Month: May 2018

Released: September 1960

Director: Alfred Hitchcock

Run Time: 109 Minutes

Rated R

Distributor: Paramount Pictures/Universal

Genre: Thriller

Cast:
Anthony Perkins: Norman Bates
Vera Miles: Lila Crane
John Gavin: Sam Loomis
Janet Leigh: Marion Crane
Martin Balsam: Det. Milton Arbogast

When people talk about master film-makers today, who do they mention?  Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, Oliver Stone, Ridley Scott, James Cameron, John Carpenter?  There is no doubt in my mind that those guys are absolutely some of the best in the business, but everybody had to start somewhere, and they had to be inspired to do what they do.  I mean, sure, you could mention the likes of Howard Hawkes or Cecil B. DeMille, but who actually truly made waves in the film industry?  The answer is Alfred Hitchcock.  Even if you haven’t seen his movies or pieces of them, you know who he is.  This is the guy behind movies like North by Northwest, Vertigo, The Birds, and Rear Window.  However, the one film that had the most influence and was Hitchcock’s most famous is Psycho.  After nearly 60 years, does Psycho stand the test of time?

At this point, everybody and their grandmother knows about Psycho and it’s story with the characters of Norman Bates and Marion Crane.  Discussing the story, which is still really good, would really no longer serve any purpose.  What I want to do instead is discuss the influence the film has had over the past 58 years.  When the film came out, critics really didn’t like it, mostly because they were forced to watch it with other people.  Alfred Hitchcock refused to pre-screen the film.  He also had enough influence with Paramount Pictures to force movie theaters to not allow anybody into the theater after the movie started.  Hitchcock wanted people to see the film right from the very beginning all the way to the end.  There’s a lot you would miss by coming into theater 5-10 minutes after it started.  Psycho changed things forever in terms of what was acceptable to see on the big screen.  At the time, the movie censors were very adamant about certain not being shown from something as simple as seeing a toilet flushing to a woman being stabbed to death in the shower.  People were scared, shocked, and entertained at the same time.  While I personally wouldn’t categorize Psycho as a horror movie, it was the jumping-off point for the modern thriller and slasher films.  Every modern-day thriller that you see today, from Halloween to Cape Fear, owes its existence to Alfred Hitchcock’s film.  It wasn’t just in terms of the style, but also film-making techniques that Hitchcock basically perfected that you see in a lot of movies these days.  Any film historian will tell you that Psycho is one of the most important films in cinema and its not hard to see why.

Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho was famous for a lot of reasons.  One of them was his ability to trick the audience into thinking they saw something that didn’t actually happen.  The infamous shower scene is the prime example of this.  People had often said that the film was gory.  What did they see that made think that?  Hitchcock abhorred gratuitous violence, so how did he trick the audience into thinking that the film was far more violent than it actually was?  It’s all in the film-making.  There’s a reason why the film is in black-and-white.  The censors would have shut the film down or cut it to pieces if it was in color.  If you look closely at the scene and the way it’s edited, you don’t actually see the knife actually stabbing the woman.  Your mind fills in the rest, and the human imagination is far worse than what film-makers could ever put on screen.  It’s brilliant editing and film-makers have been trying to do the same kind of thing in their movies.  Steven Spielberg and Jaws is one example.  Same principle:  Trick the audience into thinking they saw something that wasn’t actually there, although Spielberg had technical issues as to why he had to that, but Jaws was all the better for it.  It’s been said by many film-makers that it’s not what you see that scares you, but what you don’t.  Hitchcock was constrained by the censors, so he had to work his way around that.  Every technical aspect of Psycho was supervised by Hitchcock, and as a result, it is a masterpiece of film-making.

