Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Nightmare In Badham County (1976)



Imagine this, if you will.  You’re a monster kid (yes, you are, so shut up).  You’re cruising around the dial (back when televisions had dials and you had to sometimes adjust the signal manually [that means with your hands]) when you come upon it.  A permanently boggled schlub in a seersucker suit who looks like he would have fit right in at the press room in His Girl Friday leveling a crossbow at an elderly lady, warning her not to approach.  She, naturally, does, and the man looses a bolt.  As the arrow finds its target, the senior citizen transforms into a gruesome, hairy monster (a rakshasa, to be precise) just before dying.  And so was I introduced to the wild, wonderful world of Kolchak: The Night Stalker, arguably one of the most fun television series ever made and one of my all-time favorites (though, in all honesty, I can’t say it’s the highest quality in the world, but how much of what we hold closest to our hearts ever is?).  The show was dubbed Kolchak’s Monster Of The Week (I believe by “TV Guide”), and it was that, but this is what fed the hunger inside me and kids like me.  However, for how formulaic the show is, the television movie from which it sprang (The Night Stalker) is exceptional and often touted as one of the best films ever produced for the small screen.  That film was directed by John Llewellyn Moxey, the director of Nightmare In Badham County (aka Nightmare).  Make of that what you will.

Cathy (Deborah Raffin) and Diane (Lynne Moody) are a couple of students from UCLA on a little road trip through the American South (always a bad idea in exploitation fare).  When their tire blows out, they get a firsthand taste of the local constabulary’s asshole-ish-ness in the form of Sheriff Danen (Chuck Connors).  Later, after the Sheriff tries to make it up to the ladies by lecherously hitting on them and is rebuffed in public, the two women quickly understand exactly how close-knit this little community is.  They also learn that the Badham County Farm is only one step removed from Hell.

This is a WIP film, and it has all of the elements needed for the genre.  It has the prisoners being abused and forced to wear flimsy, easily removable clothes.  It has aggressively predatory lesbian guards.  It depicts slave-like conditions under which the characters toil.  It has vicious internal conflicts among the inmates.  And this last point is the specific reason why the leads are played by a white woman and a black woman.  You see, the tensions at the farm are only exacerbated by its being segregated.  Though both sets of prisoners are treated as slave labor, it is the black prisoners who are given the more menial tasks.  Even at the bottom of the ladder, they get a raw deal.  This segregation and the treatment of the different races come as a shock only to the two outsiders.  To the people indigenous to the area, it’s simply how things are.  By that same token, the women in the black barracks mostly get along with one another.  It’s the women in the white barracks that get into cat fights and generally want to kill each other.  This sense of solidarity among the blacks isn’t because they’re sager than the whites any more than the discord among the whites is because they’re less civilized than the blacks.  It’s more distressing than that.  The numb obedience of the black women comes from an innate sense of racial inferiority which has been institutionally reinforced over decades.  This idea enhances the film’s overall somber attitude.

This vile corruption is embodied by three men (four, actually, but one of them has very little to do in the narrative), representing the government (or more specifically one part of it).  Danen, the Judge (Ralph Bellamy), and Superintendent Dancer (Robert Reed) are supposed to be enforcers of the law.  These are the people whom we rely on to keep the bad guys away.  These are the people who are our protectors.  That they so readily twist and manipulate the system to suit their own base desires points to an endemic illness.  We have seen this sort of corruption of power countless times in film.  It is portrayed in communities both North and South (though I would venture a guess that there are more of them set in the South, just because of its old ties to slavery).  But the one constant in films like this is that these are small, clannish localities.  Big, metropolitan, corporate corruption is another facet in other movies, but that is usually typified by its dispassion.  In small areas, where everyone knows everyone else and everyone seems in on the scheme, it’s the familiarity that makes the evil done more insidious.  This isn’t a wide net spread over a large mass.  This is a tight glove wrapping itself around your throat.  It feels more intimate, as if the perpetrators have something personal against their victims.  But even the bodies of the subjugated are just meat to be used and discarded at a whim, still just a means to an end.  No matter how much these villains may enjoy what they do, they still do it with a sociopathic detachment, because these acts no longer offer pleasure.  This is merely what they do.

