Since late last year, one trailer has managed to consistently scare me. That trailer was advertising a horror film called Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark. Well, after a few delays, Don’t Be Afraid of The Dark has finally been released and I’ve finally seen it. Unfortunately, the trailer is the only thing scariest thing about Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark.
The film starts out as a classic haunted house story. Sally (well-played by Bailee Madison) is a young girl who is sent, by her neglectful mother, to live with her father. Sally’s father (Guy Pearce, who seems to be bored by the whole movie) is restoring an old mansion in Rhode Island with his girlfriend (Katie Holmes). In a plot development that will be familiar to anyone who has seen Lucio Fulci’s The Beyond, It turns out that the mansion was previously owned by a crazy painter who disappeared over a 100 years ago. Anyway, Sally isn’t all that happy with the situation to begin with and, once she starts to hear malevolent voices whispering threats at her, she’s even less happy with it. However, her father refuses to take Sally’s fears seriously. Why? Because, simply based on his actions in this film, Sally’s dad is an idiot as well as being the worst father ever! Seriously.
The main problem with Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark is that it’s simply not scary. Director Nixey, making his film debut here, borrows a few effective images from other, better horror films but otherwise, he creates no sense of pace and no sense of tension. The owners of the voices are revealed fairly early on in the film and as soon as they show up, the film pretty much loses whatever atmosphere of dread that it may have built up. It’s as if nobody told Nixey that the unknown is always far scarier than obvious CGI.
It really doesn’t bother me that all of the characters continually do stupid things. We expect that. That’s just part of the horror genre. If the characters in a horror movie acted sensibly and just left the haunted house or didn’t wander off by themselves then there wouldn’t be any horror. What does bother me in this film is that there’s no consistency in the way the characters act or any sort of continuity for scene to scene. Sometimes, everybody in the house can hear Sally scream regardless of where they’re located and then other times, it appears that Sally could scream for hours without anyone noticing. Sometimes, Katie Holmes seems determined to save Sally from the house’s evil forces and then other times, she seems fairly indifferent to whether she survives or not. Horror films don’t require that characters act with any sort of logic but it does help if there’s at least a little consistency.
I mentioned Lucio Fulci earlier and I did that on purpose because, in many ways, Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark reminded me of one of Fulci’s later, post-New York Ripper films. Like most of Fulci’s later films, Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark is ultimately a disappointment but occasionally, a little glimmer of talent shines through and manages to keep the film from being a total loss. In the case of Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark, most of those glimmers belong to Bailee Madison who is well-cast as Sally and who bring some much needed conviction to the film. Also, towards the end of the film, there’s a lengthy dinner party sequence in which Sally attempts to ward off the evil creatures while her unaware father attempts to schmooze with his guests (one of whom was played by Alan Dale, the same actor who played Charles Widmore on Lost). The dinner party sequence actually generates some tension (as well as some intentional laughs) and it hints at what the film could have been.
Last night, I watched the 1981 slasher-musical hybrid, The Fan.
Why Was I Watching it?
I had read about The Fan on a few slasher-related film sites and, despite the fact that the reviews were always universally negative, the former aspiring prima ballerina was intrigued by the idea of a slasher movie where the mayhem was occasionally put on hold for a dance number. When I saw it listed as being on AMC last night, I set the DVR to record it. Later, around 4 in the morning, I was battling insomnia and I didn’t really feel like watching infomercials or hurricane coverage. So, I watched The Fan.
What Was It About?
Lauren Bacall is Sally Ross, an aging actress who smokes and smokes and smokes. A very young and handsome Michael Biehn is Douglas, The Fan. He’s obsessed with Sally and writes her hundreds of adoring letters. “Believe me, I have the equipment to make you very, very happy,” the 20ish Douglas tells the 60ish Sally. Sally’s secretary (Maureen Stapleton) writes back to Douglas and tells him that it’s illegal to “send pornography through the mail.” Douglas responds by doing the whole slashing-up-the-world-with-a-straight-razor thing. Meanwhile, Sally is in rehearsals for her Broadway musical debut and wow, it’s the worst musical since Nine. Will Douglas be stopped? Will Sally getting a standing ovation? And how many cigarettes will be left by the end of the movie?
