Tag: Movie Review

Nightmare Alley: 1947 Vs 2021

Posted on by fenrisfil

I’m going to do something a little different with this review and review and compare two movies. Both adaptations of the same source material, “Nightmare Alley” by William Lindsay Gresham, published in 1946. The first movie was adapted from the story one year later in 1947; Directed by Edmund Goulding and starring Tyrone Power as “Stanton Carlisle” it is considered a Film Noir classic (Hence why it seemed fitting to review both given my passion for Film Noir). The second movie is the latest from visionary filmmaker Guillermo del Toro and features an all star cast including Bradley Cooper (as “Carlisle”), Cate Blanchett (As Dr. Lilith Ritter), Willem DaFoe and Ron Perlman (the last two in minor roles).

Remake or new take on the same source?

Though Del Toro initially claimed his movie is not a remake of the Film Noir, the ending of the movie and the inclusion of a key line added for the 1947 movie suggests otherwise. It seems the truth is Del Toro’s movie falls somewhere between the source and it’s first adaptation. That said, as far as I can tell (Having not read the novel itself) the first movie was pretty close to the source material already so it is hard to tell where Del Toro is following the novel and where he is following the Noir. One notable difference though is that the 1947 movie adds some story to the end (which was not present in the book) while the 2021 film adds a little to the start. The bulk of the story is however the same.

Framing changes everything.

What makes the new versions distinct however (aside from being in colour of course) is some framing of the events and the personalities. In the 1947 version Tyrone Power’s “Carlisle” is competent and confident throughout. He is a clever man always on the lookout for angles. Ultimately he goes one scheme too far and becomes a victim to his own hubris. But he’s not totally irredeemable. In this version he sidesteps the fate laid out for him in the novel but ends up instead repeating the fate of the toxic relationship between his two Mentalist mentors in his early days at the carnival. So the ending is bitter sweet.

The Life and Times of Stanton Carlisle

Cooper’s Carlisle though has a much darker soul, while not without some positive qualities (For instance showing some empathy towards the Carnivals “Geek”) he has a bitter and violent side to him. Unlike Power’s version he is not a natural grifter swayed into darkness, instead the film lets us know he already has a taint on his soul, a dark act that follows him around and perhaps a hatred in his heart. This Carlisle learns the grift directly from the Carnies and with Cooper I always felt he was lying as much to himself as those he deceived.

The most notable difference between the two is how they act when things fall apart. Power’s character has become dislikable and yet I still felt some sympathy for him. He is ultimately destroyed by his two great strengths, his confidence and ability to read people. The former lead him to ignore the latter when it involved those closest to him. Cooper’s version while also a victim of his own hubris, reveals his true colours the moment things fell apart and at that point I knew his fate was sealed. It is difficult to decide which of those approaches I prefer.

For the majority of the film I would have to give it to Tyrone Power, whose performance was intense and believable, however I always felt the last act of the film where things fell apart seemed out of place for someone as together as Power’s Carlisle. Bradley Cooper’s version while I had difficulty buying his progress to the top, his fall felt both real and inevitable. The line taken from the earlier movie that has Carlisle acknowledge his own destiny seems all the more fitting in Del Toro’s movie because of this.

The Primordial She-Demon

As far as the supporting cast goes, the main other player in this story is the psychoanalyst Dr. Lilith Ritter, played by Helen Walker in the earlier movie and Cate Blanchett in Del Toro’s movie. She’s not actually in most of the movie, but her role is pivotal. In the battle of these actresses Blanchett easily wins. I always found the characters betrayal somewhat out of place in the earlier movie, sure she gets to profit financially but as a high paid psychoanalyst I felt like she should have had more to her motivation. But much like with Cooper’s Carlisle, Blanchett’s Ritter is as a far darker version of the character, bitter and twisted and holding a personal grudge against Carlisle for publicly showing her up when they first met (Even though she was trying to show him up).

She doesn’t even care about the money, she just wants to see Carlisle destroyed. What comes into question is did she plan for Carlisle’s scheme to fail all along or would this betrayal have happened further down the line anyway. It is hard to say, but either way Blanchett’s Dr. Ritter is a sociopath. It’s worth noting that as the character escapes punishment, the Motion Picture Production Code that was in play in 1974 would probably have prevented the character being portrayed in quite such a negative light for the earlier movie. Even as her role as a Noir Femme Fatale she is pushing those boundaries. It is clearly no coincidence that her name is “Lilith” (Which for those that don’t know is the name of the primordial she-demon and first wife to Adam, effectively the original Femme Fatale). Maybe it’s a little on the nose, but she earns the name for sure.

The Burden of a Good Woman

The rest of the cast is a mixed bag. Molly, Carlisle’s primary love interest has more of an elevated role in the Film Noir than Del Toro’s movie. She is the “Good Woman” character that was pretty common in the 1940’s and used in Film Noir to contrast with the Femme Fatale. She is loyal, dependable and good at heart. Because of this she is often the voice of conscience to Carlisle. It is ultimately her good nature and principles that leads to Stanton’s fall but also provides the opportunity for redemption. Ultimately the biggest failure of the grifter was to predict the actions of a good woman. While she plays essentially the same role in Del Toro’s movie she feels somewhat removed from the story until she is required to throw a spanner in the works. It seems in this darker world a “Good woman” would seem a bit too out of place, plus the trope isn’t a popular one with modern writers. So the end result is she is just kind of there.

