Right off the bat, we can safely say that knowing my particular tastes, this wasn't generally my cup of tea. It's just a little too messed up in its horror aspect, and I'd probably say that it's Kevin Smith's answer to 'Human Centipede'. The main plot of the story is very similar in that it involves a drugging followed by human biological experimentation. The thing about 'Tusk', however, is that it's based on a true story... well, not really, but kind of. More on that later. The film opens with podcasters Wallace Bryton (Justin Long) and Teddy Craft (Haley Joel Osment) who host a show called 'The Not-See Party'. Their podcast showcases humiliating viral videos; the latest being 'The Kill Bill Kid' in which a guy clearly parodying 'The Star Wars Kid' replaces lightsaber with katana, and chops his leg off. Upon reviewing the video, Wallace heads to Manitoba, Canada where the kid lives in hopes to interview him, but through certain circumstances, the interview cannot move forward. Not wanting to come to Canada for nothing, however, he decides to seek someone else out for an awesome story to share on his podcast. In the bathroom of a bar, Wallace finds an ad from a Howard Howe, offering a free room and the guarantee of interesting stories in exchange for a few chores. Howard is a wheelchair-bound, retired seaman, and claims he can't do certain things around the house anymore. Wallace answers the ad, and gets directions from Colleen McKenzie and Colleen Collette (Harley Quinn Smith and Lily-Rose Depp, respectively) to Howard's home, located smack-dab in the middle of nowhere. Arriving that night, Wallace gets some pretty cool stories from Howard that he could potentially bring back for his podcast; one involving a walrus that save his life, who he developed a friendship with. As anyone can predict, Wallace quickly gets more than he bargained for with a drugged tea, and waking up strapped to a chair, missing a limb. I won't sit here and spoil what else happens, but there are pictures all over the internet, and any Kevin Smith fan who hasn't even seen this movie has likely seen the end result. I knew that's what I was getting into as far as the main plot goes, so I can't pretend to be shocked by much. But once again, the whole human experimentation/shock horror thing isn't generally what I enjoy in a horror movie (even if it is a horror comedy). So right off the bat, I already knew this wasn't going to be a favorite. But I will admit, it's not without a perk or two. This is another American comedy that pokes fun at Canada in so many ways, with so many stereotypes. Even speaking as a Canadian, I'm all about Canadian stereotypes. Some are damn close to true, but some are so hilariously off that you can't help but laugh at them. To put the cherry on the sundae, Johnny Depp comes into the picture as Guy Lapointe; an inspector from Quebec (not the hockey player). The performance is very much a stereotype, but his delivery is pretty spot on, and I don't think he really says anything particularly harmful. Maybe it's just me, but being Canadian, I feel like I can embrace Canadian stereotypes far easier than I can get offended by them. That could be part of what makes us so "nice". One final note brings me back to that "true story" bit. The truth is, inspiration for the film came from a fake online advertisement very similar to the one Wallace finds. The ad was an old man, offering a rent-free room with the catch that the tenant has to wear a walrus costume and behave like one from time to time. To everyone's astonishment, the ad actually received over 400 responses, despite the fact that the ad was placed as a joke, written by Chris Parkinson of Brighton, England. So essentially, Smith took the idea and twisted it to that 'Human Centipede' standard, throwing in some fairly solid comedy along the way. Although it delivered a few solid laughs, however, this kind of thing is not up my alley as far as the horror aspect goes, and it's just plain weird and uncomfortable to sit through. To be fair, that IS the point, but I think it's safe to say that we all have something we don't like to see in movies. For me, it's basically any form of something torturous, and experimentation such as this totally counts. It had its moments, but for now, it's probably the Kevin Smith movie I'd furthest disassociate myself with. 2/5
0 Comments
There was once a time when Kevin Smith left his Askewniverse (AKA, anything that features Jay and Silent Bob) to dabble in other things. This all basically started with 'Jersey Girl' in 2004 and carried on with 'Zack & Miri' in 2008 and 'Cop Out' in 2010. But this was all still comedy, and about the furthest we ever saw him veer off a comedic course was how dramatic 'Jersey Girl' and even 'Chasing Amy' were. So, after 'Cop Out' (which perhaps I'll review another time) bit the guy in the ass with bad reception, he decided to try his hand at real-life horror with this film. For me, this one had a very 'Hostel' feel to it for various reasons; namely the idea of horny teenagers falling into a brutal trap. In this case, three hormone-driven dudes; Travis (Michael Angarano), Jarod (Kyle Gallner) and Billy Ray (Nicholas Braun) are convinced that an older woman named Sara (Melissa Leo) wants to have group sex with them. Upon meeting her, Sara drugs the boys, and we are offered Jarod's perspective as he wakes up in a covered cage in the hyper-conservative Five Points Trinity Church, led by Abin Cooper (Michael Parks); a hate-filled, prejudice man - especially towards the gay community. The reality of this movie pops a bit when you realize he's based on Fred Phelps; a very real and frankly scary right-wing extremist. On their way to meet Sara, the boys manage to sideswipe the vehicle of Sheriff Wynan (Stephen Root) who gets his deputy Pete (Matt Jones) to go out to look for the vehicle that hit his. This eventually leads Pete to the church where he realizes very quickly that he's gonna need some backup, namely from Agent Joseph Keenan (John Goodman) of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Things eventually come to a stand-off between the authorities and the church while the boys do what they can to escape their captors. It's not exactly a plot you'd consider fresh or original, but I will admit that it's interesting to see Smith tackle not only the horror genre, but keep it in the real world (although apparently an alternate ending to this involves the Rapture). Make no mistake on this one though - it's not a fun horror movie, despite the fact that it's directed by Kevin Smith. This is very reminiscent of torture porn, although it's not nearly as extreme as something like 'Hostel'. But the general idea that someone seeking fun finds themselves drugged and held captive in any way just points in that direction. This one also has that does of reality that, most unfortunately, there are some right wing extremists out there who are that horrifying. I can't imagine actually being gay (or for that matter, any member of the LGBTQ community) and knowing that I have these real-life Boogeymen to look out for. I have no basis for comparison on a lot of things, being a straight, white, male - but I can certainly empathize when I see a film like this, and if that was Kevin's point, it worked. I can't really say I got a lot of entertainment value out of this one, but it was a fascinating one-off for a few different reasons. Namely, this includes Kevin breaking off from his regular comedy routine to try something new, bringing a reality to his horror, and basically just having the balls to tackle something so controversial. For me, this is one of those movies you watch once to try it out, but you don't feel much of a need to return to it any time soon. It's not something you can just watch over and over again like so many of his other films, but I'd say if you're curious about seeing Kevin flex that horror muscle, it could be worth checking out. Just bear in mind the controversial issues involved, as this one is bound to cause discomfort for a few. 3/5 This month for Catching Up, I have finally put my foot down on getting caught up on Kevin Smith's non- Jay & Silent Bob movie collection. I consider myself a Kevin Smith fan based on those movies, as well as his 'Evening' trilogy, but I haven't really bothered much with anything else he's made for some reason. Once I finish this month's series of reviews, I'll be all caught up on what I've seen. I also hope that some of the others turn out a bit like this one, in that, I find it's honestly not quite as bad as people let on. A media publicist in New York City named Ollie Trinké (Ben Affleck) is living a happy life with his wife, Gertie (Jennifer Lopez), but it only goes as far as the birth of their first child, where Gertie tragically dies in childbirth. At first, Ollie is distressed and puts his work in the path of his childcare, passing things off to his father, Bart (George Carlin). The stress gets the better of him one day when he flat out insults Will Smith in front of too many reporters, makes a public ass of himself, gets fired, and moves in with Bart in New Jersey along with the baby, who he names after Gertie. After his screw up, he promises the baby Gertie that he'll be a better father, and presumably becomes a great father over the next 7 years. Now 7, Gertie (Raquel Castro) has a bit of an obsession with renting movies from the local video store, where they both meet the lovely Maya (Liv Tyler) who soon enters their lives. To make a lot of this short, much of the rest of the film eventually leads to Ollie's struggle between the happiness of his old life and the comfort of his new life. Everyone he loves, including an impressionable Gertie, is perfectly happy with their lives, but there's a big part of Ollie that ends up wanting his old life back. It's a movie that plays with the ideas of parenthood, and just how complicated a situation can get. That said, it's pretty predictable as far as its ending goes, but at the same time, I do find it to be a sweet movie - even if it's a little over the top with the drama sometimes. Usually, this is toted as one of Smith's worst titles, but I sincerely think there are worse. I'd say one of the more important things to keep in mind as far as Kevin Smith is concerned is that he makes movies for his fans, not critics, and he also creates from the heart. There's a bit of a personal touch to his movies, no matter what he's creating, and this one was a dedication to his late father. It was also inspired by his own life as a new father to one, Harley Quinn Smith, so to truly criticize this movie just feels like a dick move to me. If I had to pull something from it to nitpick about, it's that it often gets a bit overdramatic, and some of it's heavy-handed. But I just can't reach that deeply into this to look for the dirt. I see it as a love letter to his Dad and his Daughter more than anything, and I can't bring myself to pick on that, or be selfish about not getting what I thought I was gonna get. Actually, I got pretty well what I figured. I just thought it was sweet, and though it's not without its problems, I've seen much worse. It's a simple slice of life kind of story, and I think it gets much more flack than it deserves. It won't be for everyone, but if you're a Smith fan and haven't checked it out yet, you might surprise yourself. 