Archive for Psycho

HITCHCOCK (2012)

Posted in 2012, Alfred Hitchock Films, Based on a True Story, Movie Directors, Movie History with tags , , , , , , , on December 4, 2012 by knifefighter

HITCHCOCK (2012)
Movie Review by L.L. Soares

24C20456948D48AF7C4F97B0CA0FFCDBF47DBF05FE021_1280_1896

You would think that with a title like HITCHCOCK (2012), you’d be getting the story of a person’s life. In this case, one of the greatest directors who ever lived, and the guy who gave us everything from STRANGERS ON A TRAIN (1951), to REAR WINDOW (1954) to VERTIGO (1958) and THE BIRDS (1963). But nope, it’s not a biopic. It focuses on just one year of the director’s life, 1959, when he was trying to make the movie, PSYCHO (1960).

Okay, PSYCHO is arguably his most important film, at least here in horror circles (and yes, even though we review all kinds of things these days, Cinema Knife Fight’s heart still beats in the horror genre), so if there’s a story there, it’s worth telling. But I couldn’t help feeling disappointed that this movie wasn’t more ambitious. I wanted to know more about Hitchcock than just one year of his life. I wanted to know where he grew up, how he got into the film business, how he got the ideas for so many great films. But we’re going to have to wait for that movie, and it most probably won’t have the title HITCHCOCK, since that’s already taken.

So, as the movie begins, NORTH BY NORTHWEST (1959) has just been released (another of my favorite Hitchcock films), and the director is wondering what to do next. He can’t seem to find the right project. Then he stumbles on the novel PSYCHO by Robert Bloch, and the rest is history, except it wasn’t as easy as you’d think. Nobody wanted to do this movie.

See, it starts with the inspiration of the book and the movie, Ed Gein, the Wisconsin serial killer who was big news in the 50s. It might be that the crimes were a little too fresh in the public consciousness of the time. And the case was beyond “sensational.” Gein didn’t just kill a several people, he also wore their skin, made furniture out of them, possibly practiced cannibalism, dug up his mother and slept in bed with her corpse, etc. But I don’t need to tell readers of this site about Gein. He’s pretty notorious, even now, as the inspiration of everything from PSYCHO to THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (1974), DERANGED (1974) and countless others, as well as, more recently, a biopic of his own, ED GEIN (2000) starring Steve Railsback, who, you might remember also played Charles Manson way back in the 1976 TV-movie, HELTER SKELTER.

Gein was considered a little too lurid for the movies of 1959. This was in the days before splatter movies, after all. Herschell Gordon Lewis had yet to unleash BLOOD FEAST (1963) on an unsuspecting world. But, clearly, there would have never been a BLOOD FEAST if Hitchcock made that maiden voyage into extreme horror called PSYCHO. And you can argue all you want about PSYCHO being pretty tame by today’s standards, but back in 1960, it was the most extreme thing moviegoers had ever seen.

So his studio at the time (Paramount) wouldn’t touch it. Hitchcock then went to other friends in the business for possible funding, and they weren’t all that thrilled with the idea either (maybe it was the real crime scene photos he passed around at the party he threw to find backers?). Hitch ended up doing it for a low-budget (by his standards) and mortgaging his house to pay for it. If it failed, he would have been in dire circumstances. But, of course, we know the outcome, so the Master of Suspense’s story isn’t as suspenseful this time around.

Which doesn’t mean HITCHCOCK isn’t entertaining, because it is.

So why was Hitchcock so dead set on making this particular movie despite all the opposition? Well, the movie seems to suggest that the years doing his television show ALFRED HITCHCOCK PRESENTS (1955 – 1962) had made Hitch a little bit bitter about his career. As the show’s host, he was now a celebrity in his own right, not just behind the camera but now in front of it. And your loveable Uncle Hitch was starting to feel like he had sold out. Given up his artistic integrity to appear in America’s living rooms every week (no matter how lucrative it was). Reacting to this, he wanted to make a movie they would never have made for television, something with a true edge that was more than a little dangerous. Something to put him on top again as a director who could push his audience’s buttons and throw a scare into you. Hell, he probably saw it as a need to FEEL some excitement again as a movie director.

Once he gets the cash together, he makes a deal with Paramount to distribute it after he does all the work on his own dime. He then goes about gathering a cast, including big star Janet Leigh (Scarlett Johannson) to play a character who dies 30 minutes into the film; an actress he was previously obsessed with but who got pregnant before she could become his “star,” Vera Miles (Jessica Biel), reduced to a supporting role in PSYCHO for letting him down; and a very high-strung closeted gay man, Anthony Perkins (James D’Arcy), with mother issues of his own, in the lead as Norman Bates. We get insight into the whole “cool blonde” obsession Hitch was famous for (which led him to cast that “type” throughout the years from Grace Kelley to Tippi Hedren).

And once the movie starts filming, the problems don’t stop. Paramount, personified by studio head Barney Balaban (Richard Portnow) wants to interfere and see if the film is marketable, and he keeps showing up on the set. And the censor bureau, led by Geoffrey Shurlock (Kurtwood Smith) fights him to the bitter end about what can be kept in to get the vital seal of approval that decides whether the movie is released in theaters at all.

Somehow, Hitchcock is able to maneuver through all of these obstacles and get his movie made. His biggest supporters are his agent, Lew Wasserman (Michael Stuhlbarg), his assistant, Peggy Robertson (Toni Collette) and, most of all, his extremely supportive wife, Alma Reville (Helen Mirren).

In fact, it’s perfectly acceptable to wonder whether HITCHOCK is really about the making of PSYCHO, or if that’s just the backdrop for a kind of love story between Alma and Hitch. When they met back in England, early in Hitchcock’s career, Alma was his boss. Then, as he became one of the biggest names in cinema, she stood by his side, his most fierce and loyal supporter. She rewrote the scripts, she helped decide casting, and she put her foot down when Hitchcock couldn’t make it on the set.

But there’s a conflict in HITCHCOCK, because she feels unappreciated and is getting a little sick of being the woman who hides in the shadows while Hitchcock gets all the glory. She wants to make a name for herself, and she thinks she might have found the right project to do it. Her friend Whitfield Cook (Danny Huston), who worked with Hitchcock previously (in real life he wrote STRANGERS ON A TRAIN and 1950’s STAGE FRIGHT), is always around, her closest companion, and he suggests they work together turning his most recent manuscript into a movie script. She sees their relationship as validation and a strong friendship, Cook might be seeing it at something a little more,  and meanwhile, Hitchcock fumes, convinced that his ever-loyal wife is now cheating on him, and he’s feeling abandoned by his staunchest supporter.

Working on a movie that no one else believes in, feeling completely alone, Hitchcock forges on. Until the moment when he gets sick, and Alma has to decide just where her loyalties reside. Like I said, it’s a love story of sorts, so you know what her decision will be.

hitchcock-good-evening

Of course, PSYCHO got made and became a humungous hit. Probably the biggest movie of Hitchcock’s career. But it is interesting to see how much of a struggle it was. There are dozens of times when it could have simply stopped production and never been made, and we all would have been poorer for that. Luckily, we didn’t have to do without this cinema masterpiece.

I found HITCHCOCK fascinating and highly entertaining, but it’s not a perfect movie by any means. And the biggest problem I have with it might just be Anthony Hopkins in the lead role as Hitch. The way he plays Hitchcock, it’s almost more like a parody than an impersonation. With his fat suit and bugged eyes, Hopkins appears to be in a perpetual state of constipation. Maybe there is some truth to this – maybe Hitchcock was one of these people who never felt comfortable in his own skin – but Hopkins plays it so cartoony that it’s hard to take him seriously at certain points in the film. When something that should be bad happens, you almost want to laugh when Hopkins responds in an exaggerated manner. It’s just very hard to take this HITCHCOCK seriously.

And remember me talking about Ed Gein earlier? Well, he appears throughout the movie as well. He’s a kind of hallucination that only Hitchcock sees, embodying his self-doubts and anxieties. Well-played by Michael Wincott, Gein is a spooky presence, but this kind of thing is always iffy, and it doesn’t totally work here. Despite Hitchcock’s insistence that there’s “a little bit of Gein in all of us,” I didn’t totally buy Hitch’s bond with the Wisconsin serial killer. It was a gimmick in the movie that seemed unnecessary to me.

The rest of the cast does a decent job grounding the film, especially the always-terrific Helen Mirren as Alma, even when she appears to be abandoning Hitch (even though you know her gripes are legitimate, you almost despise her for abandoning this highly talented but extremely needy man-child for the shallow Cook).

Two really great sequences involve the shower scene from PSYCHO. In one, Hitchock does the “stabbing” of Janet Leigh  himself when no one else can get it right. The other involves Bernard Herrmann adding his classic music to the scene – when Hitchcock originally wanted no music at all. It’s amazing how much creepier the scene is with that terrific, screeching score (and shows us how invaluable a great film composer can be).