All WIP films are sleazy.  That’s one of their big appeals, and Nightmare In Badham County is no exception.  Women are demeaned and molested throughout.  A scene with guard Alice and prisoner Nancy nails this home.  Alice strips down to just her panties, sits on a couch with her crotch splayed, and states, “I didn’t keep you out of the fields today just so you could eat my lunch.”  It’s not just the situation or the double entendre of the dialogue.  It’s Alice’s open repose that amps the sleaze up.  Her nudity makes her menace (again) feel more intimate.  But beyond all this, the film is resolutely grim in tone.  Intriguingly, this is illustrated with Dancer’s skanky interactions with the women and how they customarily turn out, but it takes on a quasi-meta meaning due to Reed’s casting in the role.  This is not because of the actor’s well-documented sexual orientation but to his identification as one of America’s most beloved, moralistic fathers in recorded history (Mike Brady of The Brady Bunch, for those who don’t know).  To see a man who was held up as a moral compass for many years discard said morality and get down into the gutter makes it feel somehow more wrong and just a little shocking.  It’s at this point in the film when the viewer begins to understand the gravity of the situation and believe that truly this nightmare may not be one from which our protagonists may ever awake.

MVT:  The dour quality of the film sets it apart in my experience with this genre.  This is bleak, even angry, filmmaking, and despite its exploitation roots, it has something to say.  It just says it through gritted teeth.

Make Or Break:  The scene with Danen and the girls in the local lockup manages to be nasty and creepy without being explicit.  It also sets the timbre for the remainder of the film and reminds the audience that this is only the beginning.

Score:  6.5/10      

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Episode #274: A Simple War Dog

Welcome back for another ride with the GGtMC!!!

This week we have two more Kickstarter sponsored shows this week for you and we brought along a few friends for the reviews this week! First up, Cinemasochist Justin selected War Dog (1987) directed by Bjorn Carlstrom and Danieal Huebenbecher. We then bring in Uncool Cat Chris for coverage of A Simple Plan (1998) directed by Sam Raimi. We wish to thank the guys for the donation and the great conversation.

Direct download: ggtmc_274.mp3 
 
Emails to midnitecinema@gmail.com

Voicemails to 206-666-5207

Adios!!!



Saturday, February 8, 2014

Instant Action: Olympus Has Fallen (2013)



Our government doesn't shut down for anything, except for budget talks that is!

Written By: Katrin Benedikt & Creighton Rothenberger
Directed By: Antoine Fuqua

A key scene in Olympus Has Fallen is when the protagonist, Mike Banning, has captured a pair of terrorists for questioning. As soon as one of them laughs he stabs said funny man through the throat in under thirty seconds. For all intents and purposes that scene could be viewed as a throwaway moment within the film. However, it is my belief that this scene is the glue that holds the film together and represents why the film ends up working despite its flaws.

There are plenty of flaws to be found in Olympus Has Fallen. The story is as bare a story as one could hope to write. The characters are one dimensional and exist only to serve the plot. The lighting is far too dark for its own good during some key moments. It could be argued that the film deals with violence and consequence in an irresponsible manner. The complaint could be levied against Olympus Has Fallen that it is a big dumb action flick and nothing more.

All of the above are valid criticisms of Olympus Has Fallen, yet in the end I believe Antoine Fuqua's 2013 effort pushes past its limitations and comes out the other end a well made action film. It all comes back to the terrorist interrogation scene, a scene that is so quick it seems like it's not a big deal. It is the quickness of that scene that matters, the swiftness with which our protagonist deals with a problem. That surmises how Mr. Fugua deals with momentum in his film. It's not an abstract idea, in Olympus Has Fallen momentum is integral to the way the film moves and comes at the viewer. Things happen fast, so fast that they don't allow for the viewer to stop and truly think about the limitations that are trying to hold the film back. Scene after scene flashes across the screen, and always the momentum is being picked up, even the exposition is worked into small chunks so that it can't hold back the inertia achieved by the film. The terrorist doesn't have time to keep laughing, the film won't let him, and he is to be disposed of post haste, because that's the world of the film.