3/5 This film opens with a kindly dedication to all dogs, be they "ladies" (trained, housebroken dogs) or "tramps" (strays). It suggests that money cannot buy the wag of a dog's tail, and anyone who has ever owned and loved a dog really knows this to be true. To me, the beginning of the film is actually perhaps the most charming part of it, as it speaks a truth all dog-owners understand to be true. But for as promising as this sounds, there's a lot of stuff about the film that I'm not too fond of, and it's another title in the Disney collection I could totally take or leave. This one also opens on Christmas, at a household where a man named Jim Dear (Lee Millar) gives a gift to his wife, Darling (Peggy Lee); a cute little cocker spaniel with a bow she calls "Lady". The first night is actually pretty adorable, as Lady gets lonely and tries so desperately hard to join her family in their bed. She manages, but they lay down the law that it's JUST for that first night. Naturally, however, the trend lasts much longer, which was something I found they got pretty spot-on for dog-lovers, or even pet-owners in general. In this house, we let both dogs and cats up on the bed, as we appreciate the company, and I know many who do the same. At around six months, they get Lady (now voiced by Barbara Luddy) a dog license, and she shows it off to her friends, a Scottish Terrier (Bill Thompson) named Jock and a Bloodhound named Trusty (Bill Baucom), who has no sense of smell. We get the sense that Lady lives a very happy, comfortable, perhaps even spoiled life with her owners (by the way, do not feed your dog coffee and donuts like they do here!). Lady's owners are very fond of her, she's got them wrapped around her little paw, and life is good. Meanwhile, we are introduced to "Tramp" (Larry Roberts), a stray mutt who sleeps at a construction sight, eats the scraps from a friendly Italian restaurant (probably at least better for dogs that coffee and donuts - seriously, don't do that). He lives his life day by day, outrunning dog catchers and socializing with the local strays. One day Tramp comes across Lady having a conversation with Jock and Trusty about the baby Jim and Darling are about to have. Tramp warns her about what's going to happen, but his opinion is at first tossed aside. Some time after the baby is born, however, Jim and Darling go on vacation, leaving the baby with Aunt Sarah (Verna Felton) who, along with her racially insensitive siamese cats, treat Lady like some sort of unwanted mongrel. This leads Lady out onto the streets, taking her chances with Tramp, who seems to have been right in his opinion about humans the whole time. But will she be able to adjust to the Tramp's lifestyle? Or is she too adapted to her home life? Much like with 'Cinderella', this is one of those Disney animated films that isn't entirely up my alley, but that doesn't mean it's bad. If you take away some of the racial controversy, the story is actually pretty charming - that is, if you can make it past some of the dog noises that are way too overexaggerated here. The dog pound scene, for example, is pretty brutal - like watching one of those SPCA commercials but instead of being heartbreakingly sad, it's this odd combination of annoying, sad and even kind of scary. If you really love dogs, this movie might hit you harder than most. In many ways, the film brings back fond memories of the dogs I had in my life, who I developed very strong and close relationships with. A lot of the charm of the movie does appeal to dog lovers, but a lot of the darker moments here are actually kind of upsetting. I really wasn't a fan of the "taking the long walk" scene, where a very upbeat dog at the pound gets put down behind closed doors. It's a bit much, and doesn't really need to be there other than to pull at heartstrings. In fact, the film does a lot of that, some of it feeling quite forced. Other than a few things that haven't aged very well since 1955, this isn't a bad movie for the right audience. This will appeal to dog lovers easily enough, and has its charm despite not quite being everything I look for in a Disney animated film. It might make for a pretty good date movie, but I otherwise prefer something a little more upbeat because for as charming as this can be, it can get just as dark, and moments of sadness are really crowbarred in. It's made for that soft spot a lot of us have within us for dogs, but it's bound to work better for some than others. 3/5 This is another title that goes all the way back to my early childhood, as we rented it a few times over from whatever local video stores existed at the time. Speaking for myself, I always loved this movie in my childhood. I saw it as a fun, fantasy adventure, full of imagination and frankly dream-like. Much like 'Alice in Wonderland', it helped contribute to my love of imagination in film. Now, allow me to address the elephant in the room briefly. We all know that there are certain depictions in this film that are stereotypical and simply do not hold up. Watching this as a kid, certain things just kind of were what they were, and the internet just wasn't a thing. If we wanted any information on things, we'd have to either know someone who was personally effected by things, or have to find a book to read on the subject, which we probably wouldn't think to go out of our way to do. Since that time, however, we have been well-educated, and a lot of Disney's not-so-proud moments stand out a little bit more, somewhat tainting our childhood perception of these films, perhaps for the better. The film opens in London England in the early 1900s, where we meet the imaginative Darling children, John (Paul Collins), Michael (Tommy Luske) and their storytelling older sister, Wendy (Kathryn Beaumont). The stories Wendy tells are about Peter Pan (Bobby Driscoll), and the power behind the stories is so strong that all of the kids believe in him. Meanwhile, parents George and Mary (Hans Conried and Heather Angel, respectively) pass it all off as nonsense, and the kids imagination even sets Mr. Darling off, who seems to want these kids to be a bit more ordinary and grow up. One night, Peter Pan himself comes to the Darling household to hear stories from Wendy to bring back to his friends, the Lost Boys. However, when Wendy tells him about their need to grow up, Peter brings Wendy and the others to Neverland, where they'll never have to grow up, and Wendy can stay and tell stories to the Lost Boys. Little do the kids know that they will soon have to deal with all aspects of Neverland, including the dastardly Captain Hook (also Hans Conried) and his goofy sidekick, Smee (Bill Thompson). What unfolds is a fun, animated adventure, unfortunately now highlighted by racial overtones that just kind of make one uncomfortable nowadays. It's sadly one of the worst examples of a movie that has aged horribly by today's standards. That said, I can't really deny that most of the film does have a nostalgic tie to it, and the non-controversial parts of it are still entertaining nonetheless. For me, pretty much any scene that features Captain Hook and Smee, especially when blended with a clock-eating crocodile, are funny and still hold up. He's one of the first comedic villains I can really think of in one of these, and that's a bit of a rarity for Disney animation. I'm hard pressed to think of many examples, except perhaps Yzma from 'The Emperor's New Groove', or any number of bumbling sidekicks. And speaking of that, Smee really does have this odd charm to him. It's unfortunate how the film has a fairly strong focus on all of the things that date it, namely the Native American stereotypes. It boils right down to full on songs which, watching them play out nowadays, just have me cringing as they're basically just mockery. So the film is this crazy balance of extremes, between the fun villainous portrayal of Captain Hook and the... well, you know. It picks up, and it drops off, all the way throughout. and although part of me still enjoys it, and embraces the nostalgia it provides, the other part of me see it as a once classic throw-away at the same time. At the end of the day, it's something you just plain have to use your judgment on. For me, it's the lowest end of a pass, based on the aspects of it I enjoyed. 3/5 This is one among the Disney animation collection that I have seen, but it was long enough ago that seeing it now may as well be a first time. I actually forgot just how enjoyable this movie was for me as a kid. When certain characters in this tale of wonder popped up, I was hit with waves of nostalgia, and I concluded after seeing it again this time around that it must have been a part of where I got my imagination from. Much like Alice, I found things like schooling rather dull and had "my own little world", while in the meantime I took reality for granted. The film opens with Alice (Kathryn Beaumont) in the middle of a history lesson from her older sister, expressing her desire for adventure to her cat, Dinah. She suddenly spots a white rabbit in a waistcoat, seemingly running late for something important. When Alice gives chase, the rabbit leads her down a large rabbit hole, which leads to a room with a tiny door that leads to Wonderland. Once she drinks a shrinking potion, she finds her way into Wonderland where she meets the likes of several strange characters like Tweedledee and Tweedledum, the Cheshire Cat, the Mad Hatter, the March Hare, the smoking Caterpillar, and of course the dreaded Queen of Hearts who doesn't even make an appearance until about 20 minutes before the film ends - admittedly a tense 20 minutes though. Personally, I found that there's a lot of similarity between this and 'The Wizard of Oz'. Both Dorothy and Alice end up in magical lands, meet some very interesting characters on a journey, and are (at least eventually) just trying to get home. Both characters also seem to realize how much they take reality for granted when they're basically overwhelmed with too much strange. This is a valuable lesson for the kids watching, but both films make sure there's plenty of fun to be had along the way. To top it all off, both are based on classic books, but the thing to note is that 'Alice's Adventures in Wonderland' came first. Although nowadays it's often seen as one of Disney's many masterpieces, it's funny to think that it was actually critically panned upon its release. The year was 1951, so a part of me wonders if things like having a day-dreamy imagination were a little more frowned upon; accepted, but considered a "waste of time" or something along those lines. It even bombed at the box office for its initial release, forcing Disney to write-off over a million dollars. It wouldn't take long, however, until this became a cult classic of sorts, and Disney's everlasting wish of making money would once again come true, when it was re-released in 1974. Nowadays, it's a little less about daydreaming and a little more about Alice potentially experiencing some sort of drug trip. Honestly though, either way works just fine, as long as that lesson is there at the end. Going back to the 'Wizard of