stepford Wives” (1975). “The Legacy” arrived at a time of revision for American Gothic in pop culture, with the long running “Dark Shadows” vampire soap opera (1966-1971) and “Burnt Offerings” (1976) being prime examples.

I guess you could say, when compared to the aforementioned works, Marquand’s film is the runt of the litter, but it’s still an enjoyable horror movie sleeper, as much a page turner on film as John Coyne’s ubiquitous bestselling novel adaptation (which actually stuck around in pop culture longer than the film version).

For years during my childhood, the eerie book jacket of “The Legacy” (which, like the movie poster, featured a white cat head sprouting a monster hand) was visible on every airport bookstand.

Marquand’s film has stylishly designed sets even before Pete and Maggie leave for Europe. Note how much green radiates from their apartment. Once the setting changes, we get that awesome swimming pool and the eerie, transparent plastic shields that keep the film’s best secret literally under wraps.

Made before they were married in 1984, Elliot and Ross have great chemistry here; it helps that, in spite of how wild and ridiculous the story gets, we care about this couple.

A young Sam Elliott and Katharine Ross on the set of The Legacy (1978) – the film where they met and fell in love.

They’re still together 46yrs on. pic.twitter.com/Tc6EKhW0Ha

— Michael Warburton (@TheMonologist) August 2, 2024

The violence and shocks come when you least expect it, like a post-coital shower that weaponizes the hot water (yes, it gets that silly). Taking a shower, going for a swim, looking in a mirror – no one is ever really safe in this movie.

I love how “The Legacy” initially shows so much restraint and then startles us by going bonkers when we least expect it.

It’s often an eerie film, with even the cats in the mansion being photographed in the creepiest manner possible. While “The Legacy” gets goofier as it goes along, it’s never dull and has some standout sequences. Like a classic Hammer horror film, the blood resembles a thick coat of paint and is generously applied.

Katharine Ross and Sam Elliott met on the set of The Legacy in 1978, married in 1984, they’ve been together ever since. #HollywoodCouples pic.twitter.com/9ttJ5QZvQp

— Carolyn S (@SamesVegasss) September 9, 2021

A second act escape sequence goes on too long and has an inevitable story shift, but the finale is as wild as the set-up. “The Legacy” gets especially funny (intentionally, I think) when Elliot is in manic, lets-get-out-of-here mode. Meanwhile, Ross sticks to her mellow, don’t-be-silly curiosity about everything happening to them.

Of the supporting cast, the other houseguests include a lively chap played by Roger Daltrey (yes, that Roger Daltrey!) and Charles Gray, who is immortalized in cinema from his turn as The Criminologist/Narrator of “The Rocky Horror Picture Show” (1975).

If you’ve seen “Midsommar” (2019) or “The Wicker Man” (either version), you’ll be a step ahead of the story (or at least more so than the naïve main characters), but the film, to its credit, still manages some real surprises.

Marquand’s film has the look of a classy Dan Curtis thriller (either “Dark Shadows” or “Burnt Offerings”) and the impish heart of a “Friday the 13th” vehicle. I have a soft spot for any film where the hero tries to fight their way out of a jam using a crossbow (!).

You can see why Elliot and Ross make such a good couple and, as of this writing, are still married. Funny that it took this movie to bring them together.

As for Marquand, “The Legacy” was his directorial debut and wasn’t fully appreciated as anything more than a schlocky drive-in attraction during its initial run, but don’t feel bad for Marquand. His movie holds up as a find for horror fans and he found great success later on, directing a little film called “Return of the Jedi” (1983).

The post ‘The Legacy’ – Bonkers ’70s Shocker Led to Sweet Hollywood Story appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

William Malone’s “House on Haunted Hill” (1999) was the start of the Dark House Entertainment production company, in which Robert Zemeckis and Joel Silver produced genre films to open around October.

The promise of Zemeckis/Silver overseeing horror films (several of which, like this one, were remakes) suggested that they weren’t finished making “Tales from the Crypt” spinoff movies.

Thankfully, “House on Haunted Hill,” which is depraved, slick and a lot of fun, is closer to their “Demon Knight” (1995) than “Bordello of Blood” (1996). It’s also the best of the lot from Dark House Entertainment, as the experiment peaked early.

Malone’s film gets off to a strong start – a pre-credits sequence showing the sick Dr. Vannacutt (the reliably great Jeffrey Combs) abusing his patients is gnarly. The opening credits, with Don Davis’ great organ-fused score, is wonderful.

