In His Own Country

If I was given a choice to only see one Charlton Heston film over and over from now until the end of time it would have to be TOUCH OF EVIL, no question about it. True, there are a number of his prestige films that I still haven’t seen, an oversight I hope to correct one of these years, it contains neither massive battle scenes or talking apes and people have made jokes about him playing a Mexican for years, but I don’t care. It’s just too enjoyable for me to ever pass it up. There’s so much going on in the film that sustains repeat viewings and watching it again over the past day confirms that it’s one of those films that gains added depth over the years as my own perceptions of people and the world itself changes.

Of course, much of that has more to do with Orson Welles than Heston, but hey, it’s the lead actor who was responsible for his director getting the assignment, despite the factually inaccurate dialogue in ED WOOD that suggests otherwise. And look past the oddity of his casting because of how strong he is in the part and how much he ultimately adds to the flavor of the film. In a world populated by colorful and eccentric characters from Dennis Weaver to Mort Mills to Marlene Dietrich, some of whom have peripheral association to the plot at best, Heston’s Miguel ‘Mike’ Vargas is the rock it all has to be centered around. His physicality lets itself be known whenever he is on camera and as an actor he seems perfectly comfortable with letting the other actors get their share of the visually overwhelming spotlight. He’s a figure of true righteousness in the ultra-sleazy border town which TOUCH is set in and his screen presence here is almost more powerful to me than in some of his other ‘bigger’ films, maybe because he isn’t required to carry the full weight of civilization (and, often, its end) on his shoulders. He’s simply a man of principle who may speak of how much he hates what he has to do in the climax, but it’s clear he does it because he can’t leave town without doing otherwise. And he’s believably vulnerable in the slight tension which exists between him and new American bride Janet Leigh in their cultural differences (“It would be nice for a man in my place to be able to think he could look after his own wife in his own country.”). Reading over some comments he gave on the project through the years Heston seems very aware that the film isn’t ‘about’ his character even though you’d expect it would be and it’s to his credit that he allowed this to occur. It not only provided the greater challenge as an actor to stand face to face with the great Orson Welles as Hank Quinlan but this shifting of focus resulted in a true masterpiece, something no one seemed to be contemplating when the film first went into production. And even if he’s never allowed the little touches in performance that others in the film seem to have, every time in my own life I put on my sunglasses when I have to walk outside for just a moment, I think of the ultra-cool way he manages to do it, as he crosses the street from Sanchez’s apartment to the awkward moment he has with the blind woman whose phone he asks to use.

I only saw Charlton Heston in person a few times and never actually met him. One of those times I was in his presence was back in 2000 for a special screening of TOUCH OF EVIL at the Fine Arts Theater in Wilshire, I think to promote the video release of the restored cut. Among the participants at the post-film panel were Heston and his screen wife Janet Leigh. She died a few years ago and now he has as well. Thinking of that reminds me how the two of them are reunited at the end of the film but there seems to be no further interest in them beyond this narrative fact. The couple never learns of the revelation that Schwartz makes to Tanya and they don’t even seem to warrant a ‘final shot’ of their car driving off in the end, giving Marlene Dietrich in her legendary cameo the famous final image instead. I have no complaints about that but it does make me think today of their characters Susan and Mike, reunited once again. There’s a lot to be said about Charlton Heston, but I’m going to avoid doing that here. Right now, I’ll think of him as someone who seemed to have ability to carry the weight of the universe on his shoulders but sometimes was just an upstanding individual out at night looking for a chocolate soda for his wife.

"Adios."

Looking Forward and Back

To officially mark the occasion, it was one year ago today that I dived off the proverbial cliff and finally started my own blog. I can’t remember exactly when and why I decided to give it one of the more ludicrous names imaginable. There are days when I wish I had given it a more normal moniker, like “Talking About Film” or whatever, but then there are times that I’m a little proud it has a name that no one else on the planet except for me would give to a blog. It’s mine. So it remains.

On occasion I’ve considered that the one-year mark would be the day I would sign off and stop writing for this thing. Seemed like a nice round number in terms of finding a good time to reach a point of completion. But I finally decided that I didn’t want to stop just yet. There have been times when I needed to be able to write this blog. And I guess I still need to be able to write it. For starters, there are a lot of things that I still haven’t written about. I can’t believe I haven’t spent more time on the James Bond films, to name one thing. And I still need this outlet to express myself to try to examine some of the movies that interest me and maybe try to begin to figure out why they do. Maybe there are times when I should use my energy to write what I should be working on, but the honest truth is that when it comes to ways to procrastinate, this can be one of the best.

When I first began writing Mr. Peel’s Sardine Liqueur I didn’t tell anyone I knew for nearly a month. It seemed like a good way to give myself an easy out, in case I got bored or was bad at it. It was also liberating to write something and post it, with no worries what anyone would have to say about it. I was also unsure how much I would be spending on films at that early stage. With a few exceptions, I focused on what really interested me pretty quickly. And when people did begin to learn of it, the reactions would mostly be positive and I felt compelled to keep going. I’m glad I did and I hope I’m a better writer now as a result.

There are so many films these days that go against the grain of what I will ever be interested in that it can be a joy to write about things like Mario Bava and DANGER:DIABOLIK. GRINDHOUSE, Elliott Gould, Blake Edwards, THE TAKING OF PELHAM ONE TWO THREE. Too many others to name. Films and people that represent a lot of what I love about cinema. And just the other night I was watching some of THE LIVES OF OTHERS on DVD, an example of something so stunningly good that just a few minutes of it sent that sort of charge through me that I always find myself looking for, but you don’t often find. It’s that power which the best movies can have and it makes me continue to want to care.

If Tiki Ti wasn’t on vacation, I’d go down there tonight and treat myself to a celebratory cocktail. Since that’ll have to wait, for now I’ll relax and look forward to what I’m going to write about next. I have no idea if in the future I’m going to be writing this blog more often, less often, or exactly the same. But I look forward to it. To everyone who is reading this and has offered me encouraging words, either in person or through cyberspace, I thank you. And Mrs. Peel thanks you as well.