Oz' comparison, I will say that final lesson is really where they differ. In "Oz', Dorothy is on a constant journey to try to get home, and in the end, it's very much a lesson about taking what you have for granted. In 'Alice', it touches on that slightly, but at the end life just kinda goes on. No twists, no turns, Alice wakes up and the movie just ends. However, in the book, upon waking up, she convinces her older sister to sit by the riverbank and experience the fantasy for herself. So that leads me to believe that while a similar lesson is in place, a part of the takeaway from 'Alice' is also to not be afraid to daydream and let your imagination run wild. I'd be curious to actually read the book for myself and see what similarities/differences there are, as this is still seen by many as the best film adaptation of the book. The follow-up story, 'Through the Looking-Glass' never saw the light of day with Disney animation, but I often wonder if that may be for the best. What I really like about this movie in particular is that any way you look at it, it's the perfect example of a film that allows you to escape; perhaps my favorite thing about movies in general. For me, this is like the film equivalent to whatever dream you experience during a light nap; when you just drift off for an hour and a half to two hours, wake up and suddenly remember where you are. It's one of those films that's actually a bit of an experience because it's so fantastical, and it's definitely a personal fave among the Disney classics. It's the very definition of a film you can freely lose your mind to. But don't mind us fans - we're all a little mad here. 5/5 As I take my journey through each and every Walt Disney Animation Studios title, I'm bound to come across a few that weren't particularly made for me. 'Cinderella' is one of these titles. While there's plenty to like about it, the overall concept isn't something that I really think about, and the character just isn't relatable to me in any real way. As a result, I have a hard time getting on board. But make no mistake, none of it has to do with it being too "girly". For the record, I think Cinderella is a perfectly relatable character for anyone who has ever felt trapped under their parents strict, watchful eye, forbidden to do certain things, or even caught up in the wrong family. The fact of the matter is, however, this was made for an audience that doesn't involve me. However, I can respect the title for its position on the long list of Disney classics, and it IS kinda cool to see that she has to go through some crap to get to become a princess. She's not just a princess from the get-go, and that's always a good thing; to show a certain amount of struggle in order to reach such a high-class position. Cinderella (Ilene Woods) once had a loving family with her real parents. Once the mother dies, the father remarries to Lady Tremaine (Eleanor Audley) who brings her two bratty daughters along, Drizella and Anastasia (Rhoda Williams and Lucille Bliss, respectively). Eventually, Cinderella's father passes as well, and she's stuck with her Step Mother and Step Sisters who make her do everything while they live their lives. Her only real friends are the mice and birds who visit her, headed by our comic relief characters, Jaq and Gus (James MacDonald). Meanwhile, Prince Charming (William Phipps/Mike Douglas) of the nearby kingdom is all iffy about getting married and starting a family while his father (Luis Van Rooten) longs to hear the pitter-patter of little feet before his time is gone. The King issues a decree that all maidens on the village attend a Royal Ball. The step sisters and stepmother sabotage Cinderella's attempts at attending, wanting her to have nothing, and she is left alone that night. But then her Fairy Godmother (Verna Felton) shows up and grants her wish to go to the Ball, but only until midnight. Then we all know the rest with the glass slipper, and if you don't know how this ends by now, you may have been living under a rock for quite some time. Although it's not particularly for yours truly, the film still has plenty of merits to speak of. The animation is pretty solid for the time, the singing is a little more subtle than some other Disney movies, and flows rather organically, and I can't deny that one feels the tension behind Lady Tremaine. She's actually a very good villain in that she comes off as a potentially real character. Although it's a fairy tale, the villain is someone who could easily be based in reality. I'll further add that the mice are fun characters, and although she's only in it for a few moments, the Fairy Godmother is very likable. She comes in to give Cinderella a boost, but she doesn't spoil her rotten entirely, given the midnight curfew. For the kind of movie it is, it's not bad, I just have a taste that goes in another direction. 3/5 Here we go for round three of my Disney catch-up. This is one that I've seen a few times before, but I tend to stick to the latter half for several reasons. While 'The Wind in the Willows' is okay for what it is, it's 'The Legend of Sleepy Hollow' that seems to become most peoples' takeaway from it. On top of that, I'm a fiend for Halloween, and the last moments have left an impression on me that has lasted since I was a little kid. It's probably the primary source of my opinion that atmosphere outdoes blood and gore for a good scare. But of course, I'm here to review the whole movie, so allow me to get the first part out of the way (which was pretty much how I felt watching this). On the whole, the film could be likened to an average family meal for a kid. You wanna get through the first bit and jump straight to your dessert - you may even be willing to sacrifice some of your meal to get there, too (in this case hitting skip until you get to the good parts). So fair warning, I didn't care much for the first segment, and my heart isn't really in it. But I'll give it a whirl. 'The Wind in the Willows': Based on the story by Kenneth Grahame, the story bases itself in London, England in the early 1900s. We are introduced to a variety of critter characters, including J. Thaddeus Toad, Esq. He has a passion for adventure, with no regard to cost, which eventually brings him to the brink of bankruptcy. His habit of getting into all things popular peaks when he discovers motorcars, and Toad's friend, Angus McBadger convinces other friends, Ratty and Moley to try to help curb his habit. This all gets really weird and advanced for something aimed at kids. It involves a lot of financial mumbo jumbo, and even a court case that involves Mr. Toad's reckless driving. When describing it to a friend, i claimed it as being a very boring tale, but complete with some pretty funny visuals and dialogue. For me, it's not bad for what it is, but it's definitely not something I feel like I need to re-watch annually at Christmas (it takes place around the holidays). There are certainly some laugh out loud moments though, and that was enough to at least keep me mildly entertained. 3/5 'The Legend of Sleepy Hollow': This segment couldn't have worked out much better for timing. These Disney Animation reviews are all being done in order, and taking place every month with five Thursdays until I'm done. It just so happened that 'The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad' lands on October 1st, and the last moments of the second segment here always, without fail, gets me into the Halloween spirit. Of course I refer to Washington Irving's 'The Legend of Sleepy Hollow'. The first parts of this segment are intriguing enough as a sort of twisted love triangle story. Basically, we have Ichabod Crane; a school master who looks pretty gangly and has a certain charm to him that some of the local ladies fall for. However we learn that he's a bit of a jerk as well, going after women for their riches and good cooking more than for love. His competition is local tough guy, Brom Bones, who picks on Ichabod a little bit, but nothing too harmful. In a weird way, there's a very human balance between the two, and we see that the would-be gangly geek between the wto may actually be the jerk. Of course, this all ends with Brom Bones having enough with his competition, and sacring the crap out of him with the tale of the Headless Horseman of Sleepy Hollow. If you wanna get to what makes this whole movie great, skip to the last 13 minutes or so. It begins with a catchy song as Brom Bones tells the tale, and then it cuts to the best and most memorable part of things, involving Ichabod, riding home through the dark forest. Even as a 38-year-old adult, I can say that this is still effectively creepy and a fantastic way to dip your young children into the horror pool. It works really well as a "baby step" in that direction. The segment as a whole is interesting in its execution, and it has become an annual Halloween watch for me. 5/5 If you recall last month, I went through five of the six "package films" Disney made from a bunch of unused footage (at least for a lot of it). This is the sixth and final package film Disney made during this era, and things would go back to normal until 1977 with 'The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh'. On the whole, I definitely recommend checking out the last half of this, especially since we're approaching Halloween. It might stick with you better than some actual horror movies with the atmosphere it creates. As far as the first half, I could take it or leave it. It's good for a giggle, but not something to keep coming back to. 4/5 This film has provided me with a pretty good opportunity to express my feelings on Melissa McCarthy. I have always said that she definitely has the talent, but she's so terribly typecast that she's not given the room to be at her best. Of course, since 2015, when this film was initially released, we've all seen her come pretty far. This includes a Best Actress nomination for a very serious role in 'Can You Ever Forgive Me', and I really do hope to see more opportunity present itself to her in the future, as she's such an underutilized actress. I personally found that after watching this movie, 'Spy' may be that perfect balance of her talents. She does the funny thing, she does the serious thing, she does the badass thing, and it all comes together with a fantastic supporting cast, great dialogue, and a fair share of decent action. I can say with all honesty that this was a very pleasant surprise, as I went into it expecting something pretty bottom-shelf. I do love when a film proves me wrong though, and this is no exception. In fact, even thought it's a bold statement, I might currently consider this the most surprised I've been by a movie (although 'Jumanji' 2017 is a big contender). We're introduced to a desk-bound CIA agent named Susan Cooper (McCarthy); a techie for field agent Bradley Fine (Jude Law). Things go pretty well between them as a team, and we get that Susan has a bit of a thing for Fine's suave good looks and demeanor. However, long story short, when things go south, Fine is assassinated by a Bulgarian arms dealer named Rayna Boyanov (Rose Byrn). Having such strong feelings for her friend, partner and potential love interest, Susan eventually manages to get her