What Worked?
Michael Biehn is actually fairly good as the killer and the opening credits — where the musical score is nicely integrated with the sound of Biehn typing and reading his obsessive prose — are nicely done. And technically, the film looks good. The cinematography is credited to someone named Dick Bush and that’s all I’ll say about that.
But, let’s be honest, I wasn’t watching this film for quality. I was watching for the Broadway dance sequences. Films are always at their campiest when they try to portray a “Broadway” hit and that’s especially true if the film was made in 1981 (like this one). And, on this, The Fan did not disappoint. Seriously, the “show-within-the-show” here appears to be one of the greatest debacles in the history of imaginary Broadway. Lauren Bacall rasps out her songs while chain-smoking while the chorus line spins across the stage in a blur of sequins and glitter. On top of that, the show is named Never Say Never which has to be one of the most boring titles ever, as far as imaginary Broadway is concerned. Yet, when it’s all over, the audience gives Never Say Never a standing ovation. It’s a hit! There’s no accounting for taste as far as fake Broadway is concerned.
Here’s a show-stopper from Never Say Never, starring Sally Ross:
Plus, about 40 minutes into the film, Bacall and Stapleton have themselves a good, old-fashioned bitch-off which just has to be seen. There’s nothing like watching two divas compete to see who can devour the most scenery.
What Does Not Work:
Well, to be honest, the entire film doesn’t work. The pacing is terrible, the scenes with Biehn kills his victims somehow manage to be both bloodless and overly sadistic at the same time, and Bacall seems to be not only ticked off at having to appear in the film but angry with you for watching it as well. Add to that, there’s a bizarre homophobic subtext to this film that, while typical of a film released in the 80s, still seems odd for a movie that’s so obsessed with Broadway show tunes.
“OMG! JUST LIKE ME!” Moments:
I related to the dancers who show up on-screen whenever Sally is in rehearsals for her show. Being trapped on the chorus line of a terrible show? Been there, done that. It’s actually a lot of fun because you’re freed from having to worry about how terrible the show is. Instead of rehearsals being a death march, they’re an exuberant, doom-themed Mardi Gras.
One of Lucio Fulci’s final films, this was made for Italian television. It’s actually better than you might think from the trailer. But, yes, it is a far cry from Zombi 2.
Judging from the trailers I’ve come across since I first started this feature, the 70s were a turbulent time. The revolution continued with Combat Cops.
“Pam Grier is …. Sheba, Baby!” Sad to think that the last time we saw Pam Grier on-screen, she was reduced to playing Julia Roberts’ best friend in Larry Crowne.
George Romero’s follow-up to Night of the Living Dead is better known as Season of the Witch. Like most of Romero’s non-zombie films, it has some major issues with pacing but it remains of interesting artifact of its time. The film has a feminist subtext which works about as well as can be expected, considering that the movie was made by a man.
In just another few days, the summer movie season will end and we’ll enter the fall. The fall movie season is when all of the prestigious, massively hyped “quality” films are released. These are the films that everyone is expecting to see remembered at Oscar time. We expect more out of films released in the Fall and therefore, when a film fails to live up to the expectation of perfection, we are far more quicker to simply damn the whole enterprise by exclaiming, “That sucked!”
Below are 15 upcoming fall films which I think are going to “suck.” Quite a few of them are “prestige” films though a few of them most definitely are not. However, they are all films that I fully expect to be disappointed with.
Quick disclaimer: This list is based on only two things, my gut instinct and the advice of my Parker Brothers Ouija Board. These are my opinions and solely my opinions and they should not be taken as a reflection of the opinions of anyone else involved with this web site. Got it? Good, let’s move on to the fun part:
Anonymous (10/28) — Roland Emmerich takes on the burning issue of whether or not Shakespeare actually wrote his plays. Who cares? I’m sure this will spark a lot of discussion among people who found The Da Vinci Code to be mind-blowing.