I did get a kick out of Olympus Has Fallen. I'm not about to declare it the very best that cinema has to offer. However, as far as big budget actioners go there's nothing wrong with enjoying Olympus Has Fallen. Mr. Fuqua's film hits the viewer hard, and relies on forward momentum and sustained intensity to keep the viewer interested for the entire ride. Sometimes good momentum is all that's needed for a quality filmic experience. Olympus Has Fallen has momentum in spades, and it makes good on getting the most out of said momentum. It may be big and loud, and silly at times, but Olympus Has Fallen delivers an intense action experience that is far removed from being a stereotypically dumb action film.

Rating:

7/10

Cheers,
Bill Thompson

Thursday, February 6, 2014

Episode #273: El FrankenTopo

Welcome to another episode of the GGtMC!!!

This week the boys bring good friend Christian The Orange on for coverage of his Kickstarter picks and he brought it with his selections!!! Christian chose El Topo (1970) directed by Alejandro Jodoworsky and Frankenhooker (1990) directed by Frank Henenlotter!!!

Direct download: ggtmc_273.mp3 
 
Emails to midnitecinema@gmail.com

Voicemails to 206-666-5207

Adios!!!



Midnite Ride #25: Sakura Killers

Welcome back for more of the Midnite Ride!!!

This time Mattsuzaka and Karl Brezdin review Sakura Killers (1987) directed by Wang Yu and Rusty Nelson and starring Chuck Connors and Mike Kelly!!!

Direct download: MidniteRide_SakuraKillers.mp3 
 
Emails to midnitecinema@gmail.com

Voicemails to 206-666-5207

Adios!!!


Midnite Ride #24: Double Impact

Welcome to another Midnite Ride!!!

This time Mattsuzaka and Karl Brezdin review Double Impact (1991) with Van Damme!!!!

Direct download: MidniteRide_Double_Impact.mp3 
 
Emails to midnitecinema@gmail.com

Voicemails to 206-666-5207

Adios!!!


Wednesday, February 5, 2014

Murder Obsession (1981)

Film grammar has developed and refined itself over more than a century to the point that it almost seems as if children today are born already knowing exactly how to “read” a film.  Of course, this isn’t true in a blanket fashion, but young viewers today are so sophisticated, their media so slick, it’s no wonder that more people want to be famous today than arguably at any other point in the history of man (feel free to debate this amongst yourselves).  Even “reality TV” is so over-produced, so manufactured, that there is, if not an erasure, certainly a large scale blurring of the lines between fiction and reality at work in our culture.  People no longer need to aspire to greatness.  No effort needs to be expended.  The only requisite now is for enough people to view a video clip of you doing something that makes the people with money decide you’re valuable to them (or worse, you can be a superstar simply by dint of birth).  Of course, vapidity and lack of actual talent has been with us since the world began, but I would argue that never before has it been quite so celebrated.

There seems (at least to my cynical eyes) to be a diminishment in the desire for individuality, a diminishment in the desire to interact with the real world in any meaningful (and actually physical) manner.  For as interconnected as we have become, we seem to be forfeiting the very skills which allowed us to get this far.  Perhaps this is us getting ready for “The Singularity,” when artificial intelligence surpasses human intelligence.  Perhaps this is someone else getting us ready for it?  Perhaps those of us who are older have already been surpassed by the younger generations and simply cannot comprehend what those “whippersnappers” see as simplicity itself.  Or perhaps they really are just degenerating, by and large (again, not a blanket statement; there are exceedingly few things that have no exceptions).  I’m no expert.  I claim no provenance or superior knowledge here.  But mark my words; this is something which deserves serious consideration.  It’s not just the old saw of an older generation saying how much better things were when they were kids as viewed through some nostalgic mist.  Ain’t it funny?  I started this introduction as a look at flashbacks and fractured time in cinema.  Oh well.  You got a screed instead.