Carnival of Lost Souls

Conversely however the other Carnies are a lot more fleshed out in Del Toro’s vision and rather unsurprisingly Willem DaFoe puts in a top notch performance to his role as Carnie boss Clem Hoatley. The Mentalist couple, Zena and Pete, that take Carlisle under their wing in the Carnival seem a lot more fleshed out too, but then Stanton has a lot more to learn about the trade in the 2021 version so they had to be. Not that they were ignored in the 1947 version, indeed their relationship provides the template for where Stanton and Molly’s ends up and because of this Pete is depicted as far more of a washed up hasbeen, with little indication to his past glories. Last of all Molly’s romantic partner at the start of the movie is significantly different between films with it being a Strong Man in the original (and not a great performance) and the carnivals Dwarf in the modern version. I couldn’t say which is closer to the novel though (If you know, feel free to tell me in the comments). The Dwarf however is backed up by Ron Perlman’s Bruno so Carlisle still get’s punched for his indiscretions. 

Speaking of the Carnival, one of the most notable differences between versions is what the movies chose to show and what they chose to imply. The most obvious thing here being the carnivals “Geek”, which to those unfamiliar with the use of the work in this context, a carnival “Geek Show” features an apparently crazy man that chases around live chickens and eventually bites their heads off. The 1947 version shows only the audience reaction to this, but never shows it. Del Toro however directly depicts it. Of course they likely couldn’t show that in 1947, but still the implied spectacle was always pretty effective in film noir so that makes the approach a difficult comparison.

The Final Verdict

It’s not just the Geek that is given a more graphic spin, Del Toro also adds in a disturbing mutated baby in a jar (shown above) that also provides the film it’s final shot. None of this is really a surprise from Del Toro who always embraced the visually macabre. Of course Film Noir has its own visual style and Nightmare Alley is no exception, though it is not the best cinematography of the era. But then the 2021 version is not Del Toro’s best visual work either (Which is probably still “Pan’s Labyrinth”). Ultimately though I do have to give this one to the newer movie. One of the key elements of Film Noir is fatalism and it is actually the later movie that truly embodies that more than the first. The truth is the story here is a dark and twisted tale about not just human nature but about the dark side of the entertainment industry and it is fitting that the newer movie is so brutal in its approach. In my opinion however, this is not a great story in itself and so both versions surpassed the limitations of the source material to provide something truly entertaining.

Nightmare Alley (1947)

Rating: 6.5 out of 10.

Nightmare Alley (2021)

Rating: 7 out of 10.

The Spiral Staircase (1946)

Posted on by fenrisfil

From director Robert Siodmak, whose work includes the excellent Film Noir’s “The Killers” and “Phantom Lady” this is 1946’s “The Spiral Staircase”, a serial killer movie, where the killer stalks and kills women with various afflictions, though most of it takes place in an old house on a stormy night so multiple tick boxes here.

The movie technically stars Dorothy McGuire as the Mute Helen, but despite being the protagonist, because she is mute the dialogue is all taken by other actors. Helen became a mute after witnessing her parents die in a fire when she was younger and has not spoken a word since. The supporting cast includes Kent Smith as Dr. Parry, George Brent as Professor Warren, Gordon Oliver as Steve Warren and Ethel Barrymore as the bed ridden Mrs. Warren.

 

The Twisted Path.

In the hands of a less capable director and with a less capable lead this would have been a very mediocre movie. The plot is unremarkable and most of the actors are likewise. However, Siodmak with his heavy influence from German Expressionism brings a fantastic eye to the camera and provides some beautiful imagery, mostly involving the use of shadows, rain and of course the Spiral Staircase itself along with some great glimpses of the killers eye (an eye provided by Siodmak himself) and an interesting daydream sequence.

Also raising the quality of the movie is McGuire and given she isn’t allowed to speak any dialogue has to convey to the audience all her emotions purely through her movements and expressions. Of course this movie is only 17 years after the end of the silent film era so perhaps this was less impressive in the day, but none the less she played her role perfectly. The killer however, once revealed wasn’t particularly imposing, which is a real shame because I know Siodmak can give us a great killer as the one in his “Phantom Lady” was actually very intimidating and had some great dialogue.

 

The Ever Decreasing Circles.

The music is typical of what you’d hear in the period in a Film Noir, but this is blended with a nice bit of Theremin. It works well enough but doesn’t really add anything. The problem with this film is simply that as a horror it’s not really scary or unsettling. I feel sympathy for Helen’s plight as a mute but that’s it really. The killer isn’t revealed until quite late on and while we see glimpses it doesn’t really build any terror. Really this plays more like a Film Noir, which also makes the visuals seem less unique as those techniques are all over that genre. Ultimately this isn’t Siodmak’s best work but it has it’s moments none the less.

Rating: 5.5 out of 10.

Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021)

Posted on by fenrisfil

The sequel to 2018’s “Venom”, starring Tom Hardy as Eddie Brock, a down and out journalist Eddie Brock that stumbles upon an alien Symbiote and together they become Marvel Comics anti-hero “Venom”. This instalment introduces Venom’s arch Nemesis (Well, other than Spider-Man) Cletus Kassady/Carnage, played here by Woody Harrelson. The movie also sees Hardy gain a writing credit and has a change in the directors seat with Andy Serkis replacing Ruben Fleischer.

Despite the changes the movie isn’t that different to the last one and much like that the plot and pacing is reminiscent of 90’s Superhero movies. The action mostly takes place in the final act and the plot is kept very simple. The comedy however is very much keeping with the MCU style (Very character based on focused around the hero) and of course humour is always very subjective so those jokes may not land for everyone. For me it was about 50/50. The other element that dates this as a modern movie instead of something from the 90’s is the dominant focus on themes over plot or characterisations. Everything here is driven by the themes of personal relationships but the focus on specific relationships actually undermines a number of the characters and elements of the plot.

