Sunday, February 24, 2013

Episode #224: The Gents List 2012

It's finally here ladies and gentlemen!!!

The Gents bring you their top films of 2012, It was another glorious year for cinema and we had a ton of fun cramming and sharing that experience with all of our listeners, we do this for you guys and gals after all!!!
We also get top lists from Paul, Speedy, Back of Forest Whitakers Neck, Matt from Entrails to the Skeleton Closet, CDR from The Mill Creeps, Vishnu, The Lightning Bug, Wendi, Paul A., Greg, The Keyboard Monkey and Kelly B.!!!

Thanks so much for another great year from us to each and every one of you and oh by the way? Time to get started on 2013!!!

Direct download: Top0f2012.mp3

Emails to midnitecinema@gmail.com

Voicemails to 206-666-5207

Adios!!!




Wednesday, February 20, 2013

The Evictors (1979)

If you have been reading my reviews for any length of time (and a big thank you to all five of you who have remained stalwart in that capacity), then you know of my distaste for the great outdoors in general and the less civilized areas of same in particular (the size and amount of which are expanding exponentially, especially in more populated areas, in my humble opinion).  Even so, swamps and bayous fascinate me.  It’s not that I have any desire to ever visit one and get eaten alive by any of a cavalcade of animals either predatory or parasitic, but they do have a particularly beautiful look to them, don’t you agree?  They can be as alluring as they are forbidding.  Like the angler fish or the pitcher plant, it would be easy to be lured into a fen just by following your sense of wonder for nature (not necessarily because a swamp smells good enough to eat, though, I’d wager) only to have the deadly trap sprung faster than you can say “gator bait” and wind up as bulk in some animal’s stool.  I suppose it’s within the realm of possibility that you could be rescued by, say, Swamp Thing or Man-Thing, and many people have proven that one could even live and thrive in marshland, but I tend to think my luck wouldn’t hold out.  It’s the optimist in me.

The late Charles B Pierce’s The Evictors (aka Leadsville Nights) opens in 1928 in Shreveport, Louisiana, as the Monroe clan is (not so ironically enough) being evicted from their home.  Naturally, the Monroe’s disagree with the bank’s claim, and they open fire on the banker (Jesse Cagle), G-Men (Owen Guthrie, Thomas Ham, Ron White), and assorted deputies who are there to enforce the eviction notice.  Needless to say, things don’t exactly pan out for the Monroes.  Fast forward to 1942, as local realtor Jake Rudd (Vic Morrow) accompanies young couple Ruth and Ben Watkins (Jessica Harper and Michael Parks, respectively) as they begin the process of moving into the old Monroe house.  Soon, a creeper who looks suspiciously like Dwayne Monroe (Glen Roberts) starts popping up and menacing Ruth, and not even wheelchair-bound neighbor Olie Gibson (Sue Ane Langdon) may be able to help.

 Much like Mr. Pierce’s more famous (or infamous, depending on your perspective) films, The Legend Of Boggy Creek, Boggy Creek 2: And The Legend Continues, and The Town That Dreaded Sundown, this one starts off with the claim (or disclaimer?) that the events depicted are based on a true story.  Leapfrogging off the Docudrama genre, The Evictors emphasizes the idea of storytelling, itself.  As the plot trots along, we are treated to multiple flashbacks detailing the history of the Watkins’s new house since the Monroes were ousted.  This device performs multiple duties.  One, it gives us some exposition to try to piece together just what’s going on (though, honestly, there is very little mystery in the film to be sussed out).  Two, it gives us foreshadowing and builds some tension as to what is waiting in the wings for Ruth and Ben.  Three, it gives us a little bit of action and violence to hold over the more bloodthirsty in the audience (though, honestly, there is very little [if any] bloodshed on screen to be ogled).  

Of course, like any story told enough times, the details are bound to change, the original meaning muddied or lost altogether.  Pierce allows the flashbacks to play out but is always sure to remind us that what we have been seeing is being related by other characters who should not have been present to witness the scenes described and (we assume) were told these stories by someone else who was also not present when they took place, in all likelihood.  Aside from the fact that other owners of the house died, we cannot necessarily assume that they were killed by one of the Monroes (though the implication is definitely there).  By that same token, we can also make the assumption that there is a chance that not only are the flashbacks truthful but also could possibly be giving us more information than is present in the stories as told around the town.  In this way, then, they are fact and fiction, historical truth and urban legend.