Michael (Stefano Patrizi, possibly the blandest actor in recorded history) is an “edgy” thespian who takes his role as a murderer just a little too intensely on set.  Oh, he doesn’t actually kill co-star Beryl (Laura Gemser), but he does give her a right strangling.  Later and seemingly for no reason, Michael suddenly has the desire to return to the family manse and bring some of his filmmaking buddies as well as his secret girlfriend Deborah (Silvia Dionisio) along with him.  Reuniting with mother Glenda (Anita Strindberg) and creepy groundskeeper Oliver (John Richardson), Michael works through his troubled past while someone starts picking off the cast members.

Riccardo Freda’s Murder Obsession (aka Follia Omicida aka Murder Syndrome) deals in many ways with fantasy (in the forms of art, legends, and imagination) versus reality.  Michael’s father (also played by Patrizi) was a symphony conductor.  After viewing a portrait of said dad (which resembles an Andy Warhol styled Op-Art piece more than a traditional painting), the son hears his father’s voice accusing him from beyond the grave.  Director Hans (Henri Garcin) carries around his camera, calling it his “third eye.”  Beryl used to practice voodoo, and she feels that legends are important when you believe in them (i.e. Truth is constituted from an accepted artifice).  Hans tells Glenda that magic will “solve the mysteries of life.”  Interestingly, Glenda and Oliver represent a juxtaposition to their houseguests.  Whereas, Hans and company talk about magic and the occult in abstract philosophical terms (labeling their possessions or talents with expressions implying non-existent mystical properties), Glenda and Oliver practice what they preach and believe in it wholeheartedly.  This, then, explains why the others can only talk about the “magic” others possess.  

This extends to lies and deceptions, one of which is central to Michael’s self-discovery (naturally, this being a Horror/Giallo film).  You see, Michael believes that he killed his father when he was only a child.  The Oedipal manner in which he and his mother interact certainly makes this a possibility and even gives the film an intriguing undercurrent which it never pays off (but more on that later).  Yet, we know from the introduction of Michael’s memories and/or dreams that there has to either: One, be more to it that will be revealed later like puzzle pieces or two, a third act reveal that uncovers the falsity of these images (or a combination of both).  And there is, to be fair.  Deborah also gets an extended nightmare sequence (roughly ten minutes of screen time), and as you’re watching, it feels like filler (and filler which wears out its welcome, no less).  Well, it is filler, but it does make some sense by the film’s ending.  Unfortunately, the sense it makes doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

I’ll try to explain.  Murder Obsession is predominantly a confused mess of a film (in case you didn’t get that yet).  Points are brought up and things happen, but none of them appear to be leading anywhere in a narrative sense.  Further, if they are meant to lead somewhere, they are almost entirely undeveloped.  So, we get scenes like the one early on when Oliver astrally projects and his spirit goes for a walk around the house.  And that’s the first and last we see anything about this until the very end of the movie.  Of course, Michael’s not going to be the killer.  We know that from frame one.  We know that from reading the film’s synopsis.  So we get some of the reddest of red herrings to keep us guessing (Hans wears one black glove into the room after Beryl is attacked, Oliver is a disturbing-looking sleepwalker, Beryl asks Michael if he was really strangling her when they were filming, etcetera).  Everything is disconnected, so even when it’s all explained at the end, it doesn’t feel like a resolution.  It feels like an excuse.  Consequently, the entire film comes across like an exercise in cynicism.  They needed gory murders, so there are gory murders.  People are interested in the occult and mysticism, so there are offhanded references to the occult and mysticism.  There needs to be sex and nudity, so there’s a ton of sex and nudity (and probably more torn blouses/blouses falling open and off than I’ve ever seen in a film…probably).  There needs to be a shock ending, so there’s a contrived shock ending.  The film goes through damned near every single one of the motions it can possibly go through, but it’s all empty.  There is no care shown the story and an almost unbridled disdain shown toward the audience’s intelligence.  Even though I can’t say I outright hate this film, I can definitely say it won’t be on my Christmas card list anytime soon.      

MVT:  The supremely cheesy gore effects (credited to Angelo Mattei; possibly a relative of Bruno?) are fascinating in their primitiveness.  Even for a dirt-low budget Horror film, they’re bad, and they wouldn’t fool an animal.  But they are juicy and they are fun.

