Showing posts with label anthony perkins. Show all posts
Showing posts with label anthony perkins. Show all posts

Friday, July 5, 2024

Al's Birthday Review: The Trial (1962)

Hey, everyone - it's Bob, back for another of Al's requested birthday reviews. This one was rather less painful than some of the others, though make no mistake, I'm still left pretty mystified by this one - just more pleasantly mystified than the usual.

This time, Al's got me looking at The Trial, Orson Welles' 1962 film based on Franz Kafka's Der Process, starring Anthony Perkins, with Welles himself in a major role.


The Trial is the tale of Josef K, a man who stands accused of...something. No one will quite tell him what it is, often just responding with questions or advice about what to do while Josef just wants to know what it is he's even being accused of and marvels at the strange, arcane, and often seemingly corrupt processes of the courts and law. Mystified and offended by the situation in which he finds himself, Josef desperately tries to find a way to free himself from the shadow now hanging over his life as his mental state becomes increasingly erratic and distressed. It is framed by a sort of fairy tale, which opens the film in full and is later recounted in part to Josef near the end, about a man seeking admittance to The Law who is stopped by a guard and lives out his life unsuccessfully trying to gain entry, only for the guard to finally tell him that only the man could ever have entered the door but the guard is now closing it. So, you know, one of those cheery and easily understood fairy tales.

The plot of the film proper is deeply confusing, necessarily so, as Josef's confusion - and therefore the viewer's - is central to the entire experience of the film. The film is quite aggressive about never providing any true, concrete answers to what is going on, and simply bizarre events will happen on a fairly regular basis, whether that's Josef being arrested but allowed to just go about his daily life just fine, or Josef suddenly finding officers that he'd accused of soliciting bribes being flogged in a closet at his workplace, or Josef discovering that a painter's dilapidated shack is actually attached to the court records room, then fleeing from a horde of young girls through an inexplicable tunnel system. Time frequently skips forward a considerable distance with no real announcement of that fact, as well.


Ordinarily, I'd regard these as significant failings of filmmaking, but somehow with The Trial, they are just part of the experience. Similarly, there are other clearly intentional bits of awkwardness, such as people frequently talking over each other, and moments where characters inspect something clearly important to the plot but we aren't shown a bit of it...and again, these are clearly a part of the style of the film, not errors, and I can't really complain about them as they succeed in what they're designed to do, which is create one heck of an unsettling atmosphere.


The Trial is unnerving and disorienting at all times, succeeding in setting its mood by never once letting a scene get comfortable. The moment that you start to feel you understand a scene and are able to fully follow it, the movie immediately throws in a strange event or odd twist. Oh, you're settling in to a bit where Josef is chatting about his case with a nurse working for his lawyer? Well, by the way, there's another client just living in the maid's room. Getting used to the inspector's mannerisms while he's questioning Josef? Well, here's three of Josef's work associates hanging out in his neighbor's bedroom for no adequately explained reason. Okay with Josef talking with his uncle about the possibility of using a computer to figure out his alleged crime, itself kind of a weird concept? Here's an officer being flogged and apologizing to Josef for the noise, then putting tape over his own mouth to quiet down. The words "well, that just happened" will come to your mind a lot in this film.


And it's excellent.

I can't say I truly understood what was going on, but my goodness, this was good. From the setting to the mood to the sound to the acting, it's all great. I have to give particular praise to Anthony Perkins, playing Josef, who just does an absolutely incredible job showing a mix of determination, confusion, righteous indignation, and a gradual descent into confused panic and distress, including multiple scenes where he just entirely breaks down in a panic attack so convincingly I would've been deeply worried for him if I'd been on set. He's terrific, and that's a darn good thing since he's in almost every single shot of the movie - which helps to keep us confused, of course, but also binds us to him in a way that makes us deeply sympathetic of Josef, who is just as confused and disoriented as we are. It's a lot of ask of a single actor, and Perkins is more than equal to the challenge.