Once we get to the character introductions, it shows its age.

A group of strangers, played by Taye Diggs, Bridgette Wilson, Ali Larter and Peter Gallagher, agree to meet in a haunted mansion where, if they survive the night, they win a million-dollar prize. Once they all arrive, they learn they weren’t actually invited and that there’s something off about the arrangement.

The hosts, Steven Price and his wife, Evelyn, played by Geoffrey Rush and Famke Jannsen, remain in glib showmanship mode until things quickly go wrong. Or, as they are sternly warned, “the house is alive, you’re all gonna die.”

This is a very 1990s movie, with garish colors and lots of “attitude” in the filming, as well as the acting. While Malone tends to overdo it with the in-your-face presentation, his movie has a showmanship and carnival fun ride feel that matches Rush’s character.

The performances all have the same lip-curling, sinister eyebrow raise one would expect from actors in a “Tales from the Crypt” episode. The acting isn’t subtle, as Rush appears to be having far too much fun and “Saturday Night Live” alumni Chris Kattan, cast as the sole voice of reason, gets away with going over the top by being the only reliable character.

Wilson has the scariest scene, which appears “Blair Witch”-inspired, where her character’s camcorder can’t shield her from a presence that surrounds her. There’s also a great bit where Rush is trapped in a spinning apparatus that mimics the old timey science of zoetrope films and unveils a lurking menace.

The sequence also utilizes a famously axed special effect from “Ghost Story” (1981) which was cut from that movie and finally put to use here (be on the lookout for the ghost with no eyes and a big mouth).

The gore is often startling, as are the use of jittery, sped-up effects out of “Jacobs Ladder” (1990) to create an otherworldly movement for the ghosts. Nothing here is subtle but, as late-night fodder to have on while having a Halloween party, it’s a fun diversion.

The most critical thing I can state about it is how William Castle’s original “House on Haunted Hill” (1959), starring the wonderful Vincent Price, is creakier but actually better.

House on Haunted Hill, Vincent Price, 1959 pic.twitter.com/JOpWSRyo9L

— Classic Horror Films (@HorrorHammer1) October 17, 2024

Later Dark House films included the tacky “13 Ghosts” (2001), “Ghost Ship” (2002), “Gothika” (2003), “House of Wax” (2005), “Orphan” (2009), and, the lone bright spot, “Splice” (2010). Otherwise, their best production is still this one.

I was fortunate to see “House on Haunted Hill” when it opened Halloween weekend of 1999. The theater was packed, the cheering and screams were frequent, and it left me feeling enthralled.

It made me recall my father telling me of his similar experiences of seeing “House of Wax” (1953) and “Invaders from Mars” (also 1953) in the theater during his childhood. Alas, when I revisited “House on Haunted Hill” on DVD years later, I found it suffered from what I call the Snakes on a Plane Effect: a B-movie that was a blast in the theater, with an audible crowd, that plays differently when you’re wide awake, watching a fun but dopey B-movie by yourself.

Nevertheless, taken as a Halloween movie that misses classic status but is startling and fun enough, “House on Haunted Hill” has enough showmanship to be worth seeing, preferably with a rowdy group of horror movie buffs and buckets of candy corn.

The post ‘House on Haunted Hill’ Delivers B-Movie Treats appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Michael Radford’s “Nineteen-Eighty-Four” (1984) had the distinction of arriving on the year in which George Orwell’s 1949 novel was set. That’s far from the only remarkable thing about it.

The story is as most will remember it from high school English class (why did so many of us read it then and not in college?): Winston Smith (John Hurt) is living a miserable, conformist existence in a world under complete control by the powerful Big Brother.

Political rallies where citizens are forced to sit and watch hateful propaganda, while audibly expressing their hatred, are commonplace. So is living in a ratty apartment where every room has a camera watching your every move, as well as a TV set where the face on the other side of the screen can see your every move.

Winston appears to be defeated and unable to rebel, as it seems the will to do anything but go through the motions has left him. Then, he falls in love, and the real trouble begins.

Hurt’s performance is consistent with the film itself – downcast, still and glum. Aside from general sympathy, it’s hard to feel anything for Winston. The film overall is in line with Orwell’s vision, sometimes to a precise degree, but I detected more life in the character Orwell wrote on the written page than in Hurt’s unceasingly dour performance.

