Movies

6WH: Week 2 – Larry Cohen

Continuing with the theme of “Obscure Horror Auteurs”, this week we tackle Larry Cohen. As B-Movie filmmakers go, he’s pretty successful and some of his films have become well known. He made his name with some blaxploitation flicks like Black Caesar, but pretty quickly transitioned over to more traditional genre fare like the films we’re looking at today. There are a bunch of other Cohen movies worth watching that I won’t cover, like The Stuff or Q: The Winged Serpent. In general, Cohen likes to mix his sleazy premises with social commentary and while it’s not often subtle, his pet concerns do give his films a veneer of relevance that, um, keep them relevant today. Let’s get started:

  • Pet Sematary (trailer)
  • The Simpsons: Treehouse of Horror V: Time and Punishment
  • It’s Alive III: Island of the Alive (trailer)
  • It’s Alive – I don’t have kids, but I’m beginning to suspect that pop culture has given me a false expectation as to how births normally go. I mean, yeah, I assume 25% of births occur in cabs on the way to the hospital, another 25% happen at the workplace, and the remaining 50% are just regular frantic rushes to the hospital during rush hour, but there’s got to be more variety than that, right? On the other hand, It’s Alive goes in the complete opposite direction. I’ve never seen a more leisurely trip than the one portrayed at the beginning of this movie. We open on the mother waking her husband to let him know it’s time. They smile and share a tender moment before he yawns and walks into the closet to pick out his ensemble. What does one wear in the waiting room? I mean, all the stuff they do are sorta natural consequences of a trip to the hospital, but the lack of urgency here is notable. Anywho, once at the hospital, the father hangs out in the waiting room with a bunch of other guys as they BS on environmental catastrophes and pesticides and poison-resistant cockroaches and whatnot (no social commentary here, move it along) while the mother begins to experience… difficulties. We don’t see the actual birth, but we do see the aftermath wherein it appears our intrepid heroes’ baby has murdered all the doctors and nurses in the room and escaped the confines of the hospital. From here, we settle into a bout of angsty hand-wringing as the cops begin their manhunt (er, babyhunt). It appears the father has taken a hard stance on his son, namely that he’s an abomination that should be destroyed at the first opportunity. Things pick up again in the third act, where our father has a sudden, Grinch-like transformation into a good father (but not before, you know, shooting his son). It’s not exactly great storytelling, but it’s got just enough trashy elements to be fun. If memory serves, the sequels cash in a little more on the sleaze factor (I have a distinct memory from the third movie which, come to think of it, starts with a birth in a cab, and what I remember is someone saying something like “Oh no, it’s one of them!” while pulling out a gun and blasting away.) A modest effort, but maybe worth checking out for students of the genre. **
  • M. Night Shyamalan’s The Twist (Robot Chicken)
  • The Fourth Kind (trailer)
  • The Exorcist (amazing unreleased trailer)
  • God Told Me To – If you thought killer mutant babies were weird, you ain’t seen nothing yet. This movie starts with a sniper gunning down random pedestrians in NYC (super pleasant way to start a movie, though in all seriousness, some notion of relevance here). When asked why, the gunman simply states “God told me to…” After a spate of other, similar incidents where the perpetrator simply states that God told them to do it, our intrepid detective hero begins to put some pieces together. And then it gets really weird. Not completely batshit, but I also don’t really want to ruin it. What initially seems like it could be an exploration of faith and religion goes in a completely different direction, turning towards science fiction and conspiracy thriller territory.

    Tony Lo Bianco

    Some plot machinations are tough to swallow, but look at what we’re watching here. Good central performance from Tony Lo Bianco (most famous for The French Connection), and some nice visual elements too. It’s got all the makings of a cult classic and I can see why it has a following even to this day. Great B movie flare, and the new Blu-Ray transfer is actually a dramatic improvement over the previous DVD that I saw many moons ago. Hey, look, I mentioned this in the 6WH from 2008, though I was not quite as impressed then as I was this time around. Upgrade to: ***

  • The Stuff (trailer)
  • Night of the Creeps (trailer)
  • White Zombies (Key and Peele)
  • Maniac Cop – It turns out that I’ve never actually seen this one before. Maybe parts of it, but what I remember most is stuff from Maniac Cop II or III (which, to be fair, I probably never saw from start to finish either). What we have here is the Face versus the Chin. Yes, this movie stars a veritable plethora of B-movie icons, including Robert Z’Dar (aka The Face), Bruce Campbell (aka The Chin), horror icon Tom Atkins, even folks like Richard Roundtree and Sheree North pitching in.

    The Chin

    This was only written by Larry Cohen, and it sorta represents his take on the vaunted slasher film. Most of the elements are there, except that our Maniac Cop sometimes uses a gun. Directed by William Lustig, who, come to think of it also directed a quasi-slasher movie called Maniac where the killer also uses a gun. Must be his thing. Anyway, Maniac Cop is actually a guy named Matt Cordell, an old school cop framed by corrupt police chief and mayor and sent to prison, where his admiring public gets the chance for revenge (in the shower, naturally). Declared legally dead, his body nevertheless disappeared or something (don’t kid yourself, it’s not that important) and now he’s out to avenge his wrongful prosecution. And also, apparently, anyone who runs across his path, including innocent pedestrians and other cops. Speaking of which, Maniac Cop somehow manages to almost inadvertently frame another cop for his spree. This guy is played by Bruce Campbell, who goes about trying to clear his name and uncover Cordell’s tragic origins. Robert Z’Dar is absolutely perfect in this movie, mostly because of his physicality. Lustig keeps his face pretty well hidden in shadows for most of the movie, but you know, with a face like that, all you need to see is the silhouette in order to identify him (plus, he’s a big dude to start with).

    The Face

    Atkins and Campbell are fine, but don’t really have anything to do that is as good as the roles that made them famous (except, I guess, for that scene where Atkins smiles. That’s awesome.) You know what else also works for me? The theme is actually really nice. I mean, it’s not going to win awards or anything, but it perfectly captures the enduring glory that is Maniac Cop. I’m only being slightly facetious, I swears! It’s all in good fun, and strikes a particularly relevant chord given all the police abuse showing up in the news these days. I had a lot of fun with this, even if it isn’t doing anything particularly noteworthy. **1/2

  • Maniac Cop III: Badge of Silence (trailer)
  • Honest Zombie (Robot Chicken)
  • Hell No (fake trailer)
  • Maniac Cop 2 – Bonus! Since a lot of what I remember about Maniac Cop comes from the sequels, I figured I should check at least one of them out, and this did not disappoint. Generally more of the same, only a little sleazier. Campbell, whose character has just officially been exonerated from the tragedy of the first film, is dispatched fairly quickly. His female partner in non-chrime has a better go of it, including a wonderful setup where she takes on Maniac Cop with a fucking chainsaw.