If there’s one regret I have, it’s that we don’t get to meet author Robert Bloch, the talented writer who gave us the novel, PSYCHO. There’s a scene where screenwriter Joseph Stefano (who also gave us the classic series OUTER LIMITS, 1963 – 1965) shows up in Hitchcock’s office and agrees to write the script (he’s played by Ralph Macchio, the original KARATE KID himself, and his cameo got some chuckles from the audience), but no sign of Bloch.

HITCHCOCK was directed by Sacha Gervasi, who also directed the entertaining documentary ANVIL: THE STORY OF ANVIL (2008) about an influential heavy metal band that never got its due, and who also wrote such movies as THE TERMINAL (2004) for Steven Spielberg and HENRY’S CRIME (2010). Despite its flaws, HITCHCOCK is a mostly impressive debut for Gervasi as a feature-film director.

All in all, a good movie. But, if I could have taken Hopkins more seriously, this could have been a great film. In the end, it seems to fall short. Someone as important as Hitchcock seems worthy of something better.

I give it three knives.

© Copyright 2012 by L.L. Soares

LL Soares gives HITCHCOCK ~three knives.

1 Comment »

Friday Night Knife Fights: PSYCHO vs. HALLOWEEN (Part 3 of 3)

Posted in 1960s Horror, 2012, 70s Horror, Alfred Hitchock Films, Classic Films, Friday Night Knife Fights, John Carpenter Films, Plot Twists, Psychos, Slasher Movies with tags , , , , , on October 26, 2012 by knifefighter

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS:  PSYCHO (1960) vs. HALLOWEEN (1978)
With Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, Nick Cato, Pete Dudar, Dan Keohane, and Paul McMahon

 (CONCLUSION)

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Welcome back folks, to the conclusion of this month’s FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS.  This installment will decide the winner of the battle of the iconic horror movies. It’s PSYCHO (1960) vs. HALLOWEEN (1978).

So, which one of these two is the better movie?  That’s what our panel of Cinema Knife Fighters assembled here tonight plan to find out. So far, HALLOWEEN leads 3 to 2. But this time, anything can happen.

 *****

Okay, it’s Round 6.  “Which director does a better job at the helm?  Alfred Hitchcock, or John Carpenter?”

NICK CATO:  Can I say that this is a stupid question?

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  You can say whatever you want.

L.L. SOARES:  Someone has to say it.  It’s about time it’s someone other than me!

NICK CATO:  Okay, then.  STUPID question!

It’s Hitchcock. No one had created that type of suspense before he unleashed Bates on the world.  Carpenter doesn’t come close.

DAN KEOHANE:  I think it depends on what you want out of the movie.

L.L.SOARES:  What is this, a psychology class?  Pick a director!

DAN KEOHANE:  Easier said than done.  This is one question I can’t honestly answer one way or the other.

L.L. SOARES:  What—did you change your last name to Dudar?

PETE DUDAR:  Hey, stop giving me a hard time!

DAN KEOHANE:  Hitchcock is a master at the subtle, without getting boring doing it.  Sure, the first third of THE BIRDS (1963) is pretty dull before it rockets up to its intense level, but that’s the exception.

L.L. SOARES:  Hey, I love THE BIRDS! There’s not a dull moment in that movie. It’s called “building a story.”

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  THE BIRDS is overrated.

(L.L. SOARES punches a wall in disgust)

DAN KEOHANE:  Carpenter is just having a ball, and it shows in this film (and most of them). He’s got the fast-paced thrill ride down, without ever having to rely on over-the-top gore to cover his blemishes.

L.L SOARES:  So, you’re going with Carpenter?

DAN KEOHANE:  Nope.  I can’t decide.

(L.L. SOARES screams loudly)

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  We are really having a hard time making up our minds today.

PETE DUDAR:  I told you this thing was impossible!

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  I have to admit, this is a very tough question.  Which director does a better job at the helm?  I don’t know.

L.L. SOARES:  Not you, too!

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  This one needs examining.

Let’s start with Alfred Hitchcock.  In 1960, he’d been making successful movies since the 1930s, and really had just come off an amazing decade, the 1950s, where he became one of the most celebrated and popular movie directors of his time.  Needless to say, when he made PSYCHO, he was at the top of his game.  And with PSYCHO, Hitchcock doesn’t disappoint.  It’s one of his best efforts.

He does nearly everything right in PSYCHO.  You’ve got the infamous shower scene, the most famous sequence from the movie, but there’s so much more.  I love the sequence after the shower scene, when Norman Bates cleans up after his “mother’s” crime.  The end sequence where Vera Miles and John Gavin arrive at the motel is also memorable.

But you can make the argument that John Carpenter did an even better job at the helm of HALLOWEEN.  For starters, HALLOWEEN doesn’t have the same strong story PSYCHO has, and yet, it’s an incredibly scary movie, and most of the credit for this belongs to Carpenter.  The opening murder scene is a gem, shot from the point of view of the killer looking through a Halloween mask.  The whole sequence is superb, from the actual murder to the revelation that the killer is a little boy.

The scene near the end, where we believe Jamie Lee Curtis has killed Michael Myers, and he’s lying down “dead,” and Curtis is sitting in the foreground, exhausted, and it’s silent, and in this silence, Myers sits up, turns his head, and the music blasts, and we’re on our way again.  It’s a phenomenal scene.

And there are so many neat scenes where Myers appears like a phantom in and out of the shadows.  One second he’s there, the next, he’s not.  It’s a masterful job by John Carpenter.

You can’t take away what Hitchcock did with PSYCHO, but I’ve seen him better (NORTH BY NORTHWEST, 1959, Hitchcock’s previous film and arguably his most ambitious, includes many more of Hitchcock signature touches).  I know some people don’t consider HALLOWEEN to be Carpenter’s best work, but it’s up there.

L.L. SOARES: Of course it’s up there! Who doesn’t consider HALLOWEEN one of Carpenter’s best movies? That’s a ludicrous statement! HALLOWEEN is the movie that put Carpenter on the map and made him a household name.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Yes, I know that, and you know that, but there are some people who feel otherwise.  I know people who think THE THING is Carpenter’s best film, for instance.

L.L. SOARES: Hell, I think THE THING is his best film. But that doesn’t mean HALLOWEEN isn’t great, too. In many ways, HALLOWEEN is more iconic and important to horror movie history.

MICHAEL ARRUDA: PSYCHO has such a strong story, that even with a lesser director, the film may have been a hit.  I don’t think you can say the same for HALLOWEEN.  Without John Carpenter at the helm of HALLOWEEN, that movie just isn’t the same, and I doubt it would have been the classic it is today.

L.L. SOARES: You’re selling Hitchcock short! The story is so good it would have still turned out well without him?? But HITCHCOCK did make PSYCHO and nobody could have done it better. Why dismiss the guy because he did a great job? What kind of logic is that?

MICHAEL ARRUDA: I’m not dismissing him.  He did a terrific job.  I’m saying the story itself is so good, a lesser director could have made a decent film out of it, on the strength of its story. Terence Fisher, for example, Hammer Film’s best director—no Alfred Hitchcock, mind you, but a talented director all the same—could have made a very good film out of PSYCHO.

L.L. SOARES: Yeah, I’m sure he could have. But it wouldn’t be the same.

MICHAEL ARRUDA: So, after some thought, I’m going with John Carpenter on HALLOWEEN.

PAUL MCMAHON:  Sorry, Michael, but I just don’t see it that way.  I’m going with Hitchcock.

Hitchcock is regularly listed among the best directors of all time, while Carpenter is listed among the best “horror” directors.

As innovative and groundbreaking as HALLOWEEN was, it wasn’t Carpenter’s best work. He doesn’t really break with conventional filming techniques or storytelling rules. Hitchcock made tons more unorthodox and unexpected decisions in PSYCHO.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  I don’t know about that.  I’m not taking anything away from Hitchcock’s work on PSYCHO, but I think Carpenter does break with conventional filming techniques in HALLOWEEN.  There are so many cool scenes in HALLOWEEN thanks to Carpenter’s direction, like Michael Myer’s mask appearing in the darkness where you see only the mask, or the aforementioned opening murder scene.

PAUL MCMAHON:  Good scenes, but Hitchcock’s work on PSYCHO is better.

L.L. SOARES: Look, this one is a no brainer. I love HALLOWEEN and I think it is among Carpenter’s best films. It is powerful, it triggers a great response, and it’s a director at the height of his powers. I am not going to say anything bad about Carpenter in this context. He did an amazing job.

But Alfred Hitchcock was one of the top five directors in the history of cinema. I just watched PSYCHO again recently, and it holds up very well. It’s atmospheric, powerful, and strongly acted. Hitchcock is just in another league when it comes to directors. He was an artist.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Okay, after six rounds it’s HALLOWEEN – 3, PSYCHO -3. We’re now neck and neck.

PETE DUDAR:This is getting exciting.

  *****

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  On to Round 7.  “Which film has done more for the genre?”