first undercover assignment from her boss, Elaine Crocker (Allison Janney), to help with the capture of Boyanov. The running gag is that every time her identity changes, it's never anything flattering, and the disguises kinda just keep getting lamer but funnier. In the meantime, Susan has to go undercover due to the agency's top agent's names being revealed, and becoming easily identifiable. The two top agents in question are the seemingly fake-friendly Karen Walker (Morena Baccarin), whose confidence lets her get away with far too much, and Rick Ford (Jason Statham) who puts that cherry on top of this wonderful spy sundae. His running gag is bragging about various stunts he's done, and more often than not, I'm pretty sure they turn out to be something you may have seen him do in another movie at some point. The gag is that to hear these situations out loud is laughable, even if it all looks incredibly badass on screen. So it takes its jabs at typical Hollywood action with a modern "It" guy for the genre. Beyond having a great cast, this film is just really well written for a spy spoof. It seems abundantly clear by the way things unfold that writer/director Paul Feig has an appreciation for spy movies. For as much of a comedy/action that this is, it's a bit surprising, and a breath of fresh air, not to see it go too off the rails at any point. It's oddly believable as an actual spy movie with comedic situations as opposed to just a spy spoof like 'Spy Hard' or 'Austin Powers'. Yet as you get the gags going through the film, it's easy to tell that it's something that doesn't take itself too seriously either. It's kinda "just right" as far as a spy comedy/spoof goes. So, if you're anything like me and find Melissa McCarthy a little too typecast as a goofy character, you might find the trailer for this giving you pause. It just looks like Melissa McCarthy is gonna play Melissa McCarthy again, on the surface. But trust me when I say there is much more to this movie than meets the eye. But don't take my word for it either. Rotten Tomatoes balances the critic/audience rating on an average of 86.5%, with the critics liking it more! If you haven't seen it yet, and you appreciate a good spy movie, and are any kind of fan of Jason Stathom, this was made for you. Check it out. It's awesome! 5/5 This one floats a bit under the radar, but can be found on Amazon Prime (Canada) for those who are looking to quench that thirst for a good martial arts movie. It has come highly recommended by a few close friends as one of those movies that's just plain and simply off-the-wall awesome. I can say with all honesty that it doesn't disappoint in the least. I absolutely loved it. Renound Chinese professor, Jack (Jackie Chan) teams up with a young Indian professor named Ashmita (Disha Patani) to search for the lost Magadha treasure in Tibet. Together, they assemble a team or archaeologists and other specialists, Jones Lee (Aarif Rahman), Xiaoguang (Lay Zhang), Kyra (Amyra Dastur) and Noumin (Miya Muqi). Eventually, using modern technology, they locate the treasure under a frozen lake. Here, they are ambushed by a group of mercenaries led by Randall (Sonu Sood), but our hero team escapes with a diamond that could lead to the Magadha Treasure. Soon, it becomes a race to get to the lost treasure first, very much in the style of 'Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade'. In fact, this movie with all of its ideas borrows a great deal from 'Indiana Jones', but think of it this way; what if Indiana Jones knew martial arts? While the film isn't entirely original in plot, it's made up for with the idea of bringing the art of Kung Fu together with the art of Yoga, and the film shows they hold as many differences as they do similarities. They are both used quite a bit throughout the film, and you get you Jackie Chan fighting blended with other great martial artists and their individual styles. It's neat that it doesn't just stop at being a Kung Fu movie. This is another one of those movies that certainly isn't without its flaws, but the flaws are so overshadowed by the awesomely random stuff that keeps happening. I mean, there's a scene where Jackie's in a speedy car chase with a lion as his passenger. Read that out loud and tell me that doesn't sound like something that would be cool to see. There's actually a lot of animal use in this, but I'm pretty confident it's about 99% CG. You get wolves, elephants, hyenas, snakes, horses, camels, there's a zoo in this movie. The wolf part in particular was my favorite, involving Jackie and Jones doing some Kung Fu training in order to intimidate the wolves. It looks like a one-on-one fighting game with a cool wolf/tundra background. That actually brings me to my next point, the CG. You really have to watch this movie in a certain way, because the CG isn't what you'd call strong. You'll know everything you need to know in the opening sequence about it. My general impression was that though it looks kinda rough, it really pops with bright color and swift action, and I thought to myself that if it was a video game cut scene, it would look pretty awesome. With that, I just carried on watching the rest as if it was a high def game come to life, and it worked out pretty well. So, if you're on the lookout for a good action movie with a good blend of martial arts, I can honestly recommend this pretty highly. You'll need to go in with an open mind, and convince yourself to let a few things slide, but all in all this is a fun movie. I will forewarn that I thought it ended very abruptly though. If I have any real complaints about it, that's probably what it would be. There's a little lesson of positivity, and then it just kinda ends. But it ends with a dance number so catchy that you almost shrug off how abrupt the ending is because at that moment it's very clear that this was something made for fun more than anything. Sit back, relax, and get a taste of that classic Jackie Chan fighting. 4/5 This movie is one of my favorite things; a movie with a Critic Rating scale on the low side (40%), but an audience rating on the high side (74%). Movies like this are the reason I do what I do here. I review these titles, not as a film school graduate, but as an audience member. I wanted to review movies from a general audience perspective, and it probably shows with how generous I tend to be with some of my ratings. I therefore go against the grain on this one, and hop in there with the audience, because 'Bloodsport' has so much still going for it. The film centers on American Army Captain, Frank Dux (Jean-Claude Van Damme), who's sensei, Senzo Tanaka (Roy Chiao) trained in the art of Ninjutsu. Tanaka took Dux under his wing, as a child, who broke into Tanaka's house to steal a katana. Tanaka tells Dux that a katana is not to be stolen, but earned through strict training, and such is done, alongside Shingo (Sean Ward), Tanaka's son. Eventually Shingo fights in an illegal underground tournament held in Hong Kong called the Kumite, which kills him, and soon Dux is trained to become a member of the Tanaka clan through a pretty brutal but bad ass training montage. Dux is then invited to fight in the same tournament, and the movie really makes you wonder how they got a movie like 'Street Fighter' so screwed up. His superiors refuse to let him go, so Dux just says "the hell with it" and goes to Hong Kong to fight, anyway. This leads to Criminal Investigation Command officers, Helmer (Norman Burton) and Rawlins (Forest Whitaker) to track him down. Meanwhile, once he gets to Honk Kong, Dux is befriended by a fellow tournament fighter, Ray Jackson (Donald Gibb) and a streetwise guide named Victor Lin (Ken Siu). The pair are lead to the tournament, Dux performs some bad assery to prove he's worthy to fight, and the tournament begins. Soon the attention of Kumite champion, Chong Li (Bolo Yeung) is caught when Dux breaks his record for fastest knock-out - guess who the villain is. As for romantic interest, that's here too, with American journalist, Janice Kent (Leah Ayres), who's investigating the Kumite, which could mean trouble. Anyway, the bottom line is that if you wanna see Jean-Claude Van Damme in a better 'Street Fighter' movie that's more about the tournament than anything else, this is a very good place to turn. Let's face facts, the fighting and bad-assery is why anyone is gonna watch this movie and enjoy it. Things like acting and bad dubbing are to be overlooked, and it's a simple story of vengeance, complete with some gnarly broken bone scenes. With that, there's not a whole lot more to say about 'Bloodsport'. It's an hour and a half of Jean-Claude Van Damme training and fighting, but make no mistake, it's not as dull as that either. There's a generous sense of humor behind it, and there's a charm when we see the friendship between Dux and Ray. It's that same buddy-buddy thing you got with Maverick and Goose from 'Top Gun'. 'Bloodsport' has developed a really generous cult following over the years since its release, and some might even claim this as Van Damme's real breakout performance. Up until this point, he was credited as a movie goer, a spectator, a soldier, a "gay karate man", and finally, Ivan Kraschinsky the Russian in 'No Retreat, No Surrender', which he's known for, but I daresay it doesn't have quite the same strength as 'Bloodsport' as a popular movie. I actually remember peers talking about this movie when I was a kid, and how cool JCVD was. Some would even challenge Schwarzenegger's awesomeness with his. Bear in mind that a LOT of my peers were watching things like gory horror at a super early age. Without this being the suggestion of a dear old friend, I'm not sure I ever would have gotten around to watching it. It was always one of those martial arts movies that for whatever reason I never got super into (which is super weird, considering some of my particular tastes). When you picture your ideal-minded kid when it came to watching violence, I was damn near perfect. I didn't even start getting into horror until I was about 17, so movies like this were just off my radar, growing up. Nowadays, it's really just more interesting to watch as a piece of cinematic history. It was movies like this that prompted American action filmmakers to say "let's get the guy who can do the splits, he's awesome." It's well worth the hour and a half, and my criticisms are so minimal they don't matter. Just sit back and watch the fight. 