    The Chainsaw

    Alas, it doesn’t work out quite as awesome as that sounds, and she is thus dispatched pretty quickly. In their stead, we’ve got two new characters; one played by Robert Davi, who I must admit, does a much better job as a brooding badass than Campbell or Atkins did in the first movie, and the other played by Claudia Christian playing a psychologist (you nerds probably remember her from Babylon 5). And this time around, Maniac Cop makes a friend! A serial killer who stalks strippers and talks way too much gives Cordell a place to stay for a while, and for some reason Maniac Cop breaks him out of prison when he finally gets caught. Or something. The plot makes no real sense, and once Davi and Christian suss out the commissioner’s corruption and force him to confess in public, Cordell can rest in peace. Or something. This is getting ridiculous and the whole thing makes no sense, but like the first movie, it’s a whole lot of trashy fun. **

Another common theme that emerges out of all these movies? Cohen loves a good media leak. Whether it’s initiated by our heroes (both Maniac Cop movies and God Told Me To) or whether our hero is simply suffering from the consequences of a leak (It’s Alive), it’s always there. And the consequences of the leak are always ambiguous. In Maniac Cop, no one trusts the police and we even see one random pedestrian shoot a cop in a panic. Heck, media leaks even play a role in The Stuff. Larry Cohen clearly has some thoughts on news media influence. I think I might just have to rent Maniac Cop III tonight to see if the pattern holds. Anywho, stay tuned for more obscure horror auteurs next week!

6WH: Wes Craven’s Twilight Zone

These days, we tend to look askance at reboots and remakes, but it’s not like it’s a new thing. In the mid-80s, CBS revived the beloved 50s/60s classic Twilight Zone television series, and looking back on it now, they managed to assemble a pretty impressive amount of talent at the time, including: Stephen King, Ray Bradbury, Theodore Sturgeon, Greg Bear, Arthur C. Clarke, Joe Haldeman, Robert McCammon, Harlan Ellison, Roger Zelazny, Robert Silverberg, John Milius, Joe Dante, William Friedkin, George R.R. Martin, Bruce Willis, Morgan Freeman, heck, even the Grateful Dead performed the new theme song. To kick the series off, they tapped Wes Craven, hot off the success of Nightmare on Elm Street. Craven would go on to direct seven segments of the show (mostly in the first season), most of which I have not seen, so I thought it would be a fitting tribute. Each show has two or three segments, so here’s some assorted thoughts on each segment:

  • Shatterday (S01E01) – The opening salvo of the new series was this character piece starring Bruce Willis in a dueling role, directed by Craven and written by Harlan Ellison (which was a big deal, given how dismissive Ellison always was about TV). It features one of the pure Twilight Zone ideas. Willis accidentally dials his own phone number, but is then surprised when… another, better version of him answers the phone. Some back-and-forth cat-and-also-cat follows, Willis doing an admirable job in both main roles. It’s an introspective piece, and a bit of a departure for Craven (in fact, all of these episodes are a bit of a departure for Craven; I’m guessing he relished the opportunity to work in the spooky but bloodless realm after mastering the raw, bloody slasher or hillbilly horror sub-genres). The ending is a bit anticlimactic, but it works well enough. A good opening to the series.
  • A Little Peace and Quiet (S01E01) – This second segment in the episode doesn’t quite boast as much starpower, but it’s Craven branching out again, this time looking at a frazzled housewife with the worst family evar (she’s played by Melinda Dillon, who you may remember as the mother in A Christmas Story). They all scream at each other and her and Craven does a good job playing up the unbearable nature of her situation. All she wants is a little peace and quiet, and whilst gardening, she finds a box with a nice looking necklace on it. Later in the day, while her family is once again acting crappy, she gets fed up and screams “Shut up!” and everything freezes (er, sorta, it’s clearly a bunch of actors just trying to stand still, but it works well enough). It turns out she’s able to press pause on the world, then resume it whenever she wants. This comes in handy at a busy grocery story and in a few other situations, then the hammer drops with the ending. I won’t spoil it here, but it’s a pretty dark one, fitting for the Twilight Zone. A fitting end to the series opener…
  • Wordplay (S01E02) – I should probably stop referring to these premises as very Twilight Zoney, huh? In this one a salesman (played by Robert Klein) starts to hear people substituting words for other words. For instance, suddenly people are referring to lunch as “Dinosaur”. At first, it’s only a couple isolated words, but by the end of the episode people are talking full on in this new style (which is weird because it’s not quite gibberish… words are generally the same, they just mean different things). The ending is perfectly bittersweet, and Klein really sells it well. It’s interesting to contrast a segment like this with, say, Tales from the Crypt, which almost always ends with comeuppance or darkness. The Twilight Zone can make that work when it wants, but it can also make a story like this one, with an almost uplifting ending and everything.
  • Chameleon (S01E02) – Ah, well, I guess this one is less Twilight Zoney than your typical episode, so there’s that. A shapeshifting alien returns with some astronauts on a shuttle mission and starts absorbing some humans. It’s an interesting segment, though it doesn’t really do a whole lot. Some mysterious stuff happens, and then it ends. I would have expected to like this one more than I did, but hey, they can’t all be brilliant pieces of work, I guess.
  • Dealer’s Choice (S01E08) – Now this is the stuff! Craven directs a Murderers’ Row of character actors playing cards. Included are Morgan Freeman (you know him), M. Emmet Walsh, Dan Hedaya (a little Blood Simple reunion with those two, not to mention a gazillion other movies each), Garrett Morris (of SNL fame), and Barney Martin (probably best known as Seinfeld’s dad). Four friends and a strange newcomer who’s having a streak of luck. In fact, his hands always hinge on having a three of a kind… three sixes each time. Yes, our intrepid heroes are playing cards with the Devil, who’s very sorry he had to put on a ruse about filling in for a regular, but he just wanted to get a few hands of cards in before moving on to his next job. Oh and one of the other players is that job. A final, double or nothing bet is made over a hand of cards… dealer’s choice!

    Morgan Freeman is surprised

    This is a darkly humorous segment, perhaps my favorite so far, and it tickles one of my soft spots. I love it when larger-than-life evil is personified as a blue collar dude just doing his job, and the segment wrings a lot of humor out of this inherently goofy premise. I like the idea of the Devil really just doing his job, not being all that into it, and welcoming the opportunity to let the puny humans win one every now and again. It turns out that the Devil is actually a pretty good sport, not to mention a good loser. In fact, the Devil comes off as the most likeable character of them all.