I’ll start by asking where would the genre be without PSYCHO?  While it’s technically not a horror film…

L.L. SOARES: Says, who?  It’s a goddamn horror film. A horror classic.

MICHAEL ARRUDA: Well, it is scary, and did an awful lot to make horror movies more mainstream.  It made them more adult.  Alfred Hitchcock was not a kid-friendly director.  Kids didn’t flock to see his films.  Adults did.  When he directed PSYCHO, he expanded horror’s audience.  In other words, a lot of the folks who went to see PSYCHO were not the same folks who would have gone to see FRANKENSTEIN or KING KONG.

L.L. SOARES: I complete disagree. People who love great movies would have gone to see all three of those.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  He also reinvented the conventions of the movies.  His lead actress is killed midway through the movie.  What’s up with that?  The “hero” Norman Bates, turns out to be the killer.  What’s up with that?

Where would the genre be without HALLOWEEN?  We wouldn’t have had to suffer through all those awful slasher movies had HALLOWEEN not been so successful.  So, maybe it’s hurt the genre!  Actually, I’m kidding.  It helped the genre because it made a ton of money, and it led to John Carpenter getting a lot of financing so he could make a lot of other cool movies!

I think they’ve both helped the genre, since they both established franchises and iconic characters, Norman Bates and Michael Myers.  Today, I think you hear more about HALLOWEEN than you do PSYCHO.  I think HALLOWEEN has done more for the horror genre directly because it’s a horror movie, pure and simple.  PSYCHO is really a mystery that has a lot of horror elements.

L.L. SOARES: Horror elements? That means it’s a damn HORROR MOVIE!

MICHAEL ARRUDA: Ever so slightly, I give the edge to HALLOWEEN.

DAN KEOHANE:  They both exploded the genre, but in their own respective decades.

Both were unique when they came out, and both got a somewhat apathetic audience’s pulse revved up, opening the door to more films and books.

Both of them equally helped the genre.

PAUL MCMAHON:  There was a very slow build of slasher movies after PSYCHO‘s release in 1960.

When HALLOWEEN came out in 1978 the slasher sub-genre really took off. PSYCHO may have kicked things off, but HALLOWEEN got them going.

HALLOWEEN.

L.L. SOARES: You people are high!

Without PSYCHO, there would be NO HALLOWEEN! While Michael Myers does have a supernatural component, he also started out as a little boy with psychological problems. No matter what he became, he began as a psychopath. Just because a movie is older doesn’t mean it’s less relevant. To be honest, the opposite is probably more true. PSYCHO was the pioneer, the trailblazer. It made the word “psycho” a part of our language. It made the serial killer film a mainstream genre.

HALLOWEEN is more the little engine that could. It was a small, low-budget movie that overcame its humble beginnings. I remember it was in theaters for over a year when it first came out. It seemed to stick around forever. It was a smash hit, as commercially important to the horror genre in its way as PSYCHO was.

But Michael is right in one respect. HALLOWEEN spawned as many horrible rip-offs as it did worthwhile horror descendants. It worked because Carpenter did it, but way too many bad directors proved that it wasn’t easily replicated.

They’re both great movies with different strengths, and I am still pissed off that you’re making us choose between them, because they’re both just as vital to the horror genre. But which one has done more for horror? The fact that there’s any debate baffles me. It’s PSYCHO. Period.

NICK CATO:  While HALLOWEEN paved the way for countless imitators in the 1980s slasher film uprising, PSYCHO (1960) was the model and is STILL imitated to this day.

I disagree with Michael and Paul, and I say PSYCHO has done more the genre.

L.L. SOARES: Now there’s a smart man!

MICHAEL ARRUDA: That means this round is a tie. Wow, this is going to be interesting.

It’s now time for the eighth and final round, and if one film should win this round unanimously, then that film scores a knockout and wins the entire bout, regardless of the score up until now.

And the final question is:  in your humble opinion, if you had to choose, which film, PSYCHO or HALLOWEEN, is the better movie?

PAUL MCMAHON:  PSYCHO.

Constructed better, stronger and with so many twists and turns that even today people viewing it for the first time are surprised by how it develops.  I’m going with PSYCHO.

PETE DUDAR:  PSYCHO was a groundbreaking masterpiece. Filmed in 1960, Hitchcock’s black-and-white adaptation of Robert Bloch’s novel reminded post-war America and the baby-boom generation that crazy people were, in fact, our neighbors.

HALLOWEEN, on the other hand, is a whole other candy-apple. PSYCHO is loosely based on real-life killer Ed Gein. HALLOWEEN is the logical progression of an urban myth, one about the ‘babysitter killer.’

As I said earlier, in terms of story and characterization, PSYCHO wins, but in terms of longevity and ability to still deliver sheer terror, my vote goes to HALLOWEEN.

NICK CATO:  I’m not sure which film Pete just voted for.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Join the club.

NICK CATO:  Technically PSYCHO is the better film, but again, HALLOWEEN holds up better to repeated viewings and to me isn’t as slow moving. If I had a butcher knife pointed at my head I’d go with HALLOWEEN.

PETE DUDAR: So, it would take a butcher knife to your head for you to make a decision, and you guys are giving me grief!

L.L. SOARES: At least he’d be able to make a decision if forced to. If someone put a butcher knife to your head, it would just let out all the confetti and sawdust.

PETER DUDAR: No it wouldn’t (sticks out tongue)

L.L. SOARES:  I happen to have a butcher’s knife handy if you need help making a decision, Pete!

DAN KEOHANE:  No butcher’s knives needed here, although an axe might come in handy.

L.L. SOARES:  I have one of those too.  Right here under my seat.

DAN KEOHANE:  I’m sure you do.

Anyway, overall, for me, it’s PSYCHO.

But HALLOWEEN is a close second.  (smiles)

NICK CATO:  If anyone needs help making a decision, it’s Pete.

PETE DUDAR:  I stand by my answers.

L.L. SOARES:  What answers?  (Laughter)

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  I love both movies, but if I have to pick which one is better, without an axe to my head, I have to go with—  PSYCHO.

PSYCHO has the stronger story— it has an amazing story, while HALLOWEEN has just an average plot.  It has one of the best all-time performances in a genre film: Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates.  Bates is a much more interesting villain than Michael Myers.  It has a stronger cast.  While I like Jamie Lee Curtis a lot in HALLOWEEN, no one else in the cast really delivers a strong performance.

Sure, I think John Carpenter’s directing effort is second to none in HALLOWEEN, but Hitchcock is strong throughout.  Carpenter put HALLOWEEN on his back and carried it to the finish line.  Hitchcock didn’t need to carry the film all by his lonesome.

True, I prefer Carpenter’s music score over Bernard Herrmann’s score, but by percentage points.

I prefer HALLOWEEN on a lot of points, actually, but taken as a whole, especially because of its incredibly strong story, I find PSYCHO to be the better movie.

HALLOWEEN shows off John Carpenter’s directing talents, his music score, and a fine performance by Jamie Lee Curtis.

PSYCHO shows off Alfred Hitchock’s directing talents, Bernard Hermann’s music score, Anthony Perkins’ powerhouse performance as Norman Bates, strong performances by Janet Leigh and, in a supporting role, Martin Balsam, and a deep, resonating script by Joseph Stefano based upon a novel by Robert Bloch, a story credit that HALLOWEEN just doesn’t have.

The numbers favor PSYCHO, and so I’m going with PSYCHO.

L.L. SOARES:  Look, I already made my case. HALLOWEEN is above-average for a slasher film. It thrust John Carpenter into the public eye, and rightly so. It’s a classic of its kind. And I hate having to compare it, and I hate having to saying anything negative about it, because I do think it’s one of the best horror films ever made.

But it’s a no-brainer, folks. PSYCHO is the better movie. It’s close to being a perfect movie.

MICHAEL ARRUDA: Well, that’s it for Round 8, and PSYCHO has won the round.  I can’t say that it won unanimously, due to a couple of obscure answers, but that’s no matter.  The two movies were tied 3 ½ – 3 ½ going into the final round, and so the final tally is PSYCHO – 4 ½, HALLOWEEN – 3 ½.

The winner of tonight’s bout is PSYCHO!

But that certainly was a close one! I really had no idea what would happen until the last round. Which made this one a real nail-biter.

Thanks to everyone who participated. Thanks for making this FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHT a good one!

Good night everybody!

-END-

© Copyright 2012 by Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, Nick Cato, Peter N. Dudar, Daniel G. Keohane and Paul McMahon

2 Comments »

Friday Night Knife Fights: PSYCHO vs. HALLOWEEN (Part 2 of 3)

Posted in 1960s Horror, 1970s Movies, 2012, Alfred Hitchock Films, Classic Films, Friday Night Knife Fights, Horror, John Carpenter Films, Psychos, Serial Killer flicks with tags , , , , , , on October 19, 2012 by knifefighter

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS:  PSYCHO (1960) vs. HALLOWEEN (1978)
Featuring: Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, Nick Cato, Pete Dudar, Dan Keohane, and Paul McMahon

(PART 2 of 3)

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Welcome back folks, to another edition of FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS.  This time, we continue with Part 2 of our battle of the iconic horror movies. It’s PSYCHO (1960) vs. HALLOWEEN (1978).