I’m not saying his acting isn’t tremendous, only that I was hoping to like Winston Smith a lot more.

Far better is Susanna Hamilton as the doomed Julia and a magnificent performance by Richard Burton, in his final film role. The latter is so unforgettable here, it baffles me that he was wasn’t awarded a post-humous Oscar for his work.

Worthy of note is Bob Flag’s steely-eyed mug in the role of Big Brother. His recurring image gets more discomforting over the course of the movie.

The sets and approach capture the tone of the source material, as does a heartbreaking performance by Gregor Fisher, playing Winston’s friend and fellow captive. Fisher has one of the most impactful moments, conveying how hopeless it is to try to resist Big Brother, though some are brave enough to try.

“Nineteen-Eighty-Four” never fully taps into the absurdity of the material, such as how Winston can do anything in his apartment, as long as the Big Brother screen isn’t facing him. It isn’t fair to keep comparing the film with the book, as Radford not only goes out of his way to replicate the novel’s vividly chilling details but is able to utilize an R-rating, unlike prior adaptations.

Yet, as accomplished as this “Nineteen-Eighty-Four” is (and those who were blown away by Orwell’s novel should definitely see it), I can’t help but look to a movie that arrived a year later that I like so much better.

For all the official and unofficial adaptations of Orwell’s novel, no one has done Orwell better than Terry Gilliam’s “Brazil” (1985). Despite the moments of slapstick comedy and whimsical fantasy, Gilliam’s film doesn’t soften Orwell’s overall intent (in fact, his ending is much tougher than Radford’s).

There’s so much in Orwell’s story, as well as in the visual presentation in Radford’s film, that has carried over elsewhere, ranging from “The Handmaid’s Tale” (1990), “V For Vendetta” (2005), “Equilibrium” (2002 and “Fahrenheit 451” (1966). It’s gotten to the point that it almost feels like a “shared universe,” or a specific contrast to the towering metropolitan futurism of “Metropolis” (1927), “Blade Runner” (1982) and “The Matrix” (1999).

While not a sizable hit when released in the year of tis title, “Nineteen- Eighty-Four” did manage to garner some controversy over the use of Eurythmics music on the soundtrack and how some felt it wasn’t fitting to the integrity of Orwell’s vision. It was a dumb controversy, comparable to the out in the open and stupid Bob Seagar vs. Bruce Springsteen songs battle that partly distracted from Peter Bogdanovich’s otherwise terrific “Mask” (1985).

For the record, I love the Eurythmics songs and music, as well as Radford’s recurring visual of idyllic freedom just behind a closed door down a long hallway.

Even purists and Orwell devotees can’t deny that the third act, with its lengthy torture scenes, is a lot to ask of the audience, as well as redundant (Hurt always seems to be, well, hurt, even when Winston has moments of fleeting happiness).

The final line of Orwell’s novel is devastating, but the movie fumbles it.

Its arguable that Ridley Scott’s Orwell-inspired, still-remarkable Apple Superbowl ad, which aired in 1984, is as stunning as any feature-length film based on Orwell’s novel. My recommendation: watch Scott’s ad before watching Radford’s film, as it feels like a proper prelude.

While falling short of its earnest effort to be definitive, Radford’s adaptation is always compelling, deserves a proper retrospective on its 40th anniversary and doesn’t back away from the harsh prophecies it carries.

The post The One Movie That Out-Orwelled ‘1984’ appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Horror movies follow a tried and true rule: less is almost always more.

Give genre directors 90 minutes and they’ll get the job done. “Smile 2” shatters that rule into a million little pieces.

What’s worse? The film’s ending offers exactly what we expect when almost any other resolution would have made the film matter.

The action picks up where “Smile” ended. Young, troubled Joel (Kyle Gallner) is trying to remove the Smile curse bestowed upon him in the previous film. What follows is taut and terrific, extending the story and proving writer/director Parker Finn knows how to craft a memorable moment.

Buckle in.

The action shifts to pop superstar Skye (Naomi Scott, sensational), resuming her career following a publicized rehab detour. Her life is an open book, but she’s determined to write the next chapter sans ghost writer.

A trip to her former dealer (Lukas Gage) upends those plans. She’s the next unlucky winner in the Smile Sweepstakes, and she endures a series of nightmarish visions while trying to resurrect her career.

