Archive for the Classic Films Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Friday Night Knife Fights – THE HOWLING VS. AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON – Part 2

Posted in 1980s Horror, 2012, Animals Attack, Classic Films, Friday Night Knife Fights, Horror, Werewolves with tags , , , , , on January 20, 2012 by knifefighter

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS:  THE HOWLING (1981) vs. AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON (1981)
PART 2 (of 3)
With Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, Mark Onspaugh, and Nick Cato

From THE HOWLING

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Welcome back, everyone.

Tonight it’s PART 2 of FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS:  THE HOWLING (1981) vs. AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON (1981), where our panel of CINEMA KNIFE FIGHTERS attempt to decide which of these two werewolf classics is the better movie.

Once again, L.L. Soares and I are joined by Nick Cato and Mark Onspaugh. Thanks again, guys, for being here.

MARK ONSPAUGH:  No problem.

NICK CATO:  As long as I don’t have to howl at the moon anymore.

MO:  Not into howling at the moon?

NC:  No.

L.L. SOARES:  What’s the matter with you, Nick?  Not into howling at the moon?  What kind of a werewolf fan are you?

NC:  Sane.

MA: Okay, after two rounds in PART 1, both these films were tied one round apiece. Ready, guys?  It’s time for Round 3.

Which film has the better cast of characters?

LS:  I think Dee Wallace is pretty good in THE HOWLING, and she has some interesting supporting actors like Patrick Macnee (Steed from the classic AVENGERS TV show from 1961 – 1969), character actor Slim Pickens as the sheriff, and even old-time horror icon John Carradine as a strange old man. The rest of the supporting cast is pretty good, too.

I also like that there are a lot of fun cameos in the film, including director Roger Corman as a man waiting to use a telephone booth, Corman regular Dick Miller as a bookstore owner, Forrest J. Ackerman as a bookstore customer, and even screenwriter John Sayles as a coroner.

But there are some weaker characters, too. Don McLeod as T.C. is just such a stereotypical creepy character that he doesn’t seem believable at all. And Elizabeth Brooks, as the seductive Marsha Quist, certainly looks the part, but isn’t a very good actress in this movie (it is her film debut, however, to be fair).

Don McLeod as T.C. Quisp in THE HOWLING.

That said, the acting in AMERICAN WEREWOLF is just that much better. David Naughton is terrific as the lead, David Kessler. Griffin Dunne steals every scene he’s in as David’s buddy Jack Goodman (even after he’s dead) and provides a lot of humor in the story, and I have to admit to having a crush on Jenny Agutter as Nurse Alex Price back when I saw this in the movie theater as a kid.

MA:  Me, too. And I relived that crush all over again when I rewatched this one.

MO (howls):  Aaaawwoooo!!!

LS:  The acting chops are just a different level in this movie, while THE HOWLING seems more like a B-movie you’d see at the drive-in (although better than average for those kinds of flicks).

It’s also funny to note that there’s a scene in THE HOWLING where Dee Wallace’s character is trapped in a car while werewolves slam into the doors and try to get in. This mirrors another movie she would star in two years later, CUJO (1983), where her character was in much the same situation.

MA:  So, are you saying that you like the cast in THE HOWLING better, but you prefer the acting in AMERICAN WEREWOLF?

LS:  Actually, no. I like the cast of THE HOWLING, but the cast of AMERICAN WEREWOLF is superior in just about every way.

MA:  Nick, how about you?  What do you think of the casts?

NC:  I’m with L.L. on this one. AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON has the more interesting cast, especially the dead friend, Jack.

MO:  You guys are both wrong.

While I think David Naughton, Griffin Dunne and Jenny Agutter were all good in AMERICAN WEREWOLF, how can you compare them to a movie with Patrick MacNee, Slim Pickens and John Carradine? And Bob Picardo is amazing as “Happy Face” serial killer Eddie; as are awesome “bad girl” Elisabeth Brooks as Marsha and Don McLeod as redneck psycho T.C.

I love the whole dynamic of werewolves who are joyously evil vs. scared victims, some of whom come to embrace their bestial nature, and the pompous psychotherapist (MacNee) who recommends the worst course of therapy imaginable…  I go with THE HOWLING.

MA:  I dunno, Mark. I think I’m siding with L.L. and Nick.

MO:  The horror of it all!

LS:  When you’re right, you’re right!

MA:  I’ve always liked the characters in AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF better. David Naughton is OK as David Kessler, the werewolf.

L.L, you said you thought Naughton was excellent as David, but I’ve always found him running hot and cold in this movie.

LS:  What do you know!

MA:  I like it when he’s being goofy, but other than the transformation scene, he doesn’t have the angst and pain of a guy who’s now a murderous beast.

But I agree with you that Griffin Dunne steals the show as David’s undead friend Jack. And I also really like Jenny Agutter as David’s love interest, Nurse Alex Price, and John Woodvine is also memorable as Dr. Hirsch. They all deliver solid performances.

Griffin Dunne as Jack Goodman in AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON provides comic relief, even after he's dead.

Interestingly, David Schofield, who plays a dart player in a key scene in the movie, was also in the recent remake of THE WOLFMAN (2010) as a police constable.

I agree that THE HOWLING has a more impressive cast, with Patrick Macnee, Kevin McCarthy, John Carradine, and Dee Wallace in the starring role, but I’ve never warmed up to the characters. As such, I prefer the cast in AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF OF LONDON.

Since L.L., Nick, and myself all chose the cast of AMERICAN WEREWOLF, Round 3 goes to AMERICAN WEREWOLF, giving it a 2-1 edge over THE HOWLING.

Next up, it’s Round 4, and the question is, which film’s director does a better job, Joe Dante on THE HOWLING, or John Landis on AMERICAN WERWOLF?

MO:  It’s interesting, both directors are known for their senses of humor – and Dante peppers his film with werewolf references and even a cartoon Big Bad Wolf.

MA:  You’re right, but I think the humor works better in AMERICAN WEREWOLF than it does in THE HOWLING.

MO: Funny you should say that because I actually see AMERICAN WEREWOLF as a tragedy.

MA: It is a tragedy. It just has a lot of funny parts in it.

MO:  And I see THE HOWLING more as a “monster picture.”