L.L. SOARES: Why isn’t Rob Zombie’s version HALLOWEEN (2007) part of the debate?

MICHAEL ARRUDA:   Come on!  This is supposed to be a serious debate.

L.L. SOARES: Okay, okay.

MICHAEL ARRUDA: So, which one of these two is the better movie?  That’s what our panel of Cinema Knife Fighters assembled here tonight plan to find out. So far, HALLOWEEN leads 2 to 0. Let’s see if it maintains its momentum this time around.

Okay, Round 3.    “Which film is scarier?”

I’ll start this one off myself.

I think HALLOWEEN is scarier, but not by much.  The last 20 minutes of HALLOWEEN, from the moment Jamie Lee Curtis decides to check out the house across the street, to the film’s closing credits, is among the most suspenseful last 20 minutes ever put on film.  I love it.  And there are lots of scary, make-you-scream-out loud moments interspersed throughout the movie.

PSYCHO, on the other hand, has the huge jolt, the shower scene, early on, where lead star Janet Leigh is killed off, shocking filmgoers who based on prior movie experiences, simply didn’t see that coming.  And it’s a frightening scene, even today.

And PSYCHO is also blessed with a suspenseful sequence towards the end, where Vera Miles and John Gavin go to the Bates Motel to solve the mystery, mistakenly believing that Bates’ sick old mother is the all-important witness they need to speak to regarding Janet Leigh’s disappearance, and of course, this sequence ends with the huge shock, the dramatic revelation, that Norman Bates is one sick dude.

I love how this sequence plays out as well, because the audience thinks they’re in the know, but they really aren’t.  Vera Miles is searching for the sick mother, who the audience mistakenly believes is the killer, when in reality, it’s Norman, who up until the end audiences viewed as a good guy.  It’s great stuff!

But when it comes to scares, HALLOWEEN is simply scarier.  The bulk of PSYCHO plays out like a drama and mystery—a superb one, at that—while HALLOWEEN is much more of a genuine horror movie.

“Hello? Myers residence.”

DAN KEOHANE:  I’m going with PSYCHO.  But you need to sit still and watch it. It pays off, so well, if you let the mood wash over you.

HALLOWEEN is more exciting, however, so you can be making out on the couch and look up for the scary bits without missing the point.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  So, you’re saying that you need to pay attention to PSYCHO, but HALLOWEEN you can miss a lot of it but still enjoy its scary parts?

DAN KEOHANE:  Yeah.

L.L. SOARES:  Enough with the double-talk.  Which one’s scarier?

DAN KEOHANE:  I said PSYCHO.  (leans over towards LS)  “eeeh eeeeh eeeeh!”

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Pete?

PETE DUDAR: I pass.

L.L. SOARES:  Is there a reason why Dudar is even here? He sure isn’t adding a lot to the conversation.

MICHAEL ARRUDA: Oh come on, stop picking on him.

PETE DUDAR: Yeah, you big bully.

PAUL MCMAHON:  PSYCHO may have scared the hell out of viewers back in 1960, but watching it with my parents when I was fourteen it had little effect on me. HALLOWEEN gave me icy “I-almost-wet-myself” terror, especially when Laurie Strode hides in the closet– perceived as a safe-haven by children everywhere—and Michael hammers through the slats of the folding door to get at her.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Yeah, that’s a great scene.

L.L. SOARES: Just don’t wet yourself here, okay?

PAUL MCMAHON:  I’m going with HALLOWEEN as the scarier movie.

The killer attacks! From PSYCHO.

NICK CATO:  While PSYCHO has a few tense moments (least of which is the iconic shower sequence), HALLOWEEN has an overall scarier tone, and holds up much better to repeated viewings.  Based on this, if I had to choose, I’d pick HALLOWEEN as the scarier picture.

L.L. SOARES:  You guys keep talking about the shower scene in PSYCHO, and sure, it’s great, but it’s not the only scary scene in the whole movie. There’s the great scene where Martin Balsam gets stabbed in the face. And the very end, where Norman’s voiceover, as his mama, says “They’ll say I wouldn’t hurt a fly,” is just creepy as hell the first time you see it. The way everyone talks, it’s like the movie just has one big, scary moment, and that’s not true.

But I have to go back to my argument about generational responses. When PSYCHO first came out, nobody had seen a movie like that before, and I’m sure it freaked a lot of people out. I remember when I was a kid and I first saw it on television, it had a real effect on me, especially that creepy ending about the fly.

But this one is difficult because I have to look at both of them and decide which one is scarier now. Which one holds up the best. And while I think PSYCHO is smarter, and better at delivering big as well as more subtle chills, I have to admit that HALLOWEEN holds up better as a solid, scary movie. Maybe because it’s not as smart—its triggers are more emotional. This round, I have to give it to HALLOWEEN.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Another round goes HALLOWEEN’s way, and it now leads PSYCHO, 3 to zero!  I have to admit, I didn’t see this coming.  I thought things would be closer than this.

L.L. SOARES: I still say, in some ways, this is a stupid comparison. Both movies are very important, and effective, in their own ways.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Would you rather we compare a great film to a dud?

On to Round 4: “Which film has the stronger cast?”

DAN KEOHANE:  PSYCHO.  No question. In fact, the script requires a strong cast because there’s so little else besides some cool, dark sets.

L.L. SOARES: PSYCHO, without a doubt. Not only are the main roles played by great actors like Janet Leigh, Vera Miles, and of course Anthony Perkins, who is unforgettable here; even the smaller roles are great, like Martin Balsam as Detective Arbogast. And there are even cameos by cool people like Ted Knight from the MARY TYLER MOORE show(1970 – 1977) as a cop toward the end, and Simon Oakland from THE NIGHT STALKER (1972) as a psychiatrist who gives a rundown at the end of what’s wrong with Norman. It’s just a great cast from beginning to end.

PETE DUDAR:  Pass.

L.L. SOARES:  This guy is really starting to get on my nerves. (to Dudar) Why did you even bother coming, anyway?

PETE DUDAR:  The free food.

L.L. SOARES:  What free food?

 PETE DUDAR:  You mean you missed the buffet?

L.L. SOARES:  I guess I was too busy preparing my answers!

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  I’m also going with the cast of PSYCHO.   You’ve got Anthony Perkins, Janet Leigh, Vera Miles, John Gavin, and Martin Balsam, and they’re all great in this movie.   Perkins delivers one of the all-time great performances in a genre film.    His Norman Bates is creepy, unsettling, and yet he’s actually likeable at times.  It’s a terrific performance.

Janet Leigh is also strong as Marion Crane.  Vera Miles and John Gavin are less impressive, but Martin Balsam makes his brief stint as Detective Arbogast a memorable one.  The cast also includes Simon Oakland as Dr. Richman in a small role at the end of the movie. As L.L. mentioned, Oakland appeared alongside Darren McGavin in THE NIGHT STALKER movies and TV show, as Carl Kolchak’s boss, Tony Vincenzo.

The HALLOWEEN cast isn’t as strong on paper, with Donald Pleasance being the only established star in the cast, but they handle themselves well.  The best performance in the film is by Jamie Lee Curtis in her debut, but head to head, Perkins’ performance as Norman Bates is stronger than Curtis’ performance as Laurie Strode.

Donald Pleasance as Dr. Loomis in HALLOWEEN.

L.L. SOARES: Yeah, I don’t want to imply the HALLOWEEN cast is bad. It’s not. Everyone does a really good job in that one, too. I just think PSYCHO is that much better.

MICHAEL ARRUDA: Strangely, I wasn’t all that impressed by Pleasance’s performance as Dr. Loomis in HALLOWEEEN, as he comes off sounding like a crackpot. I actually like him better as the series goes along.  Nancy Loomis does well as Strode’s best friend Annie, and Carpenter favorite Charles Cyphers does a nice job as Annie’s father Sheriff Bracket.

L.L. SOARES: And don’t forget the great B-movie actress P.J. Soles as Lynda!

P.J. Soles as Lynda in HALLOWEEN.

MICHAEL ARRUDA: But Michael Myers is nothing more than a killer in a mask, a mindless monster, and he’s not on the same level as Anthony Perkins’ Norman Bates.

So, in terms of who has the stronger cast, I go with PSYCHO.

NICK CATO:  Another hard one to call.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  If it were easy, it wouldn’t be fun!

NICK CATO:  Perkins is amazing, as is Leigh in her brief role.

Jamie Lee Curtis set the stage for the babysitter in peril thing, and Donald Pleasance provided a smart and sneaky hero. I’m stuck on this one, too!

MICHAEL ARRUDA:   Can’t make a definitive call?