As for the others - everyone fulfills their role to the fullest. Welles is great and excellently erratic as Josef's strange and domineering lawyer, who seems to do little for his clients but verbally abuse them but insists that it is better than the alternative. The variety of more minor characters that Josef meets are always played well, with a slightly off-kilter style that leaves the viewer constantly in at least slight discomfort even in the most calm scenes. It always feels like someone is leaving something unsaid, something so deeply important that if you just heard it, it would reveal everything to you and to Josef, but no one will. No surprise, then, that Josef gets increasingly distressed through the film.


What does it all mean? Honestly, I think it'd take more than one viewing for me to adequately theorize about it in any detail (surprisingly, this is one I'd actually be willing to watch again to try to figure it out, though). Perhaps a metaphor for life in general, I think? A study on the strange and often arcane intricacies of human life, and the nature of guilt and innocence? Or perhaps more direct, a critique of just how the law functions, how lost ordinary people can be in a system that protects the powerful - there is, to be certain, a lot in this film about the high magistrates being out of Josef's reach and out of the reach of those who work with him, with the authorities he does meet being referred to as smaller, and Josef, especially towards the end, questions the entire concept of judgment of humans by humans. That is probably the clearest element of the film, an almost sarcastic prodding of the legal system and its treatment of the ordinary people who get caught up in its machinations and corruptions.


Perhaps, as well, it is about how humans can get so wrapped up in their own self-assurance that they avoid that which could help them - frequently, Josef refuses to follow advice he is given - whether to immediately present a paper, or to confess and seek help, or to take an "ostensible acquittal" which will, at least, restart the cycle from the beginning again and again, or to plead lunacy, or more, even casting aside a priest's outreach. He also brushes aside the concerns of family, and seems to value his ambitions at the office - or at least, a fear of being fired - over caring for his cousin in town or visiting with his uncle. He sometimes seems to be right in his actions, sometimes wrong, but Josef always seems to be driven by his thought on what should be happening, his path forward, rarely - though not never - willing to truly take advice from another.

I won't go into the ending - not that I'm sure it would qualify as spoilers when I'm not sure I can describe what happens in a way that ascribes it meaning that will make perfect sense - other than to say that it seems to reflect a theme of Josef's rejection of judgment and refusal to simply obey and follow a system he does not agree with or understand - in this case, a positive, though one that perhaps makes little difference.


My apologies if the above makes little sense - honestly, The Trial is quite a difficult film to describe because it's a difficult film to comprehend. What I can say with clarity, however, is that it is good. It is excellently put together, excellently acted, and difficult because it is intended to be difficult, rather than through some flaw of the filmmaking. It's deeply perplexing and left me more than a little lost quite frequently, but at the same time, it's undoubtedly an achievement of filmmaking and probably the best film Al has had me watch for one of these. Brilliant and artistic, if utterly opaque, it's one I will definitely praise but perhaps find difficult to truly recommend, if that makes any sense.

If it doesn't, well, perhaps I've just put you in the right mindset for The Trial.

Happy Birthday, Al.

Tuesday, November 22, 2022

Tubi Tuesday: Destroyer (1988)

 With a Holiday coming on the usual day for this, I might as well move it back for you.

If I go a week without a random Streaming Film, I'll probably die, like some sort of clumsy Shark metaphor.

Over a Decade after I featured the VHS Box, let's check out...

A Prisoner- Football Player turned Actor Lyle Alzado- is set for his execution, but the power surges and he doesn't die.

In the chaos, an (offscreen) riot breaks out and everyone thinks he's dead.
...except for this lady (Deborah Foreman) who's having bad dreams about the Film's Inciting Incident.

Why?
Well, alongside her Boyfriend here, with hair that totally doesn't date this Film, she...
...is in a Movie being shot in the same Prison about 2 years later.  Sure- that's how that works.

It's a Women in Prison Film Directed by...Anthony Perkins.  I thought I'd seen every Film he ever Directed!
A big problem, however, is that Alzado is still alive- somehow- and starts killing people off...eventually.