That’s more or less the story, but Finn stages some of those encounters for maximum shock value. Yes, it’s a Jump Scare Olympics, but even a Russian judge would give him a 9.9 score.

“Smile 2” is beautifully crafted, with Scott’s determined work leading the way. She’s wholly believable as a Swiftian star, complete with entourage and massive expectations. Horror movies rarely earn awards season attention, but her work could be an exception.

 

 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by Smile Movie (@smilemovie)

Finn and co. understand what makes us uneasy, and the Smile gimmick hasn’t lost its edge. The film’s template still needs tinkering.

Poor Skye seems resourceful, but she’s no match for the demon stalking her every move. Horror movies thrive when the protagonist has a measure of agency, a chance to stave off the scares. Or, at the very least, score an emotional victory.

That’s where “Smile 2” slides into a narrative rut. 

We’re left with a nihilistic sequel that tries to build on the mythology established in the first chapter. Yes, the “Smile” formula is now as airtight as an ’80s slasher film, adding a dash of body horror to the proceedings.

To what end?

Finn has talent to spare, but his sequel goes through the motions once the blueprint becomes clear. And that 127-minute runtime means we’re forced to wait and wait for Skye’s fate to be determined.

She’s a fine Final Girl, but “Smile 2” doesn’t respect her hardscrabble nature.

“Smile 2” has something to say about the perils of fame in the 21st century. Is it worth it, for starters? That’s hardly a revelation, but the screenplay teases themes that elevate the material. You can’t sustain a film with two-plus hours of jump scares alone.

(It might be fun to try, though)

Scott gives Skye a bruised sense of self, but she’s someone eager to reclaim what’s rightfully hers. The celebrity machine has other ideas, and that push-and-pull tension can be engrossing.

For a while.

A photo meet-and-greet sequence is chilling without any genre movie scares. 

“Smile 2” proves Finn is a force in the horror genre. He may be obligated to keep the “Smile” franchise humming, but here’s betting he’ll spin better stories once we’ve had our fill of ear-to-ear grins.

HiT or Miss: “Smile 2” delivers first-rate chills but quickly falls into a predictable routine.

The post ‘Smile 2’ – Slick, Scary and Soulless appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

We’ve seen countless killer shark movies, from “Deep Blue Sea” to “Santa Jaws.”

The sillier, the better. After all, what filmmaker can compete with 1975’s “Jaws,” the definitive shark attack thriller? 

That’s why it’s time kangaroos got a little genre love.

Too bad “Rippy,” an Aussie shocker about a rogue ‘roo, packs neither scares nor laughs. Either would have been welcome given the critter in question.

Instead, the film focuses on a hero’s emotional trauma and relies far too much on its CGI wizardry. Sadly, there’s little magic to be found.

Sheriff Maddy (Tess Haubrich) wants to be a local hero like her late, great father. She gets the chance when several townspeople are found dead, their bodies sliced to ribbons.

This isn’t your garden-variety serial killer. No dingo could do damage like this. There’s something out there, a creature that defies the laws of physics.

It’s … Rippy, a CGI beastie who can hop as fast as a speeding car.

The FX here are far from first-rate, a forgivable sin given the film’s indie roots. Why shove so many lingering closeups our way? Less is more when your FX budget is wanting. Spielberg learned that trick when Bruce the mechanical shark wouldn’t behave.

Maddy is on the case, and she gets help from her uncle Schmitty (genre fave Michael Biehn, bringing some life to the proceedings).

It’s boilerplate genre fare but director Ryan Coonan treats each “kill” with considerable respect. These aren’t faceless souls but members of a tight-knit community. We feel the survivors’ pain, a nice touch in an often remorseless genre.

Imagine if the “Terrified” franchise behaved in a similar fashion. It still can’t give “Rippy” the pulse it demands.

The marketing suggests the Aussie thriller is a comedy-horror hybrid, but mirth is in short supply. Even Coonan suggests we’re supposed to laugh and clutch our armrests.

That’s a self-inflicted advertising wound for a genre with tight resources.

The stakes couldn’t be higher throughout “Rippy,” but the main characters keep returning to their emotional wounds. Maddy mourns for her father, but the truth may be trickier than she understands. Uncle Schmitty’s monologue about war-time experiences is heartfelt and belongs in another movie.

The sparks between Uncle Schmitty and Aunt Donna (Angie Milliken) add some texture, but genre flicks live and breathe by a simpler scale. Are we on the edge of our seats or not?

