Amityville II: The Possession (1982)

 The first sequel to the highly successful 1979 film 'The Amityville Horror', 'Amityville II' is actually a prequel, telling the story of the family that lived in the house prior to James Brolin and Margot Kidder. We get some information about this story in the first film, though this movie fills that out considerably. 

A Catholic family of six, disturbing occurrences start the day they move in, but patriarch Burt Young doesn't want to see it. While Burt is more or less lapsed, his wife Rutanya Alda is not, she takes 3 of the 4 kids to church and requests that gay coded Father James Olsen visit and bless the house. Father Olsen comes and at first, he is not sure if there are supernatural issues with the house, or if it's family disfunction resulting in the awkward vibes of the place. In time the priests' concerns about malevolent forces grow, but not in time to prevent oldest son Jack Magner from slaughtering his family, after having incestuous relations with his sister Diane Franklin. 

In its second half the film becomes an Exorcist knock off. This movie is pretty bad, with increasingly hectic pacing employed in the hopes that the viewer won't notice this. James Olsen is the standout performance, doing a sort of Father Karris schtick; the most expertly executed part of the whole film is the way they subtilty handle Olsen's sexuality, it's never overt, but his close relationship with a handsome congregant suggests the father is tempted, though not necessarily that he's given in. 

The movie takes advantage of its larger budget to its predecessor, and at times it goes pretty wild with the makeup and effects. At 104 minutes its maybe slightly too long. though some of the film's most intriguing characters such as Moses Gunn's detective and Leonardo Cimino's Dean aren't given much time and feel underused. The film has an exploitative stink too it and is often schlocky in a bad way. I don't think it knows what it wants to be, beyond being a cash grab. *1/2 with the 1/2 star being for James Olsen's performance. 

Teenage Tramp (1973)

'Teenage Tramp' is a 1973 crime-drama-exploitation picture. Teenaged Alisha Fontaine had often clashed with her parents, so she ran away. Years later the parents have passed on (the movie never says how or when) and Alisha returns to her old home where her older sister Robin Lane now lives. Alsiha has come for her share of the inheritance; she also learns that her sister has become a successful art dealer in the intervening years. Robin is in a sexual relationship with one of the artists she represents (Anthony J. Messina). Robin wants to marry Anthony, but he doesn't want to commit until he's become more successful, which Robin fears is just an excuse and an indication that he might leave her at any time. 

Alisha is also in a sexual relationship with draft dodging hippie Don Jarrell. Alisha and Don had been associated with a kind of hippie cult but fled the group when it's leader David Sawn became too controlling. David wants Alisha for himself sexually. David's group manages to track down Alisha and Don, and they more or less take over Robin's house. Robin wants Anthony to help her get rid of the hippies, but before the group arrives, they have a falling out. The falling out is because Robin doesn't trust Anthony to stay faithful, and she's right because Anthony sleeps with Alisha the day she arrives, though in the course of the movie Robin never learns this. Don has a plan to poison Robin so that Alisha will get the full inherence and then rejoin the group. 

This is one of those movies where a lot happens, but also not much happens. At only 80 minutes in length the movie does a good job keeping things moving and not staying with any storyline too long. It's basically a soap opera, and while none of the acting is very impressive, it is sufficient for the needs of the film. Abrupt ending. *1/2

The Killer (2023)

 'The Killer' is a David Fincher action thriller that follows a professional assassin played by Michael Fassbender. The story takes us from an ultimately failed assassination job in France, to a retaliatory attack on Fincher's home base in the Dominican Republic, to Fassbender's hunting down those involved across North America and then being the title to them. 

Fassbender gives us a largely detached narration on his job, the proper way to do it, the importance of staying on plan and not getting emotionally involved, all to the a soundtrack consisting almost entirely of songs by The Smiths. The revel that Fassbender has a homelife with a wife/girlfriend and a reasonably cordial relationship to her brother, adds intriguing complication to the character. A character so disciplined, repressed and bifurcated, that even though he's on a revenge spree through most of the movie, he hardly seems to think about the woman he's avenging at all. 

The film is smart, solid, engaging, and has a goodly number of intense killing sequences, with my favorite being the one in New Orleans. Though a cold film about a cold man, it's a fairly electrifying watch. ***1/2 

Room 237 (2012)

'Room 237' is a video essay about fan theories positing hidden meanings in Stanley Kubrick's 1980 horror masterpiece 'The Shinning'. The theories run on a spectrum from the reasonable (the film is a metaphor for the genocide of the American Indian or the Holocaust) to the far fetched (that Kubrick subtly imbedded in the film a confession to having faked the moon landing). Some of these theories I can believe or at least entertain; I'm now convinced that the perfectionist Kubrick included on purpose some continuity and logic errors to underscore Jack's madness. 

