Halloween Week 1: (Clever Subtitles To Follow)

Well, it's that wonderful time of year again. Monster decorations everywhere, enough candy to put Wilford Brimley in the grave and ensure he stays dead, and, the part that's of the most relevance here at the Third Row - horror movies. Lots and lots of horror movies.

It's time for ye old yearly (OK, this is only our third year, traditions gotta start somewhere!) Halloween festivities. 31 days, 31 movies, 31 short writeups. This year's selection completely and lovingly picked and sorted at random from a pool of close to 180 movies, the rest are in reserve for future years with more to be added. Gives a nice dash of chance to the game.

So, without further ado, let's start having a look at this year's winners.

Where's this "Don't let her in" nonsense coming from?
She looks perfectly OK to me.

10/1 - Pontypool

I'll start by saying, the marketing on this film is somewhat disingenuous. Not bad, but disingenuous. Like 2003's 28 Days Later, this isn't actually a zombie movie. Rather, this is actually a creative take on a virus outbreak - both in terms of how the movie frames the event and the nature of the virus in question. In a move that's great in its simplicity, the bulk of this movie takes place in a small radio station in the Canadian town of Pontypool. I stress the fact it takes place there - with the exception of an intro in a car and a few shots outside the station, almost everything is centered within the building, where former shock jock Grant Mazzy (Stephen McHattie) and his two associates (Lisa Houle and Georgina Reilly) find themselves on the listening end of a mysterious outbreak of a kind humanity has never seen before. I won't say too much for the nature of the disease, since part of the draw of this film is the initial mystery of just what is happening, but I will say, as horror goes, it's a fascinating idea - science fiction has explored it before, but this marks the first time I've ever seen it invoked in a horror film (if someone can think of another example, I'm always up for more to look for!) The choice in location only further adds to the mystery - for much of the first part of the movie, we only learn of the damages through news reports and phone calls in to the station. It does a great job for letting the imagination do the work on what is fast becoming a situation beyond normal comprehension. The other big element that helps this storyline move along is the core cast members involved - in particular, McHattie, who has proven himself not infrequently as a character actor, makes a great center for this storyline, going from casually joking about the news to slowly taking it more seriously, and eventually finding the voice of reason he's been trying for as a DJ the entire time. Likewise, his staff, going first from irritated with him to being drawn into the carnage alongside him give us a good range of reactions. In all, it's a pretty unique experiment for a horror film - taking an approach akin to Orson Welles's famous War of the Worlds radio show (a connection the filmmakers acknowledge was deliberate) they've spun an fresh, minimalist take on horror of an apocalyptic sort. The directors have expressed interest in following up on this narrative with two more films exploring the event (which is itself based on the screenwriter Tony Burgess's novel Pontypool Changes Everything.) I have to say, with this as a starting point, I'd be interested in seeing where they can take this idea from here.

Not surprisingly Gynecology's Greatest Bloopers and Outtakes did NOT sell well. 

10/2 - Teeth

Between this and tomorrow's entry, I initially thought the randomizer was trying to mess with me. Then I thought 'It's gonna take a LOT of restraint to not make this week's subtitle a joke about genital mutilation.' ...which was promptly followed by 'God, why did I even consider that?'
ANYWAY...this was a curious film to finally take on. I'd had it suggested last year and this year finally opted to put it into the running. Prior to this, all I really knew about the film was that it dealt with the concept of vagina dentata (in layman's terms - when the proverbial hoo-hah has a set of choppers attached.) That was the big thing about it - and prior to this, something I'd only ever seen addressed in one other movie. Further, to be fair, in Wicked City, it was not a large part of the plot.
So I went into this without any idea what to expect of the concept. I have to say, the surprise was worth it. The strangest thing about this was realizing that, with a concept like this, the film actually plays itself with a bit of a lighter, more comedic edge. Now, this was a bit awkward at first, particular in the first half-hour or so when we're introduced to protagonist Dawn (Jess Weixler,) who's part of one of the overtly Christian promise groups. This part, as joking goes, feels a bit heavy-handed (though given the subject matter here, a bit to be expected.) Once the film finally tips its hand--or fangs, if you prefer--however, it starts to get on more sure footing. Like Dawn, the movie slowly comes to gain more of a sense of confidence as it gains more of a sense of what it is and what it wants to do with what it has. The result is a twisted but memorable take on the coming of age story for a woman - going from being ashamed of who she is (quite literally, one of the messages the film starts with is shame, both on a personal level, and culturally, of the vagina - to the point where the biology textbooks have been censored) to embracing what she is and what she's capable of. In particular the latter piece becomes a strong part of her character in the later half of the film. After reading up on the phenomenon in mythology, and the idea that it must be 'overpowered' by a hero, the movie begins to view Dawn's extra parts as a sort of power. As a result, the quiet, easily pushed over girl of the first half soon begins using her abilities to take back control for herself - quite literally in several cases, leaving those who would use her whimpering messes with their...advantage, left on the floor.
Admittedly, writer-director Mitchell Lichtenstein isn't particularly subtle with the metaphor here, but at the same time, it's not like he's forcing it via preaching or hammering the audience to death with it. For what it is and what it's trying to say, it does the job well enough. The end result makes for an interesting balancing act - not quite fully on board with either the comedy or the horror, it instead becomes an unorthodox coming of age story with a very macabre sense of humor.

It was around this point that the studio heads at Disney decided to cancel their contract with Lars von Trier.

10/3 - Antichrist

And here's where I'm starting to suspect the randomizer knows EXACTLY what it's doing.
Following up on Lichtenstein's dark, but still fairly comic (and all in all, positively oriented) tale of a girl taking back her sexuality in a world where it's ultimately stigmatized, we come to Lars von Trier's VERY dark take on similar subject matter. Anyone who's been here long enough (and to those of you who have, I sincerely apologize) will remember when I discussed this as part of my top 5 picks of 2009 at the time. In particular the controversy the movie was subject to at the time from people reading it as misogynistic, most infamously at the Cannes Film Festival where it received an anti-award. Upon rewatching it, and in light of Teeth, I did find myself wondering on that question on this viewing. With a fresh view, I maintain a similar sentiment to where I was before - contrary to what some may think, I honestly don't see the film as misogynistic. Quite the opposite, the film actually hinges its evil as stemming from the culture of misogyny and gynocide that Charlotte Gainsbourg's character (neither she nor costar Willem Dafoe are ever named) made the subject of her thesis. Actually, on that note, and after watching Teeth, I actually started making notes comparing how the two films address the theme. Though if I go into that more, that could risk hijacking and becoming an entry in and of itself (this might be like when I did I Spit On Your Grave two years back and this will become a separate feature here. Cause honestly, there's a lot to compare.)

Beyond the misogyny debate, this still remains a rather interesting take on horror from a director who hadn't really done anything with the genre before. Von Trier reportedly didn't think he necessarily succeeded at making a horror film, but I'd be inclined to disagree with him. It's certainly a different take on the genre, to be sure, but at its core, it still has all the basis of a psychological thriller. In trying to truly get to the bottom of his wife's grief, Dafoe's therapist, in classic arrogant horror character fashion, decides to push on into an area neither he nor his wife are prepared to properly explore. What unfolds is a disturbing cycle through various aspects of grief, blame, and sexuality, not always in that order and sometimes multiple at once, that sees both of its leads pushed to their limits. Incidentally, I will still hold the Academy responsible for the fact Gainsbourg never got a nomination for her work on this movie - yeah, it's certainly not Academy-friendly work, but she puts herself through an emotional wringer, and even as the film starts to put her in an antagonistic light, she still retains a sort of sympathy. We see just what she's done to herself and feel bad for her, while at the same time fearing just what all this has turned her into. A fear that is only further added to by Von Trier's direction in the film's 3 and 4th chapters ('Despair' and 'The Three Beggars.') These parts contain the scenes where the film's infamy is solidified. Without giving spoilers away, we see the couple subjected to scenes of personal bodily harm that are INCREDIBLY visceral to watch. I mean, to my surprise, I got through Teeth fairly unphased by the violence. By comparison, even having seen Antichrist before, some of the scenes in this STILL make me squirm, simply thanks to just the way they're directed. They genuinely look painful to watch, and that's also thanks in no small part to the two leads who have to simulate these experiences.
It's certainly not a film for everyone, and if you really aren't sure you're up for some parts of this, I can't say I blame you for passing on it. If you're game to give it a shot though, it's certainly a well-made, and at times quite disturbing segue into the darker sides of both the individual mind  and parts of our culture.