Both are entertaining, but I find THE HOWLING darker and scarier – and that’s often what I look for. So, I go with Dante and THE HOWLING.

LS:  Like I said before, Dante gives us an above average drive-in movie. But John Landis gives us something more, with more believable characters and just a higher standard of writing and directing. While I like what Dante did on THE HOWLING, I don’t think you can compare it to AMERICAN WEREWOLF in the directing category. Landis was at the top of his game.

David Naughton in a dream sequence from AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON.

MA:  I agree.

MO:  What am I going to do with you two guys?

MA:  I definitely prefer Landis’s work on AMERICAN WEREWOLF. He created the more memorable transformation scene, and the opening bit when David and Jack are attacked on the moors is probably the most suspenseful scene in the movie, and far more suspenseful than anything in THE HOWLING.

I also thought Landis was far more successful pulling off the comic relief, as there are many humorous moments in AMERICAN WEREWOLF.

All in all, I’m going with Landis.

MO:  Nick, help me out here, dude.

NC:  I wish I could, but when it comes to these two directors and their work on these two movies, I don’t have a clear preference. I’m calling it a draw.

MA:  All right, Round 4 goes to AMERICAN WEREWOLF, giving it a 3-1 lead over THE HOWLING. It’s starting to pull away.

Round 5. Which movie has the better screenplay?

I’ll go first.

Hands down, AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF. No contest. It’s a very creative screenplay, and includes off-the-wall humor and some memorable scenes with Griffin Dunne as a walking dead man.

I did like how THE HOWLING included in-joke character names, like Dr. George Waggner (the name of the man who directed THE WOLF MAN (1941), Terry Fisher and Fred Francis [two of Hammer Film’s more famous directors. Fisher directed Hammer’s THE CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF (1962)], and Erle Kenton (who directed HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1944) and HOUSE OF DRACULA (1945).

In terms of story and characters, though, I prefer AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF to THE HOWLING.

LS:  Funny enough, I just read the original novel of THE HOWLING before watching the movie again recently – it’s by Gary Brandner – and I was surprised how much the movie changed the story. Not all of the changes make sense – since there are very strong motivations in the novel that are not as clear-cut in the film. I’m surprised by this, because the script was written by John Sayles (along with Terence H. Winkless), and Sayles has a reputation for being an above-average screenwriter—and has had an accomplished career since as a director—even for a movie like this. I actually wish it had stuck more to the original story.

The main changes are the fact that Karen White is a news anchor and a local celebrity (in the book, she was just an average woman), and that the “retreat” she goes to after an attempted rape is some kind of group therapy getaway (in the book, it was a small town that the Whites go to recover from Karen’s actual rape – no attempted in the book). It just seemed that the characters were stronger in the novel. While I don’t hate all the changes the movie made, I just think it’s a so-so script, when it could have been a really good one.

In comparison, John Landis’s script for AMERICAN WEREWOLF is smarter, his characters are more fleshed out, and the motivations are more believable. So AMERICAN WEREWOLF wins the screenplay competition hands down.

MA:  Well, Mark, here we go again. Are you going to side with THE HOWLING on this one?

MO:  Actually, I have to admit the writing is a bit better on AMERICAN WEREWOLF.

NC:  Yes, AMERICAN WEREWOLF has an excellent screenplay.

MA:  Round 5:  AMERICAN WEREWOLF. It’s now up 4-1 over THE HOWLING.

And believe it or not, that’s all the time we have here tonight.

MO:  Already?  Man, that went by fast.

LS:  And see, Nick, you didn’t even have to howl!

NC:  I’ll let you guys do the howling.

MA:  Join us again next Friday night for the third and final installment of our HOWLING vs. AMERICAN WEREWOLF bout. Will AMERICAN WEREWOLF continue to beat up on THE HOWLING?  Or will THE HOWLING come from behind and win with a knock-out?

Tune in next Friday night to find out.

Good night everybody!

—END Part 2—

© Copyright 2011 by Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, Mark Onspaugh and Nick Cato

1 Comment »

FAREWELL TO DIRECTOR KEN RUSSELL

Posted in 2011, Art Movies, Classic Films, Highly Stylized Films, LL Soares Reviews, Obituaries and Appreciations with tags , , , , , on November 29, 2011 by knifefighter

FAREWELL TO KEN RUSSELL
An Appreciation by L.L. Soares

British director Ken Russell died yesterday (Sunday, November 27, 2011) With a long and often controversial career, Russell was definitely a one-of-a-kind talent. He began making TV movies for the BBC and then moved to features. Just some of his great films include:

WOMEN IN LOVE (1969). His adaptation of D.H. Lawrence’s novel got Glenda Jackson an Oscar and featured a controversial nude wrestling scene between Oliver Reed and Alan Bates!

THE DEVILS (1971). His most controversial film, involving a convent full of demon-possessed nuns (or is it a case of sexual hysteria?)

TOMMY (1975). Perhaps his best-known film, TOMMY is the film version of The Who’s rock opera, in all its over-the-top glory.

ALTERED STATES (1980). William Hurt locks himself away in a sensory-deprivation tank and gets in touch with his inner ape-man and his future energy monster in this cult classic, with a script by the great Paddy Chayefsky.

CRIMES OF PASSION (1984). Another underrated cult classic, this time with Kathleen Turner as a hooker and Anthony Perkins as the psychotic gentleman obsessed with her.

GOTHIC (1986). Lord Byron, Mary Shelley, Percy Bysshe Shelley and friends sit around telling ghost stories (which will lead to Mary writing her novel, “Frankenstein”) in this stylized historical drama.

LAIR OF THE WHITE WORM (1988). Amanda Donohoe as a vampire in this adaptation of the novel by Bram Stoker. With Hugh Grant. Look for the game of Snakes and Ladders!

THE RAINBOW (1989). Another D.H. Lawrence adaptation, this time with young schoolteacher Sammi Davis and her sexual awakening.

WHORE (1991). Russell’s answer to Gary Marshall’s hooker fantasy, PRETTY WOMAN (1990), stars Theresa Russell and aims to show us what being a prostitute is really like.

Russell also did tons of biopics about classical composers and artists including: THE MUSIC LOVERS (1970) with Richard Chamberlain as Tchaikovsky; MAHLER (1970) with Robert Powell as Gustav Mahler, LISZTOMANIA (1975) with The Who’s Roger Daltrey as Franz Liszt; and SAVAGE MESSIAH (1972) with Scott Antony as French sculptor Henri Gaudier-Brzeska.