On the whole however the film left me feeling a little disconcerted. The talking heads in the film all appeared to be completely convinced and serious about their pet theories. Earnestnely imposing something on a text, a film, or reality that may not be there, and holding to it with unwavering conviction, that sparks a little fear in me, fear of the irrational. While none of the theories in this film are dangerous, and  I can even agree with some of them on some level, the vibe of the thing shook me some. What if some of the seemingly ridicules is actually true, and what would that mean for my perception of the world. Things that can weigh on you. ***

Carrie (1976)

 This is the original cinematic 'Carrie', and though I know the story pretty well from cultural osmosis, I've never seen a version of this before or read the book. Interestingly De Palma's 'Carrie' is the first film version of a Stephen King novel, and also interestingly it happens to be of King's first novel. This is a real strong start for what would turn out to be a veritable sub genre, the "Stephen King Film".  

I knew going in how iconic this film was, while I haven't read the book so can't fully speak on it as an adaption, as a movie it gets everything right, much as would the second King feature 'The Shinning' four years later (though King was famously dissatisfied with that film as an adaptation, as a film in its own right its momentous). 'Carrie' is well cast, well acted, well shot, well paced, well structured, and leads up to a climax that is probably still King's most iconic. 

There are some things I had assumed about the story that turned out not to be true here, in addition to the PE teacher there are in fact a couple of students who turn out to be sincerely wanting to help Carrie, Amy Irving (who De Palma cast in multiple films) and 'The Greatest American Hero' himself William Kitt. Sissy Spacek and Piper Laurie are so wonderful in their roles as Carrie and her mother, that its hard to imagine they could every be surpassed. 'Carrie' is another classic for a reason, De Palma could seemingly do no wrong in the late 70's and early 80's. ****

Blow Out (1981)

 I hesitated to watch this one for a long time, because I suspected it would just be a modified version of 'Blow Up', which is a movie I think very highly of and don't think needs remade. To an extent it is that, but it is also a lot more; 'homage' is something De Palma does very well, while always putting his distinct tonal and directorial mark on it. 

In 'Blow Up' a photographer captures evidence of a murder in a photograph, though he doesn't realize at first the significance of what he caught on film. In 'Blow Out' John Travolta is a sound man out capturing nature sounds at night, when he catches audio of a passing car experiencing a tire blow out and then crashing into the river. Travolta is able to rescue only one of the two people in the car, Nancy Allen, making this a reteaming of the two from 'Carrie' five years before. While in Carrie the couple are assholes, in 'Blow Out' they are generally good people. 

It is only when at the hospital following his rescue of Nancy, that John learns the other person in the car was the governor (this film is set in Pennsylvania), an early favorite for the next years presidential election. As you'd expect given the set up, the audio Travolta captured may prove the death not an accident. 

While the first act of the film owes a lot to it's Antonioni predecessor, the bulk of the film owes more to the paranoid political thrillers of the seventies, such as 'The Parallax View'.  As I've been watching these De Palma films I've been noticing his penchant of casting many of the same actors in his films; I'm getting a sense of his stock company, for example I don't think anyone else has used Dennis Franz as effectively. 'Blow Out' is a very involving movie, and provides further evidence that Brian De Palma was Alfred Hitchcock's early successor as the cinematic 'Master of Suspense'. ****

Dressed to Kill (1980)

 I hadn't really planed on it, but I ended up having a Brian De Palma week. I had started 'Dressed to Kill' a couple times before but had never completed it, stopping in the first 10 minutes or so, finding I wasn't in the mode. I decided to power through it this time and I'm glad I did. De Palma is known for being obsessed with Hitchcock, whose influence on his work is very overt. 'Dressed to Kill' is a riff on 'Psycho', sharing structural, thematic and visual elements. Yet it totally works as its own movie, its not a mere rehash like the notorious 'Psycho' remake of the 90's. I hesitate to get into the plot in any detail, as the surprises are worth experiencing, and if I started writing about this movie in detail I think I'd have a hard time stopping. It is in a number of ways exploitative, but it's parts are all strong leading to a satisfying whole. This is considered one of De Palma's best for a reason. ****