Goodbye, Thank You and a Few Last Things

The Party's Over

Well, this should come as no surprise to anyone. I reach more people on Facebook than Caliban's Revenge ever did. And it's quite obvious from the lack of posts that I have been, let's say "otherwise occupied," of late. My life has changed so very much since I started this blog on July 9th, 2008.

At the time, my intent was document the production process of a play I was directing. It was not only on the main stage of my alma mater, it was also being showcased at the first International Thornton Wilder Society Conference being hosted by said alma mater. The play was The Skin of Our Teeth. My concept was Steampunk and it was awesome, if I do say so myself! Of course, we hadn't even had auditions when I first posted and I needed something to talk about... so I posted about one of my other passions: Movies. Specifically, 10 Fantasy/Horror/Sci-Fi Movies that Need to Be Re-made. Which you can read right here, if you are so inclined. And since I'll be closing out with very same topic, you might be interested to see the differences between the two (several have been or are in the process of being made by now).

As I wrote more and more, reviewing movies; commenting on politics; promoting charities; raging against the machine; promoting LGBT issues or just being silly for the sake of being silly, I poured an awful lot about myself onto these posts. And enough people responded to make it fun. I met the amazing Stephen Rutledge and Stephen Rader (and a few other amazing folks) thanks to this blog. And I have corresponded with folks all over the world, thanks to this blog.  Since I started, I lost my mother and met an extraordinary man who came to me exactly when I needed him the most. The world, to paraphrase Tolkien,'has moved on.' And I, with it.

I hope I have entertained you; made you laugh or made you angry or made you feel anything at all. If I did, then I win! If not, then why did you bother reading? I am still doing lots of writing for myself and J has encouraged me to get back to revising some of my 'almost' screenplays, so I am going to do just that. And who knows? I may be back. I'd love to do a Home Cooking blog. Yes, I know; done to death. But by a gay bear who is REALLY good at it?

Anyway, below is Uncle P's final post on Caliban's Revenge:

10 Sci-fi/Horror/Fantasy Movies that Need to Be Re-Made

10. Something Wicked This Way Comes. Ray Bradbury's amazing novel was done a disservice by the Disney version. The novel was a significant influence on me at a young age and remains one of my all time favorites. It needs to be done right.

 9. Ghost Story. Peter Straub's terrifying novel is given very short shrift in John Irvin's eviscerated film version. A quartet of once-greats can't save this mess, though it did introduce genre favorite Alice Krige to U.S. audiences. A more faithful adaptation of the novel is long overdue, even it means a sprawling 3+ hours run-time. Straub's complex story deserves no less.

 8. Flash Gordon. Yes, I said it! Even the cheesiest of cheese lovers admit how queso this 1980 cult classic is. And trust me, I adore it as much as anyone else, probably even more. It is exactly the kind of movie the word 'Camp" has come to describe and it is it's own perfect thing. But in the character's heyday, Flash Gordon was a serious Sci-Fi Adventure tale and an imaginative, serious  reboot is certainly worth exploring

 7.  Frogs. With James Patterson's "Zoo" taking TV by storm this summer, I MUST talk about this 1972 AIP stinker about animals striking back, if only to prove that everything old is new again. Replace Sam Elliot with Ryan Reynolds; Ray Milland with John Mahoney Joan Van Ark with almost anyone. Seriously.... A doll whose lines are dubbed in by Andie McDowell, even. (Some of you are laughing VERY hard at that joke... I hope).

 6. The Exorcist. Yup. Still on the list. Because I've never found it scary! In fact, the whole 'head-spin' effect is so obvious, I laughed the first time I saw it. That wasn't scripted as a funny moment... I still do not understand the mass hysteria that accompanied the film's initial release. And yes, I understand that one must believe in the devil to be afraid of the devil...  But there are movies that have scared me. This just isn't one.

 5. The Shining. Kubrick was wrong! And while Mick Garris' TV version was closer, neither actually conveys the growing sense of danger and terror as King's prose manages to do. I don't know about you, but I would gladly sit through a 195 minute, R-rated Frank Darabont version!

 4. Mysterious Island. The unofficial sequel to 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, the 1961 film version of  Mysterious Island is set during the U.S. Civil War. It has a terrific Bernard Hermann score and some of Ray Harryhausen's most memorable stop-motion effects. A modern Steampunk version that is more faithful to Jules Verne's novel  could be a hit in the right hands. The 2012 version starring Dwayne Johnson does NOT count.

 3. Demon Seed. Didn't see that one, coming, did you? Dean Koontz (the poor man's Stephen King) wrote the novel about a woman living in a fully computerized house is raped by and gives birth to said computer's hybrid offspring. There is talk of this remake happening. The original is really... odd. 

 2. Logan's Run. I will always push for the movie this dystopian novel deserves. And yes, I am aware of the original's many charms. I still say "Meh." It could (and should) be done better. Persistent rumors of this remake happening make me think it might never be...

 1. The Haunting. The scariest movie ever made was re-made by an action-movie buffoon as one of the most ridiculous movies ever made. Like King Kong, it deserves a remake that respects the original. And I still dare any of you to watch Robert Wise's film alone, with the lights out. You'd wet yourselves, you wimps!

And so ends 7 years of "Opinionated Nonsense." At least on this forum. You can follow and/or friend  me on Facebook. To friend request, please send a Private Message with the phrase "Sea Monster."

Here's the thing:

"Now my charms are all o'erthrown,
what strength I have's mine own,
Which is most faint: now, 'tis true,
I must be here confined by you,
Or sent to Naples. Let me not,
Since I have my dukedom got
And pardon'd the deceiver, dwell
In this bare island by your spell;
But release me from my bands
With the help of your good hands:
Gentle breath of yours my sails
Must fill, or else my project fails,
Which was to please. Now I want
Spirits to enforce, art to enchant,
And my ending is despair,
Unless I be relieved by prayer,
Which pierces so that it assaults
Mercy itself and frees all faults.
As you from crimes would pardon'd be,
Let your indulgence set me free."