The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (12/21) — Deal with it, fanboys.
The Ides of March (10/7) — It’s a political film directed by and starring George Clooney! Watch out for the smug storm that will surely follow.
Immortals (11/11) — Yes, it will suck but it will still probably be better than Clash of the Titans.
The Iron Lady (12/16) — Bleh. This is one of those movies that they make solely because Meryl Streep needs another Oscar nomination. Nobody will see the film but everyone will talk about how brilliant Meryl was in it.
J. Edgar (TBA) — So, when was the last time that Clint Eastwood actually directed a movie that you didn’t have to make excuses for?
Mission Impossible — Ghost Protocol (12/21) — Honestly, has there ever been a Mission Impossible film that didn’t suck in one way or another?
Real Steel (10/7) — How do I know this film is going to suck? Go look up the trailer on YouTube and you can see that little kid go, “You know everything about this fight game!” for yourself.
Red State (9/23) — A satirical horror film with a political subtext? Well, let’s just hope they’ve got a great director…
Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (12/16) — It’s the law of diminished returns. The better the original, the worse the sequel. That said, I really hope I’m wrong on this one. I loved Sherlock Holmes.
Straw Dogs (9/16) — It’s a remake of the old Peckinpah classic except now, it’s a Yankee Blue Stater getting attacked by a bunch of Redneck Red Staters. Yankee paranoia is so freaking tedious. Add to that, Straw Dogs has been remade a few million times and never as well as the original. At least those remakes had the decency to come up with their own name instead of just trying to coast on the credibility of a better film. This travesty was written, directed, and produced by Rod Lurie. Shame on you, Rod Lurie. (Of course, the toadsuckers over at AwardsDaily.com are madly enthused about this film.)
The Three Musketeers (10/21) — Is anybody expecting otherwise?
Tower Heist (11/4) — Brett Ratner continues to encourage us to lower our standards with this action-comedy. The film’s villain is played by Alan Alda and is supposed to be a Bernie Madoff-type so expect a lot of tedious pontificating from rich actors playing poor people.
War Horse (12/28) — This might actually be a good film but, as a result of all of the hype, it’s going to have to be perfect or else it’s going to suck.
W.E. (12/9) — Madonna makes her directorial debut with … well, do I really need to go on?
As I’ve mentioned on this site a few times, I was really excited about seeing the new independent sci-fi film Another Earth. Well, I finally saw it and wow. What a disappointment!
Another Earth is a film about an intelligent teenage girl (Brit Marling) who gets a scholarship to M.I.T. She goes out to celebrate and while drunkenly driving home, she hears a report on the radio that a new planet has been discovered. Looking out the window of her car, she spots the new planet while, at the same time, smashing into another car and killing the wife and son of composer William Mapother. Mapother is put in a coma and Marling ends up getting sentenced to prison.
Four years later, Marling is released from jail. She gets a job working as a janitor in her old high school. She also tracks down Mapother, who has come out of his coma and has no idea that Marling is the girl who killed his family. Through a couple of plot contrivances that makes less sense the more you think about them, Marling becomes Mapother’s maid. Though Mapother is, at first, surly towards her, he soon falls in love with her because otherwise, nothing would happen in the movie.
Meanwhile, it turns out that the new planet is actually a mirror Earth! Wow, isn’t that exciting? Well, no one on “Earth 1” seems to be all the excited about it. Don’t get me wrong — they talk about it a lot and we got a lot of monologues about the possibilities of a mirror Earth and how we’ve all apparently got a double on this other Earth but still, everyone’s just kinda like “Oh, that’s neat.” Anyway, Marling wants to go to the new Earth to see if the alternate her is doing any better than her. Luckily, there’s a Richard Branson-type billionaire who is having an essay contest to win a chance to take a civilian flight to the new Earth. We’re told that this civilian flight will be the first to land on Earth 2, which I guess can only mean that the Earth 1 equivalent of Barack Obama really did a number of Earth 1’s version of NASA.