A Beautiful Day and a Beautiful Girl

As Lisa Baumer (THE WHIP AND THE BODY’s Evelyn Stewart aka Ida Galli) enjoys a J&B-soaked tryst with a lover, her husband is killed when his London-bound plane explodes in midair. Though they were more or less separated already, Lisa is still named as beneficiary in his will and is informed that she has inherited one million dollars. Shortly after arriving in Greece to collect the money, she is threatened by her late husband’s mistress (Janine Reynaud), who believes that Lisa had her husband killed and wants a share of the money. Lisa is fortunately rescued by insurance investigator Peter Lynch (ALL THE COLORS OF THE DARK’s George Hilton) but, shortly after collecting the money in cash and arranging for a mysterious flight to Tokyo, Lisa’s luck runs out when she is murdered by a black-clad, knife-wielding assailant who makes off with the money. While consulting with an INTERPOL agent (Alberto de Mendoza) and local police inspector (BAY OF BLOOD’s Luigi Pistilli), Peter Lynch teams up with investigative reporter Cléo Dupont (A LIZARD IN A WOMAN’S SKIN’s Anita Strindberg) to solve the mystery. Of course, the two of them become targets as well.


Yes, it’s Sergio Martino’s 1971 giallo CASE OF THE SCORPION’S TAIL which of course you’ve all seen. It’s not the most elegantly plotted of the genre, nor does it have that stark tone with harshly elegant compositions that they sometimes do, but it somehow is more enjoyable than a few of those films which are technically better. Its feel is so casual that it almost feels like it was made on vacation between the films that its makers were really concentrating on. And yet, it manages to be surprisingly effective during the moments that matter.


PSYCHO is an obvious inspiration considering how the first third turns out but it soon takes off in its own direction and becomes continually suspenseful and enjoyable in its own ridiculous way. The police detective played by Pistilli spends much of the film fiddling with a difficult jigsaw puzzle in his office. It doesn’t inspire much confidence in his crime-solving abilities but it does give an indication of the possible attitude towards the screenplay—written by Ernesto Gastaldi and Sauro Scavolini--while it was being created. Maybe it wasn’t made up as it went along but there are enough red herrings and blind alleys in the story that it feels like certain twists and revelations were chosen simply because this is they felt like doing it with this film. Next time, they’d do it another way. As it is, I’m fairly sure that everything ties together in the plot, but I’m not totally certain. As it is, the riffs on PSYCHO coming out of the first third gives the story an extra level of danger since we can never be completely sure from that point who’s actually going to survive.


Martino definitely knows how to frame a Scope shot but some of the more stylistic extremes, like an interrogation scene framed sideways with the camera going back and forth like a pendulum, feel like he’s occasionally overreaching in trying to stage a scene differently. Maybe he was accepting a dare. After all, it feels like it could have been a pretty loose set. These things don’t always feel like they come out of the plot organically, but it does go with the free-wheeling tone of the film, so I’ve got no real complaints about it. There are a few unfortunate special effects here and there (that crummy exploding model airplane isn’t doing anyone any favors) but these are balanced out a few sequences which are genuinely startling in how well-done they are, including one truly electrifying sequence involving the killer breaking into a house which culminates in one of the most purely effective throat-slashings I’ve ever seen. I don’t know who I just lost and who I just gained with that statement, but it’s something as striking as that moment which underlines why these films sometimes have the effect that they do.


Most of the lead actors are seen in a number of other genre films from around this time and each bring their own unique quirks to their roles. Anita Strindberg probably makes the greatest impression due to her own vivacious screen presence. “For a murderer, he certainly has a great face,” she says when first getting a look at Hilton, who is being led away by the police as a suspect. Maybe not the sort of thing those in her profession usually say and she seems to spend next to no screentime actually doing her job—at least in DEEP RED Daria Nicolodi seemed believable as someone playing a reporter in a movie, if not in real life—and the erratic nature of the structure foists her onto the narrative surprisingly late, revealing her as one of the leads before we’ve even realize it has happened. But the chemistry that she has with George Hilton feels genuine, adding a spark to all their scenes and even if she has to bizarrely go from complete cheerfulness to absolute terror and back again, she certainly provides interest. Plus, she looks great in a bikini. Pistilli has a number of funny moments as the police inspector, Stewart has the right amount of icy intrigue as Lisa Baumer and redhead Janine Raynaud is enjoyably trashy, lending that look to good use.


The varied, frisson-heavy score by Bruno Nicolai ranges from a dissonant main title which keeps us on edge as it never quite moves into full melody to a deliriously sensual recurring theme which sounds like it could be used on a Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous rerun. The numerous Greek locations are very effective as well, both in how they lend the right jet-set vibe to the sleaze and give the film a slightly unusual feel as well. It’s not a great film or a great example of the genre and it probably should be taken as the lark that it obviously is. But enough about CASE OF THE SCORPION’S TAIL does hold together throughout all the way up to its satisfying climax. More movies filled with brutal slayings should be this breezily enjoyable and still satisfy the requirements of the genre. There’s a vibe to the whole thing that I find continuously infectious and I think I’m going to want to see it again very soon.

Odd Things Happening at Clavius

This surprising piece of news ran in Variety earlier today and I'm genuinely astonished that it hasn't gotten more attention. Maybe people aren't as upset about such a possibility as I would have thought. Anyway, in case you missed it, here is the complete article.

***********************************************************************

Bay to embark on new ‘Odyssey’ for Warner

Platinum Dunes to produce Kubrick/Clarke redo

BY WILLIAM HARFORD

Michael Bay is in final negotiations to direct Warner Bros’ new version of “2001: A Space Odyssey”.

WB plans a reimagining of Arthur C. Clarke’s classic novel, from his short story “The Sentinel”, which inspired the 1967 Stanley Kubrick sci-fier released by MGM.

Bay, Andrew Form and Brad Fuller will produce through their Platinum Dunes shingle, while Peter Guber and Cathy Schulman are producing for Mandalay Pictures.