No More, anon.
Brian

The Most Egregious Thing You'll See This Week

I was a sophomore in High School when Annie made it's Broadway debut (look it up and do the math). The comic-strip on which the musical was based debuted in 1933 and was still in syndication when the musical first arrived on the Great White Way. It's ubiquitous anthem "Tomorrow" is one the late 20th Century's most recognizable songs and without it, we wouldn't have Sarah Jessica Parker.  The show has had two revivals, one in 1997 and another in 2012. It was made into a not terrible movie in 1982, starring a local gal with whom my mother shared 1 degree of separation, Aileen Quinn (Mom worked with Aileen's mother back in her Playground Monitor days). Carol Burnett and Tim Curry were the villains in director John Huston's fairly faithful version.

News of a new version slated to star Willa Smith arose about three years ago. Last year it was announced that Smith was out, replaced by Beasts of the Southern Wild Oscar-nominee Quvenzhané Wallis.All seemed well and good until we found out that Cameron Diaz (Bad Teacher) and Jaimie Foxx (Ray) were slated to play Miss Hannigan and the updated version of Daddy Warbucks, Benjamin Stacks (get it? -- ugh!). Okay. Fine. Maybe an update is in order. Urban orphans are certainly VERY different today from those of the Great Depression. I have no problem with making older works relevant to modern audiences. I've set both Much Ado About Nothing and Romeo and Juliet in the 20th Century. A timeless story is just that, right?

Wrong.

Look at this trailer for the 2014 Annie and tell me it doesn't make you want to pull your hair out by the roots.

UGH! It's everything I hate about the treacly original show, combined with every unoriginal thought put to paper by modern, corporate filmmakers. Directed by Will Gluck (best known for teen sex comedies like Easy A), this shameless POS is a perfect example of everything wrong with Hollywood and the U.S. film industry today. The trailer makes it clear that this movie will undoubtedly be the miserable flop that it is destined (and deserves) to be.

More, anon.

Prospero

PS - A special thanks to my friend Sally, who first shared that clip.

The Sound of Vincent Spinning

Tim Burton and Johnny Depp have made some terrific movies together. Edward Scissorhands; Ed Wood (Burton's masterpiece, as far I am concerned) and Sleepy Hollow, among them. They've also made increasingly bad movies. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (which I am almost embarrassed to admit I really liked because of it's loyalty to the book, and Depp's creepy, weird and molestery performance); Sweeney Todd (a movie so removed from its very theatrical origins - much like Les Miserables - that it became little more than a slasher movie with songs); Alice in Wonderland (which I found to be actually insulting to Lewis Carroll and all of nonsense. Imagine being insulting to nonsense. It's actually too sad to be considered nonsense) and worst of all, last year's truly awful Dark Shadows. Burton over-estimated the camp value of the series whose fans hated that he tried to make it into a deliberate comedy. The TV show's appeal was never its camp - it was the characters and the story lines. Sure, they were absurd. But that's the nature of genre TV and film. The audience accepts those unlikely conceits by acquiescing to a willing suspension of disbelief. When the absurdities became the point, that suspension shuts down and people hate you for making fun of the show instead of embracing what they loved about it.

Burton used to be an interesting and actually good filmmaker. But then he got jaded and lazy and lost sight of the importance of story. Anymore, his films are about visual tricks and weird CGI. Depp used to be an interesting and fun actor, but since Pirates of the Caribbean  (not a Burton film), he's become a parody of himself, known for being bizarre more than anything else. His upcoming role as Tonto alongside Armie Hammer's Lone Ranger is just further proof of that. Watch this trailer if you don't believe me.

Of course, Burton and I have many common influences, which naturally makes me want to like his work, very much. One of those influences was the amazing genre actor Vincent Price. And while I've certainly seen just about all of Price's films by now (even the non-genre ones), my favorites are what I consider his Masterpiece Trilogy: The Abominable Dr. Phibes; Dr. Phibes Rises Again and Theatre of Blood. The Phibes movies are about a massively disfigured musician and composer taking revenge on those whom he considers responsible for his wife's death, while Theatre of Blood concerns an insane hack Shakespearean actor who, after failing at killing himself, takes revenge on the critics he blames for his failing career.

Today, Naughty But Nice Rob (a blog I've never heard of before, but was linked to via my Facebook feed), is reporting that Burton has cast Depp in his remake of The Abominable Dr. Phibes. And I responded with "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!"  The bizarre, Steampunk/Clockwork/Art Deco horror movie with murders based on the 10 Plagues deserves a better team. I know Burton has a deep reverence for Vincent (indeed, the film that first got him noticed is an homage to our mutual hero and Price's last film was Edward Scissorhands), but I can't imagine either of them restraining themselves enough to make an actually good version of this movie. They must be stopped. I can't handle the thought of Helena Bonham Carter as Vulnavia.

While Theatre of Blood was adapted into a stage play in London a few years ago, I've always thought it deserved a musical adaptation. Wish I could afford the rights to that. Of course, I could always do an "unauthorized" version...

As for the Burton/Depp remake of Phibes? That spinning sound you hear is coming all the way from Mr. Price's grave.

More, anon.
Prospero

Review: "Evil Dead"

Jane Levy in Evil Dead

In 1981, director Sam Raimi and his brother Ted put together a very low budget horror movie called The Evil Dead. The movie caused a bit of a sensation, despite its terrible acting and laughable effects (it also scared the crap out of Uncle P's sister). 1987's Evil Dead II wasn't so much a sequel as a deliberately funny re-make (think The Three Stooges meet The Exorcist). Raimi's last movie in the trilogy, 1992's Army of Darkness, was a full-out horror comedy, combined with a medieval fantasy. The movies made Bruce Campbell a cult star, legitimized Raimi as a director and even spawned an hilarious stage musical. All this from the simple story of five college friends who unwittingly unleash an evil force by reading from a human skin-bound book of spells. Rumors of a fourth movie have taunted fans for decades, but Raimi was busy making the original Spider-Man trilogy, the very under-appreciated Drag Me to Hell and this year's disappointing Oz the Great and Powerful. When it was announced that he would be producing (along with Campbell) a reboot, written and directed by Uruguayan director Fede Alvarez, fans were up arms. Today, Dear D and I saw the new version, and I'm happy to report that Alvarez and company (with a few exceptions) got most of it right.