Ken Russell followed his own personal vision in everything he did, and he was definitely the kind of director you would either love or hate. Some of us here at Cinema Knife Fight thought he was pretty damn great.

He will be missed.

6 Comments »

Friday Night Knife Fights: ALIEN (1979) vs. THE THING (1982) – PART 3

Posted in 2011, 80s Horror, Aliens, Classic Films, Friday Night Knife Fights, LL Soares Reviews, Mark Onspaugh Columns, Michael Arruda Reviews with tags , , , , , , , on November 25, 2011 by knifefighter

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS: ALIEN VS. THE THING
PART 3
Featuring Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares and Mark Onspaugh

MICHAEL ARRUDA: Welcome back everyone to FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS: ALIEN (1979) VS. THE THING (1982). Tonight’s the moment we’ve all been waiting for, the third and final installment of this epic bout, where our panel decides once and for all which one of these two horror/science fiction classics is the better movie.

L.L. is here, as is Mark Onspaugh. Okay, guys, let’s get to it. There’s been an interesting trend in Parts 1 and 2. Three of the first four rounds have gone to ALIEN, and I find this interesting because all three of us said at the outset that we loved both these films an awful lot and admitted that choosing one over the other would be incredibly difficult, but here we are with ALIEN leading THE THING three rounds to one. Maybe these films aren’t as close as we originally thought.

L.L. SOARES: It’s not over yet. Besides, regardless of what happens, it’s not going to change my opinion of these films. They both rock.

MARK ONSPAUGH: They’re two classics of the genre, and whichever one comes out on top is not going to diminish the status of the “loser.”

MA: Mark, I saw you busily scribbling notes before the cameras started to roll. You’re coming in ready to play hardball.

MO: Actually, I’ve been having so much fun that I decided to jot down some ideas for some future FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS.

MA: Really? Like what?

MO: Well, how about AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON (1981) vs. THE HOWLING (1981)?

LS: Excellent.

MA: You heard it here first, folks, a preview for a future FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS. We might just have to do that one next. However, we have to finish this one first, so here we go.

A "face hugger" from ALIEN

Which movie has the better screenplay, ALIEN or THE THING? Mark?

MO: I love both movies, and both are tight with satisfying endings…- THE THING is certainly like a wild ride and has more laughs, but ALIEN presented something really new and different – a creature that would be copied ad nauseum in bad “direct-to-video” creature features… So much is there, and yet not everything is revealed… I have to go with ALIEN.

MA: Another tough one. But I have to go with ALIEN too. Mark, while you credited both stories as being tight, I find ALIEN’s story tighter and grittier. Both have memorable characters, but ALIEN has a tighter story than THE THING, which leaves things unexplained and wide open.

There’s a lot more about the actual Thing monster left unsaid that I want to know about than there is left unsaid about Alien. Plus, I’ve never been a fan of the ending to THE THING. It’s way too wide open for my tastes. I enjoyed the conclusive ending to ALIEN much better.

LS: I almost want to say that the scripts are equally good. But if I have to choose one as having the better story, THE THING is a bit more complex, mainly due to the nature of the monster. The story of ALIEN is actually much simpler, although very effective. THE THING wins by a hair, here.

MA: Unfortunately, you’re in the minority, as Mark and I went with ALIEN.

LS: What do you guys know?

THE THING replicates a dog.

MA: And so after five rounds, ALIEN takes a commanding lead, 4-1.

Next question. Which film has a better cast of characters?

LS: Both movies have terrific ensemble casts. But I have to give my vote to the cast of ALIEN. It’s just a personal preference thing, but seriously, they’re pretty equal.

MA: Must be the strong women thing for you. Actually, there aren’t any women in THE THING.

For me this is yet another tough one. I love the characters in both movies. THE THING’s characters are definitely quirkier and perhaps more likeable, but if we’re talking cast, you can’t beat the ensemble of actors in ALIEN – Sigourney Weaver, Tom Skerritt, Ian Holm, Harry Dean Stanton, Yaphet Kotto, Veronica Cartright, and of course John Hurt.

So, LL, I’m with you. Edge – ALIEN. Mark?

MO: Both movies have great, memorable characters, and they are easily distinguished… But ALIEN just has some amazing performers in Sigourney Weaver, Ian Holm, John Hurt, Harry Dean Stanton, Yaphet Kotto, Tom Skerritt and Veronica Cartwright… I know you just mentioned them, but they’re worth mentioning again. With sharp writing and actors like that, I have to go with ALIEN.

MA: So, we all agree that ALIEN has the better cast of characters. After six rounds, ALIEN is kicking some serious butt, leading THE THING, 5-1.

Now, let me explain here, that, as in boxing, a fighter leading the match by points can still lose the fight by being knocked out in the final round. So, even though THE THING is getting an alien beating tonight, it can still win.

The final question:Which one is the better movie, ALIEN or THE THING?

MO: Again, I love both, and even though my answers are weighted for ALIEN, I would have to put it in context… If I want to have fun and yell at the screen with my friends, it’s THE THING. If I want something scary and different, it’s ALIEN.

MA: So, you’re kinda saying it’s a draw?

MO: I’m saying in terms of the questions I answered tonight, I answered in favor of ALIEN, but putting it into context, they’re both excellent.

MA: Sounds like a draw. LL?

LS: I never really compared these two movies before, and it’s funny how much both of them are big favorites of mine. The two movies would make for a great double feature. I have a slight preference for ALIEN, only because I saw it at just the right time, as a kid, for it to leave a bigger impression on me. But THE THING is pretty much an equally strong film.

MA: You’re calling it a draw too? Jeesh!

Well, I won’t call it a draw. I’m going with ALIEN as the better movie. Again, like you guys, I love both these movies, but I’m going with ALIEN because it has the better monster, the better direction, the better screenplay, and the better cast.

So, it looks like there won’t be a dramatic knock-out for THE THING after all.

This has got to be one of the closest FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS we’ve done yet, but based upon the answers to our first six questions, ALIEN held the advantage, 5-1 over THE THING, and then based upon our final question, which one would we pick as the better movie, you guys called it a draw, and I went with ALIEN, and so, the results seem clear. By the ever slightest of margins, ALIEN wins out over THE THING in this hard-fought bout.

