The Wolf Man (1941)

 I didn't think that I would like 'The Wolf Man' as much as I ultimately did. Lon Chaney Jr. is great in the role, I feel some sympathy for him as an actor, his father's legacy being what it was it would have been hard for the son to escape the gravity well of type casting, this may in fact be his performance, and it's certainly his most remembered. Interestingly the wolfman mythology was largely made up for this movie, it wasn't based on a pre existing story like the other well remembered Universal Monsters of the pre war era. A fairly simple narrative, effectively told. ***

The Invisible Man (1933)

I read the H.G. Wells novel 'The Invisible Man', I think when I was middle school, so I don't remember a lot of the details. I don't recall the titular man being quite so mad from the book, but that is the approach this 1933 Universal adaption takes. The film also updates the setting from the 1890's of the book, to then contemporary times. The special effects are pretty darn good, especially for the time, I'm not sure how they did much of this on a technical level. Claude Rains seems to be having a ball in the role, though we only see his face once in the film. This movie is also notable for the appearance of the actress Gloria Stuart, approximately 64 years before appearing as the old woman in Titanic. *** 

Starship Troopers (1997)

 Directed by Paul Verhoeven and adapted from the 1958 Robert Heinlein novel of the same name, 'Starship Troopers' is a film (and presumably a book) that might easily be misunderstood. It is a sci-fi actioner sure, and effective as one, but it's also deeper, but the way that it is deeper is simultaneously also shallower. 

Watching this movie was like watching a propaganda film from a future that doesn't' exist. It takes World War II movie troupes and adapts them to a critique of war generally, and a sort of Fascising effect conflict and its propagandizing can have. The film is often fairly heavy handed with this, the society our characters exist in (who start the film as high school seniors despite all appearing 30ish, and for the most part improbably good looking), seems to have largely eliminated both sexism and racism, but is also militaristic and restricts voting rights to an elect class, Romanesque. 

The conflict with the Aliens bugs, against which the human characters feel a self righteous rage, was ironically triggered by human colonists, who with warning persisting in settling in 'bug' territory. The fact that these rouge human settlers are described as 'Mormon extremists', well I found that enjoyable. 

Though through viewing I was always aware of the satirical subtext, I found myself being swept up, and really enjoying the film as fun jingoism. The visual effects here hold up remarkably well, and the acting not being that good is what makes the acting work. Special kudos to Michael Ironside however who gives the films best performance, he really sells it. I was rather surprised how much I enjoyed this. ***

Possessed (2000)

'Possessed' is a 2000 television film produced by the Showtime network. It is based, with some liberties, on the same exorcism case that inspired William Peter Blatty to write 'The Exorcist'. The case of a Maryland Lutheran boy exorcised by Catholic priests in the St. Louise area in 1949, is here updated to approximately 1954. This date change seems to be for the benefit of the subplot concerning an Archbishop's (Christopher Plummer) efforts at mainstreaming Catholicism. Historically that faith had been held in some suspicion by America's protestant's majority, but by the 1950's that was starting to change in part from the celebrity of people like the reverend Fulton Sheen, and the Kennedys, which are both mentioned by name in the film. 

This subplot helps bolster the unusualness of an exorcism even being performed, and that bishops mixed feelings at even authorizing it. The priest who oversees the ceremony is played by Timothy Dalton, and its interesting to see the parallels with Blatty's story. In 'The Exorcist' Jason Miller's character is haunting by feelings that he had neglected the care of his recently passed mother, while in 'Possessed' Dalton's in haunted by guilt owing to his World War II experience. 

The story here pales in comparison with the art and power of Blatty's version. It is however reasonably effective and adds some interesting bits, like how the most recent in-depth description of an exorcism these mid century American priests could find, dates to 17th century France. Still this film never transcends feeling like the TV movie it is. **

Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist (2005)

The great Paul Schrader wrote and directed 'Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist'. The suites at Warner Brother so disliked what they saw, that they more then doubled what they'd already invested to extensively reshoot it as a more conventional film under Renny Harlin. That film they released as 'Exorcist: The Beginning' and that film is a jumbled, hyperactive, awful mess. It also made only a modest profit so the studio put out Schrader's version the following year, and it's night and day. 