Mia ("Suburgatory" star Jane Levy) is a drug addict trying to go cold turkey with the help of her brother David and their friends, who have chosen Mia and David's family cabin in the woods to seclude themselves while she goes through withdrawal. What they don't know is that the cabin was recently the site of a ritual to... well, the less said about that, the better. The performers of said ritual have left behind a dozen or so dead cats and a book wrapped in plastic and barbed wire. Unable to contain his curiosity, Eric (Lou Taylor Pucci), the scholar among the group, unwraps the book and reads aloud from it, opening the door for a terrible demonic entity which invades Mia and basically dooms them all.

Approaching the story as a full-out Horror movie mostly pays off for Alvarez, working from a script he wrote along with Rodo Sayagues and an uncredited Diablo Cody (Jennifer's Body). The four friends have vowed to keep Mia at the cabin, no matter how much she begs to go home. When she starts behaving strangely, they attribute it to withdrawal and ignore her pleas to leave. Of course, things quickly escalate and it is soon apparent that something is very wrong. The violence and gore escalate, with plenty of stabbing; gouging; shredding; dismemberment and enough blood to fill an Olympic pool (this isn't a movie for the faint of heart, kids). There are demonic voices, slamming doors and exploding mirrors; raping trees, scalding showers and more than a few homages to the original (Mia is first discovered sitting atop Ash's dilapidated car, for one). I was fine with all of it, until the movie went and used two truly ridiculous cliches that drive me crazy - SPOILERS AHEAD: Skip to the next paragraph to avoid them. Cliche #1: Nail guns cannot fire nails like a firearm! There is a safety catch on every nail gun ever made which makes this impossible. Cliche #2: Shooting a plastic gas can will never cause an explosion! Gasoline itself is flammable, but not explosive. Gasoline fumes are explosive, but require a flame or a spark to ignite them and neither can be achieved by shooting through a plastic container. I don't know why Hollywood continues to perpetrate these fallacies. They are insults to the audience's intelligence and they should go away forever (though I'm sure they won't). 

The actors in the new version are certainly better than in Raimi's original, with Levy going all-out to make Mia as different as possible from the character she plays on "Suburgatory." Shiloh Fernandez (Deadgirl: Red Riding Hood) is fine as David, Mia's conflicted brother. Pucci (Carriers); Jessica Lucas (Coverfield) and newcomer Elizabeth Blackmore are all more than competent in what must have been physically demanding roles. Alvarez's direction takes several cues from Raimi's original, including running shots through the woods and close-ups of painful-looking slicing and dicing. D and I both winced more than a few times at the imagined pain the characters were put through (not that she would, but my dear Q should avoid this one at all costs). Alvarez thankfully eschews CG imagery and opts for physical FX which far outshine Raimi's original efforts. All in all, I had a great time, though D was disappointed at the lack of camp. *** (Three Out of Four Stars). And fans of the original should stay for a special Easter Egg after the credits.

On a personal note, I was horrified to see a family bring a young boy who couldn't have been more than 8 or 9 to see this movie. Inappropriate on so many levels for such a young kid, I hope they are kept awake all night by the boy's nightmares. Evil Dead is rated a hard "R" for language and extreme gore, violence and horror. Anyone who brings a child to see it should be reported for abuse.

Oh - One more thing... why do filmmakers allow trailers to contain material which doesn't actually appear in the final cut? 

More, anon.
Prospero

Jurassic Pork

Chicken Flavour?

Jurassic Park IV has been rumored for so long, I had begun to think it wouldn't and probably shouldn't happen. Remember back in 2007 when it was announced that the movie was being cast and would feature dinosaurs with guns? That makes about as much sense as Chicken Flavoured Vegetarian Ham (and whatever the hell that is, keep it as far away from me as possible, please and thank you!).

Now, as much as I liked the original movie and hate both of it's even more ridiculous sequels (OK - I'll admit that I laughed when the Japanese tourists were running from the T-Rex in JP2), the idea of a third sequel never really sat well with me. In fact, most sequels (with a few exceptions), remakes and reboots (again, with a few exceptions) never really sit well with me. I've always been interested in original films with original ideas and find most such films to be lazy attempts to cash in on something that has already proven to be successful. Ever see The Sting II or Superman IV? How about Bewitched, The Dukes of Hazard or The Stepford Wives? Ugh!

That's not to say that all such films are terrible. But for every The Italian Job or The Fly, there's a Godzilla, The Wolfman or The Wicker Man taking big, smelly dumps on the originals. 

Indiewire is now reporting that Universal Pictures has scheduled Jurassic Park IV for release in June of 2014 (of course, they're also reporting that a script has been commissioned for the completely unnecessary Pirates of the Caribbean V, but I digress). The real news in this story is that the latest script for Jurassic Park IV has been written by Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver, the writers behind the very entertaining Rise of the Planet of the Apes, which revived the franchise that was nearly destroyed by Tim Burton's 2001 remake starring Mark Wahlberg. I can only imagine that if anyone can revive the late Sci-Fi writer Michael Chrichton's vision, it's these two.

Still - I can only wonder where they might take the story and must offer up a few ideas of my own.:

1. Jurassic Park IV: Dinos on the Run. Knowing they are feared and despised by the public at large, the dinosaurs go on the lam, hiding in seedy motels under bad pseudonyms like 'John Dodecasaurus' and 'Tommy Rex.' Pursued by a team of government agents led by Leonardo DiCaprio, they soon find themselves lost in world of alcohol, drugs and loose women. Directed by Gary Sherman and starring Wings Hauser as John.

2. Jurassic Park IV: Night of the Giant Iguana. A former priest leads a group of aging women on a tour of Isla Nublar and learns a valuable lesson about his life's failure before being eaten by a pack of hungry velociraptors. Starring Hugh Jackman, Dame Judi Dench, Dame Helen Mirren and Dame Maggie Smith. Directed by Danny Boyle.

3. Jurassic Park IV: Rise of the Iguanadons. When an evil dinosaur threatens to take over the world, it's up to a team of Europasuruses to stop her from turning the world into a frozen wasteland. Animated. With the voice talents of Jude Law, Isla Fisher, Alec Baldwin and Fran Drescher as the Iguanadon. Directed by Don Bluth and produced by Peter Jackson and Guillermo del Toro.