Another Earth isn’t necessarily a terrible film but it certainly is a disappointing one. The film is essentially a collection of indie film clichés that are all held together with an intriguing premise. Unfortunately, the only thing intriguing about the finished film is thinking about how great it could have been if director Mike Cahill and screenwriter (and star) Brit Marling had actually bothered to explore any of the film’s issues beyond a surface level. Mapother does a good job playing his surly role but he has next to no chemistry with Marling and you never, for a minute, believe in their relationship. When Marling isn’t lying to Mapother, she’s bonding with a blind janitor from India who only speaks in philosophical one liners. Why is the janitor in the film? Why does he suddenly decide to mentor Marling? Why does he drink bleach? There’s also a really embarrassing scene where Marling talks on the phone with a guy doing a really over-the-top imitation of Richard Branson. Director Cahill offers up endless montages of Marling looking pretty and sad as she wanders around aimlessly and he’s got the whole shaky cam, zoom lens thing down but he doesn’t seem to understand that images are empty without some sort of honest emotion behind them.
That said, the film does have a great ending, an ending which hints at the film that Another Earth could have been.
So, last week, I asked for everyone to vote for which film I should watch on Sunday. 864 votes were cast and the winner was Michael Anderson’s 1976 cult classic, Logan’s Run. So, last night, I sat down with my sister Erin and we watched Logan’s Run. I have to admit that we both giggled a lot but we still enjoyed watching it. (I should also note that Logan’s Run was filmed in Dallas and Ft. Worth and, even 35 years later, both of us recognized a lot of familiar landmarks. The end of the film was shot at the Ft. Worth Water Gardens and we squealed with delight as we watched it and said, “We’ve been there!”)
Like most sci-fi films released before Star Wars, Logan’s Run takes place on a post-apocalyptic Earth. It’s the 23rd Century and what’s left of humanity lives in an underground city where they’re governed by a gently condescending computer. Civilization is now based around the pursuit of pleasure. Everyone appears to live in the world’s biggest mall (probably because the “City” scenes were actually filmed in a shopping mall located in my hometown of Dallas). It’s a city that’s essentially made up of slow-motion orgies, hot tubs, and crazy plastic surgeons. Everyone dresses in these sheer tunics and it quickly becomes obvious that the world’s knowledge underwear was apparently lost during the move underground. (Then again, this could have been because the film was made in the 70s. Seriously, did nobody own a bra in the 70s?)
Future civilization appears to have only one law and that’s that anyone who reaches the age of 30 has to go to Carrousel. At Carrousel, everyone has reached their time limit levitate in the air, floats around in a circle, and then blows up. Their fellow citizens assume that those being blown up are actually being “renewed” but actually, they’re just blowing up. (In many ways, Michael Anderson’s direction of Logan’s Run is pretty pedestrian but the Carrousel sequence is actually quite visually stunning.)
Now, some citizens don’t want to get blown up. These citizens are called runners and they greet their 30th birthday by attempting to flee the City and escape to the Outside and to a mysterious place they call “Sanctuary.” Some of them end up getting caught and frozen by a bizarre little robot called Box (played, in a really odd performance, by Roscoe Lee Browne). Those that don’t get caught by Box usually end up getting gunned down by the Sandmen. The Sandmen are a group of nylon-clad fascists who are never happier than when they’re gunning down runners.
At this point, you may have noticed that it actually takes more time to explain the film’s backstory than its actual story. Logan’s Run has a fascinating concept behind it and the plot has a lot of potential. Sadly, the film itself doesn’t quite live up to that potential but the story is still intriguing enough to carry the viewer through some of the film’s more uneven moments.