4/5 Today, we begin another month of reader suggestions. This is where friends, family, coworkers, and even maybe a few fans throw a title out there that they would suggest I watch. The main reason is to catch up on great movies that I've missed over the years, and I had a good time with it a few months ago, so I figure this is going to be a relatively regular thing. No names will be mentioned throughout the process, but you'll know your suggestion when it pops up. This one is for a lifelong friend of mine, and huge supporter of the site. For a "movie guy", it's actually pretty amazing how much I've missed out on over the years. Some titles falling under that category are titles I surprise myself with, and 'The Warriors' has been under that category for quite some time. Truth be told, the only, and I mean only thing I ever knew about this movie was that it was a street gang related story where some guy clinks beer bottles and utters the famous sing-song line of "Waarrioors, come out to plaayaay". It's a creepy-ass scene, but it was never enough to draw me in completely, without knowing the rest. But now that I have finally seen it, I just regret holding off for so damn long. Our story centers on gangs of New York City in 1979, that really seem to reflect the gritty side of New York street life in the 80s (it was like they knew what they had). Leader of the Gramercy Riffs, Cyrus (Roger Hill) calls a midnight summit, requesting nine unarmed representatives from each gang. He proposes a city-wide truce among the gangs, as together, they outnumber the cops by a significant amount. Together, they could take back the streets, and most of the gangs cheer. But when Luthor, leader of the Rogues, shoots Cyrus, he pegs the murder on Cleon, leader of the Warriors. Chaos ensues, and most of the Warriors escape, but a hit on the Warriors is put out over the radio, and soon it turns into survival for them. Although the film came out to critical ridicule upon its release, it has since become a cult classic reflection of the times. Some of the cult draw may have to do with the idea of it being a rare film with a violent history upon its release. Our version of that might be 'The Dark Knight Rises', which involved a massive theatrical shooting in Aurora, Colorado. 'The Warriors' was linked to acts of vandalism and three murders between showings the week following its release. Paramount pulled all advertising, theater owners were allowed out of their contractual obligation to show it, and security personnel were added to at least 200 theaters across America. That doesn't sound like a lot now, but in 1979, that was pretty significant. Getting back to the movie itself, however, we really just wanna know if I thought it was any good. Well, this movie does what a lot of movies struggle to do, and I admire it every time I see it - well-rounded characters. We have a full gang of main characters here, and the film does a good job at letting us know that while we're routing for them, they're still a tough street gang of New York, and at points you kinda second guess your liking of them. In actuality, they're just the unlikely gang that got framed. There was nothing particularly special about any of them, but in a weird roundabout way, that's what's so good about it. They stay true to who they are supposed to be representing. At no point do you get characters like the goody-goody who says "gee whiz, you guys, I think this is wrong." In short, the movie has balls. This is one of those "made for men" kinda movies; 1979's version of something like '300' or 'The Expendables', but less about action and more about survival, and holding your turf. There are some relatively uncomfortable moments, but nothing too extreme. It gets as intense as it needs to when it comes to them facing off against other gangs, and you can't really help but get into how original some of the gang ideas are. This is actually quite a creative movie, despite its overall simple plot. And speaking of creative, I did NOT know that Joe Walsh's 'In the City' was written for this movie! Most would know it as being performed by The Eagles, but it's totally Walsh's song. Anyway, it gets bonus points for that, as I am an Eagles fan, and that's a great tune. 4/5 I figured I'd close off Wes Craven month with what I consider a bit of an underrated treat - even though this was my first time seeing it. I admit, I consider it underrated for all the wrong reasons, though. Chalk this one up to a new guilty pleasure. It's all sorts of silly, but there are certain things about it that harken back to Craven's 'Elm Street' days. You sort of recognize that he develops a style of doing things, and the villain here may as bloody well be an early Freddy (he was much more sinister in the first film). The villain in question is the vile Horace Pinker (Mitch Pileggi - a lot of fun to watch as a horror villain) who is wreaking havoc in an LA suburb. Having killed 30 people, and being on the loose, everyone in town is considerably scared. But when detective Don Parker (Peter Berg) gets too close to Pinker, it results in the tragic murder of his wife and two foster children. It starts to get weird when it turns out that Parker's surviving foster son, Jonathan (Peter Berg) has some connection to Pinker, as he can see when and where he's going to strike next through his precognitive dreams. Without spoiling much, eventually these dreams do lead to Pinker's capture and execution, but at the cost of innocent lives. The horrific fun comes into play when we learn that Pinker has made a deal with the Devil that when he fries, he doesn't die, but absorbs and becomes electricity. Yes, you read that right, but it gets better. He's also able to carry on his body count by possessing other people. Does Jonathan have what it takes to stop him, which includes having more imagination than you could... imagine? Once the film gets into its climax, it doesn't just toss reality out the window, it drops it from a 50-story building with weights tied around its ankles. It gets so stupid but so fun all at once. I'm such an 'Elm Street' fan and there are tastes of it throughout this movie. It's fun to view this as though Craven's hinting at the directors who took the property over on how Freddy ought to be (he became a real wise-cracker). This was 1989, and 'Elm Street 5' had just come out a couple of months prior, so it would make sense. Pinker has so many similarities to Freddy, you almost wonder if they were once partners in crime. Upon everything else that brings up the original 'Elm Street', Heather Langenkamp cameos here as a murder victim. I think I see this as Wes Craven having fun with the genre, as was the style at the time. This film is all sorts of ridiculous, but I'm so happy I chose it to end this month with. On a bit of a more serious note, Craven left behind a legacy of horror when he passed most unfortunately and suddenly in 2015. He covered just about everything, going from the uncomfortable snuff film that was 'Last House on the Left' all the way up to making fun of the slasher genre he helped create with 'Scream' (although he only directed those). Fans of the franchise, including myself, will say that the best Freddy films were the original, 'Dream Warriors' and 'New Nightmare' - the ones Craven was involved with, and there are more titles on his resume to cover. Having seen some of them, I can recommend a few from his directorial resume. 'The Serpent and the Rainbow' is quite scary, and based on a true story of Haitian Voodoo; 'The People Under the Stairs' is perhaps his most underrated film, according to some sources; and 'Red Eye' as a great bottle thriller on a plane. I'm glad I sat through all of these, but it's a little sad that I could only ever "break even" with them. But even if they come out as average to me, I think I'd still recommend horror fans going through his work. Wes Craven is a name synonymous with horror, covering a lot of different sub-horror genres, and these movies deserve a good look. Five years later, rest in peace, Wes Craven. Thank you for providing us horror fans with some great material that would often haunt our dreams, and succeed in the scare. 3/5 Back in 1990, I can remember watching those Saturday morning cartoons of ours, and coming across an ad for 'Swamp Thing'. It was something I bypassed, and to this day, I have no idea if it was any good. I'm gonna guess probably not, since no one ever talks about it. But unbeknownst to me, there was also a live action series during this time, so for some reason, it was a real "thing" for some people. It even came back last year for the CW. Well, to be fair, this is based on a DC comic series, so one has to figure it has its audience. To be honest though, I'd probably still have put this on the back burner if it weren't for this month's Wes Craven theme. 'Swamp Thing', from my perspective, seemed like someone threw together Frankenstein and the Creature from the Black Lagoon, and in 1990, I was way too busy with my Ninja Turtles to give a damn. I never did bother with "Swamp Thing' until now, but I gotta say, I'm pretty glad I did. Here we have a 1982 comic book film that seems to be a pretty self-aware comedy, and it comes to us from horror legend, Wes Craven, whose previous two films are relatively brutal for their time. To make a long and complicated story short, botanist, Dr. Alec Holland (Ray Wise) is on a quest to wipe out world hunger, and is placed under the protection of special agent Alice Cable (Adrienne Barbeau). Another scientist named Anton Arcane (Louis Jourdan) attempts a heist to steal Holland's research, which leads to an accident, turning Holland into the Swamp Thing - an odd blend of plant and human who defends Alice from Arcane and his henchmen, who remain constantly after his research. Apparently, Craven had a desire here to prove to Hollywood that he could take on something bigger and better than his usual harrowing formula, and much more different. Some similarities can still be seen, as it still dabbles in some horror aspects, and uses its environment as a part of the characters - which was apparently criticized, but I tend to admire it. If you can make the setting as suspenseful as the characters in the setting, you've really got something. 'Last House on the Left' used the family home, 'The Hills Have Eyes' used the desert, and this obviously uses the swamp. Hell, even 'Nightmare on Elm Street' uses 1428 Elm Street. So how is the film, as a whole? Well, it's bloody weird. This is one of those films that you watch and you don't know how to feel about it. One perspective sees it as so bad it's good, with a bunch of jokes and dialogue that just do not land, but another sees it as a positive message about environment and world issues in general. For me, I just can't see it as anything too deep. I personally find it campy and cheesy in all the right ways. This is a guy in a rubber swamp man suit, and it's about as easy to take seriously as the 1966 Adam West 'Batman' movie. It's a situation where the stupid and silly Dad jokes are kinda what make it so likable. I therefore can't finish this review without bringing up Jude (Reggie Batts), who, to me, was both the best and lamest part of the film all at once. He's meant to be the comic relief, but the dialogue is often about as funny as a standard knock-knock joke, which in a roundabout way makes it funny. Unfortunately, saying he's what's best about it doesn't give the movie much headway in terms of seeing it as "good". But I think it can easily be seen as one of those guilty pleasure movies that a lot of people can share. I enjoy that the film seems to embrace its tacky charm, and understands what it is, not trying to be anything more. The style is fairly comparable to 1960's 'Batman', as I mentioned earlier. Thinking about that, 'Swamp Thing' is also a DC property, and in 1982, the best superhero movie was either 'Superman' or 'Superman II', depending on your perspective (I'm a 'Superman' guy). Until Tim Burton's 'Batman' came along, changing the face of comic book movies forever, the cheese was what we not only got, but accepted. So for that, 'Swamp Thing' is a perfectly charming, silly, superhero time capsule. It drags at points, but all in all, not bad for a Wes Craven attempt at a superhero movie. Regardless, a couple of years after this, he created one of the biggest super villains of a generation. So consider this one of the higher steps on his ladder to success. 