You actually don't see him again for like 30+ minutes and then he won't ever get off-camera after that.

Can our Final Girl and Guy survive the shoot? 
To find out, stream this now.
A decent attempt at schlock that mostly works.  The Film is really a few very different parts.  It's not exactly the most cohesive thing you'll ever see.

You get- Drama While Shooting a Film.
               People Picked off by the Heavy
               Random Weird Stuff with a Guard
               The Endless Final Confrontation

Pacing-wise, the Film is very odd.  They, as noted, kill off people one at a time once their part of the Story is over...until suddenly Alzado kills off a bunch of people...off-camera.  We see the aftermath, yes, but wasn't there a better way to pace and show this?

For their part, most of the Actors do their jobs well.  Perkins- in his small Role- plays an exasperated man who thinks he's too good for this.  Was that Acting at this point?  Foreman does a good job as our Final Girl...when the Film decides that she can defend herself.  Those moments do land big, thankfully.  Alzado is a pretty-enjoyable heavy when he finally gets to cut loose.  He tries to go for a Freddy Kreuger thing, but mostly just alternates between sarcastic laughing and being mad.

Destroyer is...fine, I guess.  If you know what to expect from one of these '80s Horror Films, you can enjoy it.  It is oddly-paced- with a 20+ minute finale- but still enjoyable.  

Now, Anthony, I need you to really sell your disinterest... 

Fans of these kinds of Film will enjoy it.  The extra gimmick of Alzado as the Killer helps, but can only elevate things so much.

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

Infamous Week: The Black Hole

It does not suck you in.  Many readers from Generation Z may not be aware that Disney- the monolith that controlled their childhood through teen years- was at one point bankrupt.  That's right- they nearly lost it all.  Imagine life if they had been forced to pawn off the Disney Vault!  You could buy any Disney film whenever you wanted, not just on leap years or on sacred Samhain.  What could have nearly brought down this monolithic company?  Common knowledge tells you that it was Tron, the film that was less successful than its arcade game counterpart.  That is...not exactly the truth.  The actual reason is a slew of films: The Black Hole, Tron and Something Wicked This Way Comes.  It was the successive failure of all three films that did this, much in the same way that over-printing and foil covers nearly brought down Marvel.  So what is this movie?  It's a fairly-dull sci-fi film about the discovery of a ship floating near the titular body in space.  What is the reason?  What could possibly be the purpose?  Why does the robot have creepy, doll eyes?  All of these questions will be answered- slowly- in today's review.  Hide your dead mother as we enter...
Oh my bad, we actually get two and a half minutes of music in front of this black screen.  Is this a DVD extra gone awry or did they really start the film like this?  If so, I can see why it bombed.  You're not Fantasia- which was also a flop, by the way.
The actual film begins with a spaceship flying around and coming across a black hole.  Norman Bates is intrigued...
...while this robot is...um, happy...sad...I don't know.  All I know is that those eyes are creepy as hell.  Kudos for getting Roddy McDowall to do the voice, even if he is uncredited.
This scientist- who is a dead ringer for Topol from Flash Gordon- has been doing some experiments with the black hole.  In addition, his whole crew is gone, while he has a bunch of robots in hoods walking around.  Hmm...
Our robot friend makes a buddy with a similar robot, voiced here by Slim Pickens (also uncredited).  I hope you like their scenes, because they help pad out the movie by at least fifteen minutes.
The Captain (Robert Forster) witnesses a robot funeral and finally figures out the truth: they're the crew.  Time to get the 'F' out of here!
In The End, the villain tries to fly the ship- with our heroes' ship in tow- into the Black Hole and out the other side.  They escape just in time to avoid this...
...what is this exactly?  Apparently Hell- or the evil Mountain from Fantasia- exists in the Black Hole.  Suck it, Stephen Hawking.  The End.
How did you not make money here?  The plot of this movie has potential, but squanders it.  The crazy scientist- good.  The mysterious vessel and the quest for power- good.  The ho-hum execution of the plot that just kind of meanders- bad.  The cast is alright, but they don't really get much to do.  Even a good actor like Forster just kind of sleepwalks through the role.  The role is written in such a generic manner that I wonder why he has a name- why not just call him Captain?!?  The whole thing is just played in such a lackadaisical manner that it is just amazing.  On top of that, the movie is full of weird, random things that never get explained.  Why cast McDowall and Pickens in roles like this?  Why does the female scientist have ESP?  More importantly, why does she have a psychic connection...with a robot?!?  How the hell does that work?!?  The ending is amazingly-random too.  It's easy to see why this movie failed- it's just dull.  Makes me wonder how Something Wicked This Way Comes looks after twenty-plus years.  Hmm...
Next up, one of the most infamous movie musicals of all-time (not starring The Village People).  No Beatles allowed.  Stay tuned...