  • Her Pilgrim Soul (S01E12) – Two scientists working on a holographic system suddenly find the spirit of a woman displaying without having been programmed to appear. What follows is surprisingly tender, another example of The Twilight Zone’s ability to shift gears and go with a different tone. It is perhaps overlong, and the surprises not quite as snappy as your typical segment, but yet, they are more emotionally resonant. (Also, while not directed by Craven, definitely watch the other se segment in this episode, “I of Newton”, one of my all time favorites and one that obviously made an impression when I saw it as a youngster way back when…)
  • The Road Less Traveled (S02E07) – A Vietnam draft dodger begins to see visions of an alternate history where he did go to war. Interesting exploration of guilt, written by George R.R. Martin (who would go on to work on some other stuff you may have heard of), and it resolves itself well, once again finding a tone not normally reserved for such stories. Not the best episode, but still an effective one.

This was a pretty good run for Craven, and as mentioned above, allowed him to branch out and try something other than gruesome slashers or Swamp Things. He would go on to work on a few other shows, but nothing of quite this caliber. I’m glad I made the effort to watch these episodes though, and will almost certainly be posting about some other episodes in the coming weeks of Halloween! RIP Wes Craven, you will be missed.

Six Weeks of Halloween 2015: Week 1 – Mario Bava-Thon

The most wonderful time of the year has rolled around, bringing with it the requisite leaf piles, mutilated pumpkins, paper skeletons, pumpkin spiced abominations, decorative corpses, “fun” cobwebs, and other oxymoronic traditions that are nominally ghastly but suddenly become socially acceptable during this season of seasons. To celebrate, I always embark on a six week long horror movie marathon. That’s like two weeks longer than most Halloween movie marathons, because we’re pretty awesome, that’s why.

Today we examine a trio of films from Mario Bava, the godfather of Italian horror cinema and one of the more influential visual stylists of the 20th century. Bava is famous for his Gothic works and for popularizing the Giallo sub-genre (plus numerous pre-slashers), thus inspiring other Italian horror maestros like Dario Argento and Lucio Fulci. Bava is the first of what I’m calling “Obscure Horror Auteurs”, though he’s probably the least obscure of the ones I’m tackling (then again, he’s obscure enough to general audiences, I think). Others will follow in the coming weeks.

It should be noted that I’ve already seen a good deal of Bava’s work, so the below is actually filling in some gaps, rather than an ideal collection of his films. If you’re looking for a good intro to Bava, go for Blood and Black Lace, Black Sunday, Black Sabbath, or A Bay of Blood (aka Twitch of the Death Nerve). I’ve covered some of these in past Six Weeks of Halloween posts. Several of these are available to stream on Netflix, and upstart horror streaming service Shudder recently had a big event. Check out this gif from Kill Baby, Kill:

Bava-Thon

So let’s get into it, here’s three of Bava’s lesser-known works:

  • Alien (Trailer)
  • Doctor Who: State of Decay (Episode)
  • Alien’s Acid Blood (Robot Chicken)
  • Planet of the Vampires – This movie is perhaps best known as a precursor and influence on Ridley Scott and Dan O’Bannon’s classic film Alien, and yes, there are definitely some similarities here. A group of astronauts find themselves on a mysterious planet and begin to turn on each other as they are influenced by mysterious forces native to the planet. The most Alien-esque sequence involves the crew investigating an old spaceship wreck (dare I call it a derelict spacecraft?), discovering the long-dead remains of a species of giant creatures who must have succumbed to the planet’s spooky inhabitants.

    Spacecraft

    Bones

    You could also argue that some of the visuals also influenced Alien, though Bava’s tone is a decidedly more pulpy, Flash Gordon style of vivid colors and ulta-low budget cheese. There the similarities end. Bava’s film starts off a bit talky and the plot is minimal, but there are some neat visual flourishes, such as when a number of buried crew members rise from their hasty graves or the aforementioned trip to a derelict spacecraft.

    Rising from the dead

    Bava’s no-budget effects, all done with lighting, miniatures and forced perspective, are pretty interesting, though some don’t hold up so well. Also of note: the distinct lack of vampires. There is nothing even remotely vampiric in the film, just some sorta space ghosts. Ultimately a film that is probably only of interests to students of the genre, though perhaps some of you normals might find something to like here (Like those bitchin leather uniforms!) I had a decent enough time with it, but wasn’t super impressed either. **

  • Grindhouse: Don’t (Fake Trailer)
  • Black Sunday (Trailer)
  • The Pit and the Pendulum (Trailer)
  • Baron Blood – Modern-day gothic horror, a young man named Peter visits his ancestral home in Austria, a castle that once housed a sadistic Baron who was cursed to a violent death by a witch the Baron had burned at the stake. Peter has found a series of incantations amongst his family belongings and decides to read them aloud in the castle not once, but twice. The first time, he and his lady friend hear strange noises and bumps in the night, so he reads the incantation to reverse the summoning spell. But that wasn’t enough, they do it again the next night, only this time he drops the paper into a fire, thus losing the ability to fight the Baron, who is now free to roam about the castle and get up to murderous mischief. Yeah, so not a particularly clever setup, but there’s some gorgeous and elaborate production design here, and Bava crafts a few decently suspenseful sequences. The ending almost turns into a dark Scooby Doo episode, which I actually appreciated, though the film as a whole never really took off for me. Lesser Bava and probably my least favorite of the weekend… *1/2
  • Village of the Damned (Trailer)
  • Young Frankenstein (Trailer)
  • The Simpsons: Treehouse of Horror IV: Bart Simpson’s Dracula
  • Kill Baby, Kill – Now this is more like it. A more traditional gothic horror tale, this one is set in a cursed town. A doctor arrives to assist an inspector looking into several mysterious deaths. In performing an autopsy, he discovers mysterious coins placed inside the corpses. Meanwhile, a mysterious young blond girl is seen about town (often peering through windows and laughing), and the local witch is also on the case (interestingly, the local witch is actually a protagonist, and she’s pretty awesome).

    creepy little girl

    An altogether more successful tale than Baron Blood, this one contains some similar elements, but it is executed much better. Again with the gorgeous production design, and Bava’s use of vivid colors, camera movement, and zooms are quite effective. Not really his best work, but this does seem to be one of the more underrated films in Bava’s oeuvre, and worth checking out for fans of gothic horror. **1/2

That wraps up the first week. Stay tuned for another obscure horror auteur next week, the films of Larry Cohen! Also check out fellow practitioners of the six week marathon at Kernunrex Six Weeks of Halloween and Film Thoughts. Lots of fun stuff to come!