3/5 Continuing this Month of Craven, and taking a look at some of his work I missed out on, I figured 'The Hills Have Eyes' needed to be a part of things. It bears so many similarities to 'Last House on the Left', but it's a bit of an upgrade from the snuff film that was. For the record, if you Google both titles, 'Last House' is the only one Google dubs "horror/exploitation". The primary similarities between the two films lie in a few different aspects. They are both psychological real-world revenge films that play with our fears of strangers, both were considered Wes Craven's jumping-off points, both have become classics in the realm of cult horror, and both have been remade to fit a modern setting. The main difference is pretty much the budget. Its overall style and substance is pretty reminiscent, at least to me, of 1974's 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre'. There's this overall discomfort behind everything, not just having to do with the threat at hand, but the setting is clearly a place one does not want to find themselves in, whether stranded or not. The story, for those unfamiliar, is about a family who are on their way to L.A. from Ohio. While parents Bob (Russ Grieve) and Ethel (Virginia Vincent) drive their loaded camper van, their teenage children, Bobby (Robert Houston) and Brenda (Suze Lanier-Bramlett) tag along, as well as the eldest daughter Lynne (Dee Wallace), her husband Doug (Martin Speer), their baby daughter Katy (Brenda Marinoff), and their dogs, Beauty and Beast. While passing through, they stop at Fred's Oasis - seemingly the only gas station for miles, where Fred (John Steadman) tells them their best to stick to the roads. He wishes them a pleasant vacation, but soon, an accident occurs that puts the camper out of commission. The family now finds themselves stuck in the desert where a hidden threat lurks behind the rocks in the mountains, in the form of a mutant, cannibal family named after a bunch of planets. Things are lead by Papa Jupiter (James Whitworth) who works with his sons, Mars (Lance Gordon), Pluto (Michael Berryman) and Mercury (Peter Locke) to hunt whoever passes through for food and supplies, supporting Jupiter's wife and daughter, Mama (Cordy Clark) and Ruby (Janus Blythe), who seems to wonder where she stands in all of it. This premise leads to some disturbing imagery, uncomfortable moments, and a seemingly constant panicked scream from Brenda which is probably the worst thing about the whole film, which is saying a lot. It wasn't effectively harrowing so much as it was annoying. Much like with 'Last House', there are a few comparisons to the remake to be made here. To start with, while I may have enjoyed the remake of 'Last House' just a touch more, I'd say that for this title, I'd have to go with the original. The remake felt far more brutal, ugly, disturbing, and contained imagery that I had a hard time shaking off. One may argue that would make it more effective, but I guess we all have stuff that we have a hard time stomaching. For me, it's things like torture and sexual exploitation, and considering the two 'Last House' films and the two 'Hills' films, this is probably the least stomach-churning of the bunch. The revenge here isn't quite as crazy as the revenge in 'Last House', but it's still there, and manages to fix some of the bad taste certain moments leave in your mouth. I think the film has a major downside, though, in that it just kinda ends. Often, I like an open ending like it offers, but it works better for some things than others. Something like this could have had a pretty interesting twist, but it leaves it up to you and your imagination to decide what happens to who. That is, until you watch the 1985 follow-up, which seems to set the record straight as to what happened afterwards, but there is a 7-year gap there, and I'm not really sure Craven intended on continuing it at first. I could be wrong though, so call it a nitpick on my part. I'm beating a dead horse at this point, but 'Last House' and 'Hills' are a couple of movies that fall into that category of being glad that I finally watched them, but have no real desire to revisit them. This month is essentially meant to be a homework assignment for me, by watching some of Craven's most famous non-'Nightmare' titles that I haven't seen before. Otherwise, considering what these movies are, they are not exactly for me. I know you're supposed to feel discomfort in a horror movie, but they both go a little overboard sometimes (the remakes more so) and seem to bask in the glory of pure discomfort as opposed to something more psychological, which I prefer. I know, it could be argued that providing the audience with pure discomfort IS psychological, and I probably should praise it for how it made me feel. But with that said, I prefer that psychological horror to be more of a "what the hell did I just see lurking behind that tree" rather than a "look at how bad this person is treating the other, this could happen in real life". At the end of the day, Craven definitely did his job at providing his audience with a couple of memorable first works that have gone down in cult horror history as cinematic gems. He made a name for himself with 'Elm Street', but his biggest fans know him for his early work just as well. 3/5 Come August 30th, the 5th anniversary of Wes Craven's tragic passing will be here. I therefore decided to take a look back on some of the non-'Nightmare' films he did, which I have never seen until now. Although, regarding the first two titles on the list, I have seen their remakes; 'The Hills Have Eyes', and this, which you could watch as a double feature if you wanna feel incredibly uncomfortable for a few hours. This particular film has reached the mantle of being a strong cult classic, considering the people involved in its creation - Wes Craven of 'Elm Street' fame writing and directing, and Sean S. Cunningham of 'Friday the 13th' fame producing, and this was pretty much a first for both of them, though Cunningham produced one film before it called 'Together', which was altogether his own. This film, regardless of how one may feel about it, is a piece of horror cinema history, bringing together the soon-to-be creators of Freddy and Jason, and they do a very good job here with getting to their audience. The story revolves mainly around two girls, Mari Collingwood (Sandra Peabody), about to turn 17, and her friend, Phyllis Stone (Lucy Grantham). The pair head to a concert in what's considered a bad neighborhood, despite Mari's parents objections. She insists that Phyllis is street smart, and that they'll be okay as long as they stick together. Stick together, they do, but tragically not in the way they had hoped. In the meantime, Mari's parents are setting up for her birthday celebration when she comes back, making everything all the more harder to watch. Upon asking a stranger where they could possibly score some weed, Mari and Phyllis find themselves in a spider's web situation, as they are forced to face every teenage girl's worst nightmare; a group of sexually deviant serial killers. About 80% of the film is a dragged out and perfectly uncomfortable series of events, and it's altogether pretty horrifying to sit through, especially if you're like me and really squirm at that kind of stuff. Although, I will say that if you have seen the 2009 remake, it is much more graphic. I found myself fast-forwarding the discomfort after a couple of minutes because I just couldn't sit through it. This is much more dragged out, but probably not quite as brutal... but it's still not cool, man. Now, I've mentioned it a few times before, but I am absolutely not one to sit through torture porn. I simply don't like the shock value of it all, and the 2009 remake of this really cemented that fact. What's not so known about me is that often I feel like some of that can slide as long as the revenge taken on these characters ensures they get whatever they deserve. Honestly, 9 times out of 10, it works out that way, and this film is no exception. I won't say exactly what happens, but the revenge aspect of the film is what triggers thought. You come to realize that some of the revenge aspects may or may not be more brutal that what the revenge is about - but you also have no question about who the bad guys are. I have to admit that it's kind of interesting, and it's a good jumping off point for Craven and Cunningham. With that said, however, that's just me. It should be very clear that this is absolutely not just one of those famous horror movies I'd recommend people check out based on whatever. It's an hour and a half of pure discomfort, one way or another, and I still had a hard time sitting through it - although having seen the remake, I pretty much knew what I was in for. The "trigger warning" list here is pretty extensive, and it wouldn't be any sort of surprise if one doesn't feel like sitting through it. For what it is, it has its place in the horror history books. Aside from the names attached, it was also a borderline snuff film that went mainstream, and very risky for 1972. For context, one of the most shocking films of all time, 'The Exorcist', wouldn't be around until the next year, and that plays with the supernatural. This plays with real-world issues, and provides an in-depth cautionary tale about venturing out there and talking to strangers, even if you feel you're grown enough to take care of yourself. Craven could always write teenagers being forced to face their worst fears, and he does it here in a way that makes you fear for them. It's very hard to give this one any sort of rating. It's not something I'd rush back to anytime soon, or even really felt like watching in the first place. It's uncomfortable and difficult to sit through without cringing. But if that's the whole point behind it, then it's effective - and the whole revenge aspect of it is more than just a guy with a gun - it goes full tilt slasher. Considering this film's place in the history books, and the idea that it made me look at this kind of thing in a new light (appreciating it, not necessarily liking it) I'm gonna play generously. After all, without the film's success, would I have ever seen a 'Friday the 13th' or 'Elm Street' film? If you're curious to see a bit of history for the horror books, I say go for it, but proceed with the utmost caution. I'll say it again; trigger warnings are all over this thing. 