I feel like when the studio greenlit this movie they must have had in mind the idea of another 'scariest movie ever made', that was the through line they wanted. What Schrader produced was not genera horror, as studios would have understood it in the early 2000's. What it is, is a rumination on faith crises and the problem of evil, in short a Paul Schrader movie, but with some horror stuff thrown in. 

'Thrown in' isn't exactly accurate, it's there, and it's earned. There are some disturbing moments, but many of them subtle. The movie tells the story of Father Merrin (here played by Stellen Skarsgard), a disillusion Catholic Priest of Dutch extraction, now an archeologist on a dig in the British East Africa of 1947. An ancient church is found where no such church should be, and the mystery of why it was built, and why it was deliberate buried shortly after completion, brings Father Merrin into his first, but not last, encounter with the demon Pazuzu. 

This is finally structured, very much thought out, very much a particular vision, cobbling together some kind of alternate story for the reshoot must have been a bitch. There are many, many distinctions between the two films, but for me what encapsulates them most is the recasting of the female doctor from the understated beauty of Clara Bellar, to Bond girl Izabella Scorupco. The recut, to put it very mildly, greatly cheapened and vulgarized Schrader's vision. 

After the astounding original film, the 'Exorcist' sequels haven't been very good. I've watched all of them for the first time this month and Schrader's is the only one of them that worked for me, that felt like it properly fit into the world of the original movie. Yes I'm including Exorcist III, which was written and directed by the writer of the original story William Peter Blatty. That movie felt like it betrayed the central message of the first film, Schrader's movie feels like it understands that message more then even the man who created it. 

This film is not perfect, it is not the equal of the original, but it compliments it and fleshes out Father Merrin's backstory in a way that worked. This story about how Father Merrin's faith in God was restored, restored my faith in the idea of Exorcist sequels. ***

 

Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982)

 With 'Halloween III', produced but not directed by John Carpenter, we return to the mans original vision for the franchise, which was anthology, 'Twilight Zone' like. There is no Mike Meyers here, this film is completely independent of the first two, and in fact the first film shows up on TV within the movie. 

The plot has to do with doctor Tom Atkins, who teams with Stacy Nelkin, who despite being like half his age becomes his love interest, to investigate the strange death of her father, briefly a patient of Atkins. They end up in a small Northern California town investigating a company that makes Halloween masks, and it's (to put it mildly) ideocentric owner played by Dan O'Herlihy. Both pagan magic and  mechanical men turn out to be involved with an odd scheme, which were it to succeed really would end Halloween as we know it. 

I liked the pulpiness of this, I liked how weird it was, it's committed to its strange premise which really is horrifying, even while much of it's support structure is silly. I saw part of this as a kid and the audacity of a certain sequence stuck with me, glad to finally have full context.**1/2 

Monster Squad (1987)

 'Monster Squad' is basically 'Goonies' vs. the Universal Monsters. There is a plot, I mean the movie explains why they're there, and terrorizing a mid sized American town. This is the second film directed by Fred Dekker, whose film 'Night of the Creeps' came out the previous year and I'm kind of partial to it, and not just because of Jill Whitlow. Both films are well witty, quite well written and full of self conscious genera references. 

Watching 'Monster Squad' today the pure 80'sness of it stands out, including troupes and humor you probably wouldn't see if the film was made today. The movie never fully mainstreamed, it's got a cult following but never made the 'cannon' of 80's family fair, because frankly it might have been a little too naughty. **1/2 

Cry Macho (2021)

 Clint Eastwood's latest goodbye picture 'Cry Macho' is based on the 1975 novel of the same name by N. Richard Nash (best known for the Broadway show 'Rainmaker' and it's subsequent movie version, not to be confused with John Grisham's 'The Rainmaker'). This movie was in development hell for decades, Nash who co-adapted the screenplay passed away in 2000, and back in 1988 Eastwood himself had considered directing the thing with Robert Mitchum in what would become his role. Eastwood directs and stars here, and wrote some of the music as well. Now in his 90's Eastwood pairs things back physically a lot, but he's still got it in prescience, delivery, and wonderfully understated direction. 