Eddie are you okay?

The main relationship focus of course is Eddie and Venom, (which also provides the vast majority of the comedic elements) and this is really just an expansion of the first movie. A lot of this plays out like a buddy cop movie where two mismatched personalities have to learn to get on to bring in a serial killer. Venom is the loose canon, while Eddie is the by the book guy (Well, compared to Venom anyway). There are basically two issues on the surface for the pair. The first is that Venom basically wants to be a Superhero and as part of this wants to eat a few heads. Eddie on the other hand isn’t interested in that and doesn’t want Venom going around killing people.

This isn’t especially dissimilar to their conflict in the previous movie. What is new though is their relationship with Anne (Michelle Williams), or rather the lack of it since they have gone their separate ways since the previous movie. If you recall at the end of that movie Eddie decided to keep Venom’s survival a secret from her, but it seems sharing a body with an alien symbiote may have been too much of a distraction for him. Venom, having previously bonded with her for a while too is naturally fond of her and sees Eddie as a failure for letting her go. It’s worth noting Eddies relationship with Anne is quite underplayed in favour of focusing on his one with the symbiote. 

Out of the Black into the… Red?

Then there is Cletus’ relationships with his Carnage symbiote, with Brock and his love interest Shriek. These relationships sadly feel a lot more superficial. But then as a psychopath it’s not a surprise that most of his relationships are based on what others can do for him. He first sees Eddie as a means to enhance his notoriety, but when that backfires he sees him as a rival and a target for vengeance. When he bonds with the Carnage symbiote it’s pretty obvious what he is getting out of it and while on the surface the pair seem on the same page they never really have any affection for each other. Both are intent on using the other. 

A key element of the story is compatibility and how first impressions don’t determine who is compatible and who is not. So while Venom and Eddie seem at odds, they actually care about each other and underneath are actually compatible while the Cletus and Carnage are basically the opposite. The problem here is this feels artificial. It is an arc that fit better in the first film and which really wasn’t the case in the comics, so here they had to find a way to artificially drive the two agents of chaos apart and this wedge is Shriek, the aforementioned love interest and easily the weakest character in the movie.

Make some noise!

Now in the comics Shriek does become an ally of Carnage, but the love story is new for this movie and significantly changes Cletus’ personality making him significantly less scary and more human, which wouldn’t be so bad except this isn’t really reflected in the actors performances and Shriek especially has very little to do in practice other drive the plot forward. It’s worth noting that this is a character with literally nothing to her outside of story elements directly related to events in this film. Outside of her relationship with Cassidy the only thing that drives her is the need for vengeance against a completely random cop that happened to shoot her after she tried to kill him, of course this cop happens to be Detective Mulligan, the one cop that is also investigate Brock and Cassidy. Outside of this she has no past, no drive and no personality. Ironically as they randomly decided to race swap the character, that meant taking away her pale goth girl look, which while not a substitute for personality would have at least made her more memorable. They did a similar thing with Domino in Deadpool 2 but that character had enough on screen personality to make her interesting without her iconic look.

Ask Not For Whom The Bell Tolls.

The action when it finally happens is solid too and though I know some have said the CGI wasn’t good, it looked perfectly fine for me. The church location for the finale leads to a number of cool visuals and set pieces and the two symbiotes certainly go at it! There’s also a number of cool visuals prior to the confrontation. There is a mid and post credits scene as is the tradition for Marvel movies these days. One lays the groundwork for Venom 3, while the other will no doubt get viewers excited… until they find out it basically leads nowhere. This one is basically a Marvel One Shot in two parts split between mid-credits scenes in two movies. In itself it is fun, but it teases a lot more than it delivers. One last thing about the credits… damn that music is awful. Really awful. Made it hard to stick through the credits for those scenes. 

Anyway, key thing I think in all regards here is that if you liked the first movie you will probably like this. The movie is definitely entertaining, but given the importance of Carnage to the Venom story in the comics and the excellent casting of Harrelson in that role, this does feel a bit of a waste.

Rating: 6 out of 10.

Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021)

Posted on by fenrisfil

.

This is a tricky movie to review without any kind of spoiler so I have decided that this review will avoid plot spoilers only, but WILL reveal who is actually in the movie because I don’t think this can be properly reviewed without this and I feel like the surprise (or disappointment) is something people would want to know about in advance and does not ruin the film. Plus it is easiest to do a review here that avoids plot spoilers by focusing on the characters as this is very much a character movie.

You have been warned! I won’t be revealing this off the bat however and I’ll give you plenty of warning before I make the reveal.

So first up let’s go over the basics. This is the third MCU Spider-Man movie, the sixth MCU movie with Spider-Man in, the Eighth live action Spider-Man movie in general and the eleventh live action superhero movie with the character. For those keeping track, Batman has only nine, ten if you include his cameo in Suicide Squad and Eleven if you also include the 60’s TV movie. Suffice to say Spider-Man has quite the on screen legacy and unlike Batman all those movies are within the last 20 years.

Say No Go.

All incarnations of Peter Parker have been successful on screen and have had their own uniqueness to them. Tom Holland’s version of the character is no exception and his movies tend to hit the billion dollar mark. Not a huge shock given that Spider-Man is the most popular hero globally (WIthin the US Batman probably still takes that honour, but not by much and the only other hero near either of them is Superman). He is also my favourite hero and probably the one I have read the most of in the comics. MCU Spider-Man does attract a lot of well deserved criticism however due to how different he has become from the comics. It doesn’t help that his supporting cast is almost unrecognisable, but probably the biggest issue is his origin and I don’t mean the spider bite, I mean Uncle Ben.