Recent Podcastery

I don’t listen to podcasts as often as I used to because all these audiobooks aren’t gooing to listen to themselves, but after a few of my old standbys went dark lately, I decided to look for some new ones, and what do you know, a few of them fell into my lap. I’m sure there are plenty of others I should be listening to, but these are the ones that struck a chord recently:

  • The Style Guide – Two guys talking about a given (usually movie focused) topic for about an hour, and it’s pretty solid stuff, especially if you like to parse out what defines a genre, and what the outliers are. I just discovered this one and it’s a pretty young podcast, but they seem to be off to a great start and am looking forward to devouring their (small) backlog and keeping up with new eps…
  • The Canon – The premise is a pretty standard one. Every week, they choose a new movie and evaluate whether or not it belongs in the Canon of great movies or somesuch. The “or somesuch” piece is because the actual definition of the Canon is pretty loose and they engage in arbitrary limiting exercises like versus episodes where they, for example, say that Alien or Aliens can make the Canon, but not both. The hosts have a weird chemistry too. They have strong opinions, bicker a lot, and often talk over each other. It’s probably not for everyone, and if I were to make a podcast, it would not be like this at all, but that’s kinda what I like about it, I guess. They do make a lot of good points though, and the annoyance factor isn’t quite as bad as the initial episodes these days. Worth checking out. Bonus points for their Cannon-like logo.
  • I Was There Too – What a fabulous idea for a podcast. A guy interviews people who played bit parts in big movies, like the guy who played Nicholson’s secretary in A Few Good Men (two lines, but memorable) or the guy who played the Apple store employee in Captain America 2 (also a tiny yet memorable part). Some are more substantial, like Jenette Goldstein, who is probably most famous for playing Vasquez in Aliens, but also had bit parts in a bunch of other James Cameron movies. Like most “interview” based shows, this one depends greatly on the guest, but so far, they’ve been pretty great. Not frequently updated, but that’s quite alright by me!
  • Birthcast, Moviecast, Deathcast, Padcast Podcast – I think I may have mentioned this before, back when they were the Badass Digest Padcast Podcast, but that one was always very inconsistently updated. A while later and their site has rebranded, and the host situation solidified and they started updating more frequently. It’s still a bit on the rambly side and it comes from a goofy perspective that might not appeal to everyone, but I enjoy it. They’ve been watching a bunch of “Future Cop” movies recently, which has been fun.

And that’s all for now. Go forth and listen to yonder podcasts.

Wes Craven

As per usual, I’m a week late to this post, but Wes Craven passed away on August 30 after a fight with brain cancer. I’m not normally in the habit of writing this sort of thing, but since we’re heading into my favorite time of the year, the fabled Six Weeks of Halloween horror movie marathon, I figured I should look at Craven’s oeuvre and perhaps find something of his I haven’t seen before (or, perhaps, something to revisit).

As genre filmmakers go, I’m hard pressed to think of a single, more influential horror director. I mean, maybe Alfred Hitchcock (do you consider him horror?) or Mario Bava (probably too obscure for most folks), but that’s fine company to keep. You could make an argument for Craven’s contemporary, John Carpenter, as he does have two classics to his name (Halloween and The Thing), but he also veered away from horror and managed to produce a string of mediocre (at best) films later in his career. Craven, though, has directed three of the genre’s most iconic and influential films. Oh, and he did it across three decades.

The Last House on the Left was Craven’s first film (1972), and in some ways it shows. But it’s also a clear example of what Craven always manages to do. It’s a crude, nasty film that taps into something dark and raw. That’s, uh, a good thing when it comes to horror movies. A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) is slicker and more commercial, but no less effective because of that. Indeed, its brilliant premise is the purest distillation of horror ever committed to film: a monster that gets you in your dreams. Inescapable and supremely terrifying (especially to my childhood self, who was stricken with fear before even having seen the film), the film’s inferior sequels only serve to illustrate Craven’s ability to tap into something elusive and terrifying. Craven’s X factor only returned to the series when he retook the reigns for New Nightmare, a winking, fourth-wall shattering exercise that was really more of a dry run for his third genre classic: 1996’s Scream. Another winking, self-referential exercise, this one captured audience’s imaginations and revived a flagging genre right when it needed it the most. It wasn’t the first film to attempt this sort of thing, but it’s the best.

Craven’s also got a large catalog of underrated works that are often more effective and influential than you’d think. Stuff like The Serpent and the Rainbow or The Hills Have Eyes are relevant to this day. Even his out and out failures contain that Craven X Factor that gets under your skin and never lets go. I mean, yeah, My Soul to Take isn’t his best work, but man, I could see that thing garnering a cult following someday (and apparently, Shocker already does!)

Yet by all accounts, he was one of Hollywood’s kindest, sweetest fellas. He had a rough childhood, but apparently worked that out on screen, rather than by lashing out at folks.

For an example of his good-natured spirit, check out this story from Edgar Wright:

The intertextuality of ‘Scream’ was a surprise to some, but in reality there was a winking side to Craven’s movies that goes all the way back to 1977’s ‘The Hills Have Eyes’.

That film began a series of funny intertextual references between horror film directors that became a game of one-upmanship. In the first ‘Hills Have Eyes’, there was a ripped poster for ‘Jaws’ on the wall of a ravaged trailer, as if Craven was saying ‘that’s not scary, this is scary’. Then in response Sam Raimi featured a ripped ‘Hills Have Eyes’ poster in the cabin in ‘The Evil Dead’. Craven’s reply to this was to have his characters watching ‘Evil Dead’ on television in ‘A Nightmare on Elm Street’. Finally Raimi responded once again by putting the iconic razor glove of Freddy Krueger, in the basement of the cabin in ‘Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn’.

I loved this running gag between horror directors. So you can imagine my answer when we got word that Craven wanted to use a clip of our film ‘Shaun Of The Dead’ in ‘Scream 4’.

Horror is a weird genre that often forces viewers to grapple with tough questions, not the least of which is often “Why the hell am I watching this depravity?” If you’ve ever seen an interview with Wes Craven, you’d get a pretty eloquent response. He’s always a welcome sight in horror documentaries and was even compelling in his short appearance on Project Greenlight’s third season. I can’t put it any better than Scott Tobias:

My initial plan for this year’s Six Weeks of Halloween was to cover a series of “obscure horror auteurs”, and while Craven is certainly an auteur, he’s anything but obscure. Still, while I plan on tackling those other, obscure directors, I may have to dedicate some time to finding something from Craven that I haven’t seen (there are only a handful, if that). In the meantime, I’ll leave you with this:

Weird Movie of the Week: Holiday Horror Edition

Last time on Weird Movie of the Week, we covered a remake of Alejandro Jodorowsky’s 1973 film The Holy Mountain that is composed entirely of salvaged clips from old dog movies and VHS tapes. This time we’ve got some Holiday Horror:

A Christmas Horror Story has a lot going for it. It’s from several of the creative minds behind the Ginger Snaps trilogy (Grant Harvey, Steven Hoban and Brett Sullivan) and takes place in Ginger and Brigitte’s fictional town of Bailey Downs; it stars William Shatner as a drunk, hyper-conservative radio DJ full of holiday cheer; it features Krampus and zombie elves. Like any horror anthology, there are great moments and there are weak moments, but its framework is cleverly constructed, tying all of the vignettes together in an interesting way that isn’t revealed until the final act.