"Getting really sick of the HP fans still giving me grief over their favorite characters getting offed..."

10/4 - The Woman In Black

I do find it kind of a shame this movie only got mixed reviews when it came out. The first time I saw this, I was already pretty stoked by the fact this marked a revival for legendary British production company Hammer - famed for their horror productions of the 60s and 70s. The result, while nothing game changing, also still showed they haven't lost their edge even 40 years later.
Adapted from a novel by Susan Hill, this is interesting in that in a lot of ways, it is a classic ghost story. We have the outside protagonist (Daniel Radcliffe, who, based on this film, is safely going to survive life after Harry Potter,), a town with a secret past, and a curse that he will soon find himself having to confront, both to solve the mystery and save himself. There are certainly familiar trappings involved, and  thankfully, the film doesn't take it on itself to try and reinvent the wheel. Not to discourage said reinvention, mind you. At the same time and in a genre that seems to have been stuck in a state of constantly trying to reinvent itself for the past 10 year, sometimes it's actually nice to see a film that has no real pretense beyond just telling a good scary story. With that goal in mind, this movie accomplishes the goal with a seasoned air. Like any good ghost story, director James Watkins and screenwriter Jane Goldman are both very aware the best scares of the genre come not from the payoff, but the build-up. The payoffs ARE certainly jolting, but it's the ramping up getting to them that is where the film really shows its strength. One of the strongest sections of this movie is actually the middle section where it's just Radcliffe's Arthur Kipp alone in the cursed home of the titular Woman in Black. Much of it is a sort of dark game of hide and seek as Arthur chases the phantoms roaming the grounds. Even the ghosts themselves are presented in such a way as to not feel overdone - in many scenes, the Woman is unsettling simply by standing there - a scene involving a house fire being a good example of this (that's all I'll say to avoid spoilers.) The film rarely goes for the outright 'grab you and shake you' scare, preferring to leave you waiting and enjoying watching you squirm as you wait for it.
Alongside the direction, the cast, as I started to say above, suit the material well - in a departure from his now famous role, Radcliffe actually tries for a different direction with this role, playing a grieving widower who soon finds what is left of his family may be in danger from his involvement with this curse. The other standout, as Arthur's sole friend in town, is Ciarán Hinds as Samuel Daily, who, despite his skepticism, becomes one of the only people willing to unearth the Woman's secrets alongside Arthur.
Word is, a sequel has been confirmed. While I'm admittedly skeptical, this story on its own is quite well done and self-contained, I will remain hopeful. If the people behind it can keep to the same 'nothing wrong with just a straight forward ghost story' approach this movie so embraced, they may make this one of the sequels that works.

All in all, not a bad start to this year - something novel, a few thought provoking moments, and a nice touch of the old-fashioned to round things out.

I've got a good feeling for this year's spread and looking forward to where things go from here.

Keep an eye out!

Don Jon - "Joseph Gordon-Levitt's O-Face: The Movie"

We interrupt this cheeky look at porn addiction to bring you this bit of shameless self-plugging.
After finally deciding to make good on some ideas from earlier this year, and tinkering with some Photoshop, I got a title accepted onto Better Book Titles (if you've never been to the site before, I'd recommend it even if my stuff didn't get posted- wonderfully insane retakes on books to more honestly reflect their contents)

http://betterbooktitles.com/post/62639652050/george-r-r-martin-a-storm-of-swords-reader -- Look upon my works ye mighty and...hopefully chuckle, I guess...

OK. Plug over, back to the porn! (...wait a minute...)

There's always something interesting about seeing someone's directorial debut. The effect of the film becomes two-fold, both in demonstrating the quality of the original film itself, as well as in showing what we can potentially expect from the new director in the future.

Which further added to the amount of pondering I had to go through after finishing up Don Jon, Joseph Gordon-Levitt's directorial debut. The resulting film is actually quite ambitious for a first time out, but not without some room for improvement.

The film concerns Jon 'Don' Martello (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) - nicknamed Don for his abilities with women. At the start of the film, Don explains his life pretty bluntly - he lives a fairly simple existence: his apartment, the gym, church, his friends, his family, girls, and, last but certainly not least - porn. In fact, Jon's fixation on porn is a pretty big part of his character - so much so that its colored a lot of his interactions and expectations in life - as he explains at points to the audience.

"I must...I must...I must increase my--
Wait a minute..."

Anyway, his simple, insular life is shaken up when he crosses paths with Barbara (Scarlett Johansson,) an ambitious woman with big plans for her future. Like Jon, her own expectations have been colored by outside sources - except for her it's romantic movies rather than porn. At first, the couple seems like your classic love story. Unfortunately, their separate expectations eventually lead to friction in their seemingly perfect relationship. As Jon and Barbara's relationship hits the rocks in a big way, he also crosses paths with Esther (Julianne Moore,) a lonely woman he meets at his night class. As he gets to know her, Jon soon finds out that her own experiences may provide him with more insights into his own life and problems than he had initially expected.

and thus, the Marvel-DC treaty of 2012 was officialized.
...OK, even I'll admit I went a bit out of the way for that one.

Admittedly, this story sounds somewhat simplistic on paper - which makes some sense given the way the film's narrative is being told, but also helps highlight one of the problems it has going for it. With regards to the former, this is thanks to the fact the movie's fairly introspective by design. It's all told from Jon's perspective, and the film stays with him the whole time. As a result of this, even when he's just left to his thoughts, we're still staying with him - many of said thoughts being relayed to us via voiceover narration provided by Jon. In fact, this is where we actually learn most about Jon, as his interactions with others are all largely surface level - his conversations with friends are all fixated on casual sex, and his family discussions are constantly framed by football. Prior to meeting with Esther, the only time Jon seems willing to bear any sort of internal thought to others is actually at confession in church - and even there he can only talk without getting much in the way of feedback. When he finally starts to open up to Esther, and actually sorting out the thoughts we've heard him try and sort out himself through his voice-overs, we see much more to the character.

Once we get past that Jersey accent, anyway...


As far as how this is problematic, well, that comes down to two things. The first is the fact that, depending how you feel about this, the first part of this movie can be VERY hard to sit through. Not because of the porn aspect mind you, but rather because Jon and everyone in his life are, to be perfectly honest, incredibly shallow New Jersey archetypes. Now, granted, this is partially by design - the two other characters who actually defy this archetype: Esther and Jon's sister (Brie Larson) are the two people in the film that actually seem to provide him with some worthwhile insight, and even seem to understand where he's coming from at points. So this one is understandable at least, though still one where mileage will vary depending how you feel on the character types - there seemed to be at least one person who left the theater I was at because of this. The other problem of the film's simplistic streak, and a bit more damning, is the fact the movie's message seems to become confused as it moves along. This is kind of a shame since there's actually several strands of interesting development being played with here: among them we have how pornography has skewed Jon's views of sexuality, how both Jon and Barbara have had their expectations of relationships so molded by outside stimuli, and, in an odd way, Jon's own sort of coming age as he slowly learns how to grow for his own sake rather than the pressures of others. These are all fascinating ideas to run with, but sadly, none of them really gets the focus needed to fully drive it home. Gordon-Levitt's script is promising, but feels like it could have benefited from a bit more polish in this regard.

...nope. Still not feeling this Who's the Boss? update.