It would have been all for naught if the performances in Psycho were anything less than stellar.  Thankfully, Hitchcock brings out the best performances in his actors.  Janet Leigh is fantastic as Marion Crane, a woman that’s embezzling money so she can have some kind of future with Sam Loomis, played by John Gavin.  You get the idea that this character is in way over her head when she decides to steal the money that was meant for another purpose.  Vera Miles is great as Marion’s sister, Lila Crane.  She really makes the character sympathetic about her wanting to find her sister.  The real star of the show, however, is Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates.  His performance as the owner of the Bates Motel is magnetic.  He is equal parts sympathetic and terrifying.  This is the kind of guy that could be sitting next to you on a bus or train and you would never even guess that he had a dark side.  Norman Bates is easily Anthony Perkins’ most recognizable role and it’s the one that really put him on the map.  When it comes to horror movie villains, you might think of Freddy Krueger, Michael Myers, or Jason Voorhees, but Norman Bates did it first.

Alfred Hitchcock has been the influence of so many film-makers over the decades that his name is now a term that is being used to describe certain films and cinematic techniques.  I can count on one hand how many directors get that distinction.  When you watch a modern-day thriller like Sicario, Split or Wind River, keep in mind that a lot of what you see is all thanks to Hitchcock and his attention to detail.  There have been many truly great film-makers over the years, but none have had the vision, knowledge, or the tenacity of someone like Alfred Hitchcock.  If you need a lesson in film-making, all you have to do is find one of Hitchcock’s movies and watch it.  You are watching a master at work here.  While Psycho isn’t Hitchcock’s best, it is by far his most influential.  That cannot be overstated.  If you are a film buff, then there is no reason to skip this one.  In fact, for most movie fans, Psycho is required viewing.  Ignore the sequels and the crappy Gus Van Sant re-make.  The original Psycho stands well enough on its own.  The term “iconic” is not enough for a film like this.  This is one you must own.

My Final Recommendation:  We all go a little mad sometimes. 10/10

Released: February 2018

Director: Adam Green

Run Time: 83 Minutes

Not Rated

Distributor: Dark Sky Films

Genre: Horror

Cast:
Parry Shen: Andrew Yong
Kane Hodder: Victor Crowley
Laura Ortiz: Rose
Dave Sheridan: Dillon
Krystal Joy Brown: Sabrina
Felissa Rose: Kathleen
Brian Quinn: Austin

The horror genre, like science fiction, is one of the most versatile genres in the history of film.  In fact, it is one of the oldest genres in the industry.  There are so many sub-genres within horror that it’s almost difficult to fathom.  You’ve got horror comedies, horror/action, horror/science fiction, horror/drama, and horror/thrillers.  The list goes on and on.  A lot of folks don’t like the genre today because there are a lot of films that feature some pretty extreme content.  I’m talking movies that feature torture, sexual assaults and other fairly grimy topics.  That does not necessarily define the genre.  What defines the genre is the feeling of foreboding and dread, with shivers going down your spine.  Yeah, you can have the other stuff, but most effective horror movies generally don’t feature a lot of gore or other nasty moments.  The slasher film is not one of those.  The slasher film exists solely to showcase the various creative methods of dispatching victims.  Movies like Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, Laid To Rest, The Collector, and No One Lives.  Slasher movies tend to have many things in common:  A lone antagonist or villain,  a group of nubile young people doing things that they shouldn’t be, and various machinations used to slaughter the innocent.  One of the new franchises to show up in the last decade started with a small indie slasher by a then-unknown Adam Green called Hatchet.  After a successful showing back in 2007, Hatchet ended up with two more sequels with the last one released back in 2013.  Now, 5 years later, we a fourth entry: Victor Crowley.  How does it stack up with the first three?