See the MCU’s Parker doesn’t have an Uncle Ben, or at least if he did the man died before Peter gained his powers. He also has a considerably younger and well protected Aunt May that he doesn’t have to spend time worrying about too much. Instead of this as motivation he was given an attachment to Tony Stark as a mentor and felt that loss strongly. It was good character advancement but it made this Peter considerably different. I bring this up because it is probably the number one criticism that MCU Spider-Man gets and it does get somewhat addressed in this movie. There is definitely an element of course correction here.

Can U Keep a Secret?

Jon Watts is at the reins again with this instalment showing that Marvel is clearly happy with what he brings to the table and I think most fans are too. It’s worth noting he is attached for the MCU’s Fantastic Four movie so maybe there is reason to be hopeful. Chris McKenna and Erik Sommers also return as writers. Tom Holland of course returns as does his regular supporting cast including the not-so-popular Flash Thompson interpretation played by Tony Revolori who is basically just there to be the butt of a few jokes and Angourie Rice’s Betty Brant that does actually get a nice nod to her comic book counterpart in her brief cameo. Jon Favreau has a cameo but is less involved than in “Far from Home”. Zendaya, Jacob Batalon and Marisa Tomei however all play major parts in the story.

Joining the regulars is Benedict Cumberbatch’s Doctor Strange who plays a pivotal role (as seen in the trailer, Peter wants him to make people forget his secret identity), but actually isn’t in that much of the movie. First thing to bring up here is that he is not as irresponsible about the whole thing as he appeared in the trailer. Which is good because the Sorcerer Supreme shouldn’t be a reckless fool. If he is indeed the Sorcerer Supreme, which is something that seems to be up for debate. At the end of this movie they show a trailer for Doctor Strange and the Multiverse of Madness and I have to say I wasn’t sold on that. However he is treated fairly respectfully here and his interactions with Peter are actually really cool.

Ghetto Thang.

His interaction with Michelle Jones is not so good thanks to that annoying “Please” line from the trailer. But as I usually find with with these movies Zendaya was far better in the movie itself than the trailer. For some reason they always seem to pick her smuggest, snarkiest lines in the trailers instead of any of her human moments which is something that doesn’t help to sell the character to people (and given the whole “MJ” bit, they do need to sell her). On a side note here, they did awkwardly force into dialogue randomly that her full name is Michelle Jones-Watson… yeah they totally didn’t need to do that and it had no bearing on anything (so I don’t regard it a spoiler) but I guess someone, somewhere is celebrating. She is actually fine though.

Ned Leeds is a trickier one to judge since he is part of an annoying plot contrivance. But to be fair that contrivance allowed him to do something other than just comic relief (Which lets face it is totally redundant in an MCU Spider-Man film. However they even turn that into comic relief so it’s not great and they missed a chance to give Ned a not to his comic book counterpart. He’s not terrible though so it’s fine.

Me Myself and I.

So the most important thing here is Peter Parker. As I mentioned above there is a very clear course correction going on in this film. It’s not perfect, but you couldn’t do this correction perfectly in Peter’s sixth MCU appearance. He’s got too much history. But I feel like they did this as well as they possibly could and I don’t say that lightly. It feels like the writers and director and maybe Marvel/Sony producers took on board the criticism and tried to adjust for this and I have to say I am impressed by Marvel actually listening to fans for a change.

The way the course adjustment is done is entirely through the story and Peter’s character development in the story. Sam Raimi once said his approach to the Spider-Man films was “What can Peter learn in this movie” and this really felt like it was the approach to this. By the end of the film Peter has changed from being “Iron Boy Junior” to genuinely feeling like Spider-Man and I could not be happier about that. Of course they can still mess this up later but we will see.

Okay, minor character spoilers ahead for the villains (these are all in the trailer, so no surprises).

Potholes in My Lawn.

All the villains you see in the trailer are the actual villains from their respective Spider-Man universes. This is important because they all manage to retain consistent characterisations from those movies. They really feel like direct continuations of the same characters. Even more impressively most of them actually get character development! So perhaps unsurprisingly Alfred Molina’s Doc Ock and Willem Dafoe’s Green Goblin/Norman Osborn are the stand outs and as perhaps the two favourite villains from past movies they do justice to their previous appearances and characters and add to those movies instead of detract from them which was always the danger.

Jamie Foxx’s electro gets some redemption here too. Sadly Amazing Spider-Man 2 will probably go down in history as the worst Spider-Man movie, but here he is improved and he gets almost as much focus as the other two. Sandman (Thomas Haden Church) too gets some redemption though his part in Spider-Man 3 was generally considered the best bit anyway. Sadly though while he starts off consistent to his personality from that movie they seem to forget about that a bit in the middle. He and Lizard were always going to be the minor players in this but he did okay. Lizard on the other hand gets very little screen time and doesn’t add that much to the movie. He doesn’t detract from it either so there is that at least

So before we hit the reveal there is one other major cameo I’m not going to reveal because it is just one scene early in the film and you can probably guess it anyway. Suffice to say it was satisfying. I will tell you one cameo you will almost certainly miss though: Nicholas Hammond, the original live action Spider-Man from the 70’s TV series is in this movie. I’m not going to tell you where though!

CHARACTER SPOILER TIME!!!!!!!

The magic number.

The music for the films end credits is itself a spoiler for those characters. It is “The Magic Number” by De La Soul (At least I think it was the De La Soul track, it may have been another version of it or the original material used for the samples). Yep, the rumours were true Tobey and Andrew are both in this movie.