Scott Rosenberg (“Con Air”, “October Road”) has completed a first draft and Jake Wade Wall, scribe on Platinum Dunes’ recent reimagining of “The Hitcher” is being brought aboard to begin a rewrite. Other new scribes may be brought aboard as well.

“We think we have a very contemporary take,” Schulman said. “In the original, the computer just begins acting crazy and it was kind of like, why is this happening? This time, there’s a reason why it occurs and (people) have had something to do with it. There’s an environmental slant to what could result in technology fighting back.” Schulman adds that at this point, unlike the original, the entire film is being designed to be set during the titular year, in order to avoid any unnecessary confusion.

The project has been underway for sometime, but was held up due to the hesitations of original author Clarke. His recent death has cleared up matters to the point that the project is allowed to safely proceed.

It is hoped that Bay will begin work on “Odyssey” as soon as he fulfills his commitments to “Transformers 2”. WB has planted its tentpole flag in the July 4, 2010 slot which means that there would be some overlapping on the two projects.

“I am thrilled at this opportunity to improve on this visionary look at the future,” says Bay in a statement. “It’s always been my opinion that (Kubrick) was forced into releasing the film before it was finished. For example, whole sequences don’t even have any sound. And I’m certain he meant to shoot a scene where everything gets explained so the audience can be clear on what is going on. These are fixes to the story I feel we can make while making the experience even more exciting for today’s audience to show what it will be like to live in the year 2001.”

Currently set to play the astronauts Bowman and Poole are Shia Labeouf, who was seen last summer in Bay’s “Transformers” and Zac Efron, who hopes to segue to the project after completing production on “High School Musical 3: Senior Year”. Added to the project is a new character, a female astronaut named Fisher. Jessica Alba is currently in talks for the role. To play the villainous computer HAL, Michael Clarke Duncan, who worked with Bay on “Armageddon” and “The Island”, is currently in the midst of talks. There is no word yet if any original cast members will be enlisted for cameos.

In anticipation of launching a new franchise, Warner has procured the rights to Clarke’s follow-ups to his novel, “2010: Odyssey Two” and “2061: Odyssey Three” to form a complete trilogy. “2010” was already produced by MGM in 1984 but it is expected little will remain other than the titles. Warner is so high on the potential series that the studio has already set a tentative July 4, 2012 release date for “2010”.

Deal comes as Bay, Fuller and Form ready an early May start for "Friday the 13th," New Line's relaunch of another iconic baddie, Jason Voorhees. Marcus Nispel will direct from a script by Damian Shannon and Mark Swift ("Freddy vs. Jason"). At Rogue Pictures, the Platinum Dunes team is prepping an exorcism thriller to be directed by David Goyer and a "Near Dark" remake to be directed by Samuel Bayer. Bay, Fuller and Form are also developing a Universal remake of Alfred Hitchcock's "The Birds," with Martin Campbell directing Naomi Watts.

Madness and Vulnerability

There’s no getting around my own feelings regarding Asia Argento and I’m not even going to pretend that I don’t have them. Within her immense beauty and whatever craziness that we perceive to be there, she truly is a unique force when it comes to the screen presence she projects. The ways in which somebody responds to that presence is going to have a lot to do with how they respond to BOARDING GATE, the new film from Olivier Assayas. It’s the cinematic projection of following her to the ends of the earth and I went with it completely willingly. It’s possible that I can’t fully be trusted with my opinion of the film because of what I think of her, but there’s not much I can do about that. She makes her first appearance in BOARDING GATE seen from behind, a tattoo reading simply “23” visible on the back of her neck and within moments she is giving former lover Michael Madsen that look only Asia Argento can give someone, that one which speaks volumes of madness and vulnerability. She takes control of the frame at this point and doesn’t give it up. She’s not in every scene in the movie, but she is the movie. I don’t know if Olivier Assayas is in love with her, afraid of her or simply fascinated by her but it’s been a long time since there was a film which was so much about a director’s interest in his lead. Or maybe it’s just been a long time since there has been a lead actress who has the effect she gives off.


The plotline deliberately defies easy summarizing, so I’m not going to even try. Suffice it to say that Argento plays an ex-prostitute named Sandra living in Paris, looking to break off from her relationship with businessman Miles Rennberg (Michael Madsen) and how this results in an unexpected excursion to Hong Kong. It’s an oblique narrative with a series of scenes between Argento and Madsen which seem to rival similar sections of CONTEMPT in terms of both sheer length and the intimacy of the performances with each other but this leads us to several sequences of striking energy during chases through Hong Kong. There is a plot in BOARDING GATE, one which sorts itself out in surprising ways by the time it ends, but in many ways it’s beside the point while still being compelling in its own twisty way.


The basics of what BOARDING GATE is attempting in its guise as a thriller isn’t necessarily too different from what has been done before, from DIVA on down and it’s gorgeous in its glossiness as photographed by Yorick Le Saux. Looking for substance in its style might be missing the point, because Asia Argento is its substance. It’s not a movie where her past is revealed and we get soul-baring speeches. Instead, it presents her to us as she is and doesn’t apologize for it, simply allowing us, daring us, to take in all of her physicality and sensualness. We don’t always know what she’s thinking and in the end it’s possible the film doesn’t know either. But it’s very clearly hypnotized by her. To call it her best performance wouldn’t be the right way to phrase it, because of the nature of the film. I suppose it could be called the most striking use of her presence that I’ve seen so far. When you imagine your favorite actresses and what sort of film you would want to see them starring in, one which presents them in a way which is uncompromising and a genuine reminder of why you feel the way you do about her, this is the sort of film you may dream about.

But I shouldn’t ignore the nature of how Assayas photographs not only her but the people and places around her. It’s almost a case of pure cinema which offers a feel of intoxication that didn’t dissipate even when I stepped out of the theater. Overanalyzing it with words feels wrong right now and part of me just wants to let the fumes it gives off to linger inside me. But simply put, BOARDING GATE set a charge through me which is rare these days. Judging from some of the reviews that I’ve seen, not many others feel this way about the film, so I guess it’s not for everyone. I guess sometimes that’s just the way it goes.