Stories for slasher movies generally aren’t all that complex or even note-worthy.  They’re just used to get from one kill to another….you know, the important parts.  But I’ll give it a shot with Hatchet.  Basically, this series of films revolves around a deformed boogeyman known as Victor Crowley.  Victor was murdered during the 60s, because of a prank gone wrong.  But, because of some Voodoo curse, Crowley is condemned to return night after night and slaughter anyone that trespasses in his swamp in southern Louisiana.  It’s actually not a half-bad setup, due to its location in a swamp.  The actual plot of this new film centers around survivor Andrew Yong as he goes on tours to promote his new book detailing his experiences in the Louisiana swamps.  While on a flight to the swamp that he was at a decade prior, the plane he’s flying in crashes.  A group of wannabe film-makers are also in the swamp when they accidentally re-awaken Victor Crowley and he begins his rampage anew.  As I sit here typing this, I can’t help but wonder why this movie even exists.  After seeing interviews with Adam Green, I understand his personal reasons for doing the film, but as a matter of franchise practicality, this movie shouldn’t even have happened, considering how final the third movie’s ending seemed to be.  This film basically uproots the lore and tosses what we as an audience know about the Hatchet films right out the window.  Now, I understand that this movie was made with the intention of hopefully making more.  Here’s the thing:  You don’t push a franchise just because the audience wants it.  You have to push the franchise because you feel that there’s more that can be done with it.  Victor Crowley feels like a movie that was made to satisfy the fans.  I can tell you right now, that it doesn’t satisfy me.

I can understand the plot and story not being up to par, namely because of the kind of film we are dealing with, but also if the rest of the film holds up.  Let me tell you:  It doesn’t.  Let’s start with the effects.  Like the previous films, the gore and blood effects are all practical, and that is a very good thing.  It shows that people actually care enough to make the effects feel authentic.  I love that.  Here’s the problem:  The practical effects in this film aren’t that good.  You can tell when a dummy is being used and the prosthetics are painfully obvious.  Even Victor Crowley’s design seems like a huge step back from the previous film.  I get that this is not a realistic movie, but honestly, given the talent that’s involved here, I expect a hell of a lot better.  The effects artists for this film worked on the previous two films and those were wonderfully gruesome.  The kills here are also underwhelming.  While some of them are decent, some of the deaths are off-screen.  For a film like this, that is a cardinal sin.  Another thing is, is that one of the character’s deaths is unnecessarily cruel, and it’s not at the hands of the boogeyman.  I understand that the director was in a very dark place when he wrote this movie, but that death scene was a little too much, considering the overall tone of the film.

The acting is pretty much on par for what you would expect for a film like this….which is not great.  A lot of the characters are poorly written as they are nothing more than cannon fodder, basically.  The only standouts are Parry Shen as Andrew and Kane Hodder as Crowley.  Everyone else is completely forgettable.  Most people will recognize Kane Hodder as the dude that played Jason Voorhees in a few of the Friday the 13th films.  While almost anybody could play Jason, Kane gave the role a slow and menacing quality that makes the character stand out among all others in the genre.  His physical performance as Victor Crowley has always been fantastic and is no different here.  He’s still intimidating and creepy as the deformed character.  Like Kane Hodder, Parry Shen has been with the franchise from day one, even though he’s played different characters.  His sense of humor really shines through.

While the pacing in the previous Hatchet films was almost at breakneck speed, here it takes a while for things to get going.  For a movie that’s only 83 minutes long, that’s not a good thing.  I get that there needs to be some setup, but it takes at least a good 20-30 minutes before the good stuff starts to happen.  Unfortunately, a good chunk of the film takes place on that crashed plane, and while I can understand the claustrophobic nature of that decision, these films work better when people are running all over the place only to get cut down.  It’s one thing to film on a single location, but it’s entirely another to film mainly on a single set.  It doesn’t work as well as the film-makers wanted it to.  Very few things about this movie work like they should.

I’m coming down hard on this film because I’m a huge fan of the first three movies.  They were definitely a loving homage to the great slasher films of the 80s and early 90s.  They weren’t just freaky, but they were funny as well.  The writing was sharp and the characters were memorable.  So, what the fuck happened here?  Not only is the film setting up for a sequel that might not come, but it feels like a huge step backwards for the series.  Do I hate the film?  No.  Not really.  There is some stuff in here that I do like.  I like the fact that the effects were practical.  I like Kane Hodder and Parry Shen.  I also like some of the cinematography which is actually pretty good.  Unfortunately, the film is let down by a bad script, bad dialogue and egregiously annoying characters.  My opinion on Victor Crowley?  Watch the first three and don’t bother with this one.