To the film's credit, its unpolished story is the only really pronounced weak point going for it. For as one-dimensional as much of the characters are by design, the cast still aim to make the most of the roles. In particular, Gordon-Levitt and Johansson manage to add enough to their two leads that the fights between them actually have some teeth to them. Among Jon's daily grind, the other two standout performances may probably go to his parents - played by Tony Danza and Glenne Headley. Yeah, they're a part of the giant stereotype that is his life, but they both commit to the roles enough to keep them worth watching. Meanwhile, as the heart of the film, Moore gives the proceedings a good boost of emotional warmth that becomes necessary as the movie goes on. Finally, again, I have to give a nod to Larson - she spends much of the film being set up as something of a one-note joke, but when she finally gets the chance in the spotlight, the scene is well worth it.

Probably one of the areas where this film shows its best strength is in its editing. One of the creative calls Gordon-Levitt and editor Lauren Zuckerman use in conveying Jon's porn addiction is some fast-cut editing that makes the experience more than just a casual display of t&a, instead actually trying to visually convey the effect this genuinely has on Jon. It's a surprisingly effective technique, and one of the reasons the editing in this made as much of an impression on me as it did in the film's strengths. The fast edits are also employed to degrees at other scenes in the film as well, including a well-executed time-lapse sequence at one point, where the little details employed in the lapse make the scene even more interesting to watch. Some of the tricks have been around before, but the use of them here is still fairly bold, especially for a first-time effort.

In general, this movie is still one of the better films I've seen this year. It's certainly not perfect - the script and characterization are really quite rough in several places, but at the same time, there is a lot of potential to build from here. Further, I have to give Gordon-Levitt some points for the sheer ambition here. Even with this movie's shortcomings, I will still gladly admit, it's a pretty gutsy idea to shoot for - even moreso on your first attempt. Gordon-Levitt tries to say a lot here, and even if it doesn't all take, I still at least give him some commendations for trying to say it. If what this movie shows us is any indication, with a bit more focus, he could have the potential to become a genuinely great director sometime down the line. For now, even with all the bumps, I'm looking forward to seeing where he goes from here.

Well, it took me a few extra days to sum this one up, but it was worth it.

This Friday.
IT BEGINS!

From the Files of Arbitrary Ranking and Pre-Gaming - Treehouse of Horror.

So, like I said before, I was gonna be jump-starting the October festivities a bit early (Hey, it's all of three days, compared to other places, this is still pretty reasonable.)
I toyed with a few ideas for what to do with this week, including an acknowledgment of Banned Book Week - which may appear in future years, but this kind of stuck and it's all of a one-year idea. After getting caught up recently, this felt like a nice little breather before going into the wonderful insanity that is October at The
Third Row.

So, in a fun way to set the mood, I dug up one of those great Halloween traditions-albeit one that, over the last few years, hasn't actually happened until early November - Treehouse of Horror [So, apparently this year it IS running before Halloween again.] For the many, many, many (I could keep going) years that the series 'The Simpsons' has been on the air, one of their most consistent traditions that they've stuck with has been their Halloween episodes: an anthology of three Halloween-styled segments, often playing to classic horror stories or just Halloween ideas.

Now, I'll admit that, like much of the rest of the show, the quality of these has sadly gone downhill.  But in their glory days, these were definitely some of the show's high points.

So I thought, even though as a general rule I tend to avoid the actual ranked 'top' lists beyond my end of the year picks (and even those I acknowledge with a margin of subjective error) could be a fun idea to go back through the show's prime years and try to parse out a list of, at least for me, the 10 best shorts.

5 of them were picked right off the bat. As for the rest, choosing between them did NOT make this easy.

So anyway, this is more of a 'for the Hell of it,' piece, so you'll have to excuse me if this doesn't quite go into my usual weight of pros and cons so much.

For those who are leaving now, do be sure to come back next week! The randomizer starting things off with a VERY interesting spread.

Note - given the nature of this one, extra-cheeky captions would be kind of redundant here. May still include choice quotables with certain images though.

10. 'The Homega Man'

Besides giving them some points for invoking The Omega Man (a reference that  would be unlikely in the show's more recent years, which favor more contemporary nods) this is one of those that works in part because, even if you've never seen the film, the premise is played loosely enough here to mine it for enough fodder, and remains funny to all audiences. I mean, the first half is your classic 'last man on Earth just decides to do all the things society and good taste say not to.' Even if it is a cliche, the show makes some good material of it (culminating in Homer dancing naked in the church to Edwin Starr's 'War.' ... Sort of raises all sorts of odd questions about what he thinks about every Sunday.) The actual reference to the film comes in mid-way care of Homer meeting the scarred mutant survivors of the disaster (incidentally, I do love how they gave them a car that plays like a massive nod to this movie.) Again, like many of the better parodies in these segments, the story still stands as funny in its own right ("Oh my God! You're mutants!" "Hey, we don't like the term mutants...we prefer freaks.") and the parody is more just as extra layer of enjoyment for those who get the joke. Here, it's really just a case of the writers doing the other thing they do best - taking some old material and showing us it still has some mileage left in it if one knows what they're doing.

9. 'The Bart Zone'

One of the big shows mined for references during the 'golden years' of these specials was 'The Twilight Zone.' This is for good reason - they're some of the most iconic shorter stories in sci-fi horror storytelling, so it stands to reason, to that end, that they'd be ripe for a LOT of humor. This particular short is no exception - taking the famous Billy Mumy episode 'It's a Good Life', they actually figure out how to make the idea of god-like powers in the hands of a young boy worse: making that young boy Bart Simpson. The story starts out on a good note, embracing the Twilight Zone homage complete with a faux-Rod Serling narration ("and did I mention that the monster is a 10 year old boy? ... Quite a twist, huh? Bet you didn't seen that one coming.") Some of the fun actually winds up coming not from Bart abusing his powers directly, but through the sheer number of things he gets away with from fear of his using his powers - the highlight here probably having to go to either having to change history in accordance with Bart's exam answers, or a constantly performing Krusty on the verge of a complete breakdown. It's a case of a pretty simple concept the show plays to the hilt, and the result is still quite funny nowadays.

"Who's that goat-legged fellow? I like the cut of his jib."
"Prince of Darkness, sir. He's your 11:00."

8. 'The Devil and Homer Simpson'

I will admit, part of the reason I snuck this onto the list has to do with it providing the only Treehouse of Horror appearance of Phil Hartman's Lionel Hutz.  Outside of that though, this episode has a lot going for it. Even just the idea of Homer striking up a pact with Satan ( depicted here by Ned Flanders of all people) lends itself to a lot of potential. The fact he does it over a doughnut of all things...well, that's just Homer for you. Surprisingly, the episode doesn't do as much with the idea of Homer in Hell (though it does lead to a couple of fairly amusing visual gags) but considering what they then do with the subsequent trial for Homer's soul, complete with an appearance by a then still alive Richard Nixon, I think the time was well spent.
Also, I will concede, part of what further clinched this story's spot on the list was the deleted scenes for it featured in a later episode of the series. Most notably the follow-up gag on Hutz. Those who've seen it know what I mean.

7. 'Homer^3'

Looking back, I have to admit the promotion for this did make this story risk looking like a gimmick. Luckily, the execution lays that one to rest. Taking another cue from 'The Twilight Zone' (with this, the score is currently 2 on this list for those playing at home,) this adapts the episode 'Little Girl Lost.' While not quite as immediately iconic as some of the other 'Twilight Zone' stories they've adapted, they still make up for it here care of some playful prodding of the 4th wall - the entire premise of the story runs on the idea of the people of Springfield being aware of their two-dimensional status. As such, when Homer vanishes, as the title suggest, he has in fact stumbled into the third dimension (rendered in CGI that actually has aged fairly well, considering when this was made.)
Admittedly this one doesn't have quite as much of the big laughs as some of the other stories featured on this list, but at the same time, it's still, for the medium and time, a relatively ambitious effort for these specials, and it holds up well for it.