Inventing The Modern Woman

You don’t need to give me a title, all you need to do is say “Michael Caine Heist Movie!” and I’ll show up. I’ve seen GAMBIT, I’ve seen THE ITALIAN JOB. I’ve even seen DEADFALL. Hey, I’ve even seen SILVER BEARS, not that I remember very much about it. The title for this one, for the record, is FLAWLESS, not to be confused with the 1999 Joel Schumacher film and certain to bring pleasure to everyone trying to come up with a lame “FLAWLESS sure isn’t!”-type comment so they think they’re being clever. But whatever the title, it’s a heist movie, it’s set in 60s London and it stars Michael Caine (teamed, for the first time since BLAME IT ON RIO, with Demi Moore) so I’m already interested. It’s just a few weeks since THE BANK JOB, another period heist movie set in London and maybe the world wouldn’t be a better place if we always got such movies this often, but hey, it sure wouldn’t hurt. And I’d be a little happier. Of course, quality sometimes varies. The opening of FLAWLESS includes a brief montage of business women seen throughout modern-day London, tipping us off to notions of how much the world has changed since the era of when the bulk of this movie is set in. It’s a strong jumping off point and it’s unfortunate that the movie wasn’t content with that strength.

In this setting we encounter Demi Moore buried under mounds of old-age makeup, being interviewed by a reporter about what she remembers of the days when she was one of the few female executives in existence, a time that saw the invention of modern woman. In 1960 London, Laura Quinn (Moore), that female executive, works at the London Diamond Corporation where she has already been passed over numerous times for promotions in favor of less-qualified men. When the night janitor Hobbs (Michael Caine) approaches her in secret with some disturbing news regarding her future with the company he also proposes to her a foolproof plan which he has bee formulating for years to get into the heavily-guarded diamond vault and steal a relatively small amount of stones which will help them both financially. Naturally, things do not go precisely to plan—or, more to the point, what she is told the plan will be--and Laura soon finds herself in over her head as the investigation into the crime begins.


Though I’ve seen references out there to the film being set in “swinging London” the 1960 setting actually places it a few years before that period so it has no such elements. It did, however, make me continually wonder when the first season of MAD MEN is going to come out on DVD. Within this nicely cool environment we are introduced to the welcome rarity of not only a woman in the lead but one who is not burdened with an unnecessary love interest throughout. Romance between Moore and Caine is fortunately ruled out immediately—this isn’t ENTRAPMENT—and even when Lambert Wilson enters the film as an investigator (sort of this film’s equivalent of Denis Leary in THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR) the movie seems to be resisting those temptations. It’s actually easy to imagine a rewrite that would bring such a romantic triangle into play and it wouldn’t have even altered that structure that much, so it’s actually a little surprising that the movie chooses to never go there. A little admirable too, but it’s hard not to think that, like its lead actress, the movie feels a little cool without such extra layers of emotion. It’s too bad because I want to like this movie more than I do and it’s hard not to mention that even ten years ago this would have gotten a wide release just like a normal movie. Now, it gets a limited opening while simultaneously being available to view at home on Ultra VOD, whatever that is. Of course, it is a movie about two lead characters dealing with aging, loneliness and their own mortality, which isn’t quite what gets the big bucks on opening weekend these days. But the big problem with FLAWLESS isn’t that it feels like an anomaly in this marketplace, but that it never feels quite as sharp as it needs to be, that there’s an extra layer of oomph which is missing. The film was directed by Michael Radford who also directed, among other titles, the Asia Argento vehicle B. MONKEY, another film involving diamond robberies that I vaguely recall could have used more zip to it. FLAWLESS never quite becomes dull but at some points it’s not too far off from being so. Photographed by Richard Greatrex and sporting a production design by Sophie Becher, it’s a consistently elegant looking film. But it seems to be reaching for a significance that it never achieves. The idea of how far women have come since the time the film is set in is a powerful one and should be enough. But the script by Edward Anderson also brings in political asides about South Africa and notions of living ones life philanthropically and if all this isn’t too far-reaching, it certainly never seems to tie it all together. And why is it stating these things to us? Shouldn’t it illustrate that within the story and let us figure those things out? Isn’t that what subtext is supposed to be for?


Within its icy-cool storyline, we have an icy-cool protagonist in Demi Moore, maybe one that is a little too icy. She may annoy me as a celebrity but I have no strong dislike for her as an actress and she certainly looks period appropriate. But while the exterior is necessary for the character she is obviously written with an interior that has a lot going on underneath, one that is frustrated by where she has gotten to in life and I’m just not getting that from her. The accent is also a problem which the film tries to explain by referring to her as an American who studied at Oxford and has worked for the Diamond Corporation ever since. Sound like something added to the script after the fact to me, and considering the time frames we are given means that she attended the school during the way, which seems odd. Now, I have to point out that I like the fact that this is genre movie with a woman of a certain age in the lead, in fact I think it’s terrific. I just wish it were a more successful example In all honesty, I don’t know who else would be right for the part as this point in time—ten years ago Rene Russo could have worked, but of course she got her starring role in a heist movie. So I’m not sure what the answer is. Moore dominates the film and while Michael Caine’s role is by nature secondary but he is of course terrific, nicely underplaying the part and displaying very little vanity in his continually unshaven appearance. In addition to Lambert Wilson from the MATRIX sequels, we also get Joss Ackland from LETHAL WEAPON 2 as the head of the Corporation.


The thing is, I’m excited by the notion of a heist movie with Michael Caine, I’m just not sure the actual movie shares that excitement since it honestly seems more interested in some of the too-serious themes that it aspires to. A day later, I remember the nicely explansive sets as well the enjoyable jazz score by Stephen Warbeck with it’s use of Dave Brubeck’s “Take Five” a particular highlight. I also remember the perfectly lacquered look of Demi Moore in period garb as well as the always-welcome sight of the great Michael Caine going through the machinations of this type of scenario one more time. It’ll be a fairly enjoyable viewing on DVD but it’s hurt by how much it doesn’t want us to figure out for ourselves what it wants to say about men, women and how we should behave in the world. I remember thinking that THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR 1999 seemed insubstantial but that film has only gained in substance for me over the years. When it comes to a genre film such as this, it’s all right to have those things in mind. But maybe it should give the viewer a chance to make a big thing out of those elements, not vice versa.