3/5 Yet another one of Disney's package films of the 40's; second to last of them, and leans a little more towards 'Make Mine Music' in style. Once again, we're spread out with a total of seven segments, so the review will be a touch long-winded, but I'll do my best to keep it short and sweet. Much with 'Make Mine Music', it features segments that are punctuated with musical tones and poetry, and you get to guess how much of it may have been originally intended for the almighty 'Fantasia'. The whole thing is narrated by Buddy Clark - a man known more for his soundtrack performances than acting. He is also the man who sings the title song with his delightful, crooning voice. One by one, as usual, the segments are introduced, each offering a somewhat different artistic perspective. 'Once Upon a Wintertime': Frances Langford sings the title song, and we follow two young lovers named Jenny and Joe (neither with dialogue) while a couple of rabbits imitate most of their same moves. It's bright, chipper and cute, and would probably make for a nice addition to any Christmas soundtrack. Not my favorite kinda thing, but good for what it is. 3/5 'Bumble Boogie': This one WAS my favorite; Freddy Martin and His Orchestra, along with Jack Fina on the piano crank out a very jazzy, fast and upbeat version of Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov's 'Flight of the Bumblebee'. All the while, it follows this poor bumblebee as it keeps seemingly getting attacked and chased by surreal-looking instruments and musical notes. It's very artistic-looking and fun, and yes, it was originally considered for 'Fantasia'. 5/5 'The Legend of Johnny Appleseed': Dennis Day narrates a Disney retelling of American folk hero, John Chapman, otherwise, of course, known as 'Johnny Appleseed'. His nicknamed was earned after he spends most of his life planting apple trees across Mi-Western America while spreading Christianity. I'm not a fan, but that doesn't mean it's not fine for its target audience. I have this really weird bias against pioneer day stuff. I have a very hard time enjoying any of it, and find it a bit boring. We do all have our thing we'll never go out of our way to watch though. With that said, it pretty much mirrors how I feel about 'Once Upon a Wintertime'. 3/5 'Little Toot': I'm fairly certain I had this in the form of a read-along book on tape when I was a kid. One way or another, this was something I remembered from my childhood, so there was a bit of nostalgia that popped up. I pretty well forgot all about it until now. It tells of a small tugboat named 'Little Toot' who wanted to be just like his father, 'Big Toot', but couldn't stay out of trouble, and never seems to learn. It did trigger some nostalgia, but not quite enough. Once again, passable, but nothing too special. 3/5 'Trees': Joyce Kilmer's 1913 poem, 'Trees', is here performed by Fred Waring and the Pennsylvanians. For yours truly, I found the song slow, dull, boring, like... watching trees grow? The artistic style of the segment, however, is gorgeous. Each scene is essentially a nature painting brought to life, as it cycles through the seasons and the changing of the trees. All in all, it's actually a great segment if you can just get past the slow drone of the recitation. 3/5 'Blame It on the Samba': A down and out Donald Duck and José Carioca (the Brazillian parrot) meet the Aracuan Bird (who we first met in 'The Three Caballeros'), who introduces them to the Samba, whisking their sadness away with the playful, fun dance. The song is an English-dubbed version of Apanhei-te, Cavaquinho by Ernesto Nazareth, performed by the Dinning Sisters, and featuring organist Ethel Smith in a short, live-action performance. I actually find the song quite catchy, the Aracuan Bird is funny, and it was good enough to make me ignore the fact that José already introduced Donald to the Samba back in 'The Three Caballeros'. 4/5 'Pecos Bill': In the final segment, Roy Rogers (along with his horse, Trigger), Bob Nolan and the Sons of the Pioneers tell the story of Pecos Bill to Bobby Driscoll and Luana Patten (who we just saw talking to a bunch of creepy dummies in 'Fun and Fancy Free). The story tells of a child who was raised by Coyotes, later to become the world's greatest "buckaroo" (which I definitely did not hear right the first time around). Once again, due to smoking content, it was later strongly censored, but revived once it landed on Disney+. Once again, this is just okay, but I probably got a bit more out of it that 'Once Upon a Wintertime' or 'Johnny Appleseed'. It's a little more on par with 'Little Toot'. 3/5 Aside from a couple of the more surreal segments, this movie just works out to be another perfectly average film of its kind. I'm really looking forward to getting through all of these, as I find them a little more challenging to review. I can break down each segment, and work out an average rating, which makes things a touch easier. But when you get segments like this, unless it really speaks to me, it can be hard to say that anything is either terrible or awesome. These will almost always work out to be a 3 or, at best, 4, just due to how average it all works out to be. Like most of these (and it's starting to get frustrating because I want to give more), it works out to be a perfectly passable film, harmless, decent for the kids as well as the cultured (being a bit of Disney history), and something that makes for good background entertainment. It doesn't have the scope of 'Fantasia', or is particularly memorable, but there's really nothing wrong with it either. Here's thanking my lucky stars that the next and final package film, just in time for October, will be 'The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad', featuring what I can already say is my all-time favorite segment, 'The Legend of Sleepy Hollow'... so gimme a couple more months, and these will be much less boring! 3/5 Finally, I've reached the point where these reviews are gonna be a bit easier. We're still going through some anthology stuff, but this time, instead of reviewing 6 or 7 short segments, I'm reviewing 2. It's a breath of fresh air, really - a somewhat back-to-normal. In this case, the self-contained reviews will be a touch longer, as there's slightly more to cover than just a musical number with visuals. The film opens with our kindly little host, Jiminy Cricket (Cliff Edwards), singing a song about living "fun and fancy free", as he goes around telling different animals how they worry too damn much. He sets the mood for what you're about to see, with his upbeat attitude, and it's enough to pull you in. Speaking for myself, it was nice to see a song about all the worries people have, in regards to society right now with a world-wide pandemic. All Jiminy wants you to do now is join him in a fun, fable-telling film, all starting with the lovely voice of Dinah Shore as she narrates and sings the first of two stories. 'Bongo': Based on the Sinclair Lewis story, 'Little Bear', the story tells of a circus bear cub named Bongo. He's amazing at what he does, but he's treated poorly and wants his freedom. He eventually escapes, and just when he thinks things aren't going the way he imagined, he falls for a female cub named Lulubelle. But he must prove himself against a big brute of a bear named Lumpjaw, if he wants a shot at being with her. It's the classic David vs Goliath/Nerd vs Jock love story. All and all, it's a pretty solid musical, rhyming number for the little ones. It's honestly pretty cute, and even got a few laughs from me. However it should probably be mentioned that bears show their affection in this by slapping each other, so just be sure to remind your kids that humans aren't like that. 3/5 'Mickey and the Beanstalk': With narration by Edgar Bergan, this one's a retalling of 'Jack and the Beanstalk', replacing Jack with Mickey Mouse (Walt Disney), Donald Duck (Clarence Nash) and Goofy (Pinto Colvig). Mickey sells their cow for magic beans, which lead to the beanstalk, which lead to them discovering Willie the Giant's (Billy Gilbert) castle. There, they must retrieve a singing harp (Anita Gordon), and defeat the giant, to restore peace to their village. The animated segment is just classic. If I mention 'Fun and Fancy Free', many don't seem to know what I'm talking about, but if I mention 'Mickey and the Beanstalk', everyone seems familiar. I remember it being pretty popular, growing up,and it was likely featured on Disney's Sunday evening. But there was something about it I never caught on to until this watch. Segment narrator, Edgar Bergan, was a ventriloquist, and the segment is him telling the story to a young Luana Patten, with the help of two dummies named Charlie McCarthy and Mortimer Snerd. It delivers some laughs, but a lot of it is just because of how incredibly creepy it all is. It looks like a scene from 'Goosebumps', and I can't imagine that girl being so comfortable through the whole thing. One of them even offers her a cigar. With that said, though, it just added to the fascination of the segment. But that's honestly just me. It's so weird and creepy that it's funny. 4/5 In short, this is just a feel-good film, and that's all it's meant to be. The only things I found potentially dated here was how creepy the dummies were, and the idea of slapping someone to show them you like them, but if you can just get around those things, it's totally enjoyable, and worth gathering the family around for a few laughs. 4/5 This month would appear to be a somewhat repetitive one. Not to be boring, but it just so happens that a five of these are under-the-radar anthologies, often musical and/or educational, dated, and met completely in the middle with my opinion. This one tries to play a little more on the 'Fantasia'-like anthology, featuring the music and lyrics of a select group of high-ranking artists for the time. With that, it's fascinating, but like it is with a lot of Disney stuff from way-back-when, there's some dated stuff here. For the most part, the film is totally passable and enjoyable, but it's nothing at all that particularly sticks out in Disney's library. In fact, this might be the one title I've mentioned to other people that no one at all seems to recognize. Even the segments within it are pretty obscure; the most famous probably being 'Peter and the Wolf', or 'Casey at Bat' (which, by the way, has the dated comment that really stands out). More than anything, it's the musicians we're here for, and it's pretty interesting going back to hear some of the music of the time. 'The Martins and the Coys': The King's Men, a popular vocal group, sing the 'Hatfields and McCoys' story about a wild west family feud in which two characters from opposing sides fall in love. Eventually, the segment was censored from the film's video release for its gun-use, so apparently nowadays it's a bit of a rarity. But it's not entirely special nowadays when we're familiar with too many similar stories, and the concept of a vocal group is kinda dated. It's fine for its time, but not as timeless as a lot of Disney material is. 3/5 'Blue Bayou': Another fascinating one, featuring animation originally intended for 'Fantasia', using 'Clair de Lune' from Claude Debussy. The segment is quite lovely, featuring two egrets flying around on a beautiful, moonlit night. It would have fit 'Fantasia' so well, and for my money, is probably the classiest segment of the film. It's now featured with the song 'Blue Bayou' by the Ken Darby singers. Apparently, the original cut can still be found, but this is the official version, and it's a shame it didn't make it into 'Fantasia'. 