Michael York is Logan
The Logan of the title is a Sandman played by Michael York (who, when he first appears in this movie, projects just the right sense of unthinking entitlement). Logan is assigned (by the condescending computer) to infiltrate the runners and find sanctuary. In short, he’s ordered to run. However, as it quickly becomes obvious that nobody’s actually being renewed, Logan decides to run for real. Along with a runner named Jessica (played by Jenny Agutter), Logan tries to escape the city. Pursued by his best friend and fellow Sandman Francis (Richard Jordan), Logan and Jessica most deal with a psychotic plastic surgeon (well-played by the director’s son, Michael Anderson, Jr.) and his glam nurse (Farrah Fawcett!) as well as a tribe of feral children and a bunch of sex-crazed, naked people who move in slow motion. (It’s a neat visual, to be honest).
Logan, Jessica, and Farrah
When Logan and Jessica finally do reach the Outside, it turns out to not quite be all it was cracked up to be. (Or as Jessica puts it, in one of my favorite lines, “I hate outside!”) They come across the ruins of Washington, D.C. which turns out to be inhabited by a thousand cats and an old man played by Peter Ustinov. However, little do they know, Francis has followed them outside and, back at the City, the computer is still demanding to know the location of Sanctuary.
I enjoyed Logan’s Run but I’d be lying if I said it was a great film. It’s basically a big, silly, entertaining film that makes sense as long as you don’t think about it too much. I have a feeling that if I had seen this film in a theater, trapped in the same seat for 2 hours straight, I would probably be a lot harder on it. However, Logan’s Run is the perfect film to watch in the privacy of your own home with a friend or two (or, in my case, a big sister). The story is just good enough to hold your interest, you can openly giggle at the film’s more campy moments, and — once the action starts to drag — you’re free to move around and find something else to do until things get interesting again.
Ultimately, Logan’s Run shares the flaw that afflicts most sci-fi films that are about people trying to escape a decadent, dystopian society. That is, the movie is a lot more fun when everyone’s being decadent and evil than when everyone’s searching for a higher truth. When Jessica yelled that she hated the outside, I had to agree with her because the inside — even with everyone getting blown up at the age of 30 — was so much more fun. Inside the city, they had slow-motion orgies, hot tubs, and really pretty clothes. Meanwhile, the only thing that outside had to offer was Peter Ustinov reading a decayed copy of the Declaration of Independence. Don’t get me wrong — I was jealous that Ustinov got to live with all of those cute kitties but it just couldn’t compare with the psychotic plastic surgeons of the City. If that’s Outside, I can understand why everybody went inside.
(Personally, I call this the Matrix Rule. Everyone talks about how great Zion is but, seriously, what type of toadsucker would actually want to live in that tedious, ugly little Socialistic state?)
Still, despite this, Logan’s Run is a watchable and entertaining artifact of 70s “event” filmmaking. This film doesn’t have any scenes set in a disco but it really should.
Among the actors, both Michael York and Peter Ustinov are a lot of fun to watch as they both found their moments to go over the top and made the most of them. Perhaps my favorite over the top York moment came towards the end of the film when he shouted, “YOU CAN LIVE! LIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVE!” When I first announced, on twitter, that I would be reviewing this film, I got a lot of replies from men who apparently had fond memories of Jenny Agutter in this film and her performance here is sexy and confident. Plus, she gets to deliver one of my favorite lines of all time, “I hate outside!” Still, if you want to talk about sexy and confidence, then you have to talk about Richard Jordan’s performance as the cocky Sandman, Francis. Seriously, Francis is a Sandman who could bring me a dream any night of the week…
Sexy, Dangerous Francis
So, in the end, Logan’s Run is silly but fun, uneven but definitely watchable. Thank you to everyone who voted for me to see this film. And until next time, remember — “Theeeeerrrrreeee Issssssssssss Noooooooo Saaaaaaaanctuuuuuuuary….”
Earlier today, I did a google search and I discovered that Logan's Run was apparently spun off into a television show. Apparently, this is the cast of that show. They certainly look a lot more cheerful than their film counterparts.