4. Jurassic Park IV: Lost in Pangaea. A lonely Allosuarus pines for a simpler time when 80's New Wave music ruled the airwaves and size 127 Chucks were available in hot pink. When she's married off to the Rex of Pangaea, Allie realizes how empty her life is and willingly submits to death by meteor. Starring Parker Posey, Steve Carrell, Bill Murray and Kirsten Dunst as Allie. Directed by Sophia Coppola and Christopher Guest.

5. Jurassic Park IV: We Just Don't Care Anymore. Dinosaurs kill everyone and destroy everything. Starring Matthew Broderick; Pierce Brosnan; Helen Hunt; Hank Azaria; Betty White; Ed Asner; Pam Grier; Samuel L. Jackson; Sid Haig; Anne Heche; Woody Harrelson; Jake Gyllenhaal; Harvey Fierstein; Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio and the corpse of Charleton Heston. Directed by Roland Emmerich and Seth MacFarland.

Spielberg's original Jurassic Park is scheduled for a 20th Anniversary (HOLY CRAP!) 3D IMAX re-release later this year. I only hope that Jaffa and Silver have been able to come up with a script worthy of their Apes re-boot that is as excitingly entertaining as David Keopp's adaptation of Chrichton's novel.

More, anon.
Prospero

Two Very Different Tales of Horror

Jane Levy ("Suburgatory") in The Evil Dead

After five and a half years, regular readers know how much I love Horror Movies and how much I loathe hypocritical homophobes. Yet, they have something very much in common: they're both scary, though in very different ways.

Horror Movies are escapist nonsense, tapping into fear of not just death, but losing control of the circumstances surrounding our lives. Fighting against forces from beyond; escaping and/or killing the homicidal maniac; sending the demon(s) back to hell or beating the devil at his own game allows us a vicarious sense of empowerment. And even when a Horror Movie ends with the villain(s) victorious, we know that when the lights come up in the auditorium at the end we have survived and our own lives are better than the victims of the maniac/demon/ghost/monster that killed all those horny teenagers.

The same can't be said for the hypocritical homophobe. These people are far more insidious than any film monster, gnawing away at the truth like sewer vermin and spewing their own self-loathing in an attempt to feel better about themselves, regardless of the pain and suffering of their targets. Such behavior couldn't be more apparent than what 'Reverand' Joseph Sciambra (who claims to not only be an 'ex-gay' but a former gay 'porn star) has to say in the repellant video (via) posted below (probably NSFW):

Yes, most professional sex-trade workers probably suffer from low self-esteem -- though I personally know of at least one retired adult performer who loved what he did while he was doing it. Still, without the right mindset, porn actors rarely end up as successes in their later lives. But that certainly doesn't mean any one of them gave 'anal birth' to demons. Sciambra (obviously still gay, despite his claims of 'redemption') proves my point with his looney claims. The dangerous notion that one can change sexuality through prayer continues to be one of the leading causes of suicide among young LGBT people who feel guilt at having failed to live up to the ridiculous religious standards set by their families and churches. I can't imagine anything scarier than hating myself just for being who I am.

Personally, I prefer my horror to be gory, gruesome and fictional. I was living in CA when Sam Raimi's The Evil Dead was released in 1981 and my (very liberal) Christian sister called to tell me about the 'scariest movie' she'd ever seen. Of course, I had to go. Imagine my surprise and disappointment at seeing a rather silly, low-budget movie that hardly made any sense at all. It wasn't until Raimi's 1987 satirical sequel that I truly appreciated what he and his brothers were trying to say about the genre. And while I do have a special place in my heart for Army of Darkness, the concept had pretty much been reduced to the equivalent of a Three Stooges haunted house short by the time it was released. Indeed, that was long before "This is my boomstick!" became an internet meme.

Of course, the musical stage version of Evil Dead was nothing short of brilliant and remains on my short list of shows I desperately want to direct:

When it was announced that a reboot was on the way, I joined the haters in denouncing the need for it. But having now seen the red-band trailer for director Fede Alverez's film, I think I have to take back everything I said about it, previously. Given the advances in SFX technology and the support of Raimi and original star (and genre legend) Bruce Campbell, I honestly cannot wait to see the new version of the story. The trailer, in all it's gory glory, is below, though I must caution those who are the least bit squeamish.

I've already scheduled a long-awaited man-date with my friend James, to see the new version. I can't wait!

More, anon.
Prospero

Ghosts in the Machines

In the late 90's and early Aughts, Japanese Horror (or "J-Horror") was all the rage. Popularized by American adaptions of films like Ringu (The Ring) and Ju-on (The Grudge), these usually bizarre and often nonsensical tales of terror combined ancient Japanese mythology with modern Japanese technology to provide a unique perspective on Japanese culture. The least successful American adaption of these movies (2006's Pulse) came from one the best J-Horrors: 2001's Kairo.

Kudo works at a nursery with her friends Sasano, Toshio and Taguchi. When Taguchi doesn't show up for work for several days, Kudo visits him in his apartment, where he excuses himself to commit suicide in another room. Kudo investigates and finds a computer program which appears to be an "infinity mirror" of Taguchi staring at himself in a computer monitor. Meanwhile, economics student Ryosuke logs onto a new ISP and soon finds that his computer is turning itself on and accessing some very strange websites. Toshio receives a phone call in which the dead Taguchi whispers "Help me." Toshio becomes depressed and eventually ends up disappearing into a black smudge on the wall in the room in which Taguchi hanged himself. Ryosuke enlists his friend, computer expert Harue, to investigate the strange things happening on his computer, but she can find nothing wrong. Eventually, the two story lines collide and people all over Japan start to disappear. Ryosuke and Kudo eventually end up on an apparently abandoned ship headed for South America, though even at sea, they seem unable to escape the inevitable.

Admittedly, Kairo isn't an actioner. The story unfolds at an easy pace and the mysteries build upon one another slowly. Still, director Kiyoshi Kurasawa manages to create loads of atmospheric tension. I watched this film alone, late at night and found myself desperate to see around corners, while terrified at the thought of what I might find there. There are tons of things left unexplained (For example, what's the significance of the red tape they keep finding?) and the end leaves much to be desired - something to do with the afterworld being too full to contain the souls of the dead. But the film manages to touch on tons of subjects relevant to modern anxieties, the least of which is the soullessness of modern technology and the emptiness felt by many of its users. 