6. 'If I Only Had a Brain'

This is one of those stories that, when rewatching these episodes, I have to admit is a lot funnier than I remember it being. Further, this is one of the standouts in that the Simpsons themselves are more minor players in this story - the meat of the humor actually going to the interplay between Mr. Burns and Smithers. Further, the idea of taking these two side characters and casting them in a sort of skewed Frankenstein storyline gives their dynamic a lot more to play with. The result leads to some great bits of dialogue between Burns's mad scientist and Smithers as his somewhat shaky conscience ("Smithers, hand me that ice cream scoop." "Ice cream scoop?" "Dammit, Smithers! This isn't rocket science, it's brain surgery!") Even more of a surprise considering this was actually back in the show's second Treehouse of Horror, back when the show was still really getting a feel for fleshing out its supporting cast - so giving those two central focus like this in a story was a relatively new call at the time, and one that thankfully paid off.

5. 'Time and Punishment'

OK, I'm just gonna say this now - all three of the installments from Treehouse of Horror V made the cut. So yeah, you've been partially spoiled for the rest of the list. In all fairness, there's a reason it's considered by many to be the best.
Anyway, this is another case where I have to commend these shorts for taking a story that, on a purely conceptual level, has seen a LOT of mileage, and making it work through the sheer execution. Taking the classic time travel paradox of the butterfly effect, and putting it in the hands of Homer, of all characters, is roughly akin to giving a flare gun to a chimp in a gasoline refinery and asking "What's the worst that could happen?" In this case, quite a bit. Rather than play in minor tweaks, the show's writers take this to the other extreme, where Homer's simply killing one small life form leads to increasingly more ludicrous realities. In a lot of ways, playing to those extremes is a big part of what makes this one work. It's the sheer randomness that some of the futures provide - from a world where Ned Flanders is unquestioned ruler, to the utopia Homer misses out on over a communications breakdown - that provides a lot of the fuel for laughs on this one, eventually driving Homer to just pick up a branch in the past and play temporal Russian Roulette.

and oh yes, "Quiet, you!"

Because it bears repeating:
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."

4. 'Citizen Kang'

There's a part of me that feels a little bit weird putting this one on here simply because this marked the first time that THoH started playing into, for the time, contemporary material. Now, this is a creative call that would really harm later installments (and later Simpsons in general, but that's another story,) but surprisingly, it doesn't really hurt too much here. A big part of what helps in this case is the fact that, despite it playing off the Bill Clinton-Bob Dole presidential election, taking us into 'Oh crap, I'm old' territory here, the humor itself doesn't feel particularly dated. Even for their own parts, Clinton or Dole aren't really major parts of the humor per se - though again, always nice to hear the late Phil Hartman in there. Really, the big laughs here come via alien invaders Kang and Kodos trying to impersonate the two - their campaigns are awkward, laced with misused rhetoric, and in many cases bizarrely quotable as a result of that. Despite the setting, the jokes themselves on this one remain timeless, playing to a lot of the general election chicanery that comes part and parcel with the whole process - the names change, the songs and dances stay the same...and in this case, the two ringers play them so absurdly they actually inspire laughter rather than the groans the election season often entails.
Also, the crack at third party voting at the end...it's still funny, but nowadays it's even more depressingly accurate.

...yes. You can tell where these are going now.

3. 'Nightmare Cafeteria'

You know...looking back, while the show's played into some kind of loose horror elements among the comedy before, I think this one might be one of the most overt forays into horror the THoH episodes have had to date. To the point where I have heard testimony from several people, my girlfriend included, who can attest to being creeped out by this episode when they were younger (Editor's note: You mean actually had nightmares on account of this episode!). I have to give the show some serious points for being able to pull that one off. On top of that, this has some GREAT black humor in it. Granted, with cannibalism of children as the entire basis of the episode, black humor is almost inevitable, but I still have to hand it to this one for going whole-hog on it. It's like the bizarre love-child of A Modest Proposal and DeadAlive, even to the wonderfully sick twist on the 'It was all a dream' ending. Additionally, for the number of times in these stories when regular characters have been killed off, this was probably one of the closest to actually making it into a non-comedic moment at the story's climax. What happens to the rest of the kids...well, OK, THAT'S played for comedy, albeit again, very dark comedy.
Come to think of it, for how much this one goes into the morbid humor and hinted-at gore, it's surprising it's still part of one of the most popular episodes, given that style tends to be polarizing a lot of the time.

2. 'The Raven'

Of all the stories on this list, I think this is the one my opinion of has grown the most on the rewatch. I mean, I liked this one before, but on rewatching, I have to admit I REALLY like the presentation on this story. Even more impressive in that most of the writing in this one really is just the classic Poe poem. There's a few little interruptions here and there, many inspiring a couple of chuckles, but really the big presentation here is all on the poem (as read by James Earl Jones.) I think the fact that most of the jokes here are on the smaller side is actually one of the assets - this one's definitely not a big laugh inducer, but given the premise it's working with, that would actually hurt the material. Leaving it to just little visual gags or the occasional comment from a still-not-yet scared Bart makes the humor more of an accent on a pretty well put together presentation. It's one of those rare occasions where the show establishes a genuine sense of atmosphere, and it's a big part of what caught me on the rewatch. The other two segments in the first THoH have their moments, but still show a bit of roughness around the edges - this one they hit gold right out of the gate.

...yep. 3-for-3.
As Willie himself would say it best, "I'm bad at this."

1. 'The Shinning'

and rounding out the warning regarding part V, we have probably one of the single-most popular of the Halloween segments...and for good reason - it's that funny. I realize that's putting it rather bluntly on this list, but it is. For as much as pop culture has parodied Kubrick's take on The Shining, this still stands out as arguably one of the best riffs on it. I think a big part of what helps it in that regard is the fact that it has enough material to get a laugh from those who know the movie while still also being entertaining even if you haven't seen it. Even the parts that are direct shout-outs are handled in a way that allows people who haven't seen the film to get in on the fun (see - the error-riddled take off on the classic "Here's Johnny!" scene.) There's only so many ways I can repeat myself on this before it gets old, so I'll just bring this one to a landing - even nowadays, this segment is still a blast to watch, and none of the jokes in it really fall flat. While it's not quite as ambitious as The Raven before it, it's still easily the most entertaining of the stories the franchise has produced for its Halloween specials. Oft-quoted, oft-imitated, but still never quite duplicated. All the pieces really just fall into place on this one, it's a solid parody, but also just a great episode where the parody can still serve as icing on the cake.

...mmm...cake.

(Sorry. Couldn't resist.)

That said, join us next Friday when the kickoff begins proper.

Also, bring some boots. It's gonna get messy here.

Things to Come - OK, MAYBE I picked this one for a bit of foreshadowing.

Buckle your seatbelts, kids.
Thanks to a bit of pregaming next week, The Third Row is kicking into festive mode for October after this entry.and yes, the article isn't just announcing that. It seemed appropriate to kick off not one but two events (I'll announce the other when we get there) with this writeup on the H.G. Wells classic.

This is one of those films I went in to with a bit of a high bar attached to it - the story is, Wells set this film in motion after seeing Fritz Lang's classic Metropolis...and not liking it at all. This film, he is said to have told the players involved, was to do the opposite of what that movie did.

So I went into this realizing this was essentially a cinematic equivalent of  throwing down the gauntlet.

I don't think it necessarily surpasses the classic that Wells sought to throw down against. At the same time, however, it actually excels on several other levels.

Loosely based on Wells's own novel "The Shape of Things to Come," the movie plays out roughly with what the title promises - offering a speculative look at the next 100 years of human history from the end of World War I onward. The arc sees mankind plummet into war, desolation, and finally be reborn into a scientific utopia. Naturally, given the film's roughly 100 minute run time, this is told in broad strokes. Yet it's still an impressive feat to see pulled off in a film all the same.