ALIEN wins by a nose.

LS: I still say they’re pretty even. None of these questions were particularly easy to answer.

MO: And, as I said, it depends on which frame of mind you’re in.

MA: But the numbers don’t lie, and tonight they’re in favor of ALIEN.

Well, folks, that’s all the time we have for tonight. I’m Michael Arruda, and on behalf of L.L. Soares, Mark Onspaugh, and myself, thanks for being with us, and we look forward to seeing you next time. This has been FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS. Good night everybody!

—END—

© Copyright 2011 by Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares and Mark Onspaugh

Leave A Comment »

Friday Night Knife Fights: ALIEN VS. THE THING – PART 2

Posted in 1980s Horror, 2011, Aliens, Classic Films, Friday Night Knife Fights, John Carpenter Films, Science Fiction with tags , , , , , , on November 18, 2011 by knifefighter

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS:  ALIEN VS. THE THING
PART 2
Featuring Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, and “special guest star” Mark Onspaugh

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Welcome back to FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS:  ALIEN (1979) VS. THE THING (1982).  Tonight it’s Part 2, as L.L. SOARES, MARK ONSPAUGH, and myself continue our panel discussion over which of these two horror science fiction classics is the better movie.

Ready for Part 2, guys?

MARK ONSPAUGH:  Bring it on!

L.L. SOARES:  Let me just down this beer first  (guzzles from a giant can of FOSTERS).

MA:  Hope that doesn’t cloud your judgment.

LS:  Don’t worry.  When it comes to talking about movies, I can do it in my sleep.

MA:  Which you’ve done on some occasions.

LS:  Yeah, and I still make more sense than you do. (laughs).

MO:  Uh oh.  Here we go again.

MA: There’s never a cream pie around when you need one.

MO:  Would you like me to get one?

MA:  Maybe later. Moving right along, let’s get back to our discussion.

Watch out! THE THING is coming to get you!

In Part 1, both Rounds went to ALIEN, and so ALIEN leads THE THING 2-0.  On to Question 3.

Which film has the better special effects?

I’ll answer this one first.  Hands down, I like the special effects in THE THING better.  I thought the gross-out effects in this movie were ahead of their time. And better yet, they still hold up today.

On the other hand, while I love the look of the Alien, we don’t see him a whole lot.  Now, I’m not faulting the fact that we don’t see him a lot, because this actually works to the movie’s advantage, but when we do see him, it’s quick and fleeting, and visually not all that impressive.  It’s still scary, but in terms of special effects, it doesn’t pack the same punch as the effects in THE THING.

For me it’s a no brainer.  The special effects in THE THING are better.

A dead unearthly astronaut on an alien ship in ALIEN

MO:  I disagree.  I don’t find the special effects in ALIEN disappointing at all.  Both films have awesome effects, in a time when rubber and paint still ruled… But THE THING takes place in Quonset huts—while ALIEN gives us a battered ship, an alien planet, an alien ship… and a decapitated android…. I have to give the nod to ALIEN when it comes to special effects.

LS:  You seem to have forgotten all that, Michael.

MA:  No, I haven’t forgotten.  I love the look of the Nostromo, the alien planet, the abandoned alien ship, the different stages of the alien, all that’s cool.  But in terms of pure impact, the way the special effects were used in THE THING, they were unforgettable.  To me, the best part of THE THING were its special effects, its creature effects in particular.  I can’t say that about ALIEN.

LS:  They both have great effects for their time, and if you watch them now, both films have scenes where the effects are pretty strong, and other scenes that look dated and even silly now.

MA:  Really?  I think they hold up rather well.

LS:  That’s because you look dated and silly, too.

MA (suddenly wearing a 1970s leisure suit):  What do you mean?

LS:  Overall, though, I’d have to go with THE THING, just because the monster is constantly changing. It’s just more of a field day for the effects people.

MA:  Yep, that’s what I’m talking about.  The special effects in THE THING are a more integral part of the movie than they are in ALIEN.

Round 3 goes to THE THING, which means THE THING finally scores a point and gets on the board, cutting into ALIEN’s lead. After three rounds, ALIEN holds a 2-1 advantage.

Next question.  Which film’s director does a better job, John Carpenter or Ridley Scott?

LS:  I’m a big Carpenter fan, especially THE THING, which is probably my favorite of his movies, up there with the original HALLOWEEN (1978). But ALIEN gets the edge here for me. I’d have to say Scott does a slightly better job at generating real scares.

MA:  I agree with you here.  Ridley Scott creates some genuinely creepy scenes.  He pulls out all stops in terms of creative direction.  ALIEN is full of suspense.  Strangely, Carpenter, who made a cinematic masterpiece of suspense with HALLOWEEN, seems to have forgotten all that with THE THING, which really isn’t suspense-driven.  It’s a showcase for gross-out effects, and while this certainly works for me, it’s a far cry from Carpenter’s work on HALLOWEEN.

LS:  Come on!  Carpenter’s work on THE THING is great!  It’s every bit as good as his work on HALLOWEEN, maybe better!

MA:  I disagree.  I think his work on HALLOWEEN is more impressive, but that’s neither here nor there.  We both agree that Ridley Scott does a better job at the helm of ALIEN.

MO:  Both directors give us fleshed-out worlds, paranoia, claustrophobia and disturbing imagery… But I found ALIEN scary whereas THE THING was more thrilling… Based on being scared, I go with Ridley.

MA:  Looks like ALIEN is going for the clean sweep with this question because I’m going with Ridley Scott too.

LS:  Didn’t you already say that?

MA:  Well, I said it in response to your answer, but I haven’t given my answer yet.

LS:  I think we’re in for some repetition.

MO:  As long as it’s about ALIEN and THE THING, I don’t mind.  I could talk about these movies all night.

MA:  Like you LL, I’m also a huge fan of John Carpenter, but I still have to go with Ridley Scott.  The strength of ALIEN is the suspense it generates, and ALIEN is so chockfull of suspense it’s downright uncomfortable at times.  The scene where Tom Skerritt (Dallas) travels through the air ducts searching for the Alien armed with a flame thrower is a classic nail biter.