The film also deals to some degree with the notion of the American Dream becoming the American Nightmare.  The Monroes owned their house, surely a component of their own dream.  Yet, for whatever reason, this dream becomes a nightmare when they are evicted.  Not only do they lose the house, but they come to physical harm when they fight against their eviction.  Likewise, the couples who inhabit the house after the Monroes are also starting from the perspective of the American Dream (and let’s just take it as given that owning one’s own house is part of the American Dream or at the absolute least was some years back).  And they all meet their deaths for stealing someone else’s dream, turning their own to nightmares.  There is also a facet at work that the house itself may be haunted and stands on cursed earth, though it’s never really explored, just sort of mentioned.

The Evictors plays with themes about the corruption of traditional values as embodied predominantly in the character of Ruth Watkins.  She and Ben are seemingly the perfect couple.  They are young, hard-working, honest, and pleasant.  Outwardly, there is no reason whatsoever given by the filmmakers to not like these two.  Yet, they are abjured by just about all the local townsfolk.  The audience knows there is no reason for such treatment, so the problem must be with the locals, not Ruth and Ben.  That the couple desires to be accepted by the people who are signified as having the actual problem is exactly what will pollute the Watkins’s values and drag them down.  Ben is offered draft deferment and a large bonus in return for working long hours, in some capacity turning away from the idea of service to his country in a time of war to further his personal gain and by extension neglecting his wife and leaving her vulnerable to dangers both emotional and physical.  Ruth learns to shoot a gun, a trait which she takes to like a duck to water but which  is a non-traditional proficiency for a woman (at least for the time the film is set and for the sort of background Ruth seems to come from but not necessarily for the story’s location or for all women, certainly).  These factors add up over the course of the film, culminating in a conclusion perhaps best described as mildly apocryphal.

With that in mind, I need to get something off my chest in regards to this film.  When everything is finally revealed, the effect was not one of discovery for me, it was instead one of indifference.  None of what goes on in the film is anything other than what it appears to be.  We know within just a few minutes of screentime how the entirety of the story will play out, what twists are going to pop up, and when they will do so.  The only two reasons I stuck around were to find out if I could possibly be wrong and receive a pleasant surprise (which didn’t happen) and because the technical level of filmmaking is indeed quite accomplished.  It’s like finding out that the woman you dig has inexplicably taken up with some chump you know for a stone fact is worthless, but there is nothing you can do, because the choices made that created the situation were not yours to make.  Your choice is how to react (or not react, which as we all know is also a reaction, anyway) afterward. 

MVT:  The acting in the film from the main performers is spot-on, and the players appeared to care about the material (and if they didn’t I perceived no indication, thus reinforcing my claim that the acting in the film is very good).  

Make Or Break:  The Break for me is the big disclosure scene, and that’s because there is decidedly nothing in the least disclosed that I didn’t already know.  There is no surprise in this surprise, and it doesn’t even add a little bit of color to make the non-reveals vary even slightly from what I knew was going to be revealed. 

Score:  6/10

Sunday, February 17, 2013

Episode #223: The Cop in Blue Jeans

Welcome to another fun filled episode of the GGtMC!!!

This week we bring another omg-entertainment.com sponsored episode with coverage of The Cop in Blue Jeans (1976) directed by Bruno Corbucci and starring Tomas Milian and Jack Palance!!!
We also go over a ton of listener feedback again and get derailed a few times!!!

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

Voicemails to 206-666-5207

Adios!!!




Saturday, February 16, 2013

Episode #222: Seven Murders For Scotland Yard

Welcome back to another GGtMC spectacular!!!

This week we cover another selection from omg-entertainment.com and that film is Seven Murders for Scotland Yard (1971) starring Paul Naschy and we cover a TON of feedback gang.....and I do not mean that lightly....A TON!!!


Emails to midnitecinema@gmail.com

Voicemails to 206-666-5207

Adios!!!




Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Street People (1976)



Let’s talk for a moment about some of the great sunken (facial) cheeks in cinema history.  Now, they can be of any nationality, but in my opinion, the best ones are from Europe, Britain to be more precise.  For my money, no one, but no one, had a greater set of sunken cheeks than Peter Cushing.  The same man who destroyed Dracula and reconstructed Frankenstein’s monster on a multitude of occasions also had a facial structure that could be as couthie as it could be menacing.  Sure, the indented cheek look has become indicative of the drug-addicted, zombified, and just plain dead (have a look at Lon Chaney’s iconic makeup for 1925’s The Phantom Of The Opera, if you doubt, and yes, I know the Phantom was not actually dead, but he was meant to evoke the look of a deceased person), but there was a time when the sunken-cheeked were held in a higher regard.  