Over the course of this, Wells chooses to focus on a select few characters and their next of kin over the generations - the Cabals (played in both iterations by Raymond Massey) and the Passworthys (here played by Edward Chapman.) It's a creative narrative trick, and one that the actors make a good go of. Though their roles are somewhat kept the same, they do try to make some differences in how they play each of their roles. The rest of the cast, likewise, turns in solid performances. The other standout in this regard is during the arc of post-war ruin, where what remains of the movie's focal location of Everytown (OK, I'll concede subtlety isn't really this movie's strong suit) is lorded over by a man simply known as The Boss, played by a
young Ralph Richardson. For a role that boils down to a thug and a bully, Richardson does what he can with the part, and manages to make him one of the more memorable characters in this in spite of his shortcoming. Admittedly, some of the scenes can feel a bit more suited for the stage than film, but given when this film was made, it's something you learn to take in stride as part of the medium's growing pains.

"...welp, I ain't cleaning THIS one up!"

That's actually both the strength and weakness of the film - because it's being told in such broad strokes and over such a long period of time, the story itself feels somewhat lacking beyond seeing what happens in the broader history. There are some interesting plot points in individual sequences, but the overall narrative feels somewhat disjointed between eras.

Which, again, is a shame, because on an era to era basis, this movie has some strong bits of directing to it. One of the standouts in this regard being in the film's opening, which heralds the outbreak of a second World War. We learn this through a series of scene along a street in Everytown one Christmas eve, the holiday fervor, all set to Christmas carols, intercut with news articles announcing the situation worsening globally and the occasional 'the end is near.' The contrast is quite well put together and arguably one of the strongest scenes in the film. Willam Cameron Menzies has a sharp eye for individual scenes, and I can't even rightly fault him for the problems with the overall narrative, as those are a mix of consequence of the concept and Wells's script.

"...and I heard him exclaim as he drove out of sight, 'Merry Christmas to all, and to all duck and cover!'"

Alongside the disjointed element of the script, the one other problem I'd say this script has going for it is as a result of its message. Which is strange to say since the message itself isn't a bad one - the film advocates an increased emphasis on science with the idea that it could lead to a utopian future. This mostly is handled well, if a little bluntly, until the last act set in 2035. with the Earth a technological paradise, mankind is on the verge of flight to the moon. This achievement, however, is being challenged by a group of luddites led by a sculptor (Cedric Hardwicke.) Again, in and of itself not a bad idea, however part of the dialogue does inadvertently cast the conflict in an 'arts vs sciences' light. I suspect this wasn't the intent of the film per se, but it does become an inadvertent message of the last act.

Of course, to Wells's credit, where he slips on the narrative, he makes up for it in sheer ideas. One of the reasons this film has endured, and one of the most fascinating things it has going for it, is the fact that its title actually proved more accurate than people would expect. While naturally not an exact match, many of the technical innovations Wells envisions in this film did in fact come to pass, some with a strange amount of accuracy. Things like the fact he predicts the outbreak of World War II fairly close to the mark - though thankfully he was a bit off the mark in the regard of the use of poison gas in the war. Likewise, many of the technologies he envisions, such as traveling to the moon, flat-screen televisions, and other such innovations, albeit sometimes on a different timeline than they actually came to be.

Still, I imagine his corpse has one VERY smug, if well earned grin...what's left of it, anyway.

In all, Things to Come is a pretty striking entry in  early science fiction cinema. As an overall narrative, its ambition is both a strength and a weakness, presenting an intriguing concept, albeit at the cost of a more personal element in its cast and plotting. As a film of its time, it makes a MAJOR impact for the number of things it actually does manage to predict right.

What it lacks in Lang's human element, it arguably surpasses him in in terms of scientific innovations. In a weird way, I can't rightly say one surpasses the other, but rather the two films, despite being born out of a rivalry, compliment each other in a way.

Really, if you have any interest in science fiction cinema, especially in its early years, this is one I can't recommend enough. It's certainly a stand out among the genre's early trailblazers, and even with its story shortcomings, has enough going in its favor to make it well worth the time to see.

Once again, as I am wont to do when it comes to movies in the public domain, I'm gonna use this opportunity to plug for the Criterion release for this. Not because I'm paid by them, not just because I like their general line, but because this is one of those films that gets subject to a lot of different releases of varying video quality and length. By their very nature as a group, Criterion has assembled the closest to a complete cut of the film (with some extra scenes made for it after included as a bonus) with a wonderfully cleaned up master. Plus, their extra features further help outline its significance to film and science fiction cinema in particular.

All in all, a trip worth taking...

With that, brace yourselves.  Next Friday, the shenanigans begin.

There may still be other entries alongside those as time permits/allows, but this will be a major two projects lined up.

Till then...

Summer Reading #4 - Post-Summer Report - Les Misérables (2012) & stage version.

So we come to the end at last. This has proven a pretty interesting experiment, really. Some bumps to start with, but nothing that can't be hammered out in future years.

I'd been saving this one for the end, one part cause it made sense to leave it on this note, and one part because, compared to the others, this was gonna be a doozy - and given the sheer length on some of the adaptations of this book, that says something. To that end, some of the other ones I couldn't fit into this project may appear in later writeups for the Hell of it. Anyway, the reason for said doozy is partially because of the nature of this last adaptation. For those who wondered why it hadn't been brought up sooner, yes, this is in reference to Tom Hooper's adaptation of the musical adaptation by Alain Boublil and Claude-Michel Schönberg. Suffice it to say, in light of the matroshka effect on this adaptation, this was going to call for going an extra level. At first, as stated in earlier reviews, I was going to do the stage version as a separate write-up. Given how it really would just extend to laying the groundwork for this film, it seemed best to just go all in and do a two-fer discussing how the two fair as adaptations in one go.

So yeah, this one may run a bit longer than usual. Now would be a good time to get something to eat or drink before we continue.

Now then...

The musical version of Les Misérables is one of those curious cases in the world of adaptation. It's a case of an adaptation that's become successful enough in its own right that it's almost an entire entity unto itself, and in some circles has even overshadowed its source material.

It almost feels odd to hold this up to comparison given that extra legacy attached. To its credit though, it's not like this has too much to worry about as an adaptation.

There is one particular advantage I'd argue this version tends to have over many of the played straight film versions as adaptation goes. It's the fact that, by its nature, the medium of the musical often uses song as a means for characters to sort out internal conflicts. As such, what would look odd in a straightforward film feels commonplace within the trappings of a musical. This works particularly well when adapting a story like this one. Part of the reason the book is such a dense read, besides Victor Hugo's quasi-fetish for backstories, is his tendency to get into the heads of his characters. It makes for an introspective style that, in a printed medium where you have no real restrictions of time to worry about, you can really do a lot with. Yet In a visual medium,  where you have limits on what you can really depict and how much time you have and how you can do it, your hands are severely tied. For a good example of this pertaining to these versions, one can use Valjean's conflict when he learns that another man has been arrested on being mistaken for him. In the original novel, this scene is a prolonged piece of introspection as Valjean wrestles with himself on whether to jeopardize his freedom in the interests of doing the right thing. This is an uphill struggle he constantly comes back to all the way up to arriving at the trial, when he finally just bites the bullet and speaks up. In many of the film versions, this scene tends to be rather truncated by virtue of consequence of the medium. In the better versions, we at least still see him weighing over the possible consequences of each possible choice of actions, but given how much of the conflict is internalized, the film can only really go just so far into it without trying to turn it into a monologue. Said monologue (after a fashion) is a luxury the musical has, and as a result, the song 'Who Am I?' openly lays out his internal conflict and all the aspects being weighed in around 3 minutes. It still has to distill things some for time, naturally, but it has a bit more freedom in that conveyance. This also goes as far as backstories, which, as I said above, Hugo does a LOT with. While some versions do actually elaborate on Fantine's backstory (such as the Raymond Bernard version reviewed earlier this summer) it is also not uncommon to see that story sacrificed for time. Once again, the music medium actually allows for more freedom in this regard - what would be seen as a potentially awkward information dump in just a straight adaptation, song allows to convey with less of a clumsy feeling- in this case, 'I Dreamed a Dream'.