NICK CATO:  I’m afraid not.

PETE DUDAR:  See, I’m not the only one having a hard time here!

PAUL MCMAHON:  I’ve made up my mind.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:   What did you decide, Paul?

PAUL MCMAHON:  This one goes to PSYCHO, hands down.

Not only does it have a better cast—Anthony Perkins, Vera Miles, John Gavin, Martin Balsam– but it used one of the most popular actresses of the day, Janet Leigh, in what felt like the lead role… and then killed her off at the end of the first act. Unprecedented for the time.

Donald Pleasance is great fun to watch in HALLOWEEN, and Jamie Lee Curtis shines in her movie debut, but they’re no match for the list of Hitchcock’s players.

PSYCHO.  No contest.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:   So, Round 4 goes to PSYCHO, which means Hitchcock’s classic finally gets on the board.  We’ve reached the halfway point of our contest, and after four rounds, it’s HALLOWEEN – 3, PSYCHO – 1.

On to Round 5.  “Which film has the better script?”

PETE DUDAR:  I’m going with PSYCHO.

L.L. SOARES:  The wooden dummy speaks!

PETE DUDAR:  Shut up!

I choose PSYCHO because in terms of story and characterization, PSYCHO wins hands down.

NICK CATO:  I agree with Pete. It’s easily PSYCHO. HALLOWEEN is a by-the-numbers stalk and slash film, whereas PSYCHO has more depth in its villain.

L.L. SOARES:  Well,I wouldn’t go so far as to call HALLOWEEN “by-the-numbers.” It does transcend its genre. It has a lot more there than most slasher films. But most of what works about it is visceral—more a mood and an emotional response rather than a powerful script. So, script-wise, PSYCHO is another level completely.

PAUL MCMAHON:  This is another tough one.

I’m going to say PSYCHO. It broke with a lot of conventions of the times and challenged the way stories were told. Though HALLOWEEN was the father of the unkillable boogeyman, spurring the likes of FRIDAY THE 13TH, A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET and other franchises, PSYCHO is the “mother” of all slasher films.  (laughs)

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Good one!

PAUL MCMAHON:  So, which film has the better script?  PSYCHO.

DAN KEOHANE (looks at camera):  Eeeeh eeeeh eeeeh!

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Hands down, PSYCHO has the better script.

To me, the weakest part of HALLOWEEN has always been the script by John Carpenter and Debra Hill, which comes as no surprise, since a lot of early Carpenter movies didn’t have the best scripts.  The story for HALLOWEEN is nothing to brag about.  It’s just a standard tale about an insane killer who attacks teenagers, and whenever it tries to explain the truth about who Michael Myers is and what his motivations are, it never makes sense.  It’s one of the reasons why Donald Pleasance sounds like a crackpot in this movie.  The lines he has to say are insane!  What makes HALLOWEEN the classic that it is, is the amazing directing job by John Carpenter and Carpenter’s music.

Jamie Lee Curtis as Laurie Strode in HALLOWEEN.

PSYCHO, on the other hand, has a phenomenal screenplay by Joseph Stefano, based on the novel by Robert Bloch.  As such, it has a literary connection noticeably absent in HALLOWEEN.  The PSYCHO story blows the HALLOWEEN story out of the water.  You have the whole Marion Crane storyline, followed by the mystery of her disappearance and the investigation into finding her, all interesting plot points in their own right, and I haven’t even mentioned the main plot point yet, the weird world of Norman Bates and his “mother.”

PSYCHO has a deep, rich, rewarding story that I seem to enjoy more each time I see it.  HALLOWEEN, as much as I like the movie, has just an average story.

Round 5 also goes to PSYCHO.  It’s now HALLOWEEN – 3, PSYCHO – 2.  Things are starting to get interesting.  Three rounds of questions still to come.

We’ll be wrapping this up next week. So don’t forget to check in for the conclusion of this month’s FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHT!

L.L. SOARES: Y’all come back now, you hear?

© Copyright 2012 by Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, Nick Cato, Peter N. Dudar, Daniel G. Keohane and Paul McMahon

Leave A Comment »

Friday Night Knife Fights: PSYCHO vs. HALLOWEEN (Part 1 of 3)

Posted in 1960s Horror, 1970s Movies, 2012, Alfred Hitchock Films, Classic Films, Friday Night Knife Fights, John Carpenter Films, Serial Killer flicks with tags , , , , , , on October 12, 2012 by knifefighter

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS:  PSYCHO (1960) vs. HALLOWEEN (1978)
Featuring: Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, Nick Cato, Pete Dudar, Dan Keohane, and Paul McMahon
(PART 1 OF 3)

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Welcome to another edition of FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS. 

And this time I really do mean knife fight!  It’s the battle of the knife murderers: Michael Myers vs. Norman Bates! The battle of the classic music scores: Bernard Herrmann vs. John Carpenter! And the battle of two top film directors: Alfred Hitchcock vs. John Carpenter!

Tonight we bring out the heavy hitters, as two of horror’s heavyweights go at it in what we hope will be a memorable bout. Hold onto to your carving knives, it’s PSYCHO (1960) vs. HALLOWEEN (1978).

Which one of these two is the better movie?  That’s what our panel of Cinema Knife Fighters assembled here tonight plan to find out.

Welcome everyone, and let’s get started.  Tonight’s bout features eight rounds of questions.

L.L. SOARES: Eight? What is this, the SATs?

MICHAEL ARRUDA: The first question tonight is this:

“Who is the more iconic villain, Norman Bates or Michael Myers?”

Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates in PSYCHO (1960).

PAUL MCMAHON:  Norman Bates.

As the psychologically twisted serial killer, Norman is the one the general public thinks about when strange cases of serial killers are revealed in the news (at least he was until Hannibal Lecter took that honor away from him).

Michael Myers, when he’s thought about, is usually an afterthought to Jason Voorhees and Freddy Krueger.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  I like Michael Myers much better than Jason or Freddy.

L.L. SOARES:  Who cares which one you like better? (laughs).

PAUL MCMAHON:  You may like Michael Myers better, but I think among most fans today, he’s third behind Jason and Freddy.

NICK CATO:  Getting back to the debate at hand, gentlemen, Norman Bates vs. Michael Myers, while I love Norman’s loner-bird-stuffing psychotic schtick, I always found Myers more terrifying. As Dr. Loomis said, he’s evil incarnate.  So, I’m going with Michael Myers.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Good choice, Nick!

L.L. SOARES:  Oh come on! Myers is okay, but Norman Bates is the gold standard of horror movie serial killers. He was the first “psycho” to really burrow into the mind of the general public, and what made him so scary was that was very plausible for the most part. He was, after all, based on a real life murderer, Ed Gein. Someone like Norman Bates could really exist in the world. Michael Myers was more of a boogeyman.

PETE DUDAR:  Norman’s a lunatic, but he’s a conflicted lunatic…actually showing signs of fear and remorse.

Michael Myers is a different breed of monster. The whole set-up through Donald Pleasance’s expositional spiels indicates that he’s pure evil, with no emotional or mental faculties to speak of.

I don’t know who’s more iconic.

L.L. SOARES: Well, Michael Myers was in WAYNE’S WORLD (1992) and AUSTIN POWERS: INTERNATIONAL MAN OF MYSTERY (1997). So he is pretty iconic.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Very funny.  I wondered how long it would take before someone mentioned Mike Myers, the comedic actor of AUSTIN POWERS fame.  Well, we’re not talking about him tonight.  We’re talking about Michael Myers, the psycho killer from the HALLOWEEN movies.

L.L. SOARES: There’s a difference?

MICHAEL ARRUDA: I think Mike Myers has a better sense of humor.

L.L. SOARES:  Not by much

In a lot of ways, I think it’s a generational thing. Older horror movie fans will remember how Norman Bates was a game changer. The shower scene in PSYCHO was one of the scariest film scenes of all time, and people actually avoided showers after seeing the movie. It really shook up the American public at the time.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Deodorant sales must have increased!

L.L. SOARES :  But people who grew up with HALLOWEEN might feel the same way about that movie. The thing is, PSYCHO came first and influenced all of the serial killer movies that came after it. Thus, it’s the more iconic.

DAN KEOHANE:  It’s a tough question to answer.  Who is the more iconic villain, Norman Bates or Michael Myers?

Iconic?

I’d have to say Michael Myers.

Personally, I think Norman Bates is a hundredfold creepier, but come Halloween time more kids are wearing Michael Myers masks than dressed as a twitchy guy with mother issues (though most of the ones behind the mask are like that in real life.  Brooh ha ha ha!!!

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  I agree with Dan.

Michael Myers from HALLOWEEN (1978).

I mean, it’s a tough call, but based on what I hear from today’s audiences, I’d give the slightest edge to Michael Myers.  I think his image, and his name, are more recognizable today among fans of the genre, and among people who aren’t fans of the genre.