I’ve always felt Carpenter’s direction in THE THING was not as inspired as his direction of HALLOWEEN or even THE FOG (1980).  There’s a strange use of fades in THE THING that’s very noticeable.  I’m sure he did this for a reason, but to me it’s very awkward.

Looks like Round 4 goes to ALIEN, and so folks, after four rounds, ALIEN has a commanding lead, 3-1.

And that’s all the time we have for tonight.  Join us next Friday for the third and final installment of FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS:  ALIEN VS. THE THING, when we’ll decide once and for all which one of these two horror classics is the superior film, and with ALIEN sitting comfortably in the lead, it remains to be seen if THE THING will be able to mount a comeback.

LS:  I wouldn’t count THE THING out yet.

MA: Thanks, Mark, for joining us again.  We’ll be looking forward to finishing this up with you next week.

MO:  Likewise.  Thanks, guys, it’s been awesome!

LS (to audience):  And thank you for joining us.  We’ll see you next Friday for the exciting conclusion to ALIEN vs. THE THING.

MA:  Good night everybody.

—END of PART 2—

© Copyright 2011 by Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares and Mark Onspaugh

1 Comment »

Friday Night Knife Fights Presents: ALIEN VS. THE THING (PART 1 OF 3)

Posted in 2011, Aliens, Classic Films, Friday Night Knife Fights, LL Soares Reviews, Mark Onspaugh Columns, Michael Arruda Reviews, Monsters, Scares!, Science Fiction with tags , , , , , on November 11, 2011 by knifefighter

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS: ALIEN VS. THE THING
PART 1 (OF 3)
Featuring Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, and special guest, Mark Onspaugh

MICHAEL ARRUDA: Welcome to another edition of FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS. I’m Michael Arruda, and as always, I’m joined by L.L. SOARES. In addition to LL, we have as our guest tonight on FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS, the very talented MARK ONSPAUGH. Welcome, gentlemen.

L.L. SOARES: Gentlemen? Who walked in?

MARK ONSPAUGH: Happy to be here. I can’t wait to talk about two of my favorite movies.

MA: That’s right. We’ve got a great FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS for you this evening. It’s ALIEN (1979) vs. THE THING (1982). You heard me correctly. Tonight these two horror classics go head to head, and it will be up to our panel of experts to decide which one of the two is the better movie. It should be quite the bout.

It’ll take us three segments to get through this debate. Part 1 is tonight, and we’ll have Parts 2 and 3 for you over the next two Friday nights.

Let’s get this party started.

Mark, we’ll start with you. Which is the better monster, the Alien or the Thing?

MO: Tricky one.

MA: I think we’re going to be saying that a lot tonight.

LS: I know. I had the hardest time with this one. It was much harder than I expected.

MA: Both these films are terrific, and so it’s tough to compare them. Okay, Mark, give it your best shot. Which one is the better monster?

MO: While I love the design of the Alien (especially the final form) over that of the tentacled, mandibled Thing, an intelligent Thing is the perfect invader, hiding in plain sight and able to kill in a lot of ways—the Alien may be fast, but it can’t walk down a city street or sit in a diner without being noticed. I go with The Thing for invasion, the Alien for design.

MA: So, in terms of which one is the better monster, you’re calling it a draw?

MO: Something like that.

MA: Well, I won’t call it a draw. While I love both these monsters, I think Alien is the better monster, because it’s the coolest of the two. I definitely agree with Mark. Its design is out of this world!

LS: Of course it is, you knucklehead. It’s an alien!

MA: Ha, ha! I think Alien’s design is superior to that of the Thing. We also see more of the Alien. We hardly see The Thing at all, as it spends its time inside the bodies of humans, hiding out like a scared alien baby. Alien isn’t scared at all. It’s a big bad-assed monster that bleeds acid. Alien is an amazing creation, one of the most memorable ever to appear in a horror or science fiction movie.

And while I agree with Mark that an intelligent Thing is the perfect invader, I don’t really get the impression in THE THING that the creature is all that intelligent. I know he’s supposed to be. I mean, he builds a ship and all, but I don’t think his cunning is on display all that well in THE THING. I think that’s one of the flaws of THE THING, that the monster isn’t as well defined as it should have been.

On the other hand, there’s little doubt in ALIEN about the Alien’s purpose. It breeds and it kills, period.

So, in terms of which one has the better monster, I’m going with ALIEN.

LS: Yeah, my first reaction is to say ALIEN too, because H.R. Giger’s design for the monster is pretty amazing. When the movie first came out, audiences had never seen anything like it before. And it’s been copied a lot since. It really is an iconic monster.

But so is Carpenter’s version of THE THING. While the ALIEN monster looks cooler, and has different stages of development (all of which are dangerous and scary in their own way), the Thing can imitate any life form and attack when you least expect it.

They are both pretty formidable. I give a slight edge to ALIEN, but THE THING comes very close.

MO: I just thought of something else. The Alien needs a queen to reproduce, but the Thing seems asexual and any part can become a new creature—a definite advantage for an invader, especially if all “things” are part of a hive mind…

MA: It sounds like you’re giving the edge to The Thing?

MO: Yep.

MA: All right. Even so, Round 1 goes to ALIEN, since both LL and I gave the edge to the acid-blooded creature.

Next question. Which is the better hero, Kurt Russell or Sigourney Weaver? Russell of course was in THE THING, and Weaver was in ALIEN.

LS: They’re both great in their roles in these movies, but I’d have to give a slight edge to Sigourney Weaver. Personally, I just prefer strong women, and Weaver’s Ripley is one of the strongest in cinema history.

Sigourney Weaver as Ellen Ripley in Ridley Scott's ALIEN (1979).

MA: No argument there. She pretty much dominates the entire ALIEN series, especially when you get to ALIEN 3 (1992) and ALIEN RESURRECTION (1997), two of the lesser sequels. She’s the best part of those movies.

LS: But Kurt Russell is pretty terrific in THE THING as well. I’d say they both turn in great performances.

Kurt Russell as R.J. MacReady in John Carpenter's THE THING (1982).

MO: Kurt Russell is a total bad-ass, and many of us have been watching him in movies since he was a kid—it’s like seeing a good friend become a superhero (not that I have).

(MA & LS exchange glances.)

MA: I could see you becoming a super villain.