Giving the impression of aristocracy, I always expect any (male) royalty to look like Mr. Cushing (even though according to Wikipedia, he was made an Officer in the Order Of The British Empire but was never knighted and therefore denied use of the honorary title “Sir,” a travesty, if you ask me) or Henry VIII (all chubby and beardy).  There have been runners up, to be sure.  Ernest Thesiger appeared as severe as the taut skin stretched across his skull.  Ron Wood looks like he belongs more in a chartered accountant office than behind a guitar.  But it is Roger Moore whose cheeks actually come closest to embodying the duality that Cushing’s did so effortlessly, I think.  For the life of me, though, I always think he’s sucking them in, sort of the cuckoo of the sunken cheek set.  Maybe it’s all in my head, maybe Moore’s cheeks are like that naturally, but I just don’t believe so. 

Mafia boss Salvatore (Ivo Garrani) receives a visit from nephew, lawyer, and polyglot Ulysses (Moore, whose British accent is explained with the exposition that he was sent to school in England) to go over some paperwork involved in finally making Sal’s business legit.  Meanwhile, a massive cross which was imported by Sal from Sicily is unloaded at the neighboring dock for the sake of the fishermen and blessed by priest and former pal of Salvatore, Frank (Ettore Manni).  That night, the crucifix is stolen from the dock by Nicoletta, Pano, and Fortunato (Fausto Tozzi, Pietro Martellanza, and the great Romano Puppo, respectively) and opened to reveal a cache of heroin with which the trio absconds.  Infuriated that someone would use something he was responsible for to smuggle drugs into America without his knowledge, Salvatore approaches capo di tutti capi Don Continenza (Ennio Balbo), who puts out the order to have the three scalawags caught.  Reaching out to frequent partner and Formula One race car driver Charlie (Stacy Keach), Ulysses sets about tracking down the heroin, the thieves, and the person behind it all.

Maurizio Lucidi’s Street People (aka Gli Esecutori aka The Sicilian Cross) is a sort of odd duck in the Eurocrime subgenre.  There is a lot of footage that genuinely appears to have been shot on location in California (predominantly San Francisco) and involving some complicated car stunt work (the car scenes apparently being the ones shot and directed by Guglielmo Garroni), which would seem to indicate that a decent chunk of change was spent in the production (although  I couldn’t locate anything definitive in regards to the film’s budget for this review).  The film also has a light, adventuresome ambience, which is only augmented by the interplay between Moore and Keach.  

By 1976, Moore had established his more tongue-in-cheek/campier take on James Bond in Live And Let Die and The Man With The Golden Gun, and his charming twofistedness bleeds into these proceedings.  By that same token, Keach had also established his gruff-but-endearing demeanor and sense of humor in such work as The Gravy Train (aka The Dion Brothers), and he is much more the rough side to Moore’s stiff upper lip.  Working against the film, though, is a script which is wildly convoluted and confused in keeping track of which characters are being referred to at any given time.  Granted, the version I watched is, by all accounts, the shorter of two by about thirteen minutes.  It’s within the realm of speculation that the protracted runtime clears up some aspects or constructs a more connected story, but since the longer of the two is seemingly the Swedish cut, I’d wager it’s just thirteen added minutes of hardcore pornography (just kidding).      

Anchored by the dichotomy between Moore and Keach, the film is filled with such juxtapositions.  The first and most obvious is that of the criminal versus the clergy.  Sal and Frank were close friends in Italy, but their paths diverged, so the two resent each other, though Sal still craves forgiveness and acceptance from his erstwhile amigo.  But as is typical in such films, it’s the priest who possesses the iron will to not buckle, no matter how he may feel about his friend deep down.  It’s interesting to note here that Frank really does feel nothing but contempt for Sal.  There is no redemption for the old Mafioso (at least in the eyes of this particular clergyman), despite his aim to reform and get out of the Organization.  As the search goes on, Charlie is placed as the street level everyman both in look and function.  He talks jive with an old drug pusher (trying to “get to Dream Street, Mama”) and his buddy Chico (Charlie threatens to spread the word that Chico is “a turkey deluxe”) who inhabits a strip club where the racer is well-known (the significance being that Charlie is a man who cannot control his desires/emotions like Ulysses can).  Of course, Ulysses is always meticulously dressed and always in control.  He is as skilled physically as Charlie, but his first weapon is his mind.  The two are further joined/separated by their motivations.  Charlie is doing this work simply for the bread.  He is mercenary in his actions.  Ulysses is also interested in the money, but he will work for free if it means his honor is threatened or he needs to take care of “a family matter” of one variety or another.    
   