Retaining roughly the period setting of the novel, here the story takes place in 1979 & 80, and concerns Eastwood as a retired rodeo rider and ranch hand named Mike Milo, who is recruited by his old boss (a mildly greasy Dwight Yoakam) to go down to Mexico to retrieve his 13 year old son. Yoakam can't go to Mexico himself because he's involved in some legal tangles there, but is convinced by people who know his ex wife that the boy is being abused. Milo whose relationship with Yoakam has a frenemy quality, aggress to try as his old boss did help pull him out of an emotional hole following the death of his wife and child in a car accident, seemingly decades ago. 

The movie concerns Milo tracking down and retrieving the boy Rafo (Eduardo Minett) and his efforts to take him to his father. Car difficulties force a weeks prolonged stay in a small Mexican town, which proves the emotional hart of the movie. Milo used to break horses and now he must kind of break Rafo, I didn't think this element of the film entirely worked, Rafo is never really that bad to begin with. 

It is the friendship the two strike up in the town with a middle aged widow and her grandchildren that really elevates this picture, that makes it, everything else feels really standard, stuff we've seen before. But even the repetitive stuff Eastwood sells, while other then the widow (Natalia Traven, whose endearing the moment you see her), the rest of the cast, even the boy, are really only adequate. However the 13 roosters who plays the boys prized fighting cock Macho do fine work. 

Not great drama but finally crafted pulp, I found 'Cry Macho' to be unexpectedly satisfying. ***

Exorcist: The Beginning (2004)

 Around a decade and a half after 'The Exorcist III' came 'Exorcist: The Beginning', a prequel focusing on Father Merrin backstory in the 1940's. Merrin here is played by Stellan Skarsgard, a reasonable choice for the role, but on the hole this movie just got so much wrong, it really shouldn't exist. 

Ironically this movie contains extremely extensive reshoots, I've heard up to 90%; the original version of this film having been helmed by the great Paul Schrader, the studio did not like what they got at all, so they put an additional $50 million on top of the $30 million already spent and had Renny Harlin ('Die Hard 2', 'A Nightmare on Elmstreet 4') remake it. I plan on watching Schrader's version soon, Harlin's take was so poorly received that Warner Brothers decided to put the first version out anyway the following year. 

This film lacks subtilty, it lacks emotional investment, the scale seems off the wall, it just doesn't feel like it fits into the world of the first film; which is true really to varying degrees with all the sequels, but it's most on display here. The overuse of early 2000's computer effects doesn't help at all, this movie kind of wants to be a darker, more brooding Indiana Jones, but it doesn't even want that enough to fully follow through. Like number 3 this movie also contains a twist I hated, though not as much as in the previous film. 

There is really nothing in this movie worth recommending, it's just awful. *

The Exoricist III (1990)

A partially remembered video about this movie by Red Letter Media led me to expect that this would be the best of the best of the Exorcist sequels, and in some ways it is, but on the whole I may have cared for it even less then 'The Exorcist 2'. 'The Exorcist III' has the right background, written and directed by 'Exorcist' creator William Peter Blatty, based on his sequel novel 'Legion', it's better then reasonably smart and has strong writerly dialogue. It picks up with the characters of Lt. William F. Kinderman and Father Joseph Dyer (though here played by different actors then in the first film, George C. Scott taking over the Kinderman role from the dead Lee J. Cobb) fifteen years after the events of the first film. 

The inciting incidents are a series of murders involving religious imagery staged in the Georgetown area. Theoretically this film could have largely avoided the supernatural elements of the previous movies, focusing instead on a more human kind of evil. However demonic forces have in fact reemerged, and while I was going along with the film in mild interest, owing mostly to the strength of the writing and George C. Scott, it comes to a twist that I found so distasteful, and such a betrayal of the original that this movie completely lost me. I also did not care for Brad Dourif's overlong siliques, which I know the Red Letter Media guys liked. Had this film not been an Exorcist sequel, but simply a stand alone story I probably would have liked it okay, but it's post Exorcist status is why I'm only giving it *1/2.  

The Star Trek Project: NextGen Season 6

 I feel like more of my recommendations for this season are marginal ones, compared with previous seasons. By this point the series is straining some to come up with new ideas, and are often doing variations on things they did before, though there are some strong episodes in this season as well.