3/5 'All the Cats Join In': Benny Goodman and his Orchestra play for this segment, probably my favorite in the film. It's a really neat take on animation that I've always enjoyed, where a pencil is drawing out the art as the animation is happening - some of the earliest examples of fourth wall breaking. The segment portrays the swinging youth of the 1940's with a very catchy tune, and even once featured female nudity that has since been edited - and yeah, you can tell where it was. But that's more just an interesting fact. The real takeaway from this is the ever-moving dance animation, and a tune that will have you tapping your feet, providing you with a cool little 1940's time capsule. 5/5 'Without You': A song about lost love by Andy Russell. Though it's punctuated by some beautiful animation, it's all in all depressing, and it feels like a huge drop from the catchy rhythms of the previous segment. I wasn't a fan. 2/5 'Casey at the Bat': While the 1888 poem is a solid classic, the segment opens up with a pretty rough song that states "the ladies don't understand baseball a bit, they don't know a strike from a ball or a hit". It otherwise hits a home run for giving us the comedy we so desperately needed after the last segment, and other than the song in the beginning, provides us with the timeless poem about how cockiness can lead to disappointment. It even got a sequel with 1954's 'Casey Bats Again'. 3/5 'Two Silhouettes': I'm not sure whether or not this was another one originally meant for 'Fantasia', with a different song, but it looks like it might be. This segment features a simple and pleasant love song, sang by Dina Shore, as two silhouetted ballet dancers, David Lichine and Tania Riabouchinskaya dance against a beautifully rendered, ever-changing background. If I'm honest with myself, I can certainly appreciate it. It sets a very pleasant mood, and for as much as I dislike ballet, I appreciate dream-like sequences a lot. If you do like ballet, go look it up on YouTube and check it out. 3/5 'Peter and the Wolf': Sergei Prokofiev's musical composition comes from 1936, and ten years later was made into a classic segment for Disney. I seem to faintly remember having a "read-along" book of this as a kid (a book that came with a tape you could read along with), but it really hit me as something bigger than I thought when 'Tiny Toons' parodied it, almost more as though it was a modern remake. Sterling Holloway (who popped up in the last review) narrates for Prokofiev's piece, and it tells of a boy named Peter who hunts a wolf with the help of his animal friends - Sascha the bid, Sonia the duck and Ivan the cat. Each character is represented by different instruments - Peter, the string quartet; Sascha, the flute; Sonia, the Oboe; Ivan, the Clarinet; an the Wolf, horns and cymbals. It gets kinda dark, but it does have a happy ending, and it still holds up as a classic piece of Disney work. 4/5 'After You've Gone': Benny Goodman comes back for this one, along with his quartet. I really enjoy this one in its creativity, as it features six anthropomorphic instruments, including a piano, bass, drums, cymbal and clarinet somehow putting on a sort of dance number. Between this and 'All the Cats Join In', this film has given me a whole new appreciation for Benny Goodman. They are both easily two of the most entertaining segments in the film. 4/5 'Johnny Fedora and Alice Blue Bonnet': The romantic tale of two department store hats falling for each other. But when Alice is sold, Johnny devotes himself to finding her. All the while, The Andrews Sisters sing the story. As far as any love story goes in this film, the only one that really stuck out was 'Two Silhouettes'. This one was cute, but if I'm honest, I wasn't a fan of the song, and the whole thing felt a bit "mushy". Perhaps just not for me, once again. 2/5 'The Whale Who Wanted to Sing at the Met': It's such a solid choice to make an operatic number the finale, but the problem here is that I really do not like opera at all. I have lots of respect for what they can do, but that's kinda like saying I have respect for anyone whose voice is sharp enough to break glass - it's cool, but the sound of it is a bit much. Nelson Eddy narrates, sings and voices everything here, as we hear the story of a whale named Willie (decades before 'Free Willy') who has an incredible singing talent, and dreams of singing grand opera. Soon, though, his voice is mistaken for being three opera singers he probably ate, and the hunt is on. It ends very bittersweet, and all in all isn't bad, but the operatic singing started taking me out of it just because that's about the one form of music I just can't deal with. The film ended, and I just kinda thought to myself that something like 'Peter and the Wolf' may have made for a better finale. Oh, and the whale sings 'Shortnin' Bread' (an old plantation song) at one point, and that may make one cringe a bit. Maybe it's just me, but I was disappointed by the wrap-up. 2/5 Perhaps most interesting about this movie is how it came to be. During World War II, a lot of the Disney staff was drafted, and several who stayed behind were asked to make US propaganda films (and we all know how well that stands nowadays). The studio was then full of unfinished ideas, and in order for Disney to keep going, six "package films" were created. These began with 'Saludos Amigos' and 'The Three Cabelleros', and after this would eventually be capped with 'Fun and Fancy Free', 'Melody Time' and 'The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad' (to be reviewed in the October Edition of this series). I actually didn't realize the history until I dug into this one. That made for a very lengthy review, and if you're still here, congratulations, you made it. My closing thoughts are just that I'm glad I finally got a chance to check this out. Just bear in mind that while the segments are easy enough to find, the full-length feature is not; even D+ doesn't have it, and that's where I watched the last two films I reviewed for this month. I'm not gonna consider this one underrated, but I will say that it's worth a sit-down, as I think the good actually does outweigh the bad. I keep handing out 3/5, but I recommend going by segments, because some are very well done. 3/5 Another Disney movie with self-contained segments drowned out by 'Fantasia's success was 'The Three Caballeros'. I've been familiar with it since childhood, but never saw or even bothered with. Back then was a time when Disney movies would get video re-releases for a limited time before "going back into the vault, forever". Because of this, there were a lot of titles I was unfamiliar with. For a while, this was one of them, but I was also aware of a movie called 'The Three Amigos', so eventually I caught on. But truth be told, this was my first time watching it. The film begins as Donald Duck (Clarence Nash) is celebrating his birthday (on Friday the 13th, but no month is mentioned). He opens up a package containing all sorts of gifts that will give him further information of the world's geography and cultures. Mainly, it takes a further look at Brazil, as José Carioca (José Oliveira) the Parrot comes back to host Donald, and Mexico, where a rooster named Panchito (Joaquin Garay) comes in to dub the American duck, Brazilian parrot and Mexican rooster "the three caballeros". It all bears very similar aspects to 'Saludos Amigos'. I'd almost call it an unofficial sequel. The Cold-Blooded Penguin: Narrated by Sterling Holloway (most commonly known as the voice of Winnie the Pooh), the segment features a cute little penguin named Pablo, who goes against all penguin logic and decides he's sick of the cold climate of Antarctica, and wants to travel to warmer climates. Before landing on the Galápagos Islands, Pablo passes by Chile, Peru and Ecuador, giving kids a little geography lesson on South America's west coast. It was cute and gave me a giggle or two, but it didn't necessarily stand out either. 3/5 The Flying Gauchito: Narrated by Fred Shields (who was also narrator on 'Saludos Amigos') tells of a cute adventure of a little boy from Uruguay and his winged donkey, named Burrito. The segment is full of cuteness, but in a good way. It pretty much matches my opinion on the first segment, but perhaps with a little more stand-out in the cuteness of the characters involved. 3/5 Baía: I rather enjoyed the concept of this one; a love letter to the Brazilian state of Baía. This is where José really enters into it, as he sings a rather beautiful song about it, and takes Donald on a tour within a pretty damn cool pop-up book. Together, they meet the locals, including the lovely singer, Aurora Miranda. A lot of it involves the Samba, and Donald pining for the beautiful Brazilian women. It combines live action with animation, and I thought it was all put together nicely. 4/5 Las Posadas: We get a glimpse of Christmas tradition in Mexico, as a group of Mexican children re-enact the journey of Mary and Joseph, searching for room an the inn. "Posada" basically translates to "Shelter", which they of course eventually find in the stable. However, Mexican tradition brings in the piñata, which the kids hit for gifts and candy. It was neat, but might be more of a bookmark for something to check out around the Christmas season. 3/5 Mexico: Pátzcuaro, Veracruz and Acapulco: Here's where Panchito kinda takes the reins, and comes in with the song about "Three Caballeros". He then takes Donald and José on a tour of Mexico on a magic carpet. Here, they learn about several traditionally cultural dances and songs. We learn here that Donald is running a gag, often pining for the local women, but kinda failing at getting return affections every time. 3/5 You Belong to My Heart and Donald's Surreal Reverie: Seemingly continuing his running gag, Donald soon falls for singer Dora Luz, who sings him the son 'You Belong to My Heart'. He also eventually dances with the lovely Carmen Molina, singing and dancing to the song 'La Zadunga'. Eventually this all leads to a sort of love-struck, drug-like atmosphere that has Panchito and José ever-interrupting, and even eventually taking over, and there's a bit of chaos before the whole thing ends in a flash of Mexican, Brazillian and American fireworks. This part of the film wasn't one i particularly enjoyed, because it just kinda gets crazy and ends somewhat abruptly. But it's not even close to enough to ruin the whole movie, either. 2/5 All in all, it's not necessarily a title I could see myself revisiting much. The whole thing is something I feel like I'd end up being made to watch in Spanish class, as it mostly serves as an educational tool about geography and other cultures. As I mentioned before, I see it as a sort of loose sequel to 'Saludos Amigos'. And, much like with 'Saludos Amigos', I'm trying to figure out how much of the film is dated with its depictions of certain cultures. Again, not trying to be culturally insensitive at all, but perhaps coming across as such. It didn't really cross my mind in this case; I felt they meant well, trying to give kids an early education on things. To make the review short, it's simply passable, not very memorable, but I'm glad I watched it. 3/5 |