By all means avoid the 2006 American remake, which is probably the most boring ghost movie ever made and which bears very little resemblance to the original.

More, anon.
Prospero

Retro Review: 5 For and 5 Against "Mother's Day"

So, I finally got to see the much talked-about 'remake' of Mother's Day from director Darren Lynn Bousman (Repo: The Genetic Opera) and I first have to say that it resembles Charles Kaufman's 1980 Troma slasher as much as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre resembles Psycho. They may share the same source material, but they are two very different films. And I must admit, Bousman's is the more successful of two. 

A suburban house party is interrupted when three bank-robbing brothers force their way into the home where they grew up, only to discover that their mother doesn't live there anymore. Brother Johnny (Matt O'Learly) has been shot. Brothers Addley (Warren Kole from USA's "Common Law") and Ike (Patrick Fluegler from "The 4400") call Mother to come get them. When Mother and Sister arrive, all hell breaks loose and the movie becomes a story of survival, torture, desperation and revenge. 

It's late and I'm tired, so here's another 5 For/Five Against review, inspired (as always) by my buddy, Sean:

5 For:

1. Rebecca De Mornay, best known for Risky Business and The Hand that Rocks the Cradle, gives a new career-defining performance as Mother. As chilling as she may have been in Cradle, she is absolutely terrifying as a woman who will go to any lengths to protect her children.

2. Shawn Ashmore (X-Men; X2) is practically perfect as George, the doctor forced to attend to a killer and who has perfect insight into Mother's manipulations (on a side note, his twin brother Aaron can be seen on my favorite steampunk SyFy show, "Warehouse 13").

3. Scott Milam's screenplay transforms Kaufman's characters into real life people, as opposed to the cartoonish villains Kaufman gave us in the original.

4. Warren Kole's obviously insane Addley was the antithesis of the character he plays on "Common Law." Kole proves himself an actor who is not afraid to go where he needs to in order to achieve the performance required. Addley is definitely not a guy you want to meet in a dark alley.

5. Bousman manages to create an intense feeling of claustrophobia in what is probably his most artistically successful film to date. Yes, there are plenty of scenes set outside the house where the main action takes place, but the scenes in the house's basement are particularly upsetting and disturbing.

5 Against:

1. The violent torture depicted in the film may be a bit much for some viewers. I was able to distance myself, but some folks may find some scenes too much to handle.

2. Jaime King ("Heart of Dixie") as the film's "final girl" just didn't cut it for me. Her rather one-note performance didn't make Beth a character I wanted to root for.

3. The movie keeps referencing an impending tornado which is threatening the Nebraska town in which the film is set but we never get to see any evidence of such a storm.

4. Stupid cops. A cop arrives at the house and obviously suspects something is wrong, yet he never calls for back up and (SPOILER ALERT) announces his presence without being sure the killer is actually dead.

5. The ending (SPOILER ALERT 2). Characters who should have been dead, survive and pull off a highly improbable kidnapping. 

Overall, I liked the movie. It's one of the better 'Home Invasion' films in recent memory and proves that Bousman is capable of making a film that doesn't rely on weird makeup prosthetics or strange mechanical devices to make an interesting, if very disturbing, film. **1/2 (Two and a Half Out of Four Stars).

More, anon.
Prospero

Another Remake I Don't Mind

Chloe Grace Moretz as Carrie

I was not quite a High School Freshman when I first read Stephen King's debut novel "Carrie" in 1974 (yes, we've established that I'm old). It was set in 1979, the year I was going to graduate. In my class was a young lady who very much reminded me of Carrie: shy, odd, withdrawn... in the callous way that young teens can be cruel, my friends and I occasionally referred to her as 'Carrie' (I very much regret that, by the way).

When Brian DePalma's amazing film adaptation came out in 1976, I was stunned by not only Sissy Spacek's and Piper Laurie's performances, but also DePalma's direction. I'd never seen a movie like it and I was in awe. I can't even tell you how many times I've seen Carrie since then. Certainly more than a few dozen. And it never fails to move and entertain me. Those split-screen shots are just incredible.

Flash forward 36 years later and director Kimberly Pierce (Boys Don't Cry) is currently shooting a theatrical remake (I don't want to talk about David Carson's 2002 TV remake, which despite a script by Bryan Fuller and good performances by Angela Bettis and Patricia Clarkson, failed on almost every level), starring Chloe Grace Moretz (Let Me In); Julianne Moore (The Kids Are All Right) and the always amazing and underrated Judy Greer. And despite what one of my fellow horror bloggers has to say about her, I think Moretz is one of the finest young actresses working in film today and I can't wait to see what she does with the role. As for for Moore - she's been robbed of awards before (her performance in Far From Heaven is just heartbreaking) and I imagine her take on religious zealot Margaret White will be nothing less than amazing.

DePalma's film, as good as it is, is a little dated and a bit corny (the tuxedo scene always seemed out of place, even way back then) and the TV version is bound by the conventions of the medium. If anyone can pull off a decent remake, it's Pierce, who demonstrated an intense insight into the psyche of an outsider in her first film (which garnered Hillary Swank her first Oscar).

Spacek and Laurie both earned Oscar nominations for their performances in the original, but AMPAS' aversion to Horror as a serious genre kept them from winning. Let's hope that Pierce can work her magic and earn her leads the awards their predecessors deserved.

The original also featured Scream Queen PJ Soles (Halloween); Broadway superstar Betty Buckley; TV superhero William Katt; Steven Spielberg's first wife Amy Irving; DePalma's ex-wife Nancy Allen; brilliant comedienne Edie McClurg and the second film appearance by alleged masseur-groper and avowed Scientologist, John Travolta (he was in a terrible, though iconic little horror movie called The Devil's Rain, previously). What a cast! 

And while I have every confidence that Pierce will deliver a competent and frightening version of King's novel, I doubt she'll be able to top this:

And the less said about the two productions of the stage musical, the better.

More, anon.
Prospero

I Missed My Anniversary But Not My Birthday!

I can't believe I missed the 4th Anniversary of Caliban's Revenge. It seems like just yesterday. But I suppose that since today is my birthday (yes, I'm a Cancerian, though many astrologers prefer the term "Moon Child") I can add the two together in one post.