Bates was obviously the bigger icon in the 1960s, and Myers was the bigger icon in the late 1970s into the 1980s.  I’m not sure if either one of these characters remain iconic today among today’s audiences, although like I said, I think Myers is more known.  Visually, Myers, with his mask, is more striking.  His look is more iconic than Norman Bates, but then, who can forget Anthony Perkins’ sly smile at the end of PSYCHO?

Still, I go with Michael Myers.

So, Round 1 goes to HALLOWEEN, as three of us chose Michael Myers, two chose Bates, and one, Mr. Dudar, remained undecided.

On to Round 2 and the next question.

“Which film has the better music score?  Is it Bernard Herrmann’s PSYCHO score or John Carpenter’s HALLOWEEN score?”

NICK CATO:  This one’s simply impossible to answer.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  I disagree.

While it’s true that I love both music scores, and that they’re both among my favorite film scores of all time, right off the bat, without thinking about it for too long, I’d say I prefer John Carpenter’s HALLOWEEN score, for a number of reasons.    I like the actual tune better, for one thing.  Whenever I watch a HALLOWEEN movie, I have the HALLOWEEN theme stuck in my head for days, and this is not a bad thing.

The music score for HALLOWEEN also does more for the movie than Herrmann’s PSYCHO score.   Without the music, HALLOWEEN just wouldn’t have been as effective.  In fact, I read once that when John Carpenter initially screened HALLOWEEN, trying to get a distributor, the film was rejected.  He then added his music score, showed it to the same people, and the film was accepted, the viewers saying they were pleased with his changes, when in fact the film was exactly the same, and the only difference was his music score.

But the longer I think about it, the less sure I am.  Bernard Herrmann’s PSYCHO score is also instantly known as soon as one hears it, and can you imagine the famous shower scene without Herrmann’s score?  And when you watch PSYCHO, the score is so much more than just the iconic staccato notes of its main theme.  It’s a rich and powerful score throughout.

Yet, I’m going to stick with my initial choice.  I like Carpenter’s HALLOWEEN score a wee bit better, and I think it helps the movie more than Herrmann’s PSYCHO score.  I can’t imagine HALLOWEEN with a different music score, but I could see PSYCHO working with different music.

Bernard Herrmann, composer of the score for PSYCHO.

L.L. SOARES:  I love both scores and I think they are very effective at what they do. But I’d have to give a slight edge to Bernard Herrmann’s classic score for PSYCHO. It pretty much showed everyone else how to do it. I hate to keep going back to the “movie that came first” argument, but the truth is, the first of its kind is the one that everyone else strives to imitate or surpass. And everything about PSYCHO is pretty much perfect. But in a weird way, I agree with Michael that I think I like the HALLOWEEN score a little better. It’s something I’d prefer listening to on my iPod. But for the sake of this argument, I have to go with Herrmann’s as the better score.

DAN KEOHANE:  Oooohh… you know, to be honest, there must be something to Herrmann’s score, since I can’t remember it at all except for the famous “eeeh eeeh” part, and the music for the  credits.

Carpenter’s score is admittedly more melodic and creepy in that it stays with you. Back to the iconic question, though, Herrmann’s “eeeeh eeeeh eeeeh!” killing score with the strings (yea, I have such a way with words) is far more iconic. Everyone knows what that is.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Since you can’t remember the PSYCHO score, you’d better pick the HALLOWEEN score.

DAN KEOHANE:  I remember the “eeeh eeeeh eeeeh!” part.

L.L. SOARES:  Enough with the “eeeh eeeeh eeeeh!” already!

DAN KEOHANE:  I do prefer the Carpenter score, so I’ll go with that.  (Turns and pretends to stab LS, crying out,  “eeeh eeeeh eeeeh!”

John Carpenter not only directed and co-wrote HALLOWEEN, he also wrote the music.

PAUL MCMAHON:  Interesting question.

The screeching violins of the shower scene is what most people remember when they think about PSYCHO, but that music was just a tiny part of the overall score, the rest of which most people, like Dan, don’t remember. As proof, I offer that the PSYCHO score Bernard Herrmann wrote was re-orchestrated for RE-ANIMATOR (1985).

The “trivia” section on IMDB.com says Richard Band “borrowed heavily” from Herrmann’s PSYCHO—but having just watched the openings to both movies back-to-back, I can say that Richard Band flat-out ripped Hermann off, and Herrmann’s name appears nowhere in RE-ANIMATOR’s credits. I can count on one hand the number of people I’ve met who recognize the music was originally from PSYCHO.

 

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  You can count me as one of those people.  It’s one of the reasons I initially disliked RE-ANIMATOR so much, because I recognized the music score and realized they had ripped off Hermann’s PSYCHO score.

L.L. SOARES: I recognized the “similarity” in the music, too, but unlike you guys, I don’t really care. I love everything about RE-ANIMATOR, even the more iffy aspects like the music. It just all works for me. Besides, I’m sure Mr. Band would clarify things by saying it was a “homage.” (laughs)

PAUL MCMAHON:  By the same token, if someone were to “re-orchestrate” Carpenter’s score for HALLOWEEN, not only would it be immediately recognized, fans would cause a stink that would dominate the Internet for days.

L.L. SOARES:  So, what’s your point?

PAUL MCMAHON:  My point is that HALLOWEEN has the better music score.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Pete, how about you?

PETE DUDAR:  Could you have picked two more iconic horror films to juxtapose? This is like asking “Which is better? Hot fudge or butterscotch?”  (Everyone on the panel shouts out one or the other.)  See what I mean?

I think picking between these two movies is simply too difficult.  So, I don’t really have anything to say about the music.

I’ll save my answers for the final question.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Ah, a rebel.

L.L. SOARES:  A wimp is more like it!

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Round 2 also goes to HALLOWEEN, with three for John Carpenter’s score, one for Bernard Herrmann’s PSYCHO score, and two undecided. HALLOWEEN enjoys an early lead, 2-0.

L.L. SOARES: That’s ludicrous.

MICHAEL ARRUDA: And since HALLOWEEN has jumped out to an early lead, I just want to remind our audience that, even if one movie has an insurmountable lead going into the final round, that movie can still lose if it falls in the final round.  It’s like a knock-out in boxing, where the fighter who’s losing the fight on points can still win in the final round if he knocks his opponent out.  Of course the difficult part is that the movie must win the round unanimously to score a knockout.

L.L. SOARES:  Yeah, yeah, they’ve heard the rule before.  You don’t have to repeat it every time.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  I just don’t want the folks to tune out if one movie builds a big lead, but something tells me that in spite of HALLOWEEN’s early lead this one is going to be close.

So HALLOWEEN is in the lead. What will happen next? Come join us next Friday and see!

L.L. SOARES: See you next week.

© Copyright 2012 by Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, Nick Cato, Peter N. Dudar, Daniel G. Keohane and Paul McMahon

Leave A Comment »

CKF Monstrous Question: MONSTER MOVIE MUSICALS! (Part 1 of 3)

Posted in 2012, Michael Arruda Reviews, Monsters, Monstrous Question, Musicals, Nick Cato Reviews with tags , , , , , , on August 17, 2012 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT
MONSTROUS QUESTION:  Monster Movie Musicals
With Michael Arruda, Nick Cato, Paul McMahon, and Mark Onspaugh
PART 1 OF 3

Figaro! Figaro!

MICHAEL ARRUDA:   Welcome everyone to this month’s MONSTROUS QUESTION column.  This month’s question comes courtesy of Mark Onspaugh.

Take it away, Mark.

MARK: Thanks, Michael.  I just saw that Paul Williams is clean and sober and back to making music (I had thought he was dead) —anyway, you may remember he was behind the music of Brian de Palma’s great riff on PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, PHANTOM OF THE PARADISE (1974).

I thought it might be fun for people to pick horror or sci-fi movies to be turned into musicals, maybe name a song or two and (if they want) performers and/or composer/lyricist.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  So, there you have it.  Today’s Monstrous Question:  Which horror or sci-fi movie would you like turned into a musical?

NICK CATO:  Perhaps to alleviate some tension and add even more controversy, the forthcoming THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE 3: FINAL SEQUENCE should add some musical numbers, including updated versions of ‘STUCK ON YOU’ from the now defunct Seattle punk band The Briefs, ‘RIP IT OUT’ by Ace Frehley, and the conga-line classic ‘HOT HOT HOT’ by Buster Poindexter.

Singing in the shower with the HUMAN CENTIPEDE!

*****

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  I’m going with three classics.

First, John Carpenter’s HALLOWEEN (1978).  It would feature the following songs:

-“My Sister Just Bopped Her Boyfriend For the Last Time”

-“The Boogeyman Boogie.”

-“Stroke Me Laurie Strode”

-“Is There A Man Behind that Mask?”

-“Let’s Do What We’re Not Supposed To Do (The Babysitters’ Ballad)”

More singing in the shower – this time with NORMAN BATES!