You can place a Faberge egg on said edge and never knock it off.

The title creature in “Rippy” remains relentless, but Coonan can’t conjure enough scares to make his many appearances count.

“Rippy,” known as “The Red” in Australia, deserves credit for treating a grindhouse-style subject with care. You still have to bring the genre goods.

HiT or Miss: “Rippy” is mature, well-intentioned and makes us care about the lives lost in the genre melee. It’s also a well-crafted slog.

The post ‘Rippy’ Gives Killer Kangaroos a Bad Name appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

“Line in the Sand” and ‘Treason” examine stark moral questions in the handling of the U.S./Mexico border.

The documentaries reveal the agents overseeing the border and the lives affected by illegal immigration.

“Line in the Sand’s” morality concerns the hearts and minds of Customs and Border Patrol (CPB) agents. Their work, not surprisingly, consists of identifying, detaining, recording, housing and releasing human beings in accordance with orders from higher-ups.

What might be surprising are the ethical conundrums that their job puts on them and their claims of being hamstrung by agency policy.

What jumps off the screen is how torn officers are about orders from federal administrators. The conflict of conscience has reached the point that agents agree to be interviewed on camera despite serious career, legal and personal risks that entails.

That is the titular “line in the sand,” in addition to the physical border along the far southwest lands.

It’s not initially clear why CPB requires employees to keep tight-lipped secrecy, but the answers become salient as the documentary proceeds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by James O’Keefe (@jamesokeefeiii)

Directed by James O’Keefe and released on the Tucker Carlson Network (TCN), “Line in the Sand” interviews outspoken agents like Aaron Vecky. He says their professional consequences must come second to stopping human trafficking.

Footage of detainee facilities and releases blends with interviews raising further questions. How long have agents been pressured to look the other way while traffickers appear to exploit the CPB and its behavior from the head down?

The interviews explain why human trafficking shouldn’t be severed from border coverage.

If O’Keefe’s undercover reporting gathered the information seen in “Sand,” that method isn’t featured prominently on screen. This makes the film more powerful.

A moral line must be stood against boldly, and not quietly and furtively crossed.

Viewers come away wondering why inhumane conditions for detaining minors and releasing them to unknown and unverified people in the U.S. continue. Where does illicit trafficking end and the US administration begin?

“Treason” covers similar material, zeroing in on illegal immigration’s daily effects on citizens, especially the criminal elements slipping across the border.

Directed by blogger, author and 24-year Customs journeyman JJ Carrell, the documentary asks if the negative impact on Americans hasn’t compelled officials to change policies by now, then what possibility exists other than that the officials’ intents are antithetical to the republic?

The Chicago scenes are among the powerful in “Treason.” Locals are losing neighborhoods like the O Block in Englewood after receiving thousands of people from the border.

Chicago’s poor neighborhoods routinely grab national headlines, but they’re home to Americans who study, raise families, visit relatives and friends and work to improve their lives.

Foreigners arrive in huge numbers and receive free housing and other resources, The stories of crushed opportunities for Americans are heart-rending.

“Treason” interviews faith leaders like Pastor Brooks and community members who make these areas home. Their policy viewpoints have been untold.

Until now.

Clayton Morris invited us into his studio to discuss our new documentary, “WHAT IS TREASON? #INVADED” In 14 days we are going to show you what TREASON looks like. Help us save America and pre-order a copy now. https://t.co/hukW33xbvK @ClaytonMorris @JJCarrell14 pic.twitter.com/XZDVjGe5Ap

— RyanMatta (@RyanMattaMedia) October 10, 2024

Carrell challenges any American to “find one thing” that isn’t true in the documentary during an interview for HiT. He asks us to follow the evidence of surging narcotics addictions, overdoses and devastation.

The film’s message is clear: It’s hard to reach any other conclusion than a “strategic intent of treason.”

“We turn our cameras north from the border. Ninety-four executive orders on Day One of this administration were issued on the border. We’ve had at least a 400 percent increase in crossings, 20,000 or more per day for four years, including mercenary combatants. 50 million are illegally in our country.

“You’ll say ‘Oh my God.’ No nation has survived this. Name one.’ The awakening of our country is so energized, I don’t even need to hire advertising [for the documentary],” Carrell said.