So I’m not going to talk too much about how they are involved but I will say they are key parts of the entire third act and all get both character and action moments. Each one is consistent to their past characters, but developed past the end of their final movies. Andrew-Spidey was of course deeply impacted by the death of Gwen Stacy and went somewhat to a dark place after that. He’s still got the wisecracking though that made many people call him the best Spider-Man (though they usually pair that with “Worst Peter Parker”).

Tobey-Spidey however seems to have found a good element of balance and happiness to his life and though he doesn’t talk about it (so it’s not a spoiler) they really seem to hint that he may well be happily married to Mary Jane much like he was in the comics before the dreaded “One More Day” storyline messed that up. Tobey as the older Spider-Man is getting a little worn physically but he can still get the job done.

Buddy!

One of the best things here is the interaction between the three Peter’s. It’s respectful of each, though also acknowledges basically all the fan criticism. That in one place felt a bit like they were dumping on the AMS films but they restrained the mocking to things most people mocked and remained respectful of Andrew’s Spider-Man. They also talked about Tobey not needing web shooters, which turned into a fun moment. As far as Tom-Spidey goes they were careful not to diminish him too much by throwing in the other two (Especially with Tobey being such a fan favourite). They acknowledged Tom’s strengths and how his experience working with the Avengers makes him unique (Who have only worked solo, or briefly with one other)..

Perhaps the best bit though is that Tobey and Andrew both get on screen character development too and in ways that reference their own past and things that would have weighed on their consciences. This is the strength of this movie in general. All the main characters (The three Peters and three main villains) all get character arcs that really work for them. I also have to give Andrew dues for putting in a really good performance, giving him a lot of vindication for having to suffer through the bad writing on his solo outings.

3 Feet High and Rising.

Okay so while this movie is strong for character development, it actually isn’t especially outstanding on the action front. It’s not bad as such, but there isn’t really anything outstanding or ground breaking here, just lots of what you’ve seen before and in actual fact less impressive action than a lot of previous films. There are some great spectacles that no doubt make great screen shots (such as the one above), but it definitely suffers from the messy style of a lot of modern action where things are fast and hard to follow. To me though this didn’t really impact the film, this is a character movie with action and that is fine. What I will say is when you have all three Spider-Men involved in the action it can get a little confusing at times as to which is which. 

Rating this movie is a tricky one. I don’t want to get too drawn in to nostalgia here, but as of right now I feel this is a solid 7.5. If you are a Spider-Man fan of ANY of the previous instalments, you will likely enjoy this movie. One final thought though: As I mentioned this movie has a lot of course corrections for the character, but I would just like to point out that if they hadn’t chosen to skip Peter’s origin story and the character development he has from that origin they wouldn’t have needed to spend three solo movies and three team movies to get Peter to a position he would have been in his first movie, had they shown that origin. So in future, maybe don’t be so fast to applaud skipping superhero origins. Remember it’s not important what made someone powerful, but it is important what made them a hero.

Rating: 7.5 out of 10.

The Changeling (1980)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Another review from my October Horrorthon, this time “The Changeling” from 1980. The movie is directed by Peter Medak (“The Krays”) and stars George C. Scott (“Dr. Strangelove”, “Patton”) as John Russel with support from Melvyn Douglas and Trish Van Devere.

John Russel, is a music professor, grieving the loss of his wife and daughter in a traffic accident. To get a clean start he moves to Seattle where he rents out a Victorian Mansion from an agent of the local history society, Claire Norman (Van Devere). It turns out the property has been vacant for twelve years and it appears to be haunted. After a number of unexplained events within the house John brings in some specialist in hauntings to try and communicate with the spectral presence that turns out to be the ghost of a young boy.

The first act is a pretty solid haunted house affair, with a nice steady build up to the discovery of a hidden attic bedroom and a music box that plays the same tune which John had previously “composed” earlier in the movie (under the influence of the house). Things change drastically though for the middle act which is more of a mystery thriller as John delves into the story of the child and the house and uncovers the dark secret of the Mansions former owner. The vengeful spirit gets back involved though in the final act where things are ramped up in a suitable fashion (and we get a few deaths to boot). As a horror the middle act breaks the tension a little too much, but it does allow for a far more interesting ghost story.

John is an interesting character with a very personal motivation for investigating ghosts and it gets even more personal when a séance (involving some ghost writing and EVP) reveals that the ghost is that of a murdered child. The problem though is that John as a little too calm about the whole thing while the vengeful spirit, despite the odd temper tantrum is focused solely on finding justice for what was done to him. For most of the film they are on the same page so once the mystery is in motion I never really felt John was in any danger in the house. The mystery surrounding the house and ghost however is very compelling and it is refreshing to see a haunting with a more complicated and nuanced story behind it. 

This is a different kind of ghost story with the focus on the mystery instead of the horror and while the haunting elements do have their moments (Especially the child’s wheelchair moving itself around the house and a few things in the final act that I won’t spoil for you) it’s not especially scary or unsettling. The central mystery is directly linked to the name of the film and certainly provides a dramatic George C. Scott does a solid job in the lead role (especially as this is a movie very focused on it’s lead), but I would have liked to have seen a bit more made out of loss and how that relates to the plot of the film on an emotional and introspectional level. Overall though, this was an enjoyable movie. 

Rating: 6.5 out of 10.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTzgXVosQOU

Sweet Smell of Success (1957)

Posted on by fenrisfil

My final November Noir is a big one that I am long overdue for watching. This is “Sweet Smell of Success” from 1957. Adapted from Ernest Lehman’s novelette of the same name, this is a Noir Drama and one of those that may not be obvious as a Noir just from the synopsis but themes and style are very much in the genre.