Make Or Break:  The clunky ending exposition will have you scratching your head and shouting at the screen at least as much as it actually clarifies any of the film’s plot points (or maybe will just have you scratching your head and shouting at the screen every time it tries to clarify a plot point; it’s all about perspective).  How that will leave you feeling when the credits roll depends on your tolerance level.  I admit mine is pretty low sometimes.  

Score:  4.75/10

Tuesday, February 4, 2014

Blow Out Criterion Blu - Double Team Review by Uncoolcat Chris and Master of the Blu Movie, Kelly Baird!






Though I was born in 1971, I cannot even fathom what it would be like to be coming of age in the seventies. The sixties are flat out insane. So many prominent figures, people who are easy to put upon pedestals, sincerely coming from a place of idealism and hope, literally shot down at their peak. Martin Luther King, John F. Kennedy (the fucking president!), Robert Kennedy, Malcolm X, even with John Lennon many years later, you would almost be nuts to to think there wasn't a conspiracy. Seriously, and this is worth repeating, it was fucking insane. However, that feeling of hopelessness and defeat fed into some of the best American movies ever made. The good guys didn't always win, redemption wasn't a guarantee and status quo was a nightmare. How's that for a silver lining?


 So, in 1981, four years before Rambo came along to make America feel like Numero Uno again, Brian DePalma crafted a masterful conspiracy thriller/character study. Blow Out, much like Michaelangelo Antonioni's Blow Up begins with a man accidentally recording what might or might not be a murder. In Blow Out's case, this man is Sound Recordist, Jack Terry, portrayed by John Travolta in easily one of his best roles. Jack is working on a low budget horror film (which DePalma opens with, leading to a great punchline. DePalma later revisits this type of opening to great effect in his Body Double) and the director demands he stop relying on the library stock sounds and go record some new effects. While recording in an isolated area, Terry manages to record what seems to be a car driving on a deserted road and having a blow out, leading to it plummet off a bridge. The driver, who happens to be the governor and presidential hopeful, dies on impact,  but Jack does manage to rescue a young female, Sally (Karen Allen) from the wreck, in a fabulously shot underwater sequence. Terry, being a sound recordist, and having an ear for sound believes that he heard a gunshot, but it seems everyone, from the police to politicians want this to be an open and shut case. And that's where Jack's problems begin.

Blow Out follows on the heels of some great conspiracy thrillers from the seventies; The Parallax View, All the President's Men, Three Days of the Condor; just to name a few. What DePalma does to separate himself from the pack, is to mainly focus on a single character, a man who has no political leanings, a shady past and a not so bright future. He is just a guy who works on smutty films, living day to day with not a care in the world. However, when the audience finds out what put Jack Terry in this position, it explains everything we need to know about why it is so important to him to find out the truth behind the politician's "accident". And makes the outcome all the more tragic. Besides being a very intriguing conspiracy thriller, this is a heartbreaking look at a man who gives himself one more chance to be the man he wants to be, with unpredictable results. The last shot of this film will stick with you long after the credits roll.

Even the assassination conspiracy seems to have taken a life of it's own, thanks to a rogue assassin. John Lithgow plays the heartless killer, Burke, who casually commits serial sex crimes to cover his tracks and goes above and beyond the call of duty when hired to smear a politician's name. Lithgow is incredible, playing Burke as someone who is all business, but if he was not in this line of work, would definitely be a serial killer or a telemarketer. Evil!   


One of the more interesting, and perhaps nihilistic things about the film is the use of technology, particularly, film. It definitely is no mistake that Jack Terry is a sound recordist for "the movies". I think with technology, other than being something for Jack to hide behind and focus on (though he has already been betrayed by it once), DePalma is also making a comment on film, or art in general, being a tool for change. Jack's original quest is to find a scream for a horror queen in an exploitation film, and soon he uses those same tools to uncover an assassination. Is it fitting that DePalma comes from what some might consider an exploitation background and is using his tools in Blow Out to create change? I think so. However, I do not think DePalma has lofty hopes of art changing Jack Shit, and in those final moments, what the technology is ultimately used for would make Gaspar Noe think, "Jesus!". This is also what makes Blow Out, coming late in the cycle of conspiracy films, seem so much more cynical. DePalma has seen nothing change despite the great works that has come before him. Maybe it's best to stick with the heavy breathing, deformed coed slashers.