LS: I could see you becoming soup. Trapped in a giant pot surrounded by cannibals.

MA: You think of the most pleasant things!

LS: Don’t I?

MO: You two never stop fighting, do you?

MA: I don’t think our readers want to see us get along.

LS: Where would the fun be in that?

MO: Anyway, if you two are done, I’ll continue.

As bad-ass as Russell is, Sigourney’s Ripley goes from scientist to action hero without ever losing her femininity – I don’t think her final scene in her underwear is so much about titillation as it is about being vulnerable—and she still kicks ass! Ripley paved the way for characters like Sarah Connor and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I pick Sigourney.

MA: Tough one, very tough. Like you two, I should go with Sigourney Weaver for all the reasons you guys put forth, but I really like Kurt Russell in THE THING. He is such a total bad-ass. As much as I like Sigourney Weaver in ALIEN, I just have more fun watching Russell in THE THING, so I have to go with Russell as the better hero. However, I’m in the minority here as you two picked Weaver.

Round 2 also goes to ALIEN.

And that’s all the time we have tonight folks. After two rounds, ALIEN has the early lead. Tune in next Friday night for Part 2 of FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS: ALIEN VS. THE THING to see if THE THING can catch up.

Thanks guys for joining me tonight.

MO: No problem. I’ll be eagerly awaiting the next segment.

LS: Me, too. (to audience) And thank all of you for joining us. We’ll see you next Friday for Part 2.

MA: This has been FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS. Good night everybody!

—THE END…. FOR NOW!—

This edition of FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS is © Copyright 2011 by Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares and Mark Onspaugh

Leave A Comment »

Criterion After Dark: HAUSU (1977)

Posted in 1970s Movies, 2011, Asian Horror, Classic Films, Criterion After Dark, Garrett Cook Articles, Ghosts!, Haunted Houses, Japanese Cinema, Strange Cinema with tags , , , , on October 26, 2011 by knifefighter

Criterion After Dark: HAUSU (1977)
DVD Review by Garrett Cook

The Haunted House story is one of the oldest, most archetypal horror narratives. We’ve always felt certain places are weird, or frightening, or that history has not yet cleaned up the ground on which we’re treading. This narrative has been used to great effect many times, in Henry James’s “The Turn of the Screw,” in Shirley Jackson’s “The Haunting of Hill House,” in Robert Marasco’s “Burnt Offerings,” in Stephen King’s “The Shining,” and in too many other horror novels for me to list. The Haunted House is a cliché environment that nonetheless encourages writers and filmmakers alike to innovate. Interesting how an old, hokey, primal story has given birth to so much creativity and can always find new ways to generate fright and shock.

And although there have been more than enough duds in the genre, such as the atrocious NINE LIVES (2002) starring Paris Hilton and the rather dull TV mini-series, ROSE RED (2002), I personally am always excited when I get a chance to see a new, unique Haunted House story. Hearkens back to the first shudder-inducing time I saw POLTERGEIST (1982), or the first time when I stared in wide-eyed awe as Robert Wise reminded me just how beautiful a horror film can be when I first saw THE HAUNTING (1963) on TV. You too should be excited. Because the haunted house movie I’m going to discuss here is a fresh take among fresh takes, a film that holds the distinction of not only being an innovation in Haunted House narratives, but one of the weirdest damn cult movies in history.

Nobuhiko Ohbyashi’s HAUSU starts with the Haunted House narrative. Seven plucky teenage girls go on a trip to the country to visit one girl’s aunt. The house is not what it seems to be. The aunt is not what she seems to be. And maybe the girl is not what she seems to be. Not a bad start. It’s a movie most horror fans would shell out to see around Halloween. It doesn’t necessarily scream “Criterion Material” though. As with THE HAUNTING (1963), THE INNOCENTS (1961) and THE HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL(1959), HAUSU only starts there, at a place where too many horror movies are content to stop.

From the moment HAUSU begins, you know you’re not going to get what the film’s premise says you’re going to. The eccentric sequence coupled with a cryptic flashback should be a hint.  This, coupled with the  overly schmaltzy music and the ridiculously caricatured girls make you immediately wonder what’s going on. The tone is confusing. And also quite disquieting. If this isn’t a put-on of some kind, then Ohbyashi has not seen a horror film before, or for that matter, has not seen high school girls. These girls and their school are a cartoon, a sanitized, simplified, padded version of reality meant for children.

When Gorgeous, the protagonist, goes to see her father, you really get a sense that something is not right. For one thing, the view outside his window is a blatant matte painting, a bright, cheery falsehood that makes no pretense of being real. But things start going south for gorgeous immediately. Although her  new stepmother looks angelic, Gorgeous has been living in a fairy tale and stepmothers get the short end of the stick in fairy tales. Gorgeous  flees to return to her creepy shrine of a room to bathe in the idyllic light of her memories and talk to her dead mother’s photo. And she decides to inquire after her aunt.

Her aunt okays the visit, so she heads out to the country, with her teenage friends Sweet, Fantasy, Mac, Kung Fu, Prof and Melody, each one named for a single prominent characteristic that defines their character. Their journey is cloaked in mellow saccharine rock, a la Scooby Doo or The Banana Splits. They’re also treated to a black and white flashback…for which the girls provide running commentary. The flashback goes on right outside the bus windows, which is an unlikely place for a flashback. Of course, haunted houses are all about those stuck in the past. Like Gorgeous. You’re left wondering, are they heading for a country house or heading into the heart of her memory? Regardless of what goes on, you can be certain this is not a movie about creaking Gothic mansions, or about teenage girls roaming around having fun. While HAUSU engages the core of the haunted house movie and the core of the Saturday morning cartoon and the teen comedy, it is completely different from any of these genres and something sinister is floating around in it.

At the house they meet Gorgeous’ sinister witchy aunt. And from here things go madder. A weirder film unfolds. A film that’s actually something of a horror film. Not a horror film that will meet any kind of expectations you would have of a horror film, but a horror film nonetheless. It’s funny, scary, eerie and wildly unpredictable. The transition occurs when the perpetually hungry Mac’s head comes out of a well to try and eat the supposedly over imaginative Fantasy. How someone’s imagination can be overactive in a world as strange as that of HAUSU is a baffling question, but nonetheless, the girls simply assume that Fantasy is hallucinating, having an acid trip within this acid trip.