“Line in the Sand”

“Treason” (available for pre-order, Oct. 19 debut)

The post Two Documentaries: Two Searing Takes on Open Border USA appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Wes Craven’s “Shocker” (1989) opens with a strong case of déjà vu.

We see the close-up of crud-smudged hands putting something together in a workshop, while a bloody knife sits unattended to the side. It looks so much like the opener of Craven’s “A Nightmare on Elm St” (1984) that only the slick cinematography and busy heavy metal soundtrack indicate we’re watching a different movie.

From the opening moments, Craven’s comic horror film declares its intentions to meet and possibly surpass the Freddy Krueger standard, as well as set itself up as a polished studio film and a possible mainstream hit.

Alas, “Shocker” did not recreate the horror mega icon of Fred Krueger and wasn’t a box office success, either. It’s a curious, often risible, but ambitious, playful work that emerged as a creative and box office failure in 1989.

Now, it’s something of a curiosity item. To be extremely generous, it might emerge as a camp classic.

Peter Berg stars as Jonathan Parker, a high school quarterback who dreams of a murderer at large killing his mother and siblings. When he discovers that his dream has come true, Parker and his police office father (Michael Murphy) close in on the local serial killer, named Horace Pinker (Mitch Pileggi, years before “The X-Files”).

Once Horace is arrested and sent to the electric chair, things only get worse, as a rushed deal with the devil allows Pinker to exist as a supernatural being who can enter the homes of his victims through their TV sets.

Tone is everything for a film like this and, as in Craven’s subsequent “Vampire in Brooklyn” (1995), the problem is that “Shocker” never decides if it’s supposed to be a comedy or a horror film. Instead of either merging genres or picking one over the other, it arches uncomfortably between broad, jokey self-parody and vicious, “Last House on the Left”-level depravity and violence.

At least Craven’s films are always entertaining, but the insanely wavering tone and creative indecision also put it alongside Craven’s “Deadly Friend” (1986) and “My Soul to Take” (2011). It doesn’t work but at least you’ll never be bored.

Until he’s reborn as a wisecracking, Krueger-esque entity who can visit your nightmares and travel through TV waves, Pinker is intimidating and unsettling. Pileggi makes him vile and loathsome.

Berg works hard to maintain the pathos of his character intact and mostly loses that battle, while Cami Cooper is striking as his ill-fated girlfriend. Years ago, while interviewing Heather Langenkamp, she admitted to me a longstanding rumor – yes, that is her under a sheet on a gurney, playing a corpse in one scene!

Craven’s screenplay takes wild swings but rarely makes sense. For example, it’s striking to see Pinker making a Faustian pact in a prison cell to a TV spirit (or something), until you stop and wonder how a convicted killer on death row was able to procure jumper cables and lit candles right before his execution!

Craven also goes with the same goofy body jump possession that marked “Fallen” (1998), a rare failure for Denzel Washington.

Craven is exploring the television obsession of the zeitgeist that would eventually become our fixation on the Internet. Here, TV sets are always on, and they provide either a literal portal for Pinker or a means of pacifying everyone else.

In terms of portraying dreams as a doorway to entering the domain of a killer, any of the “Elm St.” sequels has this beat. What makes “Shocker” fascinating is to see what “A Nightmare on Elm St.” could have been if it were made as a mainstream studio film.

The passion and psychological richness of the ’84 film is absent. While never dull, “Shocker” has lots of scenes that don’t work and come across as downright laughable.

After a solid hour of coasting from one truly ridiculous set piece to another (the highlight being Pinker’s possession of a small girl, who becomes a foul-mouthed killer who kicks Berg in the groin), Craven comes across an inspired sequence.

Late into “Shocker,” when the film is past the point of no return and seems determined to ensnare so-bad-its-good status, we get Berg chasing Pileggi through various TV shows. It’s a funny, wild bit with everyone from Ward Cleaver to John Tesh and (no joke) Dr. Timothy Leary suddenly witness Berg’s endless chase n’ brawl with Pileggi.

“Shocker” is both too much and too little, a collection of scenes to captivate in the moment but make no sense upon reflection. By the time Pinker demonically possesses a Lazy-Boy chair (I’m not kidding), it’s clear The Master of Horror took too many creative wrong turns here. N

evertheless, for a bad movie, “Shocker” does have a an awful lot of showmanship.

The post How Horror-Comedy ‘Shocker’ Drained Our Batteries appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.