I could keep going with examples, but you can see where I'm going with this - this version has an extra advantage with regards to Hugo's style of writing. Of course, it still has its limitations, albeit understandable ones. For a show that's a solid three hours when performed, it still has to make a fair number of concessions as backstory goes - one of the biggest surprises to people who jump from the musical to the book would be that moment when they find out that Marius actually has a surprising amount of backstory and personality that doesn't really get conveyed in the stage version. Granted, his lovestruck phase still makes him seem odd and awkward, but it's not the only thing we see in his life at least. It's not going to be a 1:1 lift, in part because the only way you could feasibly even hope to attempt that would be to subject your audience to a multi-part saga akin to Wagner's Ring cycle...the human buttocks can only take just so much sitting at any given time, after all.

That said, one of the other curious things this version has going for it is the extra things it works in. Like I said a few reviews back, one of the fairly common practices when it comes to adapting a work as large as this one is in the matter of, rather than bring everything through in one huge mass, find certain elements in the work that appeal to you and elaborate on those. This version in particular does that in the second half. Much of the first half plays out fairly straightforward, albeit with a few minor tweaks; things like Fantine's reason for losing her job being a bit more simplified - a bit understandable, since even with the liberties song offers, getting sacked from a mix of morality clause and social stigma feels a little lacking without an extra immediacy attached. Come the latter half of the show, however, a much more pronounced focus is made on the failed 1832 rebellion. This is partially done by rewriting Marius to be a much more active member of the Friends of the ABC, where he was previously more interested, but not really focused or driven. This time around, he's a full card-carrying member taking part in all the plans. To this end, the audience for the stage version is in for quite a surprise should they choose to give the book a read and find there is no real build-up for the barricade until the fighting breaks out, largely a consequence of the fact Marius drifts from the group and as such is in the dark about a lot of their plans until the fight breaks out. Further, his stay at the barricade is much more of a 'I'm here to die' decision on his part.

Of course, Marius isn't the only character who gets reworked. A good chunk of the Thénardier clan, likewise, are also modified in various capacities, with the exception of Gavroche, who isn't even explicitly mentioned as their child. The three other children are written out, somewhat understandably since they wouldn't add much to the narrative-and then we come to their one other progeny, Eponine. Eponine is probably one of the debatably stranger changes within this adaptation. Those only familiar with the musical tend to remember Eponine as the luckless third in a love triangle, resulting in a mix of devoted fandom in some circles, mockery in others. It's somewhat of a softened image, and while it inspires some good music, including one of the show's most iconic songs, it is largely a product of the stage show. The original version of her being, for lack of a better term, a bit more pathetic - Marius looks on her not as a friend he simply never considered as more, but someone he genuinely pities. Further, her death, while still tragic, is also a touch creepy for the extra motivation. Though again, I can't entirely say I blame them for omitting that from the musical - 'A Little Fall of Rain' would sound a lot weirder with the implications of it being a botched attempt at murder-suicide. The Thénardiers, like their daughter, get a bit of a softened touch as well, albeit in a different sense. They're still generally horrible people, but for the show, that horrible edge is tinged with a more comedic element. This is one that, for the purposes of the show, actually still serves well, resulting in another of the particularly iconic songs. Plus, to their credit, Boublil and Schönberg still do seek to remind us that Thénardier himself is, for all the joking, a horrible person. When the song 'Dog Eats Dog' occurs, it is like seeing the man behind the image of the buffoon, and finding him to be the monster readers would recognize underneath it all. Even when his comedic image returns for the end of the show, it's such a change that the audience won't forget it. The entire family actually does pretty well with the changes, all things considered. They're a bit odd at first, but the show does still manage to do a fair amount of justice to them.

For as much as I bring up some of these changes, I do still have to concede - the show works well. Very well, in fact. There's a reason the show has become as popular as it is. For as odd as some of the creative liberties may be, it still, does justice to the material, even if it doesn't necessarily hit all the same notes (but, again, because of the medium, you take those changes in stride.) Outside of the adaptation factor, it rolls well in all. There are a few minor lingering questions or parts that seem odd in stride that are more thoroughly explained in the original book, but nothing that ultimately derails the show.

It's not something that is a complete substitute for the book, so I do find it a bit of a shame that it has overshadowed the source, but it's still a very enjoyable show on its own that also works well as a supplement to the material.

All this and we haven't even gotten to the movie yet.

OK, buckle your seatbelt, Hooper. We're getting to you now.

This adaptation has been one that had been gaining momentum for a while now - an attempt to take on one of the most acclaimed musicals to date with the extra budget and freedom that a Hollywood production would allow for.  Top this off with an all-star cast and a director fresh off an Oscar win, albeit one some have already disputed (As being paid for by Harvey Weinstein- editor), and this had a LOT of expectations to live up to. Expectations further being added to by the ambitious, if risky, idea of having the songs performed live, rather than synced and then recorder later, as is the common practice with musical movies.

Yeah, you can get where I'm going with this. There was a lot riding on this movie.

To its credit, some of it paid off.
Some of it.

"Just a few more years at this and they'll finally lay off me about X-Men Origins..."

Like I said above, there were some particular reservations among some people over the appointment of Tom Hooper to direct this - true, The King's Speech had won the best picture Oscar previously, but despite that win, his direction itself didn't particularly seem to wow many. Given a project like this, that could be a detriment, as doing this show justice calls for a creative and ambitious eye. Surprisingly, at points, Hooper does rise to the challenge. While the camera is frequently misused, there are certain sequences that do wind up showing flashes of potential, such as the opening shots of the movie. The initial camera work used to introduce Valjean and Javert does a great job of establishing their dynamic to start with. Unfortunately, from there, Hooper lapses into his problem habits of holding tight shots on his actors at dutch angles. This a technique that has a time and a place. Unfortunately, it's nowhere near as often as Hooper seems to think. I could write an entire article in and of itself on the problematic use of the camera in this movie, which, again, for a project like this is a disappointment. I'd say if you want a particularly good example of the problems with the camera work in this, and this is one I feel somewhat bad bringing up for a negative point since the acting is good, is the much promoted 'I Dreamed a Dream' sequence. Hathaway certainly sells her part of it, and we'll get to that later. The problem is, Hooper spends the entire song just holding on her in close-up. While it does give her extra incentive to sell the performance, it also feels like a lazy shot from the directorial perspective, as even a good performance only goes so far when that's all you see for an extended period. It gets tiring after the first minute. Of course, not all the shots are held overly long - there are other scenes where the editing is problematic to the other extreme, such as in 'Look Down,' where the shots jump all over the place where a long take would have been just as ambitious and arguably better suited. Perhaps he could have spoken to Alfonso Cuaron...you kind of get where I'm going with this one. Tom, when your audience is doing your work for you, something is wrong. When you're a director with an Academy award on your mantle and this is happening, something is REALLY wrong.

The unfortunate part of all of this is, for as many faults as Tom has on a technical level, again, he does have some good ideas as well. For as much as I bust his chops on his painful camera work, I do have to give credit to him that some of the sequences he sets up are actually not bad. His prevalence for dutch angles actually pays off for him during the song 'Lovely Ladies,' where the set design combines with that penchant to give the entire sequence a rather nightmarish effect. I'm not sure if that was the idea the whole time, but I will give him that it works well. Likewise, the decision to rearrange the order on some of the songs makes for a good call at points - saving 'I Dreamed a Dream' until after the above-mentioned song, I have to concede, actually gives the latter song more impact. Having it after Fantine's descent into prostitution makes the song's feeling of someone who life has ground into the dirt really hit home more than its former placement, which was when she'd just been canned on the job. The other standout call in this regard comes from the decision to shift 'Do You Hear the People Sing?' from its original spot, moving it instead to the outbreak of rebellion at Lamarque's funeral. This is a sequence that the stage versions tend to gloss over as a necessary evil of time and cost. Hooper's decision to add the sequence and set it to this song is actually one of those calls I have to give him credit for. In fact, the barricade scenes are actually some of the strongest parts of this version. Some of Hooper's bad habits are still there at points, but he actually manages to keep focused fairly well during this section of the film. He even manages to actually handle the collapse of the barricade and the last stand of the Friends of the ABC fairly well. Which, in some ways, adds to the hurt - since it again reminds that he's got the potential to do this movie well, but only seems to capture it at sporadic points.