Too True To Be Good

So where has Daniel Waters been all this time? Has he been writing? Just hanging out? Why aren’t there more Daniel Waters scripts for us to quote from endlessly? And has it really been 19 years since Winona Ryder got to say so much of that addictively memorable dialogue in HEATHERS? If it’s taken this long to hear her say words by Waters again, well, at least it happened eventually. SEX AND DEATH 101 is a welcome return to hearing some of that dialogue again and even if it feels rough around the edges, I’m not sure that those edges should be shaved off.

Suave ladies man Roderick Blank (Simon Baker of LAND OF THE DEAD and THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA), an executive for a gourmet fast-food chain looking forward to his impending marriage, receives a mysterious email containing a long list of women’s names. At first noticing that it contains a full list, in chronological order, of the thirty-odd women he has ever had sex with. But instead of stopping at his future wife, the names of seventy-odd names follow. He soon comes to the conclusion that the remaining names can only be all the women who he will be having sex with during the rest of his life. After making this determination he becomes obsessed with going down the list to fulfill having sex with every single woman listed but he soon begins to wonder just how much this will affect his own destiny. Meanwhile, a mysterious woman known only as Death Nell (Winona Ryder) is becoming notorious for putting men into comas as a way of payback for their alleged sex crimes.

It sounds like it could be a plotline for a twenty-first century version of LOVE AMERICAN STYLE and early on it seems to be taking such an outlandish approach that it seems difficult to imagine how the idea could be sustained. Fortunately, Waters keeps his scenario in the air by coming up with ways for his lead character to respond to his unusual situation. The movie gets better as it goes along and is continually bringing unexpected developments into its story. Once Roderick Blank learns of the vaguely fantastical reason for receiving the list—in some ways a more grounded approach to the ‘heaven’ sequences in those kinds of movies—he has a series of reactions and notions relating to his own insecurities of how he wants to live his life. In some ways, it comes off as its own version of the Five Stage of Grief. And this character, within this very bizarre storyline and at times ridiculous humor, is somehow played as surprisingly adult and human. The low budget clearly shows at times, but SEX AND DEATH has a surprising degree of bite to it lacking from mainstream romantic comedies these days. The explorations of the ugliness in glamour, to put a phrase on it and trying to find some humanity within that, does certainly recall elements of HEATHERS, that much is certain. But while the most outrageous sections throughout may not be as memorable of the earlier film’s greatest moments, the surprising amount of depth it has, even during some extremely dark, comical moments, mean that it will probably stick around in my head and remain interesting on repeat viewings. I fully admit that it’s kind of all over the place, but the fact that it seems to demand a realistic response within its comedy from its characters at times is almost enough to put me on its side. Fortunately, there are more than enough laughs throughout as well. And plenty of nudity too, I should probably mention that.


Simon Baker is surprisingly good in the role, bringing dimension to his part and making him likable in a believable way, while never compromising the nastiness of what his character does at times. The nature of Winona Ryder’s part is that she has to linger on the outskirts of the narrative as an enigmatic figure, almost paralleling how we think of the actress herself these days. There are a few vague echoes of Veronica Sawyer in her performance and it’s kind of wonderful to see her in this sort of part again. Also appearing (some of whom doing surprisingly good work) are Leslie Bibb from POPULAR, Julie Bowen from LOST, Mindy Cohn (yes, Mindy Cohn), Dash Mihok, Neil Flynn, Sophie Monk, Frances Fisher and Patton Oswalt, who gets a laugh almost every moment he’s onscreen. Many names on the list are recognizable as references to other films (Carlotta Valdes? Jackie Shawn?) which could have partially inspired this one, some look to be names from films that Waters himself wrote, one is named “Greta Samsa” which is just…weird. There’s also a famous lesbian power couple named Bambi Kidd and Thumper Wynt and I can’t help but love the implications in that one (If you don’t get that reference, I can’t help you).

Daniel Waters appeared after the film for a ridiculously long q & a, but one that was hugely enjoyable to sit through. He spoke about his past films (HEATHERS, BATMAN RETURNS and his three for producer Joel Silver), why it’s taken so long between projects as well as addressing the subject of the never-made HEATHERS 2. He addressed the nature of his creative style, describing it as “the middle ground between Luis Bunuel and Harold Ramis, with that being a good indication of why it is sometimes difficult to get a grip, tonally, on what he’s going for. The film was shot in Los Angeles on a low-budget and he mentioned (Jokingly? Tough to tell) that he had at one point considered setting the film in Vancouver, just for the hell of it. This jab at runaway production got some applause from the crowd. He seemed like a guy who would be great to sit down and talk with for a while and though he was bemoaning how long the session was going on for, I had no complaints.

The evocative line, “Too true to be good,” turns up at one point, even appearing on the poster, and is in certain ways representative of the film itself. It disregards certain notions of what is expected in romantic comedies these days making it tough to always get a handle on where it’s going. Some may be turned off, but it’s willingness to walk a certain tightrope makes SEX AND DEATH 101 unexpectedly honest and the direction it winds up going in is ultimately satisfying.

Something You Don't See Every Day

So much of Neil Marshall’s DOOMSDAY is lifted from John Carpenter films, especially those which feature Snake Plissken, that there’s no getting around discussing it. For cryin’ out loud, even the credit font is borrowed from Carpenter. Somebody reminded me that Marshall’s THE DESCENT, which I liked a lot, used the font as well, but considering how close DOOMSDAY is, it still has to be brought up. I mean, aren’t the Movie Police supposed to watch over things like this? Does this mean that if I make a romantic comedy set in New York I can use Woody Allen’s font? If I make a wacky comedy filled with wanton destruction can I use John Landis’s?