And since I have done so before, I'm going to update my first real post "10 Fantasy/Sci-Fi Movies That Should Be Remade:"

10. 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. Steampunk is everywhere these days, and what better vehicle to exploit it than Jules Verne's classic novel about a pacifist and his nuclear submarine? Disney's 1954 classic version invented SCUBA (Self Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus) and involves an investigation into narwhal attacks, but ends up releasing the Kraken. Modern effects could make or break a remake.

9. Logan's Run. This one has been kicking around forever. The original is pure cheese, dated and almost silly, though it won an Oscar for Special Effects. I wonder if Farrah Fawcett was one of them... Anyway, it's well overdue for an update that's truer to the source material.

8.The Haunting. Jan de Bont's abysmal remake isn't worth mentioning, though Robert Wise's original 1963 film adaptation of Shirley Jackson's novel remains the scariest movie ever made (I dare you to watch it alone with the lights off). Just imagine what a good director can do with the material today.

7. Something Wicked This Way Comes. Disney's 1983 version misses out on so many of the things that make Ray Bradbury's novel one of my all-time favorites. A better script (even though Bradbury wrote the Disney version), combined with modern FX would make Something Wicked... a true movie event.

6. The Exorcist. Currently playing as minimally staged play, William Peter Blatty's novel about demonic possession was a sensation, as was William Friedkin's movie. Personally, I never thought the movie all that scary (though I suppose belief in such things helps). While Dick Smith's physical makeup FX were state-of-the-art at the time, imagine that spinning head today.

5. The Shining. People who love Stanley Kubrick's version of The Shining have never read Stephen King's brilliant and terrifying novel about a haunted Colorado hotel and the family that spends a winter taking care of it. Give me the money to do so, and I'll make a version that will make you poop your pants!

4. Ghost Story. While I personally don't believe in ghosts, Peter Straub's novel about ancient evil really got to me when I first read it. Imagine my disappointment at the lame, truncated movie version. 

3. The Stranger Within. This ABC TV Movie of the Week featured Barbara Eden ("I Dream of Jeannie") as a woman impregnated with an alien child. For the 70's, it was awesome. I imagine a new version would be even better.

2. Metropolis. Fritz Lang's silent masterpiece about social classes is more relevant today than ever before. A remake would be the ultimate 99% allegory. 

1. The Wizard of Oz. Heresy, you say? Wicked is still a massive Broadway hit and Sam Raimi's Oz, the Great and Powerful looks like it's going to be amazing. With so many remakes of other classics in the pipes, why not remake Hollywood's most famous fantasy? Do you know how many film versions of Alice in Wonderland there are? 

I'll be seeing Chris Nolan's birthday present to me (The Dark Knight Rises) this weekend, but I have to know what movie(s) you would like to see remade.

More, anon.
Prospero

Give Me $30M and I'll Scare the Crap Out of You

Sorry about the delay. I started this post very late and then decided I needed to think about it some more.

Anyway... An actor friend and I have been trying to plan a Man Date for some time now. We both love horror films and decided that we must see see Dario Argento's Dracula 3D together. The movie is currently showing at Cannes, where it has received wildly mixed reviews. I sent Jimmy a link to a viciously bad one and he sent me a link to a glowing one. He also mentioned a documentary about the making of Stanley Kubrick's version of The Shining, a film Uncle P really doesn't like very much at all (and I've said so here, before). And I'll tell you why.

Stephen King's third published novel caught me completely off guard when I first read it back in 1977. The story of an alcoholic playwright who takes a job as the winter caretaker of a Colorado hotel and is consequently driven mad by the many ghosts who inhabit it, The Shining was the first novel I ever read that actually gave me goosebumps. Jack, Wendy and Danny Torrence were a family about whom King made you care about and then fear for. When it was announced that none other than the great Stanley Kubrick was making the film version, I was practically ecstatic. And then Kubrick blew it. 

Woefully miscast (with the exception of Scatman Crothers as the cook, Dick Halloran) and with so many changes to and deviations from the source material as to be practically unrecognizable, Kubrick's film actually angered me when I first saw it. In the novel, a sober Jack Torrence is a reasonable and likeable fellow, who slowly descends into madness thanks to the machinations of the malevolent forces that haunt the hotel. In the hands of Jack Nicholson (who by then had already established a film persona), Jack starts out pretty crazy and his escalation into full madness is hardly shocking or surprising. Jack's wife Wendy, a strong self-aware woman in the book, comes off as a wimpy nerd in Shelly Duvall's performance. And the less said about the very annoying Danny Lloyd, the better.  As for Kubrick and Diane Johnson's screenplay, don't get me started. I understand that the technology for rendering a believable living  topiary garden wasn't available in 1979, but the hedge maze isn't really a very good substitute. And what about the roque mallets; the wasps' nest; the pornographic clock; the faulty boiler and all the back-stories of the hotel's former guests? Gone, gone, gone. Instead, we are given unexplained glimpses of things that happened (the dog-masked fellator; the woman in the bathtub; the twins). In the book, all of these characters are given credence for their inclusion in the story. In Kubrick's film, they are merely weird things to look at, which have no bearing on the plot. Kubrick even went so far as to completely change the ending; SPOILER ALERT killing Halloran and leaving Jack to freeze to death in the maze. In the book, Jack (an unrecognizable monster after repeated bashing his own face with a roque mallet) dies as the hotel explodes from the long-ignored boiler in the basement.

I know plenty of people who love this movie. Not one of them has ever read the book. Everyone I know who has read the book, doesn't really like the movie, either. Even King doesn't like the movie and has said that Kubrick drove him crazy while filming, often phoning in the middle of the night to discuss odd details or strange ideas he wanted to include. Objectively, as a movie on it's own, I won't deny that Kubrick's film is brilliant. It has several iconic moments and images. But it's just not very true to King's terrifying novel in any number of ways.

In 1997, director (and friend of King's) Mick Garris made a two-part TV movie of The Shining starring Stephen Weber, Rebecca De Mornay and Melvin Van Peebles. While Garris' version is holds closer to the novel than Kubrick's, the limits of television kept him from making a truly frightening version of the novel. 