On the other side of that coin, and appropriately right after the barricade, one of the weakest parts of this movie was probably the sewers. This is in part because they choose to omit the song 'Dog Eats Dog', which I have problems with that we'll come into more in casting, but also because that song is really a major piece of the sewers scene. Otherwise, it's really just a protracted scene of Valjean dragging Marius through sewers. Which you can roll with in a stage version, if only cause the direction there can find ways to make a stage look like a seemingly endless sewer that show some extra creativity - in a film, the decision unfortunately just feels tedious. Also, on the problem side of creative calls is the addition of the song 'Suddenly,' a song that, even after having rewatched the film a few times for this writeup, I still can't really remember much of. It's not like it's not an idea that couldn't make for a good song, but the song in question just...doesn't really do much. I found it particularly telling when the song got entered for the Best Original Song at the Oscars and its performance instead segued into a performance of the show-stopping 'One Day More.' It was like an unspoken concession that the new song wasn't up to snuff with the rest of the show and was mainly just there to give them a shot at the awards.

"Valjean dragged Marius to safety through five hundred years of shit smelling foulness I can't even imagine, or maybe I just don't want to. Five hundred yards...that's the length of five football fields, just shy of half a mile."...hey, I can't be the only one that was waiting for Morgan Freeman to say something like this during this sequence, can I?

OK, I need to stop or we'll be here all night.  You can see what I'm getting at though, this film's got spread of some good and some bad ideas that makes it really hard to completely write off. It's a flawed production that definitely did not deserve the 4 star reviews and best picture nominations, but isn't the disaster some think it is. It's watchable at the very least, and definitely works hard to do the stage production justice.

Further on that point, let's take a look at the casting.

I know I said this one was a cast that, on paper, looked pretty promising, but I have to admit, I still had some reservations going in. Luckily, not all of them were justified. Still...some were. Even knowing his background in theater, I still wasn't sure at first how to feel about Hugh Jackman as Valjean. He's a good actor, but at first I wasn't sure if I could picture him in fitting the part. For the most part, I will admit he did the part justice. The singing was sometimes a little problematic, though learning some of that was actually a creative touch, such as in 'Bring Him Home,' where Jackman's voice cracking was a way to convey Valjean's growing older, I do cut the decision a bit more slack. It may not have been the way I'd have liked it to go, but it's actually not a bad idea to work with. The other I was really uncertain of at first was Russell Crowe as Javert. This was one that really had me mixed, since, in a straight performance as Javert, I'd have been all for it. Crowe has the presence to do the role justice. But this was the first time I'd ever heard the man sing. And it was...really not what I was expecting. I will at least give him this much, if there's any character in this show who could feasibly get away with sounding flatter, it would be Javert, where it could be seen as part of his stiff nature. Again, I can respect that idea, even though in this case I doubt it was on purpose, but it is still disappointing to hear in some of these songs. Much of the rest of the cast, actually, are fairly good. Anne Hathaway's Oscar win for this one was certainly earned, and Amanda Seyfried and Eddie Redmayne both do justice to two characters who, even in this version, seem a bit light on actual character. Actually, in their case, I really have to give Redmayne some credit for one thing, when it came to 'Empty Chairs At Empty Tables,' he succeeded at selling the song. For as mixed as I was with later parts of the movie, that was one I was actually satisfied with. Likewise, as the third member of the triangle, Samantha Barks as Eponine carries her role well. While the decision to have her big number, 'On My Own', take place in the rain felt a bit heavy-handed on Hooper's part, she still delivers the emotion strongly enough that the rain doesn't really detract. [EDIT - OK, I will concede the rain fits the song in hindsight.  Though I still think the film lays on the downpour a bit thick here. Especially considering afterwards it's like it never happened. Even in New England, a downpour like that leaves SOME signs after.] Actually, about the only other area where I had much of an issue with the casting was in the casting of Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter as the Thénardiers. This is one it saddens me a bit to admit to since, on paper, I REALLY liked the idea of Cohen as Thénardier. In some regards, he actually doesn't do that badly, either. Like Crowe, he feels like a case where he'd be better suited to playing the role in a non-musical capacity. He does make for some decent bits of comedy, but his singing unfortunately feels somewhat lacking here. He at least makes the most of some of it in 'Master of the House' with the physical comedy, but it's hard not to feel like there's an opportunity wasted there. He does get some of the hang of balancing the comedy with the singing when it comes to 'The Thénardier Waltz of Treachery,' but for a man known for his comedy, it feels strange to have him come up short here. Though from an adaptation standpoint, I do have to admit, I actually did find his playing Thénardier as a bit crueler and harsher at times a nice callback. Though, further on that, it made me sad they omitted 'Dog Eats Dog,' as Cohen's singing style would have been perfect for that. As for Carter...OK, she's not a bad actress, but given the character in question, I wasn't particularly sold on the idea of her in the part from the get-go. Then she didn't exactly work to assuage my reservations from there. For a character who is, by all accounts, an overbearing bruiser and a terror to everyone but her husband, Carter channeled none of that. In fact, half the time, she didn't really seem to be channeling much of anything beyond a nondescript performance cribbed from a lost Tim Burton movie. Again, the knowledge that she's not actually a bad actress and that this is actually a character an actress could have a lot of fun with just made the cruise control performance feel like THAT much more of a disappointment. Back on the good side of the performances, the rest of the cast were actually quite well chosen. The Friends of the ABC all balance the acting and singing well, and hearing the performances within the right age range is a nice little bonus. Again, it's the kind of thing you can take in stride on stage, but for a film, it's nice to see them meet this one part way and still do it. Along those lines, I was actually very happy with Daniel Huttlestone's turn as Gavroche. Admittedly, it feels a bit weird to hear a British accent from someone who's supposed to be French (Cohen, Carter, this one's on you two as well!) but for his age, I can let some of that slide. That aside, he channels the boy's rebelliousness well, and carries his songs well. Given the hit or miss field of child acting, it's always nice to see the kids who can hold their own this well. In wrapping up this section, I do have to give one other shoutout - the decision to cast Colm Wilkinson, the show's original Jean Valjean, as the Bishop of Digne was a VERY nice touch. Both for a general trivia bit, and the fact that Wilkinson makes a great performance of the brief role, giving him the warmth necessary to see why he has the impact on Valjean that he does.

"...oh, COME ON, HOOPER! REALLY?"

So yeah, a few bumps aside, this actually turned out to be a net positive.

But how does it fair as an adaptation?

One of the biggest hurdles this film has from an adaptation standpoint is the fact that, at least by design, it's not so much an adaptation of the original book as it is an adaptation of the musical adaptation of the book. Despite that, and in something of a risky move, Hooper seems to want to try and reconcile the two different versions together, and includes a lot of callbacks to the original novel while he films the musical. Some of these aren't bad ideas, such as invoking the reaction from Gavroche during 'A Little Fall of Rain' to hint to the fact he and Eponine are siblings (though to be fair, this is common in a lot of the stage performances is as well.) Likewise, introducing Gavroche by having him climb out of the elephant statue the novel describes him as living in are nice touches for those familiar with the original while not really deterring the musical. Unfortunately, it also leads to a couple of areas that DO tend to sit awkwardly in the narrative. Much as I like the idea of this adaptation actually providing the follow-up to Fauchlevent (the man Valjean saves when he's trapped under a cart,) it's part of an overly long sequence that, while also accurate to the book, really doesn't fit into the pace of the movie that well. Likewise, while the movie does make a bit of a nod to Marius's grandfather, Gillenormand, he's almost a non-character in how he's depicted. Given just how much personality Hugo gives the man in the original work, as a somewhat comedic example of bourgeoisie, seeing him as just a scowling old man here is arguably more of a disappointment than not featuring him at all.