But, honest admission here, as derivative as DOOMSDAY is, I honestly kind of enjoyed it. It’s such a pastiche that it plays like an alternate PLANET TERROR script commissioned for GRINDHOUSE in case the Rodriguez version didn’t work out and seems to revel in everything it’s trying to do. True originality may be at a minimum here, but at least the movie commits to what it’s doing, I’ll give it that much. Ultimately, it works well enough as a popcorn movie that I wound up wishing that I’d bought some popcorn before it started.


The film begins in more-or-less present day as a new strain known as the “Reaper Virus” spreads through Scotland and the British government has no choice but to seal off the entire island. After a lengthy voiceover explanation informing us of the nature of the quarantine and its aftermath, using full animation to display the layout of the setting, the narrative picks up again in the year 2035 (or, as the titles inform us, “2035 NOW” in case we still hadn’t caught on to the inspiration). The virus has resurfaced in London just as satellite photos evidence that there is still life on the other side of the wall. Desperate to find a cure, the government dispatches a team of specialists led by ruthless operative Major Eden Sinclair (HOLLOW MAN’s Rhona Mitra), to locate who or what may still be alive on the other side. Sinclair, by the way, is missing an eye, in case you weren’t clear on what character she’s supposed to resemble. Instead of a patch, she is outfitted with a bionic eye which is actually pretty cool, but never quite utilized as much as you’d think. A few of the team members are given the names Carpenter and Miller but hey, I guess if ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK had characters named Romero and Cronenberg then it’d be petty to complain about that. Anyway, the ultra-tough Sinclair has her own personal connection to the beginning of the original outbreak, but none of them have any idea what to expect when they reach the other side.


What they find is not just some MAD MAX/ROAD WARRIOR chocolate to stick in their ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK/L.A. peanut butter but, in addition to some Romero and Gilliam echoes as well are some surprising structural similarities to APOCALYPSE NOW. There’s the framework of a lone soldier sent with a team on an official trip up north (not upriver, but close enough) in search of a mysterious figure, an evening show setpiece staged in a way that recalls the Playboy Bunny USO sequence as well as an vague overall feeling of the “going back in time to earlier periods of the country” notion that Coppola always claimed he was going for—I could be more specific, but some of this is genuinely unexpected so hey, experience it for yourself. And once Mitra and her team reach their destination, they encounter the Kurtz-like figure Kane, played here by Malcolm McDowell in a role that should have “Special Guest Star” attached to the billing, espousing of all his mad philosophies as he is framed in shots which strive for enigmatic Brando-like compositions.


It is fun and it is extremely gory and I did have a surprisingly good time, but there really isn’t much to chew on here and whatever else you want to say about John Carpenter’s films back in the day that was rarely ever the case. The climactic car chase, one of the many George Miller lifts throughout is pretty damn good and there is something pretty cool about the futuristic world created here by Neil Marshall, which has enough going on for use not only in potential sequels but also any graphic novel series that he might have in mind as well.


Rhona Mitra is great to look at, fun to watch and actually a pretty believable ass-kicker. She’s also more enjoyable in the role than a number of other attempts at female action heroes from the past few years. Her character never reaches the mythic levels that Snake Plissken resides in but really, how many ever do? Bob Hoskins is likable in the what is pretty much the avuncular Lee Van Cleef role and there are also plum roles for Adrian Lester, Alexander Siddig and THE DEPARTED’s David O’Hara as well as McDowell’s extended cameo. Unfortunately, one director Marshall seemingly hasn’t lifted from enough is James Cameron and his penchant for casting interesting people in small roles, like in ALIENS. Here, most of the team members are pretty much non-entities.


But one of the big problems with DOOMSDAY is that THE DESCENT was promising and effective enough that I’d really like to see a new Neil Marshall film, not just something he directs and is loaded with homages to other movies. Still, I don’t regret having seen it. It’s not all that memorable but it is fun and on DVD it’ll be ideal to enjoy with some beer and pizza. But really, Marshall has already displayed enough glimmers of talent that he should try to genuinely form his own identity as a filmmaker. And he could start with coming up with his own font. Seriously, if he does that, he’ll feel better. But he can feel free to keep on casting Rhona Mitra in roles where she kicks ass. Her, I have no complaints about.

Deep Down

I didn’t make it to every night of the Bava series at the Egyptian, but the ones I did show up for were well worth it. The one big disappointment was that the print of PLANET OF THE VAMPIRES apparently wound up elsewhere, through no fault of the Cinematheque. I heard rumblings that there would be a make-up screening of the film some point this summer. That should please not only the people who were there Thursday night, but the ones I talked to who hadn’t been able to make it and will be thrilled if they get another chance.


As for what I did see, LISA AND THE DEVIL remains fascinating, if very much a tough film to get a grip on. The lead character of Lisa Reiner as played by Elke Sommer seems to affect the events around her as much as an average dream where we ourselves have no control over anything. While this adds to the unique mood of the film, and I give Sommer a lot of credit for being willing to play such a role, it still makes her a difficult character to willingly follow along with. But while the overall experience may be slightly ponderous, some of its more humorous moments involving Telly Savalas lend a sort of gallows humor feel to it, as if Bava was trying to say that none of this should be taken too seriously, it’s just the legendary mysteries of life and death that we’re dealing with here. If nothing else, it’s an attempt to expand the boundaries of the genre beyond where it ever goes even today and if it’s never really been seen by many people. The privilege of viewing one particular shot of Sylva Koscina with that ultra-plunging neckline that doesn’t seem to be held up naturally on a giant screen at the Egyptian is one of those moments that you simply don’t easily forget.