So the fact that it is a Holiday Horror movie is not, in itself, very weird. There’s lots of them, and we’ve covered this territory before. Repeatedly. Nor is it that it comes from the folks who made Ginger Snaps (an original take on the werewolf story, to be sure, but not quite weird). No, what sold me on this was the Shatner line: “it stars William Shatner as a drunk, hyper-conservative radio DJ full of holiday cheer”. Inspired. I’m all in.

The review isn’t exactly glowing, but few of these movies are actually very good. As it mentions, it’s clearly inspired by Trick ‘r Treat, one of the best horror anthologies ever made (surely the most consistently good and interconnected), which is funny, because this movie supposedly features the Krampus, an obscure Santa precursor that represents Santa’s… darker side (many precursors are actually two separate people, one to give gifts to all the good boys and girls, the other to punish the not-so-good). It turns out that Trick ‘r Treat’s writer/director Michael Dougherty is releasing his own take on Krampus during this holiday season. It’s an embarrassment of riches for Holiday Horror fans this year. Looking forward to it.

Hugo Awards: Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form

This award is one of the stranger categories for the Hugos. This year, it’s something of a respite from the all controversy and vitriol surrounding Puppies and Kittens and all the other nicknames people are handing out with reckless abandon. Which is funny, because as a movie person, I’ve always found the nominees to this category mediocre at best. It seems that while the electorate can focus on obscure artistic exercises for the fiction awards, they are generally focused on the biggest budget, widest releases from a filmic standpoint.

There are certainly exceptions. The voters seem to enjoy Duncan Jones, giving the low budget Moon the rocket in 2010 and nominating Source Code in 2012 (both flawed films, to be sure, but at least they’re unexpected choices). There are a handful of other non-obvious choices (i.e. A Scanner Darkly, District 9, etc…), and a whole boatload of Hollywood pap (i.e. Avatar, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, etc…) There’s nothing inherently wrong with big budgets, wide releases, star vehicles, or Hollywood invovlement, to be sure, and there are plenty of fabulous choices in that realm (i.e. Inception, Gravity), but what of the lower budget, obscure, or foreign films that never seem to find their way onto the ballot? I guess I can see why Upstream Color didn’t make the ballot last year; it’s a pretty inscrutable movie. But then, so was a lot of the nominated fiction! Voters are willing to dig through the heaps for short stories and novelettes, why can’t they seem to find things like Detention, Sound of My Voice, Attack the Block, Timecrimes, Triangle, The Man from Earth, and probably a dozen others that are escaping me right now. Sure, many are obscure genre pics, but isn’t that the point of the Hugo awards taking on the category? Movies like Avatar get plenty of recognition from the mainstream, why not highlight things that aren’t so easy to find, the way we do for fiction?

This year, we have at least two nominees that were deserving (and that didn’t have Upstream‘s impenetrable style), including Coherence (to be fair, there are some eligibility concerns on that one), The One I Love, and maybe even Snowpiercer (a film I kinda hated, but it seems up the voters’ alley). Alas, they did not make it, and to be sure, Hollywood had a pretty good year, putting out plenty of genuinely good movies. Indeed, I even nominated 3 of these, so I guess I shouldn’t complain! My vote will go something like this (I’m going to be partially quoting myself on some of these, with some added comments more specific to the Hugos)

  1. The Lego Movie – Writer/Directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller have made a career out of making movies out of seemingly stupid premises, and this movie may be their crowning achievement. This sounded so much like a cynical cash-grab by Hollywood, but I found myself immediately charmed by the film’s fast paced humor and wit. The thing that tips this to the top of my vote is that it is actually very impressive from a visual standpoint. It’s got great jokes, and some of them are visual jokes. This is a movie that actually uses its medium in a way that few movies do these days.
  2. Captain America: The Winter Soldier – Marvel firing on all cylinders, this is a dramatic improvement over the first Captain America, topping it in everything from action set pieces to consistent interpersonal touches. Considering the wider context, this movie makes some pretty bold moves too, channeling paranoid 70s thrillers (and even casting Robert Redford to underline that point) and throwing a huge monkey wrench into the whole Marvel universe (something I admire about it – as a standalone, it would be fine, but the fact that there are seemingly lasting consequences helps here). I’m actually on the fence with where to place this in relation to Guardians, but for now, it take the #2 slot.
  3. Guardians of the Galaxy – This could have failed so miserably in so many different ways, but my guess is that James Gunn’s goofy personality is what saved the whole thing (even if it’s toned down a bit here). Once again, it’s the interpersonal touches that makes these Marvel movies tick, even this one, which is almost completely disconnected from all the other movies. It’s also a big ball of fun, so there’s that.
  4. Edge of Tomorrow – There’s a lot to quibble about with this movie, but I’ll tell you, it really worked for me. From a filmmaking craft perspective, the editing here is incredibly well executed. The ending has some issues and Cruise has his own baggage, but I had a whole lot of fun. I actually voted for this on my ballot, not thinking it would garner enough votes (it was fairly underrated and underviewed last year, even by mainstream audiences), but even then, it would have ended up towards the bottom of my ballot…
  5. Interstellar – There’s a lot to like about this film, but it never quite congealed into something as cohesive as Nolan’s previous work. Certainly gets points for ambition, but the film is a little clunky in its execution. It all fits together, and there are great ideas and emotional moments at its core, but perhaps could use some smoothing over some of the rougher edges (of which there are, sadly, many). A clear last place finisher for the Hugos. Not an entirely unworthy nominee, but I’d have much rather seen a few other movies in place of this one…

So there you have it. Maybe I’m being a little too hard on voters, as this is a pretty good slate, and it’s nice to comment on something and not have to even bother with the whole controversial nonsense that has snowed us in this year.

Moving Pictures

Thoughts on movies, big and small, that I’ve seen recently:

  • Avengers: Age of Ultron – Last year, I fully bought into the whole Marvel mania. Cap 2 and Guardians of the Galaxy were wonderful, and after the dozenth rewatch of the first Avengers, I have to admit that it does some extraordinary things. But that’s the thing with the first Avengers. It does some things very poorly. It has low lows. But it dos some things so well, the highs are so very high, that the lows are drowned out by the awesomeness of a single, perfectly placed line of dialog (“Hulk… Smash!” or a dozen other high points). Age of Ultron, by contrast, is a more even movie. The lows aren’t as low, but the highs aren’t as high either. It remains to be seen whether or not this will be as compulsively rewatchable as the first Avengers, but I suspect it will improve on further rewatching… and as Marvel continues their run through phase 3.