Much of the rest of the elements, I already discussed before, so there's no real need to go into them too much here. While I want to be able to give Hooper more credit for his including the shoutouts, several or the more pronounced ones really don't justify themselves in the film too well.

...whew.  That...that was a lot.

So what did I get from this film? Honestly, a very mixed sentiment. Again, I can't bring myself to completely hate the movie, since it does have its strengths. At the same time, however, it also has a LOT of problems, many stemming from the faults of the director. I feel like Hooper is the kind of director who may be better suited for the stage than film. He knows how to direct actors well, but otherwise, he either doesn't realize or doesn't appreciate the extra freedom the medium of film gives him, resulting in a lot of moments in this film that leave me with a feeling of "This could have been so much better." In fact, that phrase really seems to sum up this film in general. It's not particularly awful, but for what it has to work with, and what it's trying to adapt, it really feels like it could have been a much grander vision. What we did get was an interesting experiment, and has some traces of ambition - while I like the basic idea of live recording on the songs, in many cases here, it feels like Hooper just used the first take and ran with it, rather than trying for a better rendition - but only really seems to live up to its potential at select intervals.

Maybe in another 10 or 20 years time, I'd be game to see another attempt made at this with a fresh director with a strong sense of ambition and direction. In the meantime, this isn't as bad as it could have been, but I will continue to look at it with a sense of what might have been.

and if they're lucky, the Academy hazing rituals won't be quite as severe by then.

So...several stops and starts later, this brings the first Summer Reading project to a close. In all, was an interesting project, and one I look forward to trying to work with more in the future.

In the meantime though, now I'm just glad to have that one past, cause that was a LOT.

Keep an eye out this Friday when we get back on track!

Till then!

...oh, what the Hell, I've put off the jokes about him this long, one for the road:

"Did someone say FOIGHTIN'?!"

Evil Dead (2013) - Why Am I Grilling This Movie For Looking Good?

Well, most of the summer film queue is over, but I've still got a 'to do' of this year's releases in general to work through. With this in mind, after a lot of mixed feelings on my own interest in seeing it, I finally decided 'Hell with it' and got around to checking out Fede Alvarez's remake of the cult classic The Evil Dead.

Personally, I felt really torn on this one going in. On the one hand, the filmmakers' enthusiasm actually had me sold on wanting to give this movie a shot. On the other, the trailers felt...I didn't quite know how to put it at
the time. They looked nice, but they lacked a certain je ne sais quoi that I come to expect when I hear Evil Dead.

Yeah, I know that sounds kind of biased, which is why I still decided to shut that voice up and finally got around to seeing the movie.

In some ways, I have to admit, I was actually pleasantly surprised. At the same time, I also felt myself let down in other ways.

OK, I'll just go for the throat and say it before I dive right in: Alvarez's Evil Dead is both a good and bad film all at once. On its own, it's actually a well done horror film, especially for a man making his feature debut. On the other, for as good as it is in its own rights...it doesn't really feel like an Evil Dead movie.

...well, OK, there WAS that, but not really the best scene to use to recapture that feeling.

I'll explain that further later. I just needed to get that out of my system before I went on.

Now then, let's get started.

The film begins with a prologue that, to its credit, could actually make for a pretty good short film on its own. One of the things this version actually has over the predecessor it takes its name from is that the script by
Alvarez and Rodo Sayagues aims to give more backstory, both to the main characters, and to the infamous Book of the Dead that triggers everything. As such, this opening helps give a bit of insight into how the book wound up at the cabin for this movie - and on its own it's actually a pretty good little bit of creepiness to set things into motion. With that, we jump into the main movie: unlike the earlier version, and again, this is one area I think this version actually has an advantage, we learn more about the future victims, both in general and right out of the gate. This time around, the trip to the cabin has a bit more motivation behind it than the old horror tradition of going for a weekend of fun and/or casual sex. Rather, the group have gathered at the request of Mia (Jane Levy,) a former junkie who's trying to go straight. This trip to the cabin is her detox - they're gonna stay until she's completely cleaned up. This angle actually serves the writers fairly well early in, particularly as it fuels both the general character interaction, and allows for a degree of slow escalation as the movie's supernatural elements begin. At first they build up slowly, with the group finding a basement loaded with occult objects and dead animals (which, while a little heavy handed, is still not too badly done.) Then comes the famous Book of the Dead among these things, and anyone who's familiar with the story knows where this is heading.
That said, the summoning is one area where I do have to dock the film a couple of minor points - in the original, the scene with the group playing the tape is, admittedly not the brightest thing in the world, but to their credit, it's not like they particularly know better at that point. By comparison, when Eric (Lou Taylor Pucci) is thumbing through the book and sees the words, explicitly written in English 'DO NOT READ OUT LOUD,' and does so anyway...it's hard not to say he brought it on himself.

The fact the warning is attached to a book that looks like this just makes it even less excusable.

Anyway, from here, like I said, the film actually ramps itself up pretty well - again, they take advantage of the detox angle, and the fact Mia is the first person targeted by the demons, to allow the events to slowly build. Thanks to her history, the rest of the group, including her brother David (Shiloh Fernandez) assume this is part of her addiction talking and don't realize something else is genuinely wrong until it's too late. Additionally, one of the other areas this version distinguishes itself from the earlier Evil Dead movies is in the fact that the use of the Book triggers a ritual, leading in part to further escalation of the horrors that will be inflicted on the ill-fated visitors. This leads to a neat narrative device in using the ritual to parallel the things that happen over the course of the movie. While this could be seen by some as a bit on the nose, I have to admit, I thought it was an interesting element - suggesting that these seeming acts of mutilation and death are not simply random acts from the demons, but part of a deliberate cycle.

Wow...that's a lot for discussing the plot to an Evil Dead movie.

Anyway, like I said, on its own merits, this is actually a pretty well made movie. Alongside the extra effort put into the script, the movie has a good cast going for it. Most notably Levy as Mia, whose character gets run, all but literally, through a wringer over the course of this movie, and she handles it all well. The rest of the group, carry their weight on this one too. It's not gonna be particularly award-winning fare for this year, but it still holds up well. Likewise, for his first time full-time, Alvarez's direction shows a good eye for the subject matter. Some of the sequences he has put together in this are creative and fairly squirm-inducing, and outside of those, he even lands one surprise I have to admit I didn't expect. Pair this with some VERY welcome use of practical effects and this movie is actually a rather promising first offering.

"Just keep telling yourself...it's for an authentic effect..."

...now, some of you are probably wondering "then why did you call it a bad movie before?"
That's...actually kind of the weird thing. Like I said before, this is a good movie. It's partially because of that that it's not a particularly good Evil Dead movie.

Don't read this as a slam on the Evil Dead trilogy, mind you. Anyone who was here last October knows that's not the case.

But after three films and a lot of tie-in media, the Evil Dead trilogy has essentially cemented itself with an
identity defined now in part by the wonderfully low budget, somewhat goofy style that has made the films as embraced as comedy as they have been horror. I want to give this film points for trying to go back to its roots, but the fact is, that image has become such a pronounced part of the Evil Dead identity, that this film just doesn't really feel like it lives up to the name. Most notably with regards to the production values - again, I actually was rather impressed with the effects on this movie, practical FX in the age of CGI, especially when done well, are always a welcome change.

But, again, seeing something look this polished and professional just feels alien to have bearing the Evil Dead name.

I realize it sounds weird, but that's the score here. Again, I commend the efforts on the part of Alvarez and his team. Honestly, the big problem here isn't even their fault per se. It's just what happens when you go all in on a brand that's built its identity on its low budget trappings...well, it feels like the wrong way to go is all.

It's a rather curious feeling...not bad, but curious.

Two more entries tomorrow.

See you then...and maybe in your nightmares!