Season 6 

Episode 4 "Relics" 

"Scotty!" 

Episode 6 "True Q" 

Q and the new intern. 

Episode 7 "Rascals" 

Picard and three others are de-aged to adolescence. Silly premise, but it proves quite fun. 

Episode 8 "A Fist Full of Data's". 

A holodeck "Western" episode. Spaghetti Trek? 

Episodes 10 & 11 "Chain of Command Parts 1 & 2"

Picard goes on a secret mission into Cardassian space, the Enterprise is assigned a temporary new Captain. 

Episode 14 "Face of the Enemy" 

Troi goes undercover as a Romulan intelligence agent. 

Episode 15 "Tapestry" 

It's a Wonderful Quantum Lead, Q & the afterlife. 

Episode 16 & 17 "Birthright, Parts I & II" 

There's some Data stuff, but it's mostly about Worf following up on a tip that his father may still be alive, in Romulan custody. 

Episode 18 "Starship Mine" 

Die Hard on the Enterprise. 

Episode 19 "Lessons" 

So different from any other NextGen episode, an understated romance for Picard. 

Episode 20 "The Chase" 

It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad Galaxy. Picard brings the Enterprise on an archeological treasure hunt. 

Episode 23 "Rightful Heir" 

The second coming of Kahless The Unforgettable. 

Episode 24 "Second Chances" 

A duplicate Riker. 

Episode 25 "Timescape" 

Star Trek does 'Tenent'? 

Season 6 Episode 26 & Season 7 Episode 1 "Descent, Parts I & II" 

Lore and the Borg 

Forbidden World (1982)

I was inspired to see 'Forbidden World' after watching a YouTube video about it on the 'Good, Bad, Flicks' channel, and I would recommend the video it's an interesting story, the movie I would recommend with an asterixis. This is a Roger Corman produced 'Alien' rip-off, the first film directed by Allan Holzman, who did things like trailer cutting and second unit stuff before this. It's competently done, and an odd labor of love.

There are actually two versions of this film on the BlueRay, the theatrical cut and the directors cut. The directors cut has more comedy, it's not so much laugh out loud funny as winking at the audience funny, or so I thought. Apparently this plays different to an audience, an early showing brought lots of laughter, which was intentional, but Corman didn't like it, he didn't think it was going to be that kind of movie, so he ordered it recut. 

I think of the two versions I may have liked the theatrical cut marginally more, for one thing that cut looks a lot better, it's been digitally remastered and the directors cut clearly hasn't. Also you can understand what the robot is saying much clearer in the theatrical cut, even though the voice casting is kind of odd. 

This struck me as a serviceable, but not exceptional film, definitely a B movie. Corman got what he wanted out of it, another 'Alien' rip-off with female nudity. The movie made four times what it costs to make, so sehr gut.  The audio commentary, which is on the directors cut, makes you apricate the project more, Holzman put everything he could into this little picture, and the pride he shows in it even now is endering, as his stutter, he directed this film with a stutter, perhaps only Roger Corman would have given this man his antra into directing, and I'm glade he did.**

Critters Attack (2019)

 It had been nearly 30 years since the last Critters film, I had hoped this movie would be a loving tribute by devoted fans, and that they would find a way to reinvigorate the nearly forgotten franchise, this did not happen. 'Critters Attack' is awful, it's slap dash, made on the cheap in South Africa for some reason, despite an unspecified American setting.

There was nothing new or interesting in this film, they tried to make a likable 'Gizmo' like Critter but they didn't invest her with any personality. There is no good acting in this. Dee Wallace returns from the first film, but due to a rights dispute they never use her characters name. She was definitely phoning this sucker in, just a paycheck. I saw this via Syfy Channel, it's where it belongs, and reminds me why I never bother with the Syfy Channel. * 

No Time to Die (2021)

Postponed in release by Covid, canonical Bond #25 'No Time to Die', at a six year delay from 'Spector', matches the record gap between it's last cold war film 'License to Kill' and first post cold war movie 'GoldenEye'. At 163 minutes it's also the longest movie in a franchise that nature intended to run around the two hour mark. I have read this film referred to as the 'Avengers: End Game' of James Bond movies, which fits given it's length, last appearance of Daniel Craig in the title role, and the number of story lines wrapped up and homages to earlier films rendered. 