It’s this sense of honor which is most at risk in Street People.  There is a pall of duplicity hanging over every frame of the film, and we expect every single character to have ulterior motives for what they do.  We expect them all to be villains at heart, and that they’re not (there’s really only one, to be honest) is an intriguing subversion of audience assumptions.  Even Ulysses is not completely honest with the people he claims to love like family, but this plot path ultimately just peters out and fades away.  When everything is revealed at the climax, though, it’s all so simple and relatively obvious, the whole excursion feels just a little like a waste.  That the film doesn’t hold together at its core isn’t the worst thing that could happen, since the individual elements/scenes work well enough in and of themselves that by the end credits, the film is not quite adiaphorous and in fact leans more toward satisfying than offputting.  But if you’re looking for coherence, seek it elsewhere.

MVT:  Keach’s onscreen portrayal of Charlie is just big enough without going too over the top.  His constant jabs at Ulysses (treating him with a sense of faux reverence and reminding him that he can be a pompous ass, a trait Ulysses seems to embrace) are an amusing way to define the relationship between the two.  Plus, any character that can talk as much jive as well as Charlie can has to be cool, right?

Make Or Break:  The Make is the scene where Charlie takes a car for a test drive around the streets of San Francisco (you can imagine what happens).  It’s funny, and well-shot, and impressive for what they accomplished onscreen.  It’s essentially a non-car-chase car chase scene, and it worked superbly for me on all levels.

Score:  6.25/10
 

Wednesday, February 6, 2013

Aberration (1997)



It’s said that gentlemen prefer blondes.  If this is a truism, I wonder what it says about folks like me who prefer brunettes.  Maybe it’s because I’m a Scorpio, or maybe it’s some bizarre psychosexual thing none of us should probably delve too deeply into, but the darker the hair, the more I like it.  What’s even more bizarre, I like women with odd-colored hair, to boot.  Blue, green, or fire truck red, girls with “bubblegum” hair coloring interest me immensely.  Oh, sure, blondes like Marilyn Monroe are truly creatures of beauty, and to be fair, there are quite a number of blondes who I find deeply attractive, but let’s not forget, before she was Marilyn, Norma Jean Baker was a brunette.  This brings up one of the things that I feel limns the difference between the flaxen and the dusky.  A great many blondes aren’t blondes at all.  In the spirit of honesty, there are a number of blondes who turn toward the dark side as well, but usually (or at least more noticeably) the trend is to go from dark to light, not the other way around.  What’s incredible to me is that a great many of the bottled blondes I’ve seen are actually more attractive as they were (not all, certainly, but a lot).  Yet, society holds the golden-haired up on a pedestal while pushing the darker-haired into the shadows.  But maybe that’s where they should be.  Maybe if they were more popular, they wouldn’t hold the same allure for me.  It’s like the Eddie Murphy routine about how if you just have the same old crackers every day, you don’t appreciate it, but if you’re starving, one cracker is the greatest thing in the world (he tells it funnier than we’re going for here, and his routine’s not actually about crackers, but work with me on this).  I will say this, though, Pamela Gidley, the star of Tim Boxell’s Aberration, has been on both sides of this follicular coin, and I have to say, she is utterly stunning in either mode.

Amy (Gidley) and her cat Frankie drive into the remote mountain village of Langdon (somewhere in the USA, I assume) in the dead of winter.  Returning to her family’s old, dilapidated cabin, she stashes a money belt under the loose floor boards.  Meanwhile, lethal, leapin’ lizards roam around, picking off what animals and people they can and tormenting Amy with their shenanigans.  When her car fails, though, she manages to bum a ride back to her cabin from local biologist (and all-around pantywaist) Marshall (Simon Bossell) on the promise of letting him look at some grotesque egg sacs lying all over her place (talk about a come-on).  Needless to say, the lizards are more than they appear (well, yes and no), but they may not be the only threat once a blizzard sets in, stranding Amy and Marshall with no option but to fight for their lives.