Saturday, August 20, 2011

Rare Flix: Psycho IV

Why not end with The Beginning?  

After all this time, I'm finally happy to wrap up the Psycho series, as it hasn't been good since the first film.  

It's been over fifty years since the original, so let's just put an end to all of these sequels.  Unlike the first two sequels, this one doesn't exactly do a lot to make you feel like you're watching a series.  Plot threads are left hanging and none of this just feels right.  

You know why?  

In 1987, someone made a 'back door pilot' for a show called Bates Motel.  
The premise- Norman Bates dies in the Institution and wills the Motel to his cell-mate.  The equally crazy guy was trying to run the place, but the ghosts of it kept rearing their ugly heads.  
The movie did not get good ratings, so the show was never made.  

Anthony Perkins was really upset by this and was instrumental in a 4th film being made to fix this whole thing.

This film is notable for trying to explain in excruciating detail why Bates went crazy and to also bring closure to the whole thing...since the cash-in film/show pilot ruined it.  

With all good intentions, good results do not always come.  To see just how true this is, read on.
We begin with close-up shots of people putting icing on a cake.  I'm sure that's symbolic of something, but I don't know what.  

I should also note that this film is Directed by Mick Garris, proving why he Produced the Masters of Horror series, but did not make films for it.  He also Directed Sleepwalkers.  

Getting back on track, we see a radio show (consider that phrase for a moment) which is discussing the topic of Matricide.  We meet a man who killed his Mother and his grandfather who doesn't seem to mind so much.  

Rather than covering this more interesting tale, we get Norman calling in.  Come back, come back!  

He proceeds to tell the tale of his first kill, which is basically five minutes of filler of a girl hitting on him for no good reason.  

After showing off her breasts, she wanders into Norman's mother's room and gets killed by Norman in his silly outfit.
Norman continues to tell stories of his past to the host (C.C.H. Pounder), while her Station Manager (John Landis) looks on.  
As a side note, Landis played a Radio Technician in 1989's Spontaneous Combustion, while he plays a Radio Station Manager in this 1990 film- odd.  

As far as the plot goes, we get a bunch of scenes of young Norman (the real star here) and his mother (Olivia Hussey).  She does lots of weird things with him, including making him toss his 'porn' out in the rain and making him dress up like a girl, whereupon she locks him in the closet.  
All of this is weird...but not scary.  

Garris throws some odd flourishes in here, like Perkins looking out the window and seeing a flashback taking place.  Either he's crazy or we all are now!  

In between those scenes, we get stuff like Norman talking to his new lady friend (the irony abounds here!) and the people at the Station figuring out that it's Bates calling them.  
Gee- they must be Detectives or something!  

They keep Norman on the line as he recounts more of his past, including this Top Gun-style showdown with his new stepdad.
Do you really care what happens next?  
You do?  
Fine- I'll continue.  

We see more scenes of Norman and his mother.  Eventually, he poisons the boyfriend and this leads to a confrontation with Mom.  

Remember how the Writer said in Psycho III how the sister killed the boyfriend and mother?  
Well, that's a lie.  
Plot hole or planning- you decide.  

In The End, Norman and his lady friend go to the Motel to give this film a climax.  