This is also a film where the most interesting things to talk about would be major spoilers so I'll hold back. I did want to briefly mentioned that the scene early in the film, where a biological weapon is stolen, felt scary to me in a way I've never been scared in a Bond movie before, after 2020 that threat seems so much more real. I also half suspect that Ana de Armas fun and brief role in this movie, was largely there because Craig enjoyed working with her in 'Knives Out'. 

On the whole though fun is not the word I'd use to describe this movie. Craig's Bond films have tended toward the dark, and that generally worked, sometimes exceptionally so like in 'Skyfall'. However as a casting reboot is in the works I'd apricate if a lighter tone were on offer, I prefer Bond to be enjoying the chase, not seemingly traumatized by it. 

Much has been made of the new black and female agent (Lashana Lynch) who has taken Bond's 007 designation by the begging of the film, and less has been made of the films confirmation that Q (Ben Wishaw) is gay. Bond movies reflect the time in which they are made, and they tend to date pretty hard, which is something I love about them. 'No Time to Die' is a Bond movie of a socially progressive era where audiences are used to hard edged, long form, dramatic story telling. These are all good things and they have their place, but I'm hoping for a less tonally oppressive future. ***

The Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977)

 While the original 'Exorcist' movie had a strong sense of authorial vision, both in the writing and the directing, the sequel feels like the commercial product it is. The tremendous success of the first movie made a second all but inevitable, and they do a reasonably good job here of building off the original, what has happened with Regan, more back story on Father Merrin. But the movie is too often silly, Louise Fletcher's flash bulb device that is suppose to allow two people to enter the same dream, Richard Burtons Father Lamont laying it on too thick. There were a few moments I liked, but this movie tired too hard, didn't feel natural enough, where the first film felt surprisingly real. Not awful, but just a conventional movie sequel to an unconventional film.  **

Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021)

 What a weird franchise Venom is. The Covid delayed sequel 'Let There Be Carnage' has a nothing plot, but Tom Hardy talking to his long frustrated symbiont continues to hold an odd appeal. I image magically showing this movie to a mainstream audience of 30 or 40  years ago, and how utterly flummoxed and confused they'd be. **

The Dig (2021)

 Your mother will probably like this one. 'The Dig' is based on a novel based on real events. In 1939 a widowed and sickly English landowner (Carey Mulligan) hired an informally educated excavator (Ralph Fiennes) to dig up some ancient burial mounds on here property. What they discovered proved to a major archeological find, one that effectively rewrote much of what was known of that area in England in the 6th century or so. 

Throw in class conflict between the excavator and formally trained archeologists brought in one the job, the loaming clouds of an impending world war, and a romance sub plot for Lily James, and you've got all the pieces you need for this specific type of film. Effecting, subtly stirring, and there's some closeted gay stuff to make it resonate with contemporary concerns. Especially strong performances from Mulligan and Fiennes. ***

Mother! (2017)

 'Mother!' is another of director Darren Aronofsky's extremely on the nose, revisionist biblical/ ecological parables, as such a fitting follow up to Noah (2014). I must confess some embarrassment with how much Aronofsky, one of our most pretentious, if still interesting directors, had me through this thing. It's fairly clear, fairly early just what the parable is here, but I kept looking for more, and became kind of swept up in the thing. There is real audacity here, especially later in the film during which the figurative flying rodents have a case of the runs. Marketed as a thriller or horror movie, many people who paid to see this film in the theater on the strength of Jennifer Lawrence's casting, probably had an unsubtle metaphor of their own for the director. ***

An Extremely Goofy Movie (2000)

 'An Extremely Goofy Movie' is a 2000 direct to video sequel to 1995's 'A Goofy Movie', a film with a strong sentimental vibe for youths of the 1990's. 'Extremely' proves to be better then it really needed to be, I laughed a fair bit. The film recycles the 'Max wants more personal space from his overly involved dad' plot from the first movie, but now transplanted from high school to collage. 