HAUSU’s transformation is similar to that which occurs in Takashi Miike’s AUDITION (1999). AUDITION starts off as a romantic comedy and then transforms into brutal torture porn. HAUSU starts off as a cartoon and turns into something that defies description, a movie composed almost entirely of surprises, with a resolution as surprising as it is cryptic. You watch these very pleasant girls faced with many ironic but weird perils that will surely kill them all. The movie has, by this point already made you forget what you signed on for. If AUDITION’s genre-bending ways did not offend or annoy you, then you’re probably sharp enough to play along with HAUSU. HAUSU is one of those movies where you might as well be staring at static if you’re not willing to play its game, accept the mutability of reality and genre and the lack of convention. If you’ve got smart, adventurous friends, it could be a nice addition to your Halloween party.

HAUSU brings out truths about films, artifice, memory, growing up and the horror genre. It reveals a lot about Haunted Houses and the Haunted House narrative without pandering, without characters openly discussing the movie’s themes, which is something that happens a little bit too often in Haunted House narratives. As great as Elisha Cook’s introduction to William Castle’s HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL is, it could be argued that it’s a bit preachy and smacks you in the face with the movie’s message. As great as THE HAUNTING is, the handy dandy parapsychologist somewhat spoils things. HAUSU has no handy dandy parapsychologist. Only very confrontational expressionism.

Ghosts in the HOUSE (HAUSU) make for a wild time.

Criterion has given this movie the DVD release it deserves. Its menu, packaging and booklet are attractive and contribute to the movie’s cult mystique. It’s something you should be proud of owning and a badge of honor for the weird film buff. Included on the disc is a “Making of” type special that includes an interview with the director and a short film. For those of you who own Blu-ray players, this bright, colorful explosion of art horror chaos would be a nice thing to own. I’m sure it looks fantastic. This cult classic does not disappoint, especially if you’re some kind of freak. It haunts my DVD shelf and should have a chance to haunt yours as well.

© Copyright 2011 by Garrett Cook

6 Comments »

Monstrous Question: WHAT’S YOUR FAVORITE WESTERN (4 of 4)

Posted in 2011, Classic Films, John Wayne Movies, Michael Arruda Reviews, Monstrous Question, Westerns with tags , , , , , on September 18, 2011 by knifefighter

MONSTROUS QUESTION:  Favorite WESTERNS
(Monstrous Question created by Michael Arruda)

Tonight’s question from L.L. SOARES:
What are our favorite westerns?

Our panel responds:

******

MICHAEL ARRUDA: 

I have a lot of favorite westerns, but here are a few of them:

I discovered John Wayne later in life, but I have to say, I REALLY enjoy his movies.  He truly dominates the movies he’s in.  To do that on a consistent basis takes talent, and Wayne, though he won only one Oscar for TRUE GRIT (1969), had a lot of it.  The westerns Wayne starred in belong in a category all their own.

I think the best John Wayne western I’ve seen, and the one that includes Wayne’s best performance, would be THE SEARCHERS (1956), directed by John Ford.  This is a dark, meaty role for the Duke, one in which he gets to show a grim, dangerous side.

You also can’t beat the plot, as Wayne plays Ethan Edwards, a man who along with his nephew (Jeffrey Hunter) spends years searching for his niece, who had been abducted by Indians when she was a child.  Her parents, Ethan’s brother and wife, were murdered by these same Indians, and it’s hinted at early on in the film that Ethan and his brother’s wife share more than just a casual connection.  Also, Wayne’s dark side in this movie comes into play because he hates Indians, and the longer his niece is with them, the more it becomes apparent that rather than rescue her, he’d like to kill her.

It’s a great movie.

But my favorite John Wayne western, in terms of how much fun it is to watch, would be RIO BRAVO (1959), with Dean Martin and Ricky Nelson.  I love the story and I also like Dino’s drunk deputy character, Dude, and Angie Dickinson makes a very sexy leading leady.  I also like EL DORADO (1966) which pairs Wayne with Robert Mitchum and James Caan.  Sure, it tells almost the same story as RIO BRAVO, but it’s still great fun.  These two were both directed by the great Howard Hawks.

Moving on from John Wayne, any western that Clint Eastwood has starred in is more than worth your time.  I love the trilogy by Sergio Leone, FISTFUL OF DOLLARS (1964), FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE (1965), my favorite of the three, and THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY  (1966).  I also like Eastwood in UNFORGIVEN (1992) a lot, and a host of others.  Like I said, you can’t go wrong with Eastwood.

And just to have a western without Wayne or Eastwood, I enjoyed the recent 3:10 TO YUMA (2007) starring Russell Crowe and Christian Bale, and would list that as a modern favorite.

© Copyright 2011 by Michael Arruda

******

—END—

Leave A Comment »

Monstrous Question: WHAT’S YOUR FAVORITE WESTERN? (3 of 4)

Posted in 1970s Movies, 2011, Classic Films, Mark Onspaugh Columns, Monstrous Question, Westerns with tags , , , , on September 17, 2011 by knifefighter

MONSTROUS QUESTION:  Favorite WESTERNS
(Monstrous Question created by Michael Arruda)

Tonight’s question from L.L. SOARES:
What are our favorite westerns?

Our panel responds:

******

MARK ONSPAUGH: 

My favorite Western of all time is HIGH PLAINS DRIFTER (1973), the surreal, supernatural Western shot at Mono Lake that was Clint Eastwood’s second feature as a director, and it’s got everything – a town with a secret, outlaws coming to settle a score, a vengeful spirit, a dwarf, lots of Eastwood-style gunplay… Hell, even the Man with No Name has a name here… if you pay attention…

Eastwood wrote to John Wayne after this debuted, wanting to work with him – the Duke sent back a nasty reply, unhappy with the violence and revisionist leanings of HIGH PLAINS DRIFTER. Needless to say, they never did work together.

I’d take any Eastwood Western after that, but especially THE OUTLAW JOSEY WALES (1976), THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY (1966 – the score alone earns it a spot) and HANG ‘EM HIGH (1966) – [showing his hanging scar] “When you hang a man, you better look at him!”