Seeing A BAY OF BLOOD aka TWITCH OF THE DEATH NERVE in such a place is also slightly revelatory because it frees it from grimy looking and sounding tapes, discs and grindhouse prints and lets us judge it in a manner which makes it play as more of a pitch-black comedy of manners more than anything else. It’s a surprising development considering it is esentially a very early version of what we know as the slasher movie. But after countless examples of those types of movies with essentially nothing to them, it’s great to see one which not only remains enjoyable, but seems to have more to offer as the years go by. Along with its viewpoint on the ways of the world is an enjoyably eccentric group of chacters including—hell, especially—the women, represented by Claudine Auger, the unknown Anna Maria Rosati and the eccentric Laura Betti. And it was a print which beautifully showed off the array of colors throughout and sounded great, the better to focus on the striking score by Stelvio Cipriani. Plus it has that ending. Few things will ever top the giddy feeling that you could sense in the audience when I saw a screening of this film about a decade ago, but hearing the audience response yet again was a wonderful thing.


What can I say about FOUR TIMES THAT NIGHT, which played after A BAY OF BLOOD? No, seriously, what can I say about it? The RASHOMON-stylings of the plot—presenting four possibilities of what really happened on a date between a young couple—aren’t really worth getting into, but what is worth discussing are the moments throughout where Bava is clearly doing something unexpected with the material such as the compositions of gorgeous female lead Daniela Giordana presented nude but not really nude or how he implies a busy nightclub with very little means at his disposal. It goes on too long and by a certain point I really didn’t need to see the doorman run up and down the stairs yet again, but I still feel like watching a few sections of it again. I should point out that not only does male lead Brett Halsey seem to drink nothing but J&B based on how many bottles of it he has but, as the friend I was with pointed out, he doesn’t even seem to have a kitchen in his swanky bachelor pad that comes complete with a swing. And I know how random this sounds, but am I the only person who expects the “Scientist” who appears to explain things to us to be revealed as the devil at the end? Yeah, probably.


I didn’t need to see DANGER: DIABOLIK again, especially since it just played at the New Beverly a few months ago. But I wanted to. Getting to see it in a theater yet again (even in this Paramount archival print that seems to have some sound issues) is just pure pleasure for me. It’s the look of the film, it’s the mood, it’s the music, it’s all ultra-cool, guilt-free pleasure for me. Diabolik and Eva, as portrayed by John Phillip Law and Marisa Mell are a couple without an ounce of realism to them, played by actors who barely seem human to begin with. And yet, they each bring a dimension of feeling, of heat, to what they play and it’s a combination of elements that somehow works. You don’t need to be convinced that he’d do anything for Marisa Mell. Looking at her when she looks at him, you could believe that maybe anything is possible. Just like how the films of Mario Bava give us something other than what is normally expected and while you may not be able to pin down what is so unique, the effect it has is unmistakable. There’s nothing really to add in closing right now. It’s just another series of reminders of why I love film as much as I do.

Knowing a Lot About Monsters

“I’ve got good news and bad news, girls. The good news is your dates are here.”
“What’s the bad news?”
“They’re dead.”


So now I guess we’ve gotten to the point where there’s a Fred Dekker double bill at the New Beverly. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose. I watched NIGHT OF THE CREEPS plenty of times on cable way back when. I was working as an usher the summer THE MONSTER SQUAD came out. It opened the same day as CAN’T BUY ME LOVE, which did much better business, and was gone in two weeks. Then years later suddenly it was as if I looked up one day and there was this massive MONSTER SQUAD cult out there. When did that happen, anyway? Outside the New Beverly the sign with the showtimes for the SQUAD/CREEPS double bill trumpeted “Rare 35mm print!” and “The only 35mm print Sony has!” respectively. When I bought my ticket the cute girl taking my money asked, “Are you excited?” Well, yeah, it’s a Fred Dekker double bill, how could I not be?

Two films very much sharing a lot of the same sensibilities, even though one is ostensibly for kids and one is very R-rated, THE MONSTER SQUAD and NIGHT OF THE CREEPS will always be stuck back in the 80s. Extremely slight in plot, haphazardly scripted and lacking in well-drawn characters, they are nevertheless two films that are extremely hard to dislike. Part of this is nostalgia, yeah, but they’re also very eager to please and it’s hard not to get at least a little caught up in their extremely earnest desire to entertain.


Essentially THE LITTLE RASCALS MEET FRANKENSTEIN (and the other Universal monsters) the non-Universal THE MONSTER SQUAD follows a group of kids with their own monster club who spend most of their time arguing about matters such as whether or not the Wolfman could drive a car. When one of them stumbles onto the diary written by the one and only Abraham Van Helsing, the kids learn of the existence of a powerful amulet and become aware of the arrival of actual monsters, in the form of Dracula, Frankenstein’s Monster, the Wolfman, the Mummy and The Gill Man, seeking that amulet in an attempt to rule the world.


The kids aren’t all that memorable, but much of the rest of THE MONSTER SQUAD holds up pretty well. Running only 82 minutes, the film, scripted by Dekker and his friend Shane Black (the same year LETHAL WEAPON opened), contains a narrative (pretty obviously inspired by ABBOT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN) which moves at such breakneck speed that you might not notice all the things that don’t make much sense—did the mom really buy Van Helsing’s diary at a garage sale? Rated PG-13 it’s obviously aimed at kids but for this day and age there’s some surprisingly un-P.C. dialogue and a few bits that kids might be genuinely scared by—in the best way, of course. Maybe that explains the cult—kids who watched it on TV when they were young and actually got scared by it. But those scares all seem appropriate with the tried-and-true monster movie atmosphere the movie is going for. With the advent of CGI just a few years away when this was made, this was one of the last times that a movie could present Dracula turning into a bat by panning away and showing us the action only in shadow, but the movie feels thrilled that it is able to show this to us. There’s a genuine respect and appreciation throughout for what these monsters represent in history—the opposite approach taken by Stephen Sommers when he made his own monster rally, the reprehensible VAN HELSING.