Blow Out is possibly DePalma's greatest achievement. His "in your face" style never takes away from the story, only adds to it. Right off the bat, with his split screen showing a news program contrasting Jack labelling his sound library after cuing it up on his reel to reel, we see fact and fiction already at war. Even DePalma makes the room have a natural split, so when Jack crosses it in real life, we forget that it isn't a split screen. Fact and fiction are coming together. With terrible results. All of DePalma's tricks, from complicated camera moves to slow motion, enhance the drama or Jack's turmoil. Add to that, Vilmos Zsigmond's beautiful cinematography and there is really no reason not to be watching his right now.

MAKE OR BREAK: The ending. This would still be a great movie without that particular ending, but with it, Blow Out is a masterpiece.

MVT: DePalma. Seldom has he ever reached the heights of this film.

SCORE: 9.5

On a side note, I watched the Critereon Blue four thys philm......oo no, mi brian has stoped worcking. Hoos going too safe this revu...HELP!



Okay, well, obviously from the awesome review above we know this is an amazing film, but how is the Blu you may be asking ? Let's see what scrumptious treats Criterion has provided for us.



Video Quality

Blow Out is presented in 2.40:1 aspect ratio and looks better than ever. De Palma films usually look good anyway, but Blow Out has 2 very big things going for it. Vilmos Zsigmond and Garret Brown. Now, we all know good 'ol Vilmos, but Garret Brown may be a name you're unfamiliar with, and with this Blu looking as good as it does, he needs to be mentioned. Garret Brown is the inventor of the Steadicam operating system, a system to which this film and thousands more owe TONS to. Thanks to Brown and Zsigmond's beautiful photography this film pops like never before. From the little details of Travolta's sound equipment to Nancy Allen's smeared eyeliner. From the rain soaked streets to the grand finale, this transfer is stunning. There is a perfect layer of early 80's grain that puts you right there in '81. Very sparsely throughout the film there are few soft shots, but this seems to be due the original elements, which it appears Criterion has dealt with to the best of their ability.



Special Features

De Palma's early experimental film, Murder a la Mod:
Yup, that's right, you get another full length De Palma film as a special feature. A bit of suspense, a dash of sex and some nice camera work. Yeah, this is early De Palma, and it's guuud. HD/81 minutes

On-Set photos from Photographer Louis Goldman:
This is a set of a TON of great on-set photos. Some are funny, others as beautiful as the actual film itself. Definitely a cool little behind the scenes nugget for the fans.

Interview with Nancy Allen:
Conducted in 2011, this is fun little interview where Nancy Allen talks about meeting Travolta for the first time, working on the film, rehearsals, etc. HD/26 minutes

Interview with Steadicam operator Garret Brown:
Fascinating interview on not only the steadicam shots used in the film, but also the actual steadicam and how it works. Great for us cinephiles that need to know everything about a flick!! HD/16 minutes

Interview with Brian de Palma conducted by Noah Baumbach:
An almost hour long 2010 interview with the man himself, Brian De Palma. This is packed with info on not only Blow Out but stuff De Palma did before and after. This, for me, is the highlight of the special features. Dense with info, definitely check this out. HD/58 minutes

Theatrical Trailer


Packaging

It's kinda obvious this is going to be presented well as it's from Criterion. 99% of the time they hit home runs, as far as presentation goes. The cover features Travolta at his most exhausted point in the film, mid chaos. Tapes and reels are strewn all around him as he try's to figure out this complex mystery. As per most Criterion releases, there is also a very well put together booklet featuring an essay by critic Michael Sragow and Pauline Kael's original New Yorker review.


Final Word

Criterion has brought us what many would argue to be De Palma's best film in an amazing package featuring stunning picture quality, staggering special features all in a beautiful little package. This is a HIGH recommend. Get you're grubby little hands on it now! 5/5