    Here’s the thing with these movies: they’re really leaning into the comic-bookness of it all. Where phase 1 and most of phase 2 were mostly isolated, standalone movies with some connective tissue weaved in, this movie seems more intertwined and less independent. The never-ending serialized nature of comic books are coming to the screen, fraught with all the attendant baggage that entails. Age of Ultron has a core thread, but dozens of other threads are weaved in, some so blatantly unnecessary that they must have been mandated as setup (see Thor’s incomprehensible little detour to some weird underground memory lake), some more seemlessly incorporated. These movies have been going on long enough that many of the things people complain about with comics are starting to emerge. Characters die, but does anyone ever really die in the comics? How does that impact the stakes of the movie you’re currently watching? For now, I’m going with the flow, but I can see the strain. How long can they keep this up? Only time will tell.

    I really loved the opening of this movie, with the Avengers already assembled and taking on a Hydra base, followed by an absolutely delightful party at Tony Stark’s apartment (where, among other things, several heroes try and fail to lift Thor’s hammer – a seemingly throwaway bit that is actually called back later in the film to tremendous effect, a very Whedony thing). Hawkeye, of all people, gets a great little spotlight this movie (it’s about time) and that’s just another one of those comic bookey things – a character who seems superfluous in the extreme, but turns out great when you give him something to do. Some of the other character stuff is not as fleshed out or contianed. Then things devolve a bit, and we get conflict within the team (seemingly the seeds of Civil War) and a sorta muddled climax. In the end, I still had a ton of fun with this movie, and I suspect it will only get better upon rewatching, and as various unfinished plot threads get resolved or expanded upon in future movies. Some may complain about the comic bookeyness of all this, but they’d be missing the point. The reason Marvel has been so successful is that they’ve really leaned into that and created something we haven’t really seen on film before. I’m looking forward to seeing more.

  • Maggie – An Arnold Schwarzenegger zombie movie that entails approximately nothing like you’d actually expect from such a description. There aren’t really any action scenes, no hoards of zombies (only a handful are really seen), no explosions or histrionics. Instead, we get a father/daughter relationship piece. The daughter (Abigail Breslin) has been infected and will inevitably become a zombie, and the father stands by her side during the transformation, torn by impossible choices (Deliver her to quarantine? Give her painful medical treatment that will only delay the inevitable? Put her out of her misery?). It’s something that we’ve seen as a beat in a lot of zombie movies, stretched out to feature length. Unfortunately, while an admirable approach, it’s perhaps a little too dour and drawn out. Still, it’s artful and well done, and Arnold gives a surprisingly tender and effective performance. It’s funny, I was reminded of the opening scenes of Commando… if Alyssa Milano was turning into a zombie. Or something. It is otherwise nothing like Commando, of course, so I probably shouldn’t have brought that up. It’s certainly worth a watch, but don’t expect anything too exciting.
  • Mad Max: Fury Road – Holy hell, I need a cigarette or something. This is the most propulsive action film of the year, and probably the past few years. There’s not much explicit plot, and the dialogue is functional at best, but who cares, the pursuing hoard has something called the Doof Wagon, a giant truck that has a bunch of stacked speakers and a guitarist who is bungie corded to it so that he can provide a diegetic heavy metal soundtrack for the militia’s attacks. His guitar doubles as a flame thrower. If that sort of thing appeals to you, you will love this movie. It’s one of the more visually impressive films of the year as well, relying primarily on practical effects and communicating more through action and visual cues than dialogue or exposition (which is why the dialogue and exposition that does make its way into the film feels a bit stunted). It could almost work as a silent movie… if it wasn’t for the impact and bombast of all the revving cars and explosions. The world is so detailed that the visual approach works shockingly well, and it also means that the film can support many readings in terms of thematic depth. I mean, it’s an action movie, through and through, and it works perfectly on that level, but many have searched for and found deeper meaning, from the simple plot of women attempting to escape their sexual slavery, to redemption and survival, to the way Charlize Theron’s Furiosa relates to Tom Hardy’s Max, and more. Whatever, the action is so engrossing and so intense that it scarcely matters. As long as you care about our intrepid heroes, and how could you not, you’ll have fun going along for a ride. And what a lovely ride it is! See this on the largest screen possible, as soon as you can.
  • What We Do in the Shadows – I almost don’t want to say anything about this movie because it’s possible that you could have a great blind viewing of it. It’s about a group of vampire roommates in New Zealand, but it’s a comedic faux documentary. It works really well and is definitely recommended!
  • Tomorrowland – Not to cop out on you here, but Matt Singer wrote a great intro that nails my feelings on the movie:

    The best argument for Tomorrowland is its release date; one week after Mad Max: Fury Road, a film about a world destroyed by an oil war, and a week before San Andreas, in which an apocalyptic earthquake destroys half of North America. Less a blockbuster action film than a stern but well-intentioned lecture accompanied by an elaborate audiovisual presentation, Tomorrowland argues that rampant cynicism is actively poisoning our future. People become so convinced by movies like Mad Max and San Andreas that the world is doomed that they start to believe it really is. So they give up, and dystopia becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Tomorrowland tries, through sheer force of will and a heaping helping of bright, shiny special effects, to reverse that trend; to convince people that there’s hope for tomorrow. It doesn’t want to entertain; its goal is nothing less than to inspire an entire generation. But it might have been easier to achieve the latter if it had worked a little harder to accomplish the former.

    A lot of people are kinda down on the movie, and it’s true that it’s too didactic in its execution, but it is still a Brad Bird movie, and there are bits when you can see his personality come through. Not as much as, say, his animated work (and I was never as much of a fan of MI4 as everyone else either), but there are some isolated moments here and there that hit really well. It’s funny though, this movie has a sorta dystopic premise… one that is subverted, to be sure, but it’s still not all that different from, say, Mad Max – a bunch of characters are just trying to survive. Tomorrowland certainly engages the problem with more optimism, but it does so in such a direct manner that it almost opposes itself. Still, it’s very much worth watching, despite what all the haters are saying about it.

That’s a pretty fantastic run of movies, even the ones that I don’t love are things that are trying new and adventurous things and are always interesting to watch and discuss.

Ms. Elizabeth Halsey’s Rotten Apple, Hot for (Bad) Teacher Summer Movie Quiz

After yet another long hiatus, Dennis Cozzalio of the Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule blog has posted another of his famous movie quizes, and as usual, I’d like to play along. Previous installments answering questions from Professor Hubert Farnsworth, David Huxley, Professor Fate, Professor Russell Johnson, Dr. Smith, Professor Peabody, Professor Severus Snape, Professor Ed Avery, Dr. Anton Phibes, Sister Clodagh, Professor Arthur Chipping, Miss Jean Brodie, Professor Larry Gopnick, and Professor Dewey Finn are also available.