The budget for Kubrick's version (according to IMDb) was around $22M. Adjusted for inflation, that's probably somewhere near $100M today. Garris' 1997 budget was $25M. I know and love this novel. I've read it probably five or six times. It's probably my third favorite novel of all time. So here's my challenge - give me $30M, a cast of unknowns and final edit, and I promise you I could make a version of The Shining that is truer to the source and scarier than any piece of crap that a hack like Oren Pelli could ever hope to make. 

I'm not bragging. I'm just saying.

More, anon.
Prospero

Love You, Mom!

Now Playing in Limited Release

We'll talk about Rebecca De Mornay's on screen parenting history and Darren Lynn Bousman's re-imagining  of Charles Kaufman's 1980 'classic' (and I use the term loosely here) in a moment. I promise. It's not like I've seen it or anything, so cool your jets, okay?

"Cool your jets" was something my mother used to say to my sister and I when we got too excited or worked up about something. I don't know how well it worked, but she said it. A lot.  These days, Mom says plenty of amusing things - her malapropisms, Spoonerisms and downright mispronunciations are often quite hilarious (luckily to both of us).  Mom wanted nothing more than to be a mother. She still gets all weepy and adoring at the sight of a cute baby (young "Raising Hope" stars Baylee and Rylee Cregut are among her -- and I must admit, my -- current favs). 

Mom's also a very girly-girl mom. You all know what I mean. She loves girly things: butterflies; wind chimes; bird-feeders; flowers; kittens; diamonds... Not that boys can't or shouldn't love those things... (What the hell did I just start there? I didn't mean to start anything. -- Shut up, Bri! You're just making it worse! Oh, crap!)

Anyway - After a delicious brunch of homemade, stuffed challa bread French toast this mid-morning, Mom opened her gifts from me. She got a stained-glass butterfly chime; a 3D butterfly bookmark and... because she had asked for it for Christmas but didn't get it, two paint-by-number kits: a cat curled up on a bookshelf and finches among hyacinths. She's worried they'll be too complicated for her, bu if she takes her time, I'm sure they'll be beautiful. And of course, even if they're not, I'll tell her they are.

My mother tells me that there isn't a day that goes by that she doesn't miss her own mother, who passed away in 1983. I know that one day I'll know what that feels like but until then, I'll just be glad she's here to tell her how much I love and appreciate her and give her presents. I know lots of folks who aren't close to their moms, and that makes me sad. If your mom is still with you, count your blessings and tell her you love her. You won't be able to one day.

And now once again I find myself segueing from at least sort of sad to silly. So here goes:

Rebecca De Mornay first caught audiences' attention as the train-loving prostitute Lana opposite Tom Cruise in his star-making role in the 1983 teen sex comedy Risky Business.She did several things after that, but it wasn't until 1992's The Hand that Rocks the Cradle, in which she played an evil, scheming nanny, that we really got to see her chew some scenery. She played Wendy in the TV version of The Shining and did plenty of TV shows. And now she's back on the big screen in a movie that was origanlly scheduled for release in 2010, Mother's Day. In the 1980 original, two-backwoods loons (Fredrick Coffin and Michael McCleery) brought sluts home for their elderly mother (Beatrice Pons) to mete out punishment. In the new version, De Mornay plays Mother Koffin (sound familiar?), who returns to the home she once owned with her boys in tow, ready to wreak havoc on slutty teens, once again. Reviews for the film have been spotty, at best, though most critics are quite complimentary to De Mornay and can't help but compare Mother Koffin to Peyton Flanders from ...Cradle. I like that De Morney, while never a huge star, sill manages to fly under the radar while garnering excellent reviews for her performances. As a character actor myself, I get it. It's great to play all these wonderfully diverse and ofetn eccentric roles, but it's even better when you can steal the whole thing for yourself.

Mother's Day is currently playing in limited release. As soon as this boy in the sticks gets the chance to see it, I'll be reviewing it.

And yes, that is Iceman, cutie Shawn Ashmore as one of Mama's boys.

Here's the trailer for Kaufman's original:



More, anon.
Prospero

They're All Gonna Laugh at You!

Sissy Spacek in Brian DePalma's 1976 version of "Carrie"

Uncle P is old. I was in high school when Brian DePalma adapted Stephen King's first novel into an incredibly well-acted movie, starring Sissy Spacek; Amy Irving; William Katt; John Travolta; Nancy Allen; PJ Soles; Betty Buckley and the incomparable Piper Laurie as Carrie's religious nut-job mother. I wasn't old enough to drive and none of my friends wanted to see it, so I somehow convinced my mother to drop me off at the Eric Twin in Fairless Hills on a Saturday afternoon, where the bored girl in the box-office almost sold me a ticket to the soft-core porn version of Tarzan, which was also playing there. But I was a die-hard horror fan (and a relatively naive kid), so I opted to see my first choice. I had read and loved King's novel (structured in the form of diary entries, newspaper articles and court transcripts, much like Stoker's Dracula) and really wanted to see the film version.

I had no idea how much I was going to love this movie. But love it, I did. Like so many movies, the details of the first time I saw Carrie are firmly entrenched in my memory as one of a few 'perfect' films of my youth. Sure, it had some silly moments (the tuxedo scene; Edie McClurg being at least 10 years too old to be a high-schooler; that damned spinning dance scene), but Spacek was absolutely brilliant. Laurie even more so (they both garnered Oscar nominations). And DePalma's use of split-screen during the prom had me losing my mind. Carrie's eerie candlelit arrival at home; the washing off of the pig's blood; the crucifixion of Paul re-enacted on Carrie's mother. All of it amazing and new and terrifying. I had never seen a movie quite like it. And then there was that ending! As Sue Snell (Irving) knelt to lay flowers on the decimated ground where Carrie's house once stood and that hand popped up through the rocks... I practically leapt from my seat in surprise. I waited outside the theater to picked up, breathless and so excited by what I had just seen -- only to be further unnerved by a fellow who, also waiting for a ride, wanted to tell me all about how the government was testing people just like Carrie to use as weapons in the cold war (the Berlin Wall still stood strong at the time). I nodded and tried not to be freaked out and was exceedingly relieved to see Mom pull up in the family's VW station wagon to pick me up.