My Final Recommendation:  This one should have been left in the swamp. 4/10

Released: May 2018

Director: Ron Howard

Rated PG-13

Run Time: 135 Minutes

Distributor: Disney/LucasFilm

Genre: Action/Science Fiction

Cast:
Alden Ehrenreich: Han Solo
Joonas Suotamo: Chewbacca
Woody Harrelson: Beckett
Emilia Clarke: Qi’ra
Donald Glover: Lando Calrissian
Thandie Newton: Val
Paul Bettany: Drydan Vos

I’ve been a huge Star Wars fan since the moment I could walk.  That’s a long time to be a fan.  To me, the Original Trilogy are some of the greatest science fiction/fantasy films ever made.  In fact, and I’ve mentioned this more than once, the original Star Wars changed the way movies were made in terms of story-telling, visual effects, editing and music.  The original film is beyond reproach.  Not even George Lucas’s tinkering could change that.  I never got the chance to see the original films in theaters.  I honestly hope they do a re-release someday, so I can say that I’ve seen every single Star Wars movie in theaters.  That being said, aside from the original trilogy, I have seen every single Star Wars film in theaters.  Were all of them great?  Not really.  Attack of the Clones is what I used to consider to be the worst film in the franchise.  Ever since Disney bought the license and the company from Mr. Lucas, we started seeing Star Wars films every year since 2015 with The Force Awakens.  I was excited first, because I didn’t have to wait very long for a film in the series.  On the other hand, though, I was genuinely worried that at some point, Disney was going to drop the ball with Star Wars.  Ladies and gentleman:  I present to you Solo: A Star Wars Story, the ball that Disney dropped.

As the film opens, we see a young street criminal named Han Solo as he tries to find a way to get off of the Imperial-controlled planet of Corellia.  After seeing his girlfriend kidnapped by a group of gangsters, Han joins the Empire in the hopes of coming back to find Qi’ra, his girlfriend.  On the battlefield, Han runs into a group of smugglers led by Tobias Beckett.  After seemingly left behind by Beckett, Han befriends the Wookiee, Chewbacca and they team up with Beckett to land the biggest score so they can be free.  Right off the bat, there are a number of problems with the narrative.  The biggest problem is with the concept of the film.  If you’ve read any of the old Star Wars novels dealing with Han Solo, then you would have already known about his backstory and where he came from.  This film does nothing to illuminate any of that.  In fact, it really does nothing to make Han stand out in any way.  The story is your basic origin/heist film and it really isn’t that good at being either.  The screenplay and the writing are all over the place.  It does nothing to really expand on what we already know about the character.  To be honest, as much as I love Han Solo as a character, there really wasn’t a whole lot to the character aside from him being a smuggler with a heart of gold.  This is as generic a story as you can get, and for Star Wars, that’s a very bad thing.

When it comes to the characters, the only one here that truly stands out in a good is Lando Calrissian, played by Donald Glover.  Donald Glover really makes the character his own, while maintaining that charm and charisma that Billy Dee Williams brought to the role.  I genuinely believed that we were looking at a young Lando.  Since Peter Mayhew is too old and out of shape to continue playing Chewbacca, they brought in someone who is nearly as tall and a lot younger: Joonas Suotamo.  At 6’11, Joonas isn’t as tall as Mr. Mayhew, but he still towers over everyone else, and I think he’s the perfect replacement for Peter Mayhew.  Woody Harrelson is one of my favorite actors, but his character of Beckett is someone that could have been played by anybody.  There’s not a whole to the character aside from being a mentor-type.  Paul Bettany is wasted as Dryden Vos, the crime lord that Beckett owes money to.  Bettany is only in the film for maybe about 10-15 minutes and even then, Vos is not a character that you’re going to remember after watching the film.  The one member of the cast that the film really got wrong was Alden Ehrenreich as Han Solo.  I’m sure that Alden is a decent actor, but he’s playing a role that was made famous by Harrison Ford.  There is no way that you could possibly make that character your own, especially since the image of Ford as Solo has been ingrained in the minds of audiences for over 40 years.  Those are some big shoes to fill and Mr. Ehrenreich just can’t do it.  He doesn’t have the charisma nor the attitude that is required for the role and in a film like this where getting the character right is paramount, Disney jumped the shark.  They screwed up, royally.