Directed by Alexander Mackendrick (of Ealing Studios fame, having directed such movies as The Man in the White Suit (1951) and The Ladykillers (1955)), with double Oscar winning cinematographer James Wong Howe seeing to the visuals the legendary Elmer Bernstein providing the score. Add to that Tony Curtis and Burt Lancaster and this was always going to be a good one.

Curtis takes the lead as morally bankrupt press agent Sidney Falco, with Lancaster as the overbearing columnist J.J. Hunsecker, support is given by the beautiful Susan Harrison as Hunsecker’s sister Susan and Martin Milner as her love interest, Jazz guitarist Steve Dallas.

Sweet Sound of Success

The first thing that hits you right out of the gate is soundtrack that manages to be both explosive and sleazy at once with an instantly recognisable hook. This is a Bernstein soundtrack more along the line of “The Man with the Golden Arm” (1955) than his later work and it fits perfectly for this movie.

It’s worth noting the music for this movie isn’t entirely Bernstein as the film also featured music by the Chico Hamilton Quintet, itself quite a ground-breaking group as it featured Cello as a lead instrument. Though here much of the focus is the guitar due to it being the instrument of choice for key character Steve Dallas. This was the first movie to have two separate soundtrack releases one for Bernstein’s score and the other for the Quintets (Something that is commonplace today).

Sweet Look of Success

Accompanying the soundtrack in the intro are some fantastic bits of cinematography which lets the viewer know they are in for a treat as we briefly follow a newspaper run straight off the print, into trucks and to it’s final destination to the hands of Sidney Falco (Curtis).

This is a late period Noir and has a lot more polish than a lot of the genre, but it doesn’t move away from the classic shadow play. James Wong Howe’s style is certainly smoother and less claustrophobic than a lot of the genre but it works beautifully for this movie. Of particular note are the wide cityscapes that really capture Manhattan in the late 50’s.

Sweet Plot of Success

The premise is pretty straight forward on the surface. Falco has been asked by columnist J.J. Hunsecker to derail the romance of his younger sister that he is over protective of. Having failed to do so by the start of the movie Hunsecker has frozen him out of his column, which has cost him one of his clients. Hunsecker gives him a second chance, which allows Falco to come up with a scheme to manipulate the couple into ending their romance. The plan involves smearing the guitar player and forcing a confrontation between him and J.J. that paints Hunsecker as the injured party and forces his sister to stop seeing him. Of course things are never that straight forward.

What follows is a web of manipulation where morality and integrity become both a weakness to exploit and an obstacle to overcome. Falco stoops ever lower to achieve the bullying Hunsecker’s demands and eventually his ability to read and manipulate people fails him causing the whole web to unravel.

Sweet Themes of Success

This is a story about morality and how far people are willing to go to achieve their goals. But it’s also about denial and how people delude themselves that they aren’t being immoral. As Falco’s morality becomes more and more flexible he also becomes more and more defensive of his own motivations, most notably when he whores out a “friend” as a form of bribe and seems to be justifying it to himself more than her that it is for her good.

His plan to break up the couple hinges on using Dallas’ morality against him, but while he reads the guitarist like a book he fails to read either of the Hunsecker’s reaction to situation and between them his fate is sealed. By the movies conclusion he is well aware of how far he has fallen but yet doesn’t seem willing to accept any of the blame himself. Rest assured though this is the 50’s so naturally he won’t escape punishment.

While Falco is still descending in his morality, Lancaster’s Hunsecker has already reached the point where he can no longer tell how far he has fallen. Indeed after having achieved his goals he is so insulted by being called out for what he really is by Dallas that he pushes his luck just a little too far. Indeed he sees the attack on his moral fibre to be an attack on his readers. He has bought into his own hype, he sees his view as moral and Steve’s as immoral. Really, this is a very accurate portrayal of Journalist. On one side willing to stoop to any depth to achieve his ends but on the other seeing himself as a true pillar of the community.

All told this is a superb movie. Curtis and Lancaster nail their roles, the dialogue is superb, the plot appears simple on the surface but sees it’s share of twists and turns, the themes are strong throughout, the characters believable and compelling and the movie looks and sounds great. Definitely well worth seeing.

Rating: 8 out of 10.

The Crooked Way (1949)

Posted on by fenrisfil

 

Tonight’s November Noir is 1949’s “The Crooked Way”, directed by Robert Florey and staring John Payne (Kansas City Confidential) as Eddie Rice a WW2 Veteran with a piece of shrapnel in his brain that has caused him permanent amnesia. Support comes from Sonny Tufts as crime boss Vince Alexander, Ellie Drew as Nina Martin, Eddies ex-wife and Rhys Williams as Police Lt. Joe “You’ll hear from me later” Williams. The movie is based on the radio play “No Blade Too Sharp”.

Our story begins as Eddie heads back to Los Angeles with the hope of bumping into someone that knows him. That seems quite hopeful but he is recognised the moment he exits the train station by local law enforcement. He soon discovers he was previously known as Eddie Riccardi, a key figure in organised crime in the area. Through a series of additional encounter he comes to realise he turned states evidence on the local crime boss Vince Alexander to avoid jail time himself. Suffice to say Vince is not happy to hear about Eddies return, neither is his ex wife.

The Amnesiac’s Way

Interestingly this is not the only Film Noir to feature an amnesia plot for a war veteran with 1946’s Somewhere in the Night having a similar start but going in a very different direction. Sadly I’ve not seen that movie yet so a direct comparison will have to wait. What I can say is this movie had a lower budget and was considered brutal by comparison. Indeed critics of the day took issue with the violence, though of course by todays standards that violence is pretty tame. 