In 1982 the duo of John Milius (director) and Arnold Schwarzenneger (actor) brought to the big-screen the first film adaptation of the classic, pulp character of Conan the Cimmerian by Robert E. Howard. The Milius-Schwarzenneger Conan the Barbarian was an instant hit and classic. It also made Schwarzenneger into an A-list superstar who would rule the 80’s and 90’s. This film was followed up by a lesser quality, though fun in its own way, sequel in 1984 with Conan the Destroyer. Milius saw this franchise as a trilogy with the third and final film to be called Conan the Conqueror. But a sort of blacklisting of Milius as a filmmaker and Schwarzenneger moving onto other projects killed the planned third film. The start of the new millenium saw an interest in restarting the third film, but after countless delays and changes in filmmakers and stars the project was once again shelved.
In 2010, the franchise which launched an Austrian-bodybuilder into superstardom was finally greenlit, but this time around it would be a reboot of the series with the film hewing coser to Robert E. Howard’s creation and world-building than the Milius version of 1982. To bring Conan the Cimmerian to life would be Hawaiian-Irish Jason Momoa (of Stargate Atlantis and Game of Thrones fame) with German-filmmaker Marcus Nispel taking on the directing reins. The film’s trio of writers (Thomas Dean Donnelly, Joshua Oppenheimer and Sean Hood) would literally take the world of the Hyborian Age which Howard had meticulously created for his Conan character and use that as the basis for this reboot.
Conan the Barbarian begins with a surprising introductory narration of the world of the Hyborian Age by none other than Morgan Freeman. This narration was one clue that while this film wouldn’t and shouldn’t be seen as thought-provoking and award-season fare it looks to try anything and everything to make it fun and relevant. The film succeeds in this respect in its own way. As we see Conan come into the world as a baby born of battle in the most literal way. It’s not often we see on the big-screen a pregnant mother delivering her child by way of battlefield C-section. From this moment forward this film will wallow in the bloody carnage and machismo-fueled world of Robert E. Howard to the nth degree.
The film’s Conan as played by Leo Howard as the younger version then to Jason Momoa as the adult version looks to be different than the Schwarzenneger one. While Momoa was still quite the physical specimen on the screen he also exuded a sense of fluid, athleticism like that of a sleek jungle cat whereas Arnold’s Conan was more of the big cat of the savannah. The stand out performance in the film comes from both Leo Howard (quite ferocious as the young Conan) and Momoa. The film lives or dies on whether we believe these two actors as the characters they inhabit. Not once during the near 2-hour running time do we not believe these two as Conan.
Conan the Barbarian as a film does have several weaknesses which could derail it for me. For one, the story itself is quite cliched as we see the typical hero’s journey coinciding with the goal of saving the world from an almost cartoonish villain (Stephen Lang clearly having fun as the warlord Khalar Zym) with an equally cartoonish sidekick (Rose McGowan who seemed out of place as Zym’s witch-daughter Marique). The story’s plot seems more geared like a video game where each sequence was there to put Conan in the best way possible to do what he does best and that’s kill enemies by the score and do it with bloody panache.
While the film will definitely not score very well with many people I think they will do so as they compare it to the original Milius film. I think the mistake they also will use as an excuse to not like the film is that it’s dumb and loud. I, for one, thought I would feel the same, but as I watched the film I acknowledged those very same criticisms, saw the flaws, but in the end I still enjoyed the film for what it was: an almost gleeful, throwback to the 80’s sword-and-sorcery exploitation film that tried to cash in on the success of the original Conan the Barbarian.
Nispel’s film may not stand the test of time as the original, but in the end he made a film that actually stayed true to the pulpy origins of the character (Robert E. Howard was never known as a subtle writer and this film reveled in his blunt-way of writing). This Conan the Barbarian was several steps above the usual sword-and-sorcery stuff which the SyFy Channel seems to churn out by the dozen each year and it’s steps below that of the original. What it does share with the 1982 film is a sense of fun even if it’s at the expense of story and character and at times I’m fine with that. Not everything has to be Inception or Pride and Prejudice.