It’s not all bad, as some of the action sequences are a lot of fun.  The train sequence is really cool and so is the Kessel Run.  Yes, we get to see the Kessel Run that was done in less than 12 parsecs.  Visually spectacular, and definitely one of the highlights of the film.  The Millenium Falcon is…well…the Millenium Falcon.  It’s an awesome ship and basically a character of its own.  The film is also beautifully shot, with some really outstanding landscapes and grimy cities that we travel through.  The visually effects are fantastic, with some actual puppets that are being used instead being all CGI, so that’s a good thing.

Now, I’m sure that everybody’s heard about the problems facing Solo, right?  When it was discovered that directors Lord and Miller were fired because they were doing things that Kathleen Kennedy didn’t particularly care for, was one of the early signs that the film was not going to be good.  So, she brought in Ron Howard to try and “fix” the film.  Here’s the problem:  The film was 70 percent completed when Lord and Miller were fired, so there were massive re-shoots and new direction brought on by Ron Howard.  As a result, you can tell there are conflicting tones and directing styles throughout the film.  It’s really jarring to see the film like some kind of patchwork of bits and pieces, but nothing came together.  The writing was also all over the place.  There was no real villain to the film, which would have helped immensely, and some of the “twists and turns” were utterly predictable.  There was a lot of throwbacks to stories that were referenced in the original film, and quite frankly, it was more of a distraction.  Not only that, because of the problems behind the camera, the pacing of the film is completely fucked.  Yeah, the movie has its moments were it is a lot of fun, but the rest of it is boring.  There are too many stretches where nothing happens and no real character development takes place.  That is not a word that you want to hear about a Star Wars film.  People had complained about Episodes 1 and 2 being dull, but not like this.

It used to be that people had to wait three years for the next Star Wars movie.  There was a reason for that.  That gave George Lucas the time to iron out and get his story the best he could before filming it, and while he didn’t always succeed, as is the case with the Prequel films, they were far more consistent in terms of tone and pacing.  The bad decisions that went into this film are very, VERY obvious.  I knew that when Disney wanted to start making yearly Star Wars films, that one day we would end up with a failure, and here it is.  Solo is not a movie that should have been made.  Even if it was a good idea, it was poorly executed with some really questionable casting with Alden Ehrenreich, who doesn’t even look like Han Solo.  As I said before, there are moments of greatness within the film, but they are few and far in between.  As heist film, Solo fails to be exciting and thrilling, and as an origin story, the film doesn’t tread any new territory, or they were afraid to take it in a different direction.  Either way, the film fails on a multitude of levels.  I have a feeling that Disney knows that Solo might be the first Star Wars film that flops.  Honestly, can we have a film that isn’t an origin story or a prequel of sorts?  Can we have a fully original story set in one of the biggest fictional universes ever created?  Is that really too much to ask?  I can’t believe I’m doing this and saying this, but Solo is easily the worst Star Wars film that I’ve ever seen.  It just blows my mind that we finally have a Star Wars film that is worse than Attack of the Clones.  Congratulations, Disney:  You done fucked it up.

My Final Recommendation:  Somebody please fire Kathleen Kennedy before she does even more damage. 5/10

On Tuesday, May 22, my father passed away and we’re having to deal with the repercussions of that.  Financially, it’s put a strain on an already tenuous position in which we could lose our house.  So, if it sounds like I’m begging, that’s because I am.  We need help, otherwise we lose the house and nearly everything that it’s worth.  I won’t be able to continue to do this if that happens.  Once again, I’m going to post a link to our GoFundMe campaign.  So…anything will be appreciated.  ANYTHING that you can spare will help us out.  So, here’s the link:

https://www.gofundme.com/need-help-with-large-house-payment