The idea of memory loss as a plot device is always pretty compelling. To not know ones own past instantly creates a mystery and makes the protagonist sympathetic as he learns everything the same time as the viewer and when that protagonist’s past is dark it creates interesting moral questions such as are there some things it is better not to know and how much guilt should one have for misdeeds you don’t even remember doing? Despite the set up this film is a bit more direct in how Eddie copes with these things but to be fair as a Soldier (and a war hero) he is not the kind of person to run from his responsibilities. Instead he tackles them head on. This leads to being framed for murder and on the run with both the police and the local crime boss gunning for him.

The Noir Way

This is a fast paced noir with a lot of action for the genre, making it seem more like a 30’s gangster movie in places, but the themes (specifically being unable to escape a dark past or a terrible future), the camera work and lighting are very much of the Noir genre.  The cinematography is creative, with lots of unusual angles, close ups and wide shots (All very common in the genre, but used heavily here).  Perhaps because of the low budget the lighting is played very much on the dark side with a lot of emphasis on shadows, in some cases getting more of the screen than the actors that are casting them. I have to say, I loved the visuals in this movie it was a really highlight and as far as the use of darkness goes it reminds me just how much better they were in the 40’s and 50’s at using it in artist ways while still allowing the viewer to actually see what was going on. These days, it’s basically the opposite.

The restrained use of music in The Crooked Way is interesting too. It is used sparingly to ramp up tension when anticipating a major event, but completely absent in a lot of the movie including for most of the final shoot out. Again this was probably for budgetary reasons but what is there works well and this is actually an excellent example of how creative directors in the 40’s and 50’s could be with limited resources. The story is pretty simple really effectively just leading Eddie from one violent encounter to the next as he tries to make sense of things. The actors for their part do a fine job but not really stood out as anything special to me. The ending was a little disappointing in it’s convenience and largely coming out of nowhere. Really this is a film made on the back of it’s strong visuals and rapid pacing rather than the story itself or the actors performances. Overall it’s a solid Noir. 

Rating: 6.5 out of 10.

There’s no trailer for this movie (that I can find) so here is a random scene. You can also watch the whole movie via archive.org.

Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021)

Posted on by fenrisfil

 

Tonight I finally got to see the long anticipated “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” (2021). This is the official Ghostbusters 3, perhaps far too late to be a legitimate sequel, so instead it’s effectively a torch passing which is what they should have done last time out when they made that ill advised remake. Unfortunately a lot of critics that supported that movie have been extra salty about this new one, while the average movie goer probably just remember the last movie was terrible and as such are likely cautious about going to see this. My theatre was not even half full for the 8pm showing on it’s opening Thursday. But I’m not here to talk box office, I’m here to talk quality so lets dig in!

 

In with the New.

So the first thing to note here is there are basically four new Ghostbusters to presumably be the long term replacements for the original. It’s pretty clear that unlike the 2016 movie that basically just gender swapped the original team of four guys they set up to be as diverse as possible here. The team has two boys and two girls and includes one Black and one Asian character. Unfortunately those two seem to be modern Hollywood stereotypes because they are painfully similar to Michelle and Ned from the MCU Spider-Man films. They are more endearing than those characters at least and “Podcast”, the Asian boy is actually one of the highlights of the film. 

Mckenna Grace and Finn Wolfhard play Egon Spenglers grandkids, Phoebe and Trevor and Pheobe is basically the movies protagonist. She is a young female Egon, but they tried to give her a bit of uniqueness by having her make really bad jokes, which does mostly work. McKenna is actually brilliant here but I think the film spends a bit too much time focused on her because the truth is Egon is not the Ghostbuster you want as your lead, but perhaps more importantly it leaves Trevor feeling undeveloped and as a knock on effect from that his love interest “Lucky” (Celeste O’Connor), gets the short straw on screen time and development, which is ironic consider she is basically the Black Ghostbuster.

 

Out with the Old.

The movie feels a lot smaller scale than the original Ghostbusters or even it’s sequel, but while this change in tone does make the movie feel more like a reboot than a sequel it does work for the movie itself. This is ultimately a more emotional movie and isn’t really about the ghost story but about the characters and the legacy of the original. As such the plot is very thin on the ground and basically “Gozer came back somehow”, the movie also feels a bit too long if you watch it right after the original movies (as I did) and slows down a lot in the middle. The first very long act of the movie basically involves the kids discovering their grandfathers legacy. The second act is basically where the plot resides along with a bit of ghost action. There’s a completely pointless appearance by Ivo Shandor (architect of the building from the first film), which I would say was a spoiler except he does literally nothing. This leads us to our big finale and this is where the movie finally reaches it’s potential. 

I don’t want to drop too much about the final act and just how the original team become involved but suffice to say I found the ending very satisfactory and emotional. The original team are respected and every character basically gets their moment. My only real criticism is this act is by far the shortest, but what it lacks in quantity it makes up for in quality.

A love letter to the original.

There are many call backs to the original movie, but unlike when these appeared in the 2016 disaster, this time around they fit smoothly into the story, don’t mess with the pacing and each one landed well with me and everyone else in the theatre. When the original crew appear they are all respected and despite their short time on the screen every one of them gets some character development and at least a good line or reference. It is safe to say what their appearances lack in quantity they make up for in quality. They also get to be the focus of the mid/post credits scenes that you really have to stay for. It’s worth noting that Ernie Hudson has somehow managed to avoid aging. The guy almost looks like he did in Ghostbusters 2. Speaking of the original sequel, it’s interesting to note that the movie makes no references (that I noticed) to that movie specifically, which is a shame but I guess it’s understandable given a lot of people seem to dislike that movie. 