Weather is one of those devices which seem tailor made for films.  The dead heat of summer can reflect the sweat-drenched strain of heightened sexuality as well as a strong nostalgia for childhood (which many people consider the summer of their lives).  A thunderstorm can denote a maelstrom of emotion as well as the impending inevitability and chaos of a final confrontation.  Weather is one of the things I appreciate when it’s used meaningfully in a movie, even when it’s somewhat cliché.  A storm is always a-brewin’ in films (especially Action and Horror) and particularly as they enter their third act.  But what’s interesting to me in this film is the idea of the “mean season.”  It’s not just winter, it’s a brutal winter.  You don’t just snuggle up in your comforter and nap your way to spring.  No, everyday is a struggle for survival.  Food is scarce, and every step you take out of doors could easily be your last.  Snow blindness is omnipresent, making everywhere menacing, since (like the dark or the ocean depths or a thick fog) you can never be totally sure what’s out there only inches away until it’s upon you, and you’re already dead. Sure, the bears are hibernating for the winter, but that’s because they’re smarter than the humans who try to last out the term.

And here’s where I need to bring up one of the larger aggravations in Aberration.  At no time is there any sense of urgency nor is there any indication that the characters feel they are in danger of any kind.  Amy and Marshall wreck a car on a snow-covered road, but they behave as if they stubbed their toes.  Surrounded by mutated lizards who can scurry inside the walls and attack at any moment, our heroes act like they’re just some mice that need exterminating, not a menace that could cost them their lives at any moment.  Every plot point reeks of nugacity, and I can only assume that everyone in front of and behind the camera were only concerned with enjoying a relaxing vacation in New Zealand (where the film was shot, from what I gather) rather than portraying any sense that they take any of this seriously or selling said feeling(s) to the audience.

Like the creatures in the Alien series, the lizards in this film hatch from disgusting-looking eggs and have a knack for evolution.  However, unlike the Alien, these miniature Gila monsters, don’t actually go through stages, and their adaptations are so rapid and unsignaled, they play like the facile plot conveniences they are just to keep the plot (such as it is) alive (though not necessarily moving).  Matters are entirely unaided by the special creature effects, which appear to me as if a bunch of lizard toys were bought at the local McRory’s (or whatever five-and-dime store they have in New Zealand, if they even still had them by 1997) and then tugged around the sets on fishing line.  The idea inherent in the beasts, that they constantly become something new, shed skin as reptiles are wont to do (at least to my knowledge), and reveal themselves reborn, is a strong one, and it is evinced to a slight extent in the human protagonists.  Sadly, like damn near everything else in the film, it’s little more than capricious veneer and wasted opportunity (a trait I always find deeply regrettable in movies).  I have seen movies where the budget wouldn’t buy a can of Coca Cola (with or without inflation), but they were still more entertaining than Aberration, because the filmmakers cared about what they were putting onscreen (even if what they were putting onscreen was crap), and unless the viewer is completely oblivious, they will feel it, and if they care even remotely about cinema, they will resent it.

MVT:  The setup is solid for a low budget Horror film, and it contains all the elements it needs to be a solid low budget Horror film (including capable actors).  That the film fails the premise isn’t the premise’s fault.  It’s the fault of the filmmakers.

Make Or Break:  If you’ve read any synopsis for this film, you know that the money Amy hid in the cabin floor is not entirely hers.  When the money’s owner (or co-owner, it’s all semantics) Uri (Valeriy Nikolaev) shows up, the movie suddenly becomes an exercise in ridiculousness.  This guy flops around like he’s practicing Mad Monkey Kung Fu (he’s not, just so we’re all on the same page and you don’t go getting your hopes up), and instead of creating another formidable obstacle for the protagonists, he instead creates a target for the viewer’s derision.

Score:  4.5/10

 **Like this review?  Share it with a friend.  Hate it?  Share it with an enemy.**

Monday, February 4, 2013

Episode #221: Sahara Cross

Welcome to another episode of the GGtMC!!!

This week we are bringing you coverage of Sahara Cross (1978) directed by Tonino Valleri and starring Franco Nero sponsored by omg-entertainment.com!!! We also go over some feedback and get derailed...BIG TIME.

Direct download: Sahara_Cross.mp3

Emails to midnitecinema@gmail.com

Voicemails to 206-666-5207

Adios!!!