1) Name a line from a movie that should’ve become a catch phrase but didn’t *

There’s a line from Pulp Fiction that I reference pretty frequently, yet is almost never recognized and usually treated as a general challenging declaration. In response to drug dealer Lance’s assertion that his shit can go up against that Amersterdam shit, Vincent quips: “That’s a bold statement.” It’s an obscure line and I can see why no one else would get the reference, but for whatever reason, it stuck with me.

2) Your second favorite William Wellman film

There are several versions of this question in this quiz, and I get the impression that the idea is to look at a prolific filmmaker (Wellman has 83 directing credits on IMBD) and find the non-obvious choice from their filmography. This is somewhat hampered by the fact that I’ve only actually seen 2 Wellman movies, so The Public Enemy takes the cake by default. Oh well, at least it’s not a mulligan (we’ll get to that soon enough).

3) Viggo Mortensen or Javier Bardem?

I think I’ll go with Javier Bardem for this one. He seems to take more chances and make better choices than Mortensen, and nothing in Mortensen’s filmography really approaches Bardem’s top performances. For instance, there’s nothing even remotely as memorable or terrifying in Mortensen’s performances as Bardem’s turn as Anton Chigurh in No Country for Old Men. If, perhaps, Eastern Promises was a better movie, Mortensen’s performance might have been elevated high enough (dat naked fight scene), but even then, I’m not so sure.

4) Favorite first line from a movie

The Filmspotting podcast has this concept of a Pantheon when it comes to their top 5 lists. Films in the Pantheon cannot be put on a top 5, because they are so great (or there’s such a personal connection) that they could pop up on wayyy too many lists. Fortunately, I’m not bound by this notion, so I can go back to the well of The Godfather: “I believe in America.” Sets the scene perfectly, not to mention the movie and, indeed, even the sequels.

5) The most disappointing/superfluous “director’s cut” or otherwise extended edition of a movie you’ve seen? *

My first thought was “Which Ridley Scott movie do I pick?” but then I realized that George Lucas’s Star Wars edits were pretty glaring, and it seemed like there was just no end in sight. He kept changing things! Some of the initial changes were fine; even sometimes great… Removing the telltale signs of composites, fixing some of the transparencies, these things were minor and barely noticeable, but that’s what makes them cool. It’s the stuff like Greedo shooting first or the insertion of lame CGI Jabba, etc… that really sunk it. As added in Jedi, “Nooooooooo!” Completely superfluous and boorish. That being said, Ridley Scott’s “Director’s Cut” of Alien is pretty worthless.

6) What is the movie you feel was most enhanced by a variant version? *

My first thought was “Which Ridley Scott movie do I pick?” because seriously, that guy never seems to release a movie without a director’s cut, sometimes a cut that dramatically changes the tone and scope of the movie. My first thought was Blade Runner, but then I realized that there are 5 frigging cuts of that movie, 3 of which are director’s cuts, or something like that. I guess I’ll go with the “Final Cut”, until Scott gins up another cut in a few years…

7) Eve Arden or Una Merkel?

I have to admit that I only have a passing familiarity with either of these actresses, but I’ll go with Eve Arden, mostly because I recognized more from her filmography…

8) What was the last DVD/Blu-ray/streaming film you saw? The last theatrical screening?

On DVD/BD, it was Captain America: The Winter Soldier, in preparation for Avengers 2 and also because most of these Marvel movies seem just infinitely rewatchable.

On Streaming, it was WolfCop because come on, he’s a werewolf who is also a cop. WolfCop. Plus, it was a Kaedrin Weird Movie of the Week selection a while back, so I had to watch it once it became available… Alas, it doesn’t quite deliver on the bananas premise, but it was fine, I guess.

And in the theater, it was Ex Machina, another in a long line of recent, low-budget, fascinating SF films. This one does a decent job getting at AI, though as movies always do, it perhaps goes a bit far in anthropomorphizing the AI. But then, that’s one of the big challenges of an AI story, since our puny human brains can’t comprehend what a truly alien being an AI would really be. This is partly my hangup though, and not truly the film’s fault. It’s an admirable film, and it has just enough pot-boilery elements to make up for any lapses. Recommended!

9) Second favorite Michael Mann film

I was expecting this to be more difficult to narrow down, but I pretty quickly settled on The Insider (behind Heat and just ahead of Manhunter). In fact, The Insider might be Mann’s best film, as it’s a tighter, more focused and complete narrative where something like Heat has this diffuse, byzantine plot structure that I personally enjoy quite a bit, but which doesn’t quite adhere as well as The Insider

10) Name a favorite director’s most egregious misstep

The first that comes to mind is the Coen Brothers’ The Ladykillers, a movie that I found surprisingly, shockingly joyless, all the moreso because even as I was watching it unfold on screen, I kept thinking to myself: “That bit’s kinda clever, I guess. This should work. Why isn’t it working?” Unfortunately, I have almost no desire to revisit the movie to develop a theory about why it faired so poorly, but my instinct is that there is something just slightly off about it that taints the entire picture.

11) Alain Delon or Marcello Mastroianni?

What is this tomfoolery? A repeat question! As my answer was in 2013: Hands down, Alain Delon. Le Samurai, man. Le Samurai.

Le Samurai
Le Samurai

12) Jean-Luc Godard famously stated that “all you need for a movie is a girl and a gun.” Name one other essential element that you’d add to the mix.

How about a story? But then, any attempt to distill storytelling down to an “essence” is doomed to failure. I’m reminded of this opening line from Clive Barker’s Imajica:

It was the pivotal teaching of Pluthero Quexos, the most celebrated dramatist of the Second Dominion, that in any fiction, no matter how ambitious its scope or profound its theme, there was only ever room for three players. Between warring kings, a peacemaker; between adoring spouses, a seducer or a child. Between twins, the spirit of the womb. Between lovers, Death. Greater numbers might drift through the drama, of course-thousands in fact-but they could only ever be phantoms, agents, or, on rare occasions, reflections of the three real and self-willed beings who stood at the center. And even this essential trio would not remain intact; or so he taught. It would steadily diminish as the story unfolded, three becoming two, two becoming one, until the stage was left deserted.

Needless to say, this dogma did not go unchallenged. The writers of fables and comedies were particularly vociferous in their scorn, reminding the worthy Quexos that they invariably ended their own tales with a marriage and a feast. He was unrepentant. He dubbed them cheats and told them they were swindling their audiences out of what he called the last great procession, when, after the wedding songs had been sung and the dances danced, the characters took their melancholy way off into darkness, following each other into oblivion.

Sorry for nerding up the proceedings like this, but I thought it funny that this came to mind…

13) Favorite one-sheet that you own, or just your favorite one-sheet (please provide a link to an image if you can)

Assuming we’re looking for original one-sheets and not revivals or tribute posters, which thank God, because I’d never be able to pick which Mondo movie poster is my favorite. Not that it’s all that easy to do so otherwise, but I was able to settle on Saul Bass’ gorgeous one-sheet for Vertigo:

Vertigo

14) Catherine Spaak or Daniela Giordano?