As they set the place ablaze, Mom makes a couple more random cameos...just because before her long-dead corpse starts yelling at...um, someone.  

If Norman can hear her, he's doing a good job of ignoring her.  Is the movie implying that we're all crazy?  
Of course, I did just watch Psycho III and IV in one sitting, so they may be right.  The End.
At this point, I need treatment.  

The plot of this movie is a sad, sad joke.  Seriously, what is the point of this?  
Did we need 90 minutes explaining how Norman's mother did a bad job raising him?  No.  

Pretty much everything here is either pointless (most of the Mom scenes), filler (most of the scenes in the Radio Station) or just ruin things.  

For example, having Norman kill this random girl probably sounded neat in theory.  
In reality, it takes away from the impact of the first film, as you now know that he was apparently doing murders for years.  

Nobody seems all that interested in being here, save for Hussey's over-the-top acting.  
You're a good actress, but I guess anyone can be dragged down by crap like this.  

If you want to watch a Psycho film, watch Psycho.  

If you are forced to watch a Psycho sequel, I guess make it II.  

It's not really a great film, but it's much harder to hate than this dreck.  Are you proud of yourself, Landis?
Next up, another week of Strange Killers.  First on the block, John Carl Buechler brings us a film about were-hyenas.  Stay tuned...

Friday, August 19, 2011

Rare Flix: Psycho III

At long last, I've reached the final chapter of Anthony Perkins- Director.  Much like William Peter Blatty, he only Directed two films.  The similarities don't end there as it is hard to argue that Psycho is not Perkins' series (as much as it is Hitchcock's or Bloch's).  

Unlike those two people, he did not have the common sense to stay away from the Film Series after the first one.  Now, if they had adapted Bloch's novel of Psycho II, that would be another story.  

With all that said, here is what you need to know.  Bates has returned to the motel, but got into trouble with Marion Crane's sister.  In The End, she was given all of the blame for the recent crimes, while Bates remained free.  
As a bonus, his real mother came to him...and he promptly killed her.  All caught up?  Good.  Prepare for the dull wrath of...
Rather than beginning with Bates, we begin at a Church in the middle of nowhere.  A depressed nun is threatening to kill herself since 'there is no God.'  She ends up kind-of-sort-of shoving the Mother Superior to her death, whereupon she leaves.  I guess Catholics don't believe in cops!  

She ends up taking a ride with a drifter (Jeff Fahey), who makes a move on her.  When she says 'no,' he kicks her out.  
We finally meet Bates as he's living in his house and has taken up Taxidermy.  In a gross moment, he uses the same spoon he is scooping up saw dust with to scoop up peanut butter.  Thanks, Perkins!  

A woman shows up in town looking to do a story on Bates, which makes the Sheriff and Diner Owner none too pleased.  Bates sees the depressed nun and has a thing for her, since her initials on her suitcase are M.C.  
In another convenient event, Fahey shows up at the Bates Motel looking for work, whereupon he gets hired.  Perkins decides to indulge in a little symbolism...
The woman shows up at the Bates Motel and gets Suite #1, the same one that Marion Crane had in the first film.  Bates has a little freak-out and talks to 'Mom' about the situation.  'She' convinces him to put on the dress and wig (which looks silly on a 54 year-old Perkins) and kill the lady.  

As he opens the curtains, however, he sees that she has slashed her wrists.  In a silly moment, she sees Norman as the Virgin Mary, which is a sad attempt to make this seems serious. 
 By the way, Norman calls the cops and gets her to a hospital quickly...but still finds time to take off the outfit and stash it somewhere.  
It's amazing to think that she lived! 

Around this time, Fahey meets up with the writer and agrees to give any information on Norman to her. Norman, meanwhile, decides to both go after the sad nun, while also indulging in some murder.  

The first on the chopping block is a random 'bar fly' who gets dumped by Fahey.
Things continue to compound, although they do so pretty slowly.  The writer continues to look into Norman's missing mother and learns out some interesting facts.  