Among the monster action there’s plenty of smart-aleck dialogue which could only have been written by Black, along with the reprise of a joke from NIGHT OF THE CREEPS involving a character saying “Two-thousand year old dead guys do not get up and walk away by themselves!”—cut to the two-thousand year old Mummy walking down the street. Along with the comedy, there are a surprising number of weighty moments which help give the movie its own identity, one of the best of which has Frankenstein’s monster faced with a Halloween mask of his own face. It’s these very special touches that help give THE MONSTER SQUAD its own identity, as the young characters seem to learn that sometimes the ones that they think are monsters don’t always turn out to be that way. Adding to this is the memorable character of “Scary German Guy” enjoyably played by Leonardo Cimino who has his own secret (“You sure do know a lot about monsters.” “Yes, I suppose I do.”) that only we in the audience are ever privy too.


The kids, while cute, don't make much of an impression and the story may be a little thin, but the adults in front of the camera manage a lot of the heavy lifting. Duncan Regehr is a slimy Dracula who gives his own unique interpretation to the role. Tom Noonan is an absolutely amazing Frankenstein monster, providing it with more of a tortured soul than any actor has probably brought to the part since the forties. Stephen Macht and Mary Ellen Trainor (also in the LETHAL WEAPON movies) are the main parents, on the verge of divorce in a real-world subplot that contrasts with the fantasy elements. Jonathan Gries (REAL GENIUS, but also Benjamin Linus’s father on LOST) has just a few short scenes as the human half of the Wolfman but nails the part to such a surprising extent that you almost remember him as being around more than he actually is. Familiar faces like Stan Shaw and David Proval turn up as well for plenty of wisecracks. The movie is very well shot in Scope (it was produced by Peter Hyams and at times looks like one of his films) and the exciting Goldsmith-like score is by Bruce Broughton. I could toss out some more criticisms about it but the more I think about it, it just seems like too likable a movie. I’ve long said that I always like it when a movie contains a final shot which cranes up from all the wreckage of the climax as all the characters seem to congratulate each other as the credits roll. Coming as that damn Monster Squad Rap plays, this might be one of my very favorite examples of that. Patrick’s sister is still pretty damn good-looking, too.



NIGHT OF THE CREEPS opened a year earlier in August 1986. I think I went to see THE FLY instead, but finally caught up with it on cable. A mish-mash of different genres, it’s even more rooted in the eighties, has several uninteresting actors in the lead roles, a script that holds up to even less scrutiny than THE MONSTER SQUAD and is pretty juvenile. It’s nearly impossible for me to dislike it.


After a short prologue in outer space and a long prologue set in 1959, we settle in at Corman University during Pledge Week in 1986. Chris Romero (Jason Lively, Rusty in NATIONAL LAMPOON’S EUROPEAN VACATION) is bemoaning his loser status to roommate James Carpenter Hooper (Steve Marshall, essentially the poor man’s Ilan-Mitchell Smith) when he suddenly finds himself smitten by Cynthia Cronenberg (Jill Whitlow, the perfume salesgirl in WEIRD SCIENCE). Desperate to win her over, he convinces his roommate to join him in pledging a fraternity, unaware that the frat’s biggest jerk Brad (Allan Kayser, the poor man’s William Zabka) is already Cynthia’s boyfriend. Given the task to steal a dead body from one of the college labs, the two guys chicken out, but not before freeing a cryogenically frozen body which for 27 years has housed a collection of slithering creatures in its brain and now that it is out is ready to unleash more creatures on the unsuspecting campus. Enter Police Detective Ray Cameron (Tom Atkins, in the role of his career) who is awakened from a pleasant dream which turns into a pertinent nightmare, coming to the crime scene where he discovers the cryogenics lab (“What is this, a homicide or a bad B-movie?”) but is annoyed to learn that there is a body missing (“Corpses that have been dead for twenty-seven years do not get up and go for a walk by themselves!” Cut to…). As he seeks out the two college kids, he finds himself confronted with an unthinkable threat involving zombies, the slithering alien creatures and also something which forces himself to confront his own past.


The character names listed above should give the idea of the in-jokey vibe that the movie goes for. The frat comedy scenario when we hit the present day section goes on too long but the slithering creatures, when they take hold on the plot, are pretty creepy. There are a few definite similarities to James Funn's SLITHER from a few years ago, but I honestly prefer CREEPS. Once it becomes a full-fledged horror movie, with comedy fully intact, it’s at times extremely enjoyable. It is, after all, hard to hate a movie which has a reanimated corpse bursting through the floorboards of a house as Tor Johnson rising from the grave in PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE plays on the television. But it can’t be denied that once Tom Atkins hits the scene as Detective Cameron everything clicks together. Answering every phone call with the catchphrase “Thrill me!” ( a line Shane Black, who wasn’t involved in this film, gave to Val Kilmer in KISS KISS BANG BANG) he owns the movie, making it hard to ever be all that interested in the college kids. He’s twisted because of his past, yet the more you learn about him, the more you root for him and when he is forced to defend himself within the walls of the sorority house during the climax, it all becomes a thing of twisted, pulp beauty.


I’m not going to even bother with the younger cast members. Tom Atkins is the show here. His character is a noir goof; he knows it, Dekker knows it, the movie knows it. But somehow within all the craziness he brings a dimension to the performance showing that he totally gets this guy and all the elements he brings to it combined with that priceless dialogue he has becomes unforgettable. Future Oscar nominee David Paymer plays a med student who gets killed and becomes a zombie. Suzanne Snyder, actually one of the lead girls in WEIRD SCIENCE, gets busted down to a bit part here as a sorority girl and Dick Miller, given a “Special Appearance by” credit, appears as a Police Armorer in an enjoyable bit.

Fred Dekker was still in his twenties when he directed these two movies. CREEPS has a lot of show-off camerawork expected from a first-timer and SQUAD dials this down a little, but not too much, as it very much is the product of the Spielberg-era of fantasy filmmaking. But within their frenetic approaches and wise-guy dialogue is the feel of somebody having fun creating these two films and it shows. It’s hard to ignore that each has its own not-inconsiderable flaws, maybe expected from someone still learning the craft, but it’s still too bad that Dekker never became the top-flight director it looked like he might become for about five minutes back in the eighties. Tom Atkins as Detective Cameron barks out “Thrill me!” many times. These two movies live up to the demand of that phrase.