I was so very disappointed by Bryan ("Pushing Daisies") Fuller's 2002 TV adaptation, which starred Angela Bettis (May; The Woman) and Patricia Clarkson (The Green Mile; Shutter Island). Bettis and Clarkson were fine, but Fuller's teleplay tried too hard to include everything in King's novel and the result was too long and too... messy. And the limits of television censorship crippled the film in the same way it did Mick Farris' versions of The Stand and The Shining.

MGM recently announced yet another remake, this time starring Chloe Grace Moritz (Kick Ass; Let Me In) in the title role and Julianne Moore (The Kids Are Alright) as Margaret White. This, of course, on the heels of an updated Off-Broadway revival of the infamously disastrous Broadway musical version. As much as I love both Moritz and Moore, I'm not sure that Boys Don't Cry and Stop-Loss director Kimberly Pierce is right for this project (though I think "Glee" and "Big Love" writer Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa is as good a choice as any to write it). 

Regular readers know how I generally feel about remakes, but remakes have been around almost as long as movies themselves. While DePalma's original version of Carrie may have been perfect for audiences of the mid-seventies, who is to say that audiences 35 years later don't deserve their own version? With bullying so malignantly prevalent among today's youth, they just night need to be scared into stopping it. I just hope the makers of the new version don't give us reason to laugh at it.

More, anon.
Prospero

There's Got to Be a Morning After (or 2)

Krishna failed to pull this guy up to Heaven by his ponytail.

I won't bother you again with the story of when I first saw Romero's Dawn of the Dead. Instead, I want to share my thoughts on the film (and Zack Snyder's 2004 'remake').

The events of Romero's version take place in the days following those of Night of the Living Dead. The world has been overrun by the reanimated dead, and as scientists argue over the cause and what should be done about it, Philadelphia newscaster Fran (Gaylen Ross) and her helicopter pilot boyfriend Stephen (David Emge) are planning on stealing the station's chopper to make their escape. Meanwhile, SWAT cops Peter (Ken Foree) and Roger (Scott Reineger) are sent into a Philadelphia tenement where they find a basement full of zombies, hidden by their loved ones who don't want to see their family members slaughtered. After killing dozens of both zombies and the living, the two decide they've had enough and meet up with Fran and Stephen to flee the city. After a scare while refueling the chopper, they come upon a shopping mall which they realize could serve as a sanctuary and land on the roof. They kill the zombies inside and risk going outside to block the mall's entrances with tractor-trailer trucks. It is during this risky operation that Roger gets sloppy and ends up bitten. They create a hidden living space and use the guns and food in the stores to create a mini-utopia for themselves. That is, until Roger succumbs to his wounds and reanimates. When Peter is forced to shoot his friend i teh head, they soon realize that their utopia is actually a prison, and begin to discuss leaving. Before they can, the mall is invaded by a gang of bikers, which include Romero himself (in a the Santa suit) and make-up effects innovator, Tom Savini. The bikers let hundreds of zombies in and Peter is bitten. When he reanimates, he leads the zombies right to the hidden living space, forcing Fran and Peter to the roof. As Fran waits outside, Peter contemplates suicide, but at the last minute fights his way to the chopper where he and Fran fly off with an unknown amount of fuel to an uncertain future.

Romero's film is notable for many reasons. First, Savini's effects: exploding heads; flesh being ripped off; intestines being pulled from stomachs and most infamously, the zombie ho gets the top of his head cut off by the helicopter's rotor. Second, like most of Romero's films, it makes a telling statement about blind consumerism and how people need to feel like they belong. As Peter says, "They're us, that's all."

Oh, Mom! You're so funny!

In 2004, director Zack Snyder (Watchmen; 300) 'remade' Dawn of the Dead. I used quotations here because the only thing the two films have in common is a shopping mall.

Snyder's film, from a screenplay by Slither director James Gunn, is set in Wisconsin and ignores the events of  Night... altogether. Nurse Ana (Sarah Polley) has just come off a double shift at a hospital which has seen an unusual number of bite victims. She briefly talks with her young  neighbor Vivian (Hannah Lochner) before heading off to an in-house date night with her husband, Luis (Louis Ferrreira). The next morning, Luis is awakened to find Vivian in their house. Before he can figure out what's going on, Vivian savagely attacks him, ripping out his throat with her teeth. Ana tries to save Luis, but he dies and is quickly reanimated only to attack Ana, who barely manages to escape to find that chaos has erupted in her normally quiet suburban neighborhood. After crashing her car, she meets up with Kenneth (Ving Rhames); Michael (Jake Weber); Andre (Mekhi Phifer) and his pregnant girlfriend, Luda (Inna Korobkina). The four make their way to a nearby mall, where they're basically taken hostage by a trio of mall security guards (Michael Kelly, Michael Barry and Kevin Zeigers). Soon, a panel truck filled with survivors shows up, including rich a-hole Steve (Ty Burrell); devoted dad Frank (Matt Frewer); his daughter Nicole (Lindy Booth), among others. They also discover Andy (Bruce Bohne), who is stuck in his gun shop, across the street from the mall. They communicate with Andy via whiteboard, playing chess and sending encouragement. It isn't long before folks start dying; Andy begins to starve and a reanimated Luda gives birth to a zombie baby. Deciding to escape on Steve's boat, they construct two zombie-proof vehicles and break out. After one of the trucks crashes and it's passengers die, the survivors make their way to an island in Lake Michigan, where things aren't much better. Foree makes a cameo appearance as a televangelist, reprising his line from the original: "When there's no more room in hell, the dead will walk the Earth."

Unlike the shuffling, shambling zombies in Romero's films, the zombies in Snyder's movie are fast and furious (like the 'zombies' in Danny Boyles' 28 Days Later), which made Romero furious. Romero would later make his disdain known in his "first-person" zombie film, Diary of the Dead, in which a young director yells at an actor playing a mummy: "You're dead! The dead can't run! They'd break their ankles!"

While an effective and exciting horror movie, Snyder and Gunn's version has none of the social commentary of Romero's film. Both films are terrifying, but they work on completely different levels. Uncle P, while no purist, actually prefers the Romero version, though that may have more to do with the circumstances under which I first saw it, more than anything. If nothing else, Snyder's movie proves that the rules of the genre (like many a horror story) are malleable and subject to the whims of the writer. In either case, the Zombie Apocalypse is not something I want to be around for. But if I am, I will be well-prepared.

More, anon.
Prospero