Thank you to everyone who voted in my latest “Tell Lisa Marie What To Watch” poll. A total of 864 votes were cast. Up until this morning, it looked like Night of the Creeps was going to be an easy winner but a last-minute surge of votes gave Logan’s Run a come-from-behind victory. Interestingly enough, The Lion In Winter also got a lot of last-minute votes. It didn’t receive enough to beat Logan’s Run but it did manage to knock Night of the Creeps down to a third place finish.
I will be watching Logan’s Run later on today. Look for my review tomorrow. And again, thank you to everyone who voted!
I want to say great things about Craig Gillespie’s remake of Fright Night. I want to say that it was worth seeing and it was full of awesome moments. I also wanted to be able to write this review without making so many comparisons to the 1985 Original by Tom Holland. Not that the original was a masterpiece by any means, but I dozed off (just a little) on this film.
If there’s only one reason I could give for recommending Fright Night, it would be to get a taste of what Vampires should be. Don’t read me wrong on this. I own all four Twilight books in hardcover, read them repeatedly, and have seen the three films that came out in the theatre. It’s just nice to see a vampire movie that shows vampires more as predatory creatures than sparkling A&F models. There’s an edge to this film that’s pretty fun in a lot of ways. Both Colin Farrell and David Tennant have great roles here and even Anton Yelchin holds his own, but there’s a weird breakdown that happens. Fright Night is a good film, as long as you don’t try to make any kind of direct comparisons to the source material.
The story focuses on Charlie Brewster (Yelchin), a teenager – the story being in Vegas this time – who discovers he has a vampire named Jerry Dandrige (Farrell) living next door to him. When the vampire confronts Charlie, Charlie is forced to seek out help in the form of Peter Vincent (Tennant) to defeat him. While there were a few scenes that really stood out for me and I found myself smiling more often than rolling my eyes, the pacing of this was off. Other audiences may find that the movie moved well. I felt like they were just throwing things to say “Well, wouldn’t it be cool if they did this, and then that.”
The two problems I had with Fright Night were it’s pacing and Chris Mintz-Plasse. Chris is fun to watch at the start, and I’d love to see him do more, but someone really has to give him something where he’s not playing the “token geek”. While I liked the movie overall, there’s a lot of verbal exposition in the beginning of the film, as Charlie doesn’t so much discover the truth about Jerry, but is pretty much told the entire scenario he’s in about 15 minutes into the start. I had a problem with that. Again, depending on the audience, the movie may move just fine.
Fright Night is one of those films could be a love it or hate it. I’m of the audience that will probably catch it again when it’s out on video, but it doesn’t feel like anything you really have to rush to the theatre for.
Not to be confused with the 2010 action film, this Losers has been described as the best “bikers-in-Viet-Nam film ever.” It was directed by Jack Starrett and, like every other biker film from 1970, it stars William Smith.
This is another short trailer, in fact, I think — at just 30 seconds — it might be the shortest trailer I’ve ever featured in this series. Anyway, Chatterbox is a film about a woman whose vagina can talk and, apparently, sing. I have never seen this film though I have seen a few isolated clips. I hope if my vagina ever starts to speak, it 1) has a less annoying voice and 2) just displays a lot more wit and personality in general. Anyway, the talking vagina is not featured in this trailer. Anyway, you wouldn’t know any of that from watching the trailer, which I think is odd. I mean, if you’re going to make a film about a talking vagina, shouldn’t the vagina be allowed to speak for itself? Just saying…
Like all good things, this trailer comes to us from Italy.
5) Disco Fever (1978)
Wow! Disco, a concorde, dirt bike racing, braless dancers, and a boring 40 year-old rock star with a cocaine-flecked beard. Could this film be any more 70s? “Disco Fever — Everything is perfect…until the music stops!”
6) American Fever (1978)
Okay, I’m either in a disco mood or else I’m running a fever because I just have to end things with a second disco film. This is an Italian film. Does anyone out there own the American Fever soundtrack?