Goofy joins Max there upon losing his job, in a very Goofy like manner, and needs to complete his final year to be more employable. You see Goofy did three years of collage back in the 70's but never graduated, and this introduces a retro disco strain to the proceedings, and helps Goofy hook up with a collage librarian who has a taste for the era, and who is drawn as an almost uncomfortably sexual greyhound. 

In addition to the intentionally retro stuff, the movie is also now retro for the turn of the millennium, with Max, his friends, and even Goofy competing in an extreme sports competition. There is even some synergy with the ESPN and ESPN II brand names. The bad guy here is a distillation of every a-hole preppy character from an 80's collage film, so there's even another era for which this movie invokes nostalgia. **1/2

  

The Exorcist (1973)

 'The Exorcist' is a landmark film, a phenomena at the time of its release, and adjusted for inflation still Warner Brothers most profitable film ever. The movie has long secured an iconic place in film history, it's part of the canon and a movie I'd frankly been intermediated by. I watched it recently for the first time as part of the podcast, I'm glade I finally got to it. Needless to say we speak of it at some length in the episode we recorded, so I'm going to limit myself here. 

'The Exorcist' is really a film of its time, it's got that 70's pacing, director William Friedkin was not in a hurry. The exorcism doesn't being until around the last 30 minutes of the movie, and early on the film has a disjointed quality, as there are three major narratives that only really come together pretty late on in the proceedings. 

It's a horror film of course, there are shocking moments, one near the end literally made my jaw drop, which doesn't happen for me often. But it's also a character piece, ensemble, but with Jason Miller getting pride of place. Strong performances all around. This is something that will warrant a revisit, very impressive. ****

Mary Magdalene (2018)

Though far from a critical darling upon it's theatrical release, I recall at the time reading a near ecstatic review from Nick Allen at RogerEbert.com. Mr. Allen stated that 'Mary Magdalene' "moved me in a way that no previous film about Christianity ever has." While I do not share his reaction to this film, it did remind me of a time when I had a similar reaction to a different movie, Denys Arcand's 1989 French-Canadian release 'Jesus of Montreal', which I saw for the first time in 2011.

What Arcand's movie did for me, and what director Garth Davis's film did for Allen, was a take a story that had been somewhat calcified by repetition, reframed it and reinvigorated it. Watching 'Mary Magdalne' I was struck that I don't recall ever hearing the Jesus story principally through the eyes of a woman. 

The ethereal Rooney Mara is Mary of the village Magadline, a small Jewish fishing community on presumably the Sea of Galilee, back in the first century. She is a quite, introspective woman who yearns for something more meaningful then the time and place of her birth would seem to allow. Her family is trying to persuade her to marry a recent widower with several children, and he seems like he's probably nice enough, but Mary finds herself 'not built for that life'. When a traveling preacher and faith healer visits her village in the company of a number of his disciples, she believes she may have found what she's been looking for. 

Jesus here is played by Mara's real life romantic partner Joaquin Phoenix and it's an interesting casting choice. Phoenix has in the role both a magnetism to him, and the ability to come across as a crazy man in a robe. The movie concentrates on this ambiguity, in most cinematic portals Jesus comes across as clearly divine, here it is more uncertain, one can understand both peoples embrace and rejection of him. 

Mary and Jesus connect in a way unique among the disciples, she seems to have more sway with him then the others, and helps redirect some of his preaching to concentrate on the women, who were second class socially and theologically amongst the Jews of the time. The scene in which Mary lends a hand to assist in baptizing a large crowd, could be anathema to religious conservatives, but has a sense of wonder to it, emphasizing the radical change promised by this young Jesus movement. 

Speaking of radicalism, something else I enjoyed about the film was the way it placed Jesus and his followers amongst the radicals' of Roman occupied Palestine. The disciples are expecting that this ministry is building towards an insurrection, and while Mary points out to them that their savior had not promised political liberation, just spiritual, the others seems to feel that the political aspects were implied. Judas for one is shown as thinking so, the prospect of independence from the Roman's and their corrupt puppet monarchs is what attracted him to the movement in the first place; while he very much believes in Jesus miracles, he perceives them as just the warm up act for revolution. When Judas comes to see that this is not the case, that is when he betrays his savior, hoping his imprisonment will spurs him to action, when it does not Judas hangs himself. 