And so we come to our first mulligan. I got nothing on these two…

15) Director who most readily makes you think “Whatever happened to…?”

Whatever happened to John Carpenter? That man put together a pretty long string of classics throughout the late 70s and 80s, but has done very little in the current century and what he has done has been mediocre at best. He hasn’t really done anything good since 1994’s In the Mouth of Madness. He has done some work, but he hasn’t made anything since 2010’s cromulent but decidedly derivative and limp The Ward, and before that, an episode or two from the Masters of Horror TV series (one of which was fine, the other of which was terrible). I suspect it’s just that he’s getting on in age and filmmaking is a young-mans-game, but still, would love to see him return to his glory days…

16) Now that some time has passed… The Interview, yes or no?

These “yes or no” questions show up with regularity on these quizes, but I don’t think I’ve ever said no. It’s not so much that I love the movie in question as that I think most movies have a right to exist. Not that answering “no” would impact anything, but still. It’s the principle of the thing.

17) Second favorite Alberto Calvalcanti film

Another blind spot for me, so another mulligan for the quiz…

18) Though both displayed strong documentary influence in their early films, Wim Wenders and Werner Herzog have focused heavily on the documentary form late in their filmmaking careers. If he had lived, what kind of films do you think Rainer Werner Fassbinder, their partner in the German New Wave of the ’70s, would be making now?

Sorry, but I have no idea. I’d be curious as to what his response to the whole gay marriage movement would be (he was out of the closet, but he also married two women during that time), but who knows if that would manifest in his filmmaking. I’m not familiar with much of his work, but I know he was an odd cat.

19) Name a DVD you’ve replaced with a Blu-ray. Name another that you decided not to replace. *

I’ve only replaced a couple, mostly by accident or because of some other factor. The only example I can actually think of is Alien/Aliens, because I got a nice deal on the whole Alien Anthology box set. Pretty much everything else has remained on DVD for me, though there are some classics I might consider upgrading (The Godfather, 2001: A Space Odyssey, etc…)

20) Don Rickles or Rodney Dangerfield?

As a child of the 80s, Rodney Dangerfield speaks more to me. I’ve never really gotten the love for Don Rickles, but then, I’m probably not familiar with his best work.

21) Director who you wish would hurry up and make another film

It’s funny that a lot of the best filmmakers these days seem to take so long between films. Others just feel like a long time. Quentin Tarantino usually puts something out every 2-3 years, but it somehow feels longer. Alright, so to really answer this question, I’ll go with Shane Carruth. Two movies in the past 11 years, with nothing on the horizon (that I know of, at least).

22) Second favorite Michael Bay film

This is tough because once you get past my favorite (The Rock), you’ve got a whole deluge of movies I’m kinda ambivalent about, followed by movies I’m actively hostile about. I’ll put it somewhere around Bad Boys II or The Island. I guess.

23) Name a movie that, for whatever reason, you think of as your own

I don’t really know what this means, and I don’t think of any of these movies as my own, but I will throw out Phantasm as one of my favorites that doesn’t get much mainstream love (though it has a huge cult following), and oddly enough, The Terminator. It might not seem like it, because it’s such a popular franchise, but I could think of the original Terminator as my own because I’m, like, the only person to think it’s far superior to T2 (or any of the dreck after that). I grew up watching Terminator almost every day (even if it was usually only on in the background), one of a couple movies that’s hit triple digit rewatches (not something I do very much anymore, but this was a formative movie for me). T2 is a fine action film, but I’m continually surprised by how much love it gets from, well, everybody.

24) Your favorite movie AI (however loosely you care to define the term)

Obviously The Terminator would be a candidate here, but in the interest of variety, I’ll choose a more obscure movie: Colossus: The Forbin Project. Not a perfect movie, but it’s quite interesting and underappreciated these days. As mentioned above, AI in movies tends to be anthropomorphized, and this movie isn’t an exception, but it comports itself well enough for me. Speaking of which, Ex Machina would be a good candidate here, and obviously, movie AIs owe a huge debt to Hal 9000 (even movies that don’t explicitly copy the AI gone mad template are often riffing on it or the expectations of it). Also of note, Demon Seed, a little more bonkers and weird, but I haven’t seen it in a while. I should revisit!

25) Your favorite existing DVD commentary track *

The best commentaries tend to be for movies that, for some reason, didn’t totally succeed. This requires someone to be open and honest, which rarely happens. But Kevin Smith’s commentary (with various guests) for Mallrats is exceptional because of Smith’s willingness to confront and own up to his mistakes in making that movie. The movie isn’t a complete failure, but there are many aspects of it that Smith admits went off the rails or didn’t fall into place (I may also be mixing in his commentary on the deleted scenes) and the camaraderie with his co-workers in the commentary is palpable. It’s fashionable to bag on Smith these days because of his antics, and to be sure, he’s seemingly less forthcoming (also, he’s started smoking pot), but I, for one, would love to see a genuine commentary on some of his more recent movies, in particular Zack and Miri Make a Porno (which seemingly broke Smith as a director, to the point where he doesn’t even want to talk about it.) As a runner up, I’ll mention Edgar Wright and Quentin Tarantino’s commentary on Hot Fuzz. Sure, Hot Fuzz wasn’t a failure (in any real way), but Wright and Tarantino are just so in love with movies that it’s infectious. Well worth checking out…

26) The double bill you’d program on the last night of your own revival theater

Cinema Paradiso and Sunset Boulevard, because I’m not willing to recognize that my revival theater is dead…

27) Catherine Deneuve or Claudia Cardinale?

Claudia Cardinale, almost solely because of Once Upon a Time in the West.

And there you have it, another quiz in the books. Let’s hope the next one doesn’t take a whole year!

Weird Movie of the Week

Last time on Weird Movie of the Week, we covered a movie that revolved around a secret formula for growing hair using peanut butter. This time, we’ve got two weird movies for the price of one! Doggiewoggiez! Poochiewoochiez! is a remake of Alejandro Jodorowsky’s 1973 film The Holy Mountain (itself one of the weirdest movies of all time, along with the rest of Jodorowsky’s oeuvre) that is composed entirely of salvaged clips from old dog movies and VHS tapes. Naturally, the film was made by the Everything is Terrible crew, a group of people that wallow in the detritus of old VHS wastelands and the like (usually to hilarious effect). It makes the Kaedrin watchlist sheerly for the audacity of attempting a remake of a Jodorowsky film and coming up with a premise that actually makes it seem like they might pull it off. Having watched The Holy Mountain, I can tell you that it’s a miracle that someone could even come close to thinking of something that might rival that film’s weirdness. Can they actually fulfill that potential? Only one way to find out!