Man, I love Westerns – I’d also throw in BLAZING SADDLES (1974) and the granddaddy of ‘em all, HOW THE WEST WAS WON (1962), a look at the pioneers and push westward that has every (it seems) major star of Hollywood and everything from a wagon train, a raft on the rapids, riverboats, buffalo stampedes, Indian attacks and the Civil War – all in Cinerama!

—END—

© Answer copyright 2011 by Mark Onspaugh

******

Tune in next time for another response!

Leave A Comment »

Monstrous Question: WHAT’S YOUR FAVORITE WESTERN? (2 of 4)

Posted in 2011, 60s Movies, Classic Films, Colleen Wanglund Reviews, Monstrous Question, Westerns with tags , , , , , , , on September 11, 2011 by knifefighter

MONSTROUS QUESTION:  Favorite WESTERNS
(Monstrous Question created by Michael Arruda)

Tonight’s question from L.L. SOARES:
What are our favorite westerns?

Our panel responds:

******

COLLEEN WANGLUND: 

My favorite western has always been THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN (1960).  Directed by John Sturges, who also directed THE GREAT ESCAPE (1963), it stars Yul Brynner, Charles Bronson, Steve McQueen, Eli Wallach, Robert Vaughn and James Coburn.  The impressive cast alone makes it a great movie for me.  It has plenty of action but is at times understated in its tone, focusing on the motives of the characters for agreeing to help the Mexican villagers against the bandit Calvera (Wallach).  There’s also a sentimentality to the movie….I first watched it with my Dad, who loves westerns and growing up I was daddy’s little girl.  My dad is also responsible for my love of James Bond films, but that’s for another column.  THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN is a remake of Akira Kurosawa’s SEVEN SAMURAI (1954), so close a remake that the two movies share some dialogue, but that’s never really been a factor as to why it’s my favorite western.  Yes, I love Kurosawa, but when I first saw THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN I had never heard of him.

I must give honorable mention to Sergio Leone’s ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST (1968) as a very close second, which stars Henry Fonda, Charles Bronson, Claudia Cardinale, and Jason Robards.  WEST is an epic film dealing with the changes that were occurring in the western part of the United States with the arrival of the first railroad.  It plays out like an opera and has some very beautiful and amazing cinematography.

What I love about both of these films is that there isn’t necessarily a strict black and white/good versus evil storyline.  I mean, of course there are obvious good guys and bad guys, but there’s also a grey area.  In SEVEN, the motives of some of the characters aren’t very noble.  In WEST, Jason Robards plays a bandit who comes through as a good guy as the story moves along.  There are no singing cowboys or an idealization of the American West in either of these movies and that’s part of what makes them so good.  I’m not generally a fan of westerns, but I love THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN and ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST.

—END—

© Answer copyright 2011 by Colleen Wanglund

******

Tune in next weekend for more responses!

1 Comment »

Monstrous Question: WHAT’S YOUR FAVORITE WESTERN? (1 of 4)

Posted in 2011, 60s Movies, Classic Films, LL Soares Reviews, Monstrous Question, Westerns with tags , , , , , , on September 10, 2011 by knifefighter

MONSTROUS QUESTION:  WHAT’S YOUR FAVORITE WESTERN?
(Monstrous Question created by Michael Arruda)

Tonight’s MONSTROUS QUESTION comes from L.L. SOARES.

Since there’s been a decent number of a westerns released in the past few years, including this summer’s COWBOYS AND ALIENS, L.L. thought that our readers might like to know what our favorite westerns were, and so he asked his illustrious panel of writers, including himself, to weigh in on the subject.

Our panel responds:

******

L.L. SOARES: 

Since I came up with the question, I’ll answer this one first for a change.

What’s my favorite western? This is an easy one. I’m a hardcore fan of director Sam Peckinpah, and, as far as I’m concerned, he directed the best western ever made with 1969’s THE WILD BUNCH.  Peckinpah had done other westerns before, including the classic RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY (1962).  But THE WILD BUNCH was something else entirely. It was a game changer. Not only did it deal with a more melancholic view of the west—in THE WILD BUNCH, the old west as we know it is winding down and the “heroes” are a bunch of aging outlaws who want to pull off one last job and then retire—  but  there’s no clear-cut hero, since they’re all pretty much anti-heroes, and it also ushered in a more explicit level of violence than westerns had ever seen before. The gory ending of THE WILD BUNCH was as much of a shock to the system of its time as the bloody shoot-em-up at the end of Arthur Penn’s BONNIE AND CLYDE (1967). These movies ushered in the wild and wooly cinema of the 1970s, when” anything goes.”

The cast is chock full of amazing actors, from 1950s leading men like William Holden and Robert Ryan to top-notch character actors like Ernest Borgnine, Ben Johnson, Strother Martin, Edmund O’Brien, and Peckinpah mainstay Warren Oates. For a potent shot of rye from the wild west, you can’t do much better than this.

A close second is John Ford’s 1956 classic, THE SEARCHERS, starring John Wayne hisownself, Jeffrey Hunter and a young Natalie Wood.  Ford might just have been the most iconic western director of all time, and THE SEARCHERS comes toward the end of his career. Both he and Wayne had made a lot of westerns before this, but none has the pure gut punch THE SEARCHERS gives you. Indian Hunter Ethan Edwards might just be the darkest character Wayne ever played (and he’s such an anti-hero, he would have been at home in a Peckinpah film), and the ending is cinema at its finest. When I was a kid, I wasn’t much of a John Wayne fan, and he kind of grew on me as an adult. THE SEARCHERS is his finest moment.

HONORABLE MENTIONS:

THE “SPAGHETTI WESTERNS” that Clint Eastwood did with director Sergio Leone in the 1960s—Their trilogy together, A FISTFUL OF DOLLARS (1964), FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE (1965), and THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY  (1966) not only made Eastwood an international star, but they injected new, vibrant blood into a mostly stagnant genre and made westerns exciting again.

Monte Hellman’s westerns: RIDE THE WHIRLWIND (1965) starring Cameron Mitchell and a young Jack Nicholson (in one of his early leading roles) and THE SHOOTING (1968) starring Nicholson and the great Warren Oates—two low-budget, meditative westerns that kind of transcend the genre.

© Answer copyright 2011 by L.L. Soares

******

Tune in next time for another response!

6 Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 40 other followers