Alfred Hitchcok’s PSYCHO (1960),and believe it or not, the musical version would be darker than the movie!  Here are some of the songs:

-Who’s That Lurking Outside My Shower Curtain?

-A Boy’s Best Friend Is His Mother (a love song)

-Am I a Man or a Mother?

-I’ll Carry You to Any Fruit Cellar

-Blood, Mother, Blood!

-Gotta Clean This Shower: The Body Wrap Rap

“I’m so nervous about signing for the first time!”

And last but not least, the original FRANKENSTEIN (1931).

Featuring such show stoppers as Henry Frankenstein’s:

-It’s Alive!

-Now I Know What It Feels Like to be God!

-Put That Torch Away Fritz Before the Monster Grabs You

Fritz solos such as:

-Don’t Blame Me for Grabbing the Wrong Brain I Can’t Read!

&

-No One Ever Told Me Abnormal Was Bad

Songs by the Monster, including:

-Little Girl, Why Are You Crying?

-Why Is Everybody Always Screaming At Me?

-Invite Me to the Wedding – I’d Like to Kill the Bride

And other soon to be classics like:

-My Little Maria’s Dead, and Someone’s Gonna Pay!

-Waltzing to the Windmill

And the mega-dance number,

-Don’t Do It Fritz, Don’t Drop that Jar!

Join us next time for more answers to the Monstrous Question, and you won’t want to miss it, as Paul McMahon writes an entire treatment to a musical based on THE ISLAND OF DR. MOREAU!

—END PART 1

Answers © Copyright 2012 by Michael Arruda and Nick Cato

2 Comments »

Transmissions to Earth: DERANGED (1974)

Posted in 2011, 70s Horror, Drive-in Movies, LL Soares Reviews, Low Budget Movies, Psychos, Serial Killer flicks, Trasmissions to Earth with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on June 21, 2011 by knifefighter

TRANSMISSIONS TO EARTH: DERANGED (1974)
By L.L. Soares

Y’see, Ezra Cobb just can’t let go.

He seems like a nice enough fellow. He keeps to himself. He’s very devoted to his mother. But there’s something wrong with Ezra. Maybe he’s not all there in the head. Maybe he’s not fully in touch with reality.

The Ed Gein murders of the 1950s inspired all kinds of books and movies, from Alfred Hitchcock’s classic PSYCHO (1960) to the equally classic THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (1974). But those movies took a lot of liberties with the source material and went in very different directions. DERANGED sticks to the original story a little closer than most.

Ezra (Roberts Blossom) is a quiet, middle-aged man who lives on a farm in Wisconsin with his very possessive mother (Cosette Lee). She pretty much controls every aspect of his life, which is fine by him, since Ezra seems a bit slow on the uptake. When Mama dies, Ezra doesn’t rightly know what to do. Everyone tells him he’s got to bury her, but a year after she’s put in the ground, Ezra’s still saving her a place at the table and writing her letters. And he’s convinced her voice is telling him to go get her. She sure seems lonely out there in her grave all alone. So he digs her up and brings her back home. Because she’s started to rot a bit, he teaches himself taxidermy to repair the places where her skin isn’t so fresh.

A local family, the Kootzes, takes Ez under their wing when his mother dies. He does general handiwork around town, mostly for them, and they often invite him over for family dinner. He’s like the family dog or something. Ezra seems nice enough, if maybe a little eccentric, and he sure does say some awfully strange things every once in a while. Whenever he talks about digging up graves or putting people out of their misery, the Kootz family think he’s joking and are sure he just has an odd sense of humor.

At one point, Ma and Pa Kootz tell Ezra they’re worried about him. He’s getting older and he’s never had a wife. A man needs companionship. So they encourage him to date.

The thing is, Ezra’s mother always told him a million times how evil women were and to stay away from them, unless you want to get a nasty disease (“The wages of sin is gonorrhea, syphilis and death!”). The only woman she ever said anything nice about was Maureen Selby (Marion Waldman). It seems the two women were friends once, until Ezra’s mother got offended for some reason and stopped talking to Maureen. Old Ma Cobb certainly was one to hold a grudge. But since his mother mentioned Maureen to him, to contact her if he ever needed help, Ezra seeks the lady out.

Maureen turns out to be an odd duck as well. She’s lost her husband and is sure he still talks to her. So Ezra and Maureen start to spend some time together, until the day Maureen says she wants to have a séance so Ezra can meet her deceased husband.  During the “séance,” Maureen seems to be possessed by her late hubbie (this part is actually very funny) and tells Ezra that she has needs and that he should take care of them, since hubbie can’t do it anymore. Could it be that Maureen is trying to hoodwink Ezra into having sex with her? Ezra believes her story. The thing is, he also knows sex is bad, and when he feels tempted, he pulls out a knife instead of dropping his drawers.

Not only does the knife prevent temptation. It also provides Ezra with human flesh to repair old Mama with, when she starts to get a little rotten here and there. Up til now, Ezra had been using animal skin to cover up the rough patches, but human skin works so much better.

Mama said to stay away from girls, but Ezra can’t seem to help himself. He finds himself getting sweet on a waitress at a dive bar named Mary (Micki Moore), but it ends badly, and things really get out of hand when he meets the sweet young girlfriend that Brad Kootz (Brian Smeagle) brings home to meet the family. Her name is Sally (Pat Orr), and Ezra kind of becomes kind of obsessed with her and is determined to take her for his own. That’s when the real trouble starts.

With a mummified mama (and a bunch of other mummified ladies to keep her company), human skin masks, and other delightful hobbies, Ezra has a lot in common with old Ed Gein. And folks are just as horrified to find out the secrets about Ezra Cobb as they probably were when they discovered what Ed Gein was up to.

DERANGED is a very low-budget film that almost looks like an old television show at times. There’s even a narrator, Tom Sims (Leslie Carson), a “newspaper columnist” with spectacles and a serious tone, who pops up from time and time to break the fourth wall and talk directly to us. But his appearances are more distractions than anything else. It’s better when they just let the story unfold.

The acting ranges from good to awful, but Roberts Blossom has an eerie presence as Ezra. He makes the character believable enough. You kind of feel sorry for him, even as you’re horrified by the awful things he does.

Co-directed by Jeff Gillen, who was also an actor in movies like CHILDREN SHOULDN’T PLAY WITH DEAD THINGS (1973) and was the department store Santa who kicks little Ralphie down the slide in A CHRISTMAS STORY (1983), and Alan Ormsby, who wrote scripts for movies like CHILDREN SHOULDN’T PLAY WITH DEAD THINGS, the 1980 remake of CAT PEOPLE and PORKY’S 2: THE NEXT DAY (1983), DERANGED is regarded as a low-budget classic of its kind, and rightly so. If you can look past the almost non-existent production values, you might just enjoy this one. And it has such a strange tone to it all that DERANGED almost seems like a black comedy a lot of the time.

Despite the ghastly crimes Ezra commits, there isn’t much in the way of nudity or gore until the end. But if you sit for the end credits you’ll see that some feller named “Tom Savini”  helped do the make-up effects. In fact, it was the first movie he did make-up for.

While most people know it as DERANGED, it also seemed to have a longer title at one point,  DERANGED: CONFESSIONS OF A NECROPHILE. But that title ain’t very nice. We never do see Ezra do much in the way of necrophilin’.  Although, who knows what he was up to between the scenes?

As a curious artifact from another time, DERANGED is worth seeking out. Roberts Blossom’s performance as Ezra alone is enough to make it worth seeing. And tell them Ma Cobb sent you, you hear?

© Copyright 2011 by L.L. Soares

2 Comments »

THE ROOMMATE

Posted in 2011, Cinema Knife Fights, Garbage, Hot Chick Movies, Psychos with tags , , , , , on February 7, 2011 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: THE ROOMMATE
By Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares


(The Scene: A college campus. MICHAEL ARRUDA and LL SOARES sit on a bench in the middle of a vast green lawn in the middle of the campus, as college kids go about their daily routine.)

MA: Ahhh, college in spring time. Is there a better place to be?

LS: Considering our real bodies are back in snow-covered winter? No. But I don’t want to go back. Our astral bodies are doing just fine here.

MA: But we’re here for a reason. We’re reviewing the new movie THE ROOMMATE.

LS: Did you have to remind me? Yes, I suppose that’s why we’re here.

MA: Stop leering at the young co-eds!

LS: Stop leering at co-eds? You might as well ask the wind to stop blowing. The sun to stop shining.

MA: Get on with the review.

LS: (Chuckles) Okie doke. THE ROOMMATE is a riveting tale of obsession and murder, set on a college campus. Young freshman girls Sara Matthews (Minka Kelly) and Rebecca (Leighton Meester) are frolicking in the leaves of autumn…..

MA: Wait a minute. That’s not the movie I saw. Stick to the real movie!

LS: Do I have to?

MA: Yes!