Conveniently enough, the last number she called was Norman's and he picks up the phone.  Having seen Psycho II, I don't recall that phone call- continuity error? 

We get some more for the body count as a woman is killed for, well, using the bathroom.  The writer and Fahey give the Nun the info on Norman, which seems to turn her against him.  Moments later, she covers for him...alright.  

Norman's Mom goes missing and he finds it in Fahey's room.  A fight breaks out after Fahey tries to blackmail him, leading to the man being knocked out with his guitar.  
Get it- he kept telling people not to touch it and then it was used to kill him!  He stays alive long enough to fight with Bates & finally dies after the car crashes into a lake.  
See- it's just like the first movie.  

The writer confronts Norman at the house, but arrives too late to save the Nun from falling down the stairs (just like the Detective in the first film) and dying.  The guy loses his nerve after the writer reveals that his 'mom' is really his aunt and he gets arrested, with the Sheriff doing pulling a '180' on the 'Don't bother Norman' thing.  

He is taken away, but has time for one last reference to the original (better) film.  The End.
The third time is not the charm.  Ignoring that obvious line, the plot of this film has potential, but gets too mired in its own back story.  

I should give them credit for building off of the second film, as opposed to just doing something new.  The problem here is obvious: the plot of Psycho II sucks!  It rehashes a lot of things and adds nothing of real substance.  
The original film is great- just leave that alone!  

For all the complaints leveled at Gus Van Sant's remake, he didn't change anything.  Admittedly, he also didn't change things, but my point still has some validity.  

The acting here is alright, although Perkins fluctuates a bit too much for him to be believable as someone who is considered to be 'sane.'  His random freak outs and twitches should not go this unnoticed!  
Of course, you can't entirely blame an Actor for a bad performance- you also have to blame the Director.  Unlike William Shatner, Perkins did not get a good performance out of himself because he didn't respect himself so much.  

Futurama references aside, Perkins apparently has admitted that he wasn't up to being a Director- a fact that I won't protest.  

The bottom line- the film is not the worst thing to happen to the Psycho license.  I'm talking about that film tomorrow.
Up next, the final film in the series- thank God.  It's part sequel and part prequel, but all bad.  Stay tuned...

Sunday, October 24, 2010

Comedy?: Lucky Stiff

It's a little-known fact that Anthony Perkins directed a pair of films.  I guess that's the price you pay for being so iconic in one role.  

Mind you, the other one was Psycho III, so I guess it's easy to forget.  The other film, as you may have guessed, is this film.  

It's a comedy about cannibalism and the recently-cleared Donner party.  Mostly, it's just an excuse to do fat jokes.  

Should you get your hopes for this obscure little film or will you just be reminded why it is so?  
Get out your rake traps for my review of...
The film tells the tale of a man with luck worse than those rabbits who keep getting their feet cut off for necklaces.  He's set to be married, but his bride changes her mind...at the altar.  
You couldn't have timed that any less awkwardly, honey?  

In spite of that, he still goes on his honeymoon...alone.  That makes for a silly Plot, but not a whole lot of sense?  Anyhow, he decides to spend the holidays/his honeymoon in a ski resort, which is just chock full of couples.  
To make matters worse, the only room that is left is a honeymoon suite!  Break out the ironic trombone! 
More awkward comedy ensues as he pretends to be a couple when talking to a person outside of his hotel room door.  Here's a thought: don't talk to him!  

Things look up as he finds a pretty blond woman in the hotel, only to find that she has a boyfriend.  Actually, that's not the whole story.  It all has to do with an earlier scene involving a creepy family at a cottage...
You see, the lady is part of the modern (in 1988) descendants of the Donner Party.  Her family apparently still kills and eats men, just for fun I guess. 
 
The last person they brought him didn't meet the family standards, so a new one had to be found.  Guess who is on the menu now?  

We get some silly 'romance' scenes between the two, which mostly consist of the pair posing in front of some bad rear-projection effects.  This will really make you appreciate shitty green screen work that would eventually come!  