This film is too slow and lacks the sweeping emotion that would seem appropriate for such a story of spiritual transformation, still it is full of interesting ideas, and a perspective on the Jesus story that feels fresh, even as it feels ancient. ***

The Swiss Family Robinson (1940)

RKO's 1940 version of 'The Swiss Family Robinson' isn't as fun as the later Disney movie, for one thing there are no pirates. I was waiting the whole film for the pirates to show up, but instead the 'climatic' event at the end was a spider bite. The period effects of the film sometimes have a guzzy, somewhat surreal quality, which I liked, and we get much more context and Robinson back story, even as this film is 33 minutes shorter. Mr. Robinson as played by Thomas Mitchell is more a tyrannical kook here, uprooting his whole family in the first place because he though his boys spoiled and insufficiently Christian. There is an extra boy in this movie two, a toddler, and the moms flightier as well. I was curious to see this movie, but not sure it was worth my 93 minutes. **

The Amityville Horror (1979)

 'The Amityville Horror' feels really definitive, it is is basically the templet for the whole 'Shit, we moved into a haunted house' sub-genre. Based on allegedly true events, this is highly disputed, of a family's experience upon moving into a house where a young man had murdered his entire family some years prior. 

James Brolin is the husband, slowly being driven mad, Margot Kidder the wife (and I don't think she's ever looked more attractive then she does in this) and Rod Steiger the priest who tries to warn them. Murry Hamilton is also in this, Father Steiger's superior who does his 'Jaws' Mayor shtick and tells him to essentially ignore the problem. 

There really isn't a lot to this movie scare wise, but the three primary leads play it straight and do their best to sell the thing, and the movie works very much as 'type'. It's well crafted and the pacing punctuated by telling you at the begging of the film that the family only stays in the house for 28 days, and reminding you throughout how long is left until the climax by periodically putting the day number on the screen. 

'The Amityville Horror' was the second highest grossing American film release of 1979, after 'Kramer vs. Kramer'. The film cost $4.7 million to make and made $86.4 million at the box office. It was the biggest release in the history of American International Pictures, best known for making Vincent Price horror films and beach party movies in the 60's, still the studio would fold the following year. Not critically well received at the time of it's release, it is more apricated now and has earned something of an iconic status. ***

Awkainings (1990)

A friend of mine had been trying to get me to see 'Awakenings' for years, I'd seen a few scenes of it back in the 90's but had never gotten around to watching the whole thing. Well the movie was about to leave Prime so that worked as a motivator/ excuse for me to finally sit down and watch it, I did, I loved it, and I was able to get another friend to sit down and watch it later that same night. I guess I'm better at giving movie recommendations then taking them? 

The 1990 film 'Awakenings' is based on Oliver Sacks 1973 memoir of the same name. In 1969 Sacks was working at a New York long term care facility where the use of a new anti Parkinson's drug L-DOPA, was able to revive decades comatose patients who had all been victims of a 1920's epidemic of Encephalitis Lethargica. In effect these patients comatose state was the result of a condition that acted like a super-accelerated Parkinson's, like humming bird wings it was a though they were vibrating so quickly as to seem motionless. This new serum was able to revive what seemed to be around a score of people, but only for a number of months, after which the new drug ceased being effective and they returned to a near vegetative state.

Robin Williams plays the Sacks surrogate Dr. Maclom Sayer (why not just call the character Oliver Sachs I'm not sure), Robert De Niro plays Lenord Loe, the first patient they test the new drug on, and who was little more then a child when he went under. So this is a Williams / De Niro movie, what an odd paring, and they are both excellent in this, each playing against type. Williams a closed in, socially awkward doctor, De Niro essentially a teenager, a good boy who wakes up a middle aged man and has to cope with that. 

