(Lamberto Bava, 1985)
Very very 80's gorefest set in a movie theater in Berlin where demons are unleashed in a screening of a horror movie. Infesting the audience one by one, the remaining cinemagoers find themselves trapped in the very large theater and must fend off the sharp-toothed, evil-eyed demons. Did the 1980's ever produce a timeless horror classic, one that looks like it could have been filmed in another era? I'm really doubting it. That is not really a bad thing, just that very few of the films of the time are genuinely scary because of how dated they appear. And again, I'm not against films being dated, as sometimes it works in this genre's advantage. It's just that anything filmed during the Reagan era sticks out like a sore thumb. Just an observation. Popular hits of the time are the soundtrack, and the score has that bass-heavy, imagine someone walking down a bad alley feel. Most of the actors were dubbed (I think?), and all the women have very breathy voices. The makeup work has the right balance between cheesy and effective, and I winced a few times at how gory things got. The film pitters out as it hits the halfway mark, but still manages to be a fun time. I wish the theatre the film was set in had more character. Popcorn will be a film coming soon to horrorfest, and hopefully that theatre has more personality. As such, Scream 2 currently wins for best movie theater character in a horror movie. GRADE: B
A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET 2: FREDDY'S REVENGE
(Jack Sholder, 1985)
Unknowingly moving in to the house that Nancy inhabited from the first installment, a teenage boy is haunted by Freddy Krueger who sets out to possess him and take his murderspree to reality. Two things worth noting about this sequel. 1.) Freddy is hardly in it until the end. According to the internet, he only appears for 11 minutes. 2.) The whole 'gay' angle. I have no idea what audiences made of it at the time, but its ridiculously unsubtle (like getting hit in the face with a sledgehammer) and its unfathomable anyone watching this film would NOT pick up on it. The main character Jesse (Mark Patton, who is gay) has no interest with his intended love interest, Lisa (Kim Myers, a Meryl Streep doppleganger), instead seems to have eyes only for the popular jock. The two have some hilariously homoerotic exercise scenes, and even the gym coach seems to be after him. And its said repeatedly that Freddy wants to be IN Jesse. And this isn't even mentioning the scene where he dances in his bedroom. So, should one be offended by this? I'd say no, given Jesse is the hero and we are meant to root for him. For as big as a percentage of the horror audience is gay, there's very little actual homosexuality displayed in the genre outside of recent TV like True Blood and American Horror Story. I think this film would be the perfect example for the morons in one of my college classes where we viewed The Celluloid Closet. They thought that film was 'finding stuff that wasn't there' and just 'outing movie characters for no reason.' It's never expressly STATED that Jesse is gay, but......come on. Point #2 is vital because its probably the only interesting aspect of this rather flat sequel. The nightmare sequences aren't particuarly scary, and by the time Freddy arrives to shred some victims, its too little, too late. GRADE: C+
WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE?
(Robert Aldrich, 1962)
This is more of the type of gay stuff audiences are used to in the genre: camp. A former vaudeville star tortures her successful sister in a Hollywood mansion after a crippling car accident. The film is primarily a point of interest because of its casting of Bette Davis and Joan Crawford, grand divas of the silver screen. Both notoriously hated each other and had a rivalry that lasted decades. This adds another layer to the proceedings and what has given the film such a devout following in the gay community. Davis singing "I'm Writing a Letter to Daddy" in grotesque pancake makeup undoubtedly inspired an army of demented drag queens. So, beyond the camp value, is it a classic psychologic thriller as some believe? I'd say no. I've always had a problem with the term 'psychological thriller', as how many films can we honestly say toyed with our heads? And when people say they like these movies to be more psychological, they are mostly just saying they don't like blood and gore. Not that there's anything wrong with that, mind you. I just didn't get the feeling that this is some untouchable classic, but it is a lot of fun and the actresses are terrific. As was Victor Buono, as the scheming piano man. A remake from Walter Hill is in the works, which prompted equal responses of FUCK NO! and OMG WHO WILL THEY CAST? Throwing in my two cents, I'll go with Cate Blanchett and Kate Winslet because I think both can do over the top and they both are award
No comments:
Post a Comment