We also get some goofy physical comedy that is about as cliched as you can get.  Gee, I wonder what will happen when the fat guy goes skiing?  I'm sure he won't crash into signs or anything.  During all of this, a female friend arrives to talk to him. 

She's the 'I've been your friend, but I'm secretly in love with you' type that you see a lot.  Want to take guesses on where this story is headed?  The 'boyfriend' from before turns out to be the brother, who eventually knocks our hero out after a 'comedy' scene.  

He's saved at the last minute, however, by the woman.  She doesn't care- it's just that grandma is coming to the family dinner and only eats fresh meat.  Eww.
The plot moves the group over to the family house, which leads to some wacky 'comedy' of its own.  Since this is set around Christmas, our heroes need to get some presents.  Of course, their presence there- to be eaten- should be enough, but we need to pad out the runtime.  

They go to a store in the middle of the night which is run by a weirdo.  The guy says weird things, they make small talk and then they leave.  That accomplished a lot- thanks.  

Eventually, the family all comes together and has some weirdness.  Yet again, this adds nothing.  All of this is just a build-up to the woman from before breaking our hero out while in disguise.  As they go outside, the family of the man from the store surround the police.  
We get some sort of Hatfield and McCoy explanation for this.  
Pick a family from a story & stick with it!  

Eventually, the two families put aside their dispute in order to kill our fat hero.  As him and the woman ride off on horses, they both crash into a tree...for no reason.  Our hero decides to stand up for himself and fight the family.  

He does this by setting up a series of rakes under leaves, which the people step on and knock themselves out.  The brother puts up an actual fight, but gets crushed by our fat lead.  

The Donner woman just sort of gives up and allows him to leave.  
Finally, the man finds a woman who will agree to marry him and actually follows through with it.  Hurray- The End.
This movie sucks!  

Where to begin?  The plot is silly, the acting is bad and, oh yeah, it's really not funny.  Humor can be subjective and I'm sure sure that a ton of things I like would be considered to be 'un-funny' by some readers.  I can't help the fact that I love Battlefield Baseball- dammit!  

My problem here is that the film does nothing that's really original.  Other than the whole 'Donner Party' angle, you've seen this movie about 60 times already.  

Speaking of which, what an odd storyline to bring in!  Was there a big call for films about cannibal families in the mid-80s?  I don't get it!  

I wish that I could recommend this movie.  It's obscure, it's quirky and it's directed by a man with only two directing credits.  Plus its Lead is Joe Alaskey, who voiced Bugs Bunny in Looney Tunes: Back in Action, plus many other Cartoon Characters (like Plucky Duck on Tiny Toon Adventures) until his death in 2016 (This last line was added in later- I didn't predict his future death).

I just hope that I have better luck with The Ninth Configuration!
Up next, I take a look at a Spanish film starring 'Freddy.'  It involves an alien being, a comet and some nuns.  Stay tuned...

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Forgotten Sequels: Psycho II

We can't leave well enough, can we?  Some three years after Alfred Hitchcock's death and twenty-three years after the original, this sequel came out.  I have to ask this: why?  What was set-up in the story and not followed up on?  No.  The story opened, took place and closed within the run-time.  Apparently, there was studio talk to get this movie done with our without anyone involved taking part.  According to reports, Anthony Perkins signed on to do the film when they told him that they would/threatened to cast Christopher Walken in the lead role!  All I can say is this: I want to see that movie!  As stupid as this whole thing is, seeing Walken play Norman Bates would have been golden!  Anyhow, this movie is not based on the book of the same name, which actually mocks the whole idea of making a movie follow-up.  Instead, they just made up some new shit...which is about the same as the old shit.  Will this one hurt real bad?  Get out your old lady wig for my review of...
 