LS: Okay, okay. Sara arrives at school, a fresh-faced (if slightly older than she should be) freshman, eager to fill her head with knowledge. When she gets to her dorm, her roommate isn’t there yet, so she bonds with suite-mates like Tracy (Alyson Michalka), who likes to get drunk and have sex (in that order). When her dorm room roommate does show up, it’s Rebecca, a very intense art student who seems a little bit overly concerned about Sara’s coming and goings.

MA: She’s downright nuts!

LS: I was getting to that. At first, Rebecca just seems like she really needs a friend and wants to bond with her new roommate. But things get creepy from there, as we spiral into Obsession Land. Rebecca starts doing odd things like threatening Tracy’s life in the shower (she changes dorms and stays away from Sara as a result) and setting up the pervy professor (Billy Zane) who hit on Sara, so that he gets fired.

It just goes downhill from there, as threats and intimidation make way for slicing and dicing, including poor Jason (Matt Latner), Sara’s ex who can’t seem to let go. Rebecca leads him on just so she can get all sharp edges on the poor guy. And don’t forget Sara’s long-time friend and fashion insider, Irene (Danneel Harris), who offers a way out (she offers to let Sara move in with her to escape her obsessive roommate)  and who gets seduced by Rebecca in a nightclub bathroom. When Irene takes Rebecca home, Sara suddenly stops getting phone calls from her friend. Anyone who is close to Sara is a target in Rebecca’s world. Mostly because the poor girl won’t take her meds!

MA:  I’m sure none of the young teens who were in the theater with me were thinking about this, but I found the characterization of Rebecca somewhat insulting to people with mental illness and mental disabilities. Rebecca obviously needs help, obviously needs to be on her meds, and yet no one seems to make this simple suggestion to her – “Ah, Rebecca, don’t you think you should take your meds?”  Even Sara, once she discovers that her roommate needs to be on meds, doesn’t say anything to her about it.

LS:  Yeah, Sara also doesn’t tell her R.A. or any adults in authority. It just seemed stupid to me. I guess she was worried Rebecca would flip out and kill her, but if that’s the case, and she really is afraid for her life, wouldn’t she try to get some help from the people in charge?

MA:  Which is why I found this characterization insulting. Nobody even mentions Rebecca’s doctor or suggests that she should see one. Oh well. I guess it’s just a silly horror movie, which is another reason not to see it.

LS:  A rather interesting part of the film involves Sara going to Rebecca’s family’s house for Thanksgiving (before she realizes her roommate is a full-on psycho). Actually, it’s not as interesting as it could have been—if only this movie had better writing—but it’s funny how even Rebecca’s parents seem terrified of her. A definite sign that something is very wrong.

MA:  I’d say!  Something is wrong with her parents!  What a pair of frightened wimps!  The mom whispers to Sara, “Is she taking her meds?”  Is she taking her meds??  Don’t you know?  It’s your daughter!  If your daughter is as sick as this movie makes her out to be, what the hell are you doing sending her off to college without the supervision of someone in the medical profession?

LS: Yeah, not only is that irresponsible to their daughter, it’s also putting a lot of other people in danger. And you know her parents are aware that Rebecca is dangerous, or else they wouldn’t be practically shaking with fear every time they see her. I guess they let her go away to live on campus just to be free of her!

MA:  And it’s like you said, this part of the movie could have been more interesting had the writing been better and the story followed up this relationship more, because when they first meet Rebecca’s parents, it’s such an odd uncomfortable meeting that I was thinking, this is going to be interesting, and then it goes nowhere.

LS:  Yep. Also during this Thanksgiving visit to Rebecca’s home, we get to meet a girl who might have been Rebecca’s earlier “crush” before she met Sara. Another potentially creepy scene that could have been done much better.

MA: And, as we predicted in last week’s COMING ATTRACTIONS column, this one was pretty much a by-the-numbers rip-off of the 1992’s SINGLE WHITE FEMALE, except made for a younger, college crowd.

LS: They even both have an “I’ll change my hair color so I look even more like my really cool roommate” scene. And that’s my number one problem with THE ROOMMATE. It’s so damn predictable!! There’s not one scene in this movie that I didn’t see coming a mile away!

MA: Same here. I found this extremely irritating, to be honest. Even though the setting, the ages of the characters, and the actual criminal acts committed by the psycho roommate were changed, all the thrills were pretty much the same—the only difference is this psycho isn’t as deadly as the Jennifer Jason Leigh character in SINGLE WHITE FEMALE, who I believe left a trail of dead bodies in that one.

And since THE ROOMMATE doesn’t do anything to improve upon SINGLE WHITE FEMALE, it doesn’t blow you away, and so if you’ve seen that first movie, this one is predictable and actually less intense than the original, though just as mindless.

LS: Now to the acting. First off we’ve got Minka Kelly in a leading role, as Sara. That’s a good thing.

MA:  Yes, I definitely liked Minka Kelly. She’s beautiful, and she can act, too. If I had to pick one thing I liked about THE ROOMMATE, it would be Kelly.

LS:  I’ve been a fan of the TV show Friday Night Lights since it began, and Minka has the pivotal role on the show as Lyla Garrity. This is the kind of well-written, strongly acted show that is ignored by viewers but constantly makes critics’ Top 10 lists. It really deserves a bigger audience. Friday Night Lights is one of the best shows on television, and everyone in the ensemble cast is pretty terrific. It’s always cool to see actors from this show go on to bigger and better things, but so far, the projects they’ve gone on to do not have the same level of quality as Friday Night Lights.

Perfect examples are Adrianne Palicki (who played Tyra on the show) who went on to be the pregnant girl in the so-so horror flick LEGION. And Taylor Kitsch, who is so good as Tim Riggins on the show, was just plain horrendous as Gambit in X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE. Minka Kelly joins the ranks of good actors gone bad here, because THE ROOMMATE is pretty awful.

MA:  I wouldn’t call it awful. Mediocre, maybe.

LS: You’ve got to be kidding me. THE ROOMMATE is downright lousy. Although Kelly and Leighton Meester (also a TV vet, coming from the show Gossip Girl) certainly give it the old college try!

MA:  Forgive me if I don’t jump up and down and defend this movie. It’s hard to get excited about “mediocre.”

LS: Sure, Minka Kelly proved she was a good actress in Friday Night Lights, and she even recently got chosen as GQ’s “Sexiest Woman Alive.” Unfortunately, that’s not enough to save this movie.

MA: No, she doesn’t save this movie, but she is one of its best parts, and she does keep it from being horrible.

LS: Leighton Meester really tries to be creepy as “off-her-meds” Rebecca, but she falls a bit short. There was nothing she did in this movie that I didn’t see coming a mile away, so it was hard to see any of her behavior as all that scary. Then again, this is more the script’s fault than hers. In some scenes, she actually pretty good.

MA: Yeah, I thought Meester was sufficiently crazy, but nothing in her performance lifted it above the very predictable material.

LS:  Not only was THE ROOMMATE a complete rip-off of SINGLE WHITE FEMALE, it’s also a complete waste of time. Hell, even the “Sexiest Woman Alive” couldn’t save it.

MA:  I wouldn’t call it a complete waste of time. I actually think Kelly is worth watching, though don’t run out and see this one by any means!

LS:  The rest of the cast was just so-so. Cam Gigandet, playing Minka’s love interest Stephen, a fratboy with a soul. I guess he’s okay in the role, but his constant smirk made me want to punch him in the face.

MA:  I actually liked Gigandet’s performance. I thought he came off as sincere and likeable.

LS: And poor Danneel Harris as Irene isn’t given much do to at all, except be a victim. Although I wish I could have tried out her cinnamon lipstick.

MA:  I thought Billy Zane as the perverted Professor Roberts was pretty good. I wished he had been in it more. I thought he would have stuck around to seek revenge against Rebecca, but he just kinda disappears.

LS: Yeah, once Rebecca “deals with them” they all conveniently disappear. Can’t have any actual tension or suspense in this movie.

It’s funny. Throughout this movie, this young-ish crowd I saw it with was constantly yelling and jumping in their seats to THE ROOMMATE, which annoyed me no end. How could they have such strong reactions to scenes that were so damn predictable? And then it hit me. These are the same kids who made the TWILIGHT movies box-office hits. They don’t care about originality or real scares. So why am I expecting them to be more savvy than they are?

MA:  You know, I had nearly the same exact experience. The theater was packed; there was barely an empty seat in the house. I do believe that 90 percent of this young crowd were seeing their first horror movie ever. People were screaming, and squirming in their seats. There’s a scene where Rebecca picks up their cute little kitty, and you know she’s going to harm it, and nearly the whole theater erupted in a collective gasp, and it only got worse as Rebecca carried the animal into the laundry room towards its inevitable fate. I thought the people in front of me were going to have a coronary. Perhaps I shouldn’t have been chanting “Kill the kitty! Kill the kitty!”

LS: Thanks for bringing that up. Obviously they were going for a “boiling bunny” kind of scene here, like in FATAL ATTRACTION. But everything is implied, everything happens off-screen, and it’s not scary at all.

MA