The film also has a largish supporting cast, many other patients, but also Julie Kavner as a sympathetic nurse, John Heard as a less sympathetic hospital administrator, and Penelope Ann Miller as a sort of love interest for De Niro. This is a beautiful film, both happy and sad. Though the 'cure' is only temporary it inspires those around the patients, principally hospital staff including Williams, to not waste the precious gift of life they are given. ****

Boogie Nights (1997)

 'Boogie Nights' is an early Paul Thomas Anderson film, that expands upon his 1988 mockumentary short 'The Dirk Diggler Story'. Both films follow the rise and fall of a 1970's & 80's porn star who goes by the name Dirk Diggler, Mark Wahlberg plays him in the latter film. Real name Eddie Adams, Diggler is a none-to-bright-bulb who is very well endowed sexually. Porn producer/director Jack Horner (played by Burt Reynolds in his only Oscar nominated performance, and the actor would express very mixed feelings about taking the part) would guide him through tremendous success within the burgeoning pornographic film industry, though ego, aging and drug abuse would shatter his career and lay him quite low, the film contains a morally gray coda of Diggler again entering the porn scene in the mid 80's. 

When glancing at review quotes about the film on Rotten Tomato's I saw one writer note that watching this movie is a very complicated film going experience, and with that I would concur. This film progresses from period drama, to comedy, to tragedy, though these veins flow into each other throughout. It is kind of difficult to get a grasp on what this movie is. 

Among other things it's an ensemble piece, Dirk is the primary focus and our main through line character, but the picture has a board Altmane-sque cast of characters, and it presents them as more or less what they are, warts and all, without going out of its way to judge them for you. 

The rich cast includes Don Cheadle, John C. Reilly, William H. Macy, Heather Graham, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Philip Baker Hall. Julianne Moore has a heartbreaking role as porn star who goes by the name of Amber Waves, a cocaine addicted wreck who is desperate to regain some custody over her children, but who is not fit to have them despite her legitimate love for them. 

I thought here that Reynold's had the most interesting part, a sort of 'nice guy' pornographer', he is ultimately exploiting these people, taking advantage of them, but he also seems to care for them, can be generous and forgiving. I thought about it for a bit and Hugh Heffner comes to mind, a very pleasant, likable personality, in some ways quite progressive, but at the end of the day he's making his money off porn, and porn can crush people, before the camera, behind the camera, and watching on screen. 

The film is unsettling, though it can also be gripping, sad and funny. I'd heard comparisons to the work of Quinton Tarentino, which I mostly thought over stated, with the expectation of one, maybe two rather Tarentio-esque sequences late in the film. Again this is more like Robert Altman then perhaps anything else. 

This is a film that I think at some point I am going to need to revisit, it really leaves an impression, even if your not sure what exactly to make of it by the end. ****

The Academy Award Winning Film 'The Duchess' (2008)

 Nominated for two Oscars and winning one (best costume design), it became a kind of running joke between me and a friend of mine to always refer to this movie as 'The Academy Award Winning Film 'The Duchess''. For awhile we seemed to bring the film up a lot, but I never actually saw it until a few weeks ago. 

The movie is based on the true story of Georgiana Cavendish, Duchess of Devonshire (Keira Knightly), an 18th century English aristocrat known for her fashion sense, ahead of her time political outspokenness, and a scandalous personal life (though how much of the latter was known at the time, I'm not clear). Georgiana would have an out of wedlock daughter with future British Prime Minister Charles Gray (Dominic Cooper); but was married to William Cavendish, 5th Duke of Devonshire (Ralph Fiennes) with whom she had three biological children and a complicated relationship. The Cavendish's would in time become functionally a polygamists household, with Elizabeth 'Bess' Foster (Hayley Atwell) being the third party, until marrying the Duke with Georgiana's permission following her passing. 

The story this reminded me most of is 'Anna Karenina', which Ms. Knightly would also star in a film version of four years later. Knightly is good in this, as are the main supporting players, however I think Ralph Fiennes has the most interesting and complicated role. The Duke is an often cold, rather boring man, but he has depths to him that he doesn't often let out and you can actually see him grow over the course of the film. Yes he is selfish, but he also feels boxed in by the role he is expected to play, though like his wife he pushes social strictures to the breaking point. 

It's a beautiful looking picture, gorgeous locations and costumes, some neat lighting. I rather liked the soundtrack, largely composed of period classical music but I was quite taken by the end credits suite, which I have subsequently listened to several times. This is a kind of high class melodrama, boarding on soap opera, but still a fine film, and a rather sexual one. ***