Want to know why people get mad at this movie so easily?  The very first shots of the movie are the famous 'shower scene.'  Yes, they open the film with it- just in case you forgot!  You're not helping your case, guys.  The movie proper begins with Norman Bates in court attempting to get released on parole.  After twenty-odd years in a psych ward, he seems to be fit for the general public.  One woman makes an adamant plea for him to stay in jail, but to no avail.  He gets taken to his old hotel/home by his aid worker Robert Loggia.  Despite his long career, I can only think of the Family Guy joke when I see him.  He learns that his hotel has been run by a fat, sleazy man (Dennis Franz) has been using at as a place for teens to drink, do drugs and have sex in.  He fires the man without a second thought and attempts to start a normal life.  He gets a job at a nearby diner, where he runs into a drunken Franz hassling a waitress (Meg Tilly).  He gets mad at him for leaving a note about the murders on the order list...but nobody sees the list.  This gets him the affection of the young woman, who agrees to stay the night at his house due to her breaking up with her boyfriend.  Don't worry- nothing happens.  How could Anthony Perkins resist the ladies?

Unfortunately, blending into society is not easy for our hero.  He starts to get weird calls from his mother, which is odd when you consider that she died sometime around 1946!  On top of that, people in town begin to question his motives and accuse of him of being 'up to something.'  The next day at work, the young woman says that she's going to stay somewhere else for a while, something that Norman doesn't like.  However, things turn back in his favor and she does stay at the house.  What was the point of that aside, movie?  Speaking of pointless, we get a shower scene with Tilly, but it all involves someone peeping at her through a hole in the wall.  She later discovers it, but never talks about it with Norman.  Um, what?  Why do you keep building up things that you don't follow up on?  One day, Norman is out working in the yard for a while.  Meanwhile, some teens break into the attic and 'make whoopie.'  Norman seems to have a blackout right before someone dressed up like his mother shows up and kills the mother.  The police check out the scene, but find nothing.  When they press Norman, Tilly covers for him.  It sure is nice to have a woman on your side who can ignore all of your creepy faults.  We can all hope to be so lucky!
Things only get worse for Norman and all of those around him.  We finally learn out the real truth behind Tilly's character: she's the daughter of the woman who opposed Norman's release.  As it turns out, she's the sister of the famous shower-kill victim from the original.  All of the calls have been made by either the mother or the young woman himself.  When the woman finally tries to stop doing it, the mother gets enraged and goes to the attic to retriever her 'Norman's Mother' costume.  Someone kills her down there, however.  On top of that, Franz's character has been missing for a while and the police find his car in the same swamp that Norman dumped the victims last time.  You, sir, are either a patsy or the worst killer ever!  Norman continues to get weird calls from 'his mother,' so the young woman tries to put a stop to it by talking into the phone instead.  He seems to ignore her, talking about how his 'mother' is not his real mother.  Loggia shows up and the woman inadvertently kills him, aping the famous 'stairwell death' from the original.  She brings Norman down to the attic and tries to turn him, but gets shot up by the cops when they arrive.  In the epilogue, Norman is cleared of the crimes and meets up with a woman from before.  He has tea with his real mother...before promptly killing her.  Well, he's crazy again.  See you in three years for the next sequel!
This movie is...not as bad as you might think.  Don't get me wrong- it pales in comparison to the original film.  The plot is mostly a retread, but does feature some new ideas.  The introduction of Meg Tilly's character gives a lot more of a chance to succeed than it would have without her.  Thankfully, the amount of retreading that the film does is actually for a purpose.  Just looking at a plot summary or the like would make you think that this movie is awful.  What it actually is, however, is this: decent.  I can't whole-heartedly recommend this movie to a lot of people.  However, I can tell you that it's not utter shit.  There are some decent thrills and kills here, although the film does get a bit bottom-heavy.  If you can buy into the whole thing, you may enjoy it.  If the idea of this film even existing offends you, well, I can't help you there.  If you want to really get angry, just think about Psycho III, Psycho IV and Bates Motel (the movie/back-door pilot for a show that was never green-lit).  Yes, the remake was pretty pointless too.
Up next, I cover the two sequels to Re-Animator.  Should you bring out your dead or just let them rot?  Stay tuned...