The biggest surprise of the movie is just how much character development Egon gets, despite both the actor and the character being dead. This really is his story and the movie is focused on his legacy both from his life’s work and his family. It is ultimately a very moving tribute to a well loved character and I wouldn’t be surprised if a few tears are shed by the end. Ultimately this movie while not the near perfection of the original, achieved everything the 2016 movie failed at. It is a very respectful and entertaining return for the franchise. 

Rating: 7 out of 10.

The Haunting (1963)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Look, I know the supernatural is something that isn’t supposed to happen, but it does happen.

Another movie from my October movie challenge that inspired the creation of this blog. My pick for October 11th was 1963’s “The Haunting”, based off the novel “The Haunting of Hill House” by Shirley Jackson. Yes the same source material as the Netflix series (and also a second movie in the 90’s). Unlike the TV series this film stays mostly true to the source material, though there are definitely links between the two versions. 

 

Messing with the Supernatural

The movie is helmed by Robert Wise (The Day the Earth Stood Still, The Andromeda Strain) and stars Julie Harris, Claire Bloom, Richard Johnson and Russ Tamblyn (Who made a cameo in the TV show). Unlike the TV series this focuses on four strangers that are gathered together by investigator of the paranormal, Dr. John Markway (Johnson) as an experiment to prove the existence of otherworldly things. There were meant to be more, but the others heard rumours about the place and decided against it. They probably had seen horror movies before. As a result the only participants to show up are Eleanor (Julie) and Theodora (Bloom). They are joined by Dr. Markway and Luke Sanderson (Tamblyn) who will one day inherit the property.

Theodora is very similar to her namesake in the TV show (i.e. Gay and psychic), though toned down because it was 1963. Eleanor though is our main character and the target of the Houses evil desires (Her equivalent in the show is pretty much all the other female characters… yeah she’s basically screwed).

Things that go Bump in the Night

This is black and white and a great reminder of just how effective a haunting can be without evil nuns and bent limbed monstrosities crawling at you on their back in stop motions. Instead this relies on shakes and sounds and the actions of the characters (and in the case of Eleanor, her thoughts) and it’s incredibly effective. In the case of Eleanor we get to see her go insane as she is both terrified and seduced by the house. There are some great visuals (and sound bytes! I recognised the opening of White Zombies “Super Charger Heaven” early in the film) including a lot of camera work that reminded me a lot of “The Evil Dead” so I’m guess this movie was a big influence on Sam Raimi.

This is a masterfully crafted horror movie whose only real downside is that we are so used to all the modern visuals that some may consider this a bit too tame. But the characters are all interesting in their own way, the frights are effective and the manipulation of poor Eleanor was well executed. Over my October viewing I would watch several ghost stories and this stayed firmly at the top of the list. There is a reason why updating the story with modern visuals was so effective for the TV series and it’s clear that the show owed a lot specifically to this movie (instead of just the original novel). But while that had the benefit of modern effects, this shows almost nothing and yet is extremely effective. It really is a masterclass in how to do horror without gore or CGI. If you are a horror fan you owe it to yourself to give this a watch.

Rating: 8 out of 10.

Mayhem (2017)

Posted on by fenrisfil

My movie of choice for the 3rd of October (as part of my horror per day challenge) was 2017’s “Mayhem” directed by Joe Lynch (A regularly contributor to Shudder’s “Creepshow” series and director of the fun “Knights of Badassdom” from 2013) and staring Steven Yeun (Glenn from the Walking Dead) and the always impressive Samara Weaving (Guns Akimbo, Ready or Not).

Hostile Witnesses

The film is set in a world that has suffered a huge viral outbreak…. I know, topical right? But this virus unique in that it basically reduces inhibitions and encourages violent outbreaks from those infected. Our setting for the film is the headquarters of a law firm that made it’s name in a landmark case involving this virus, where they established those infected by the virus can’t be held accountable for their actions (including murder). This provides both an amount of irony from the virus breaking out in this office and provides a key plot point since everyone involved is well aware that this legal loophole provides certain opportunities….

Our heroes were both wronged by the company, with Derek (Yeun) having just been fired for someone else’s mistake and Melanie (Weaving) having been screwed over financially. Both are about to be escorted from the building when the outbreak causes a lockdown and the pair become determined to take justice into their own hands. Initially just wanting to have their cases heard but with the virus infecting them too this progresses to seeking a far more violent confrontation. 

Passing Judgement

The rest of the film is basically our heroes working their way through the building scoring a whole load of pay back in the process. Mayhem does indeed ensue as the movie title promised. Obviously this movie is light on plot, but it’s fast paced and Steven and Samara really did a good job. Both seem to be having a blast making the movie and I have to say they both deserve to be higher profile actors than they currently are. 

The way the virus affects peoples inhibitions reminds me of things like David Cronenberg’s “Shivers” or the book “The Fog” by James Herbert, both of those though were pure horror while this is far more of an action/comedy movie that just happens to have some horror elements. The Law Firm setting provides the audience with villains that are easy to hate (Corrupt corporate lawyers) as well as making the outrageousness of their inhibitions seem entirely believable. The movie also does a good job of throwing out a number of “mini-boses” for our heroes to get past in order to progress, making the pacing a little bit like a video game. Really the simplicity of everything in this movie is what makes it work so well. This was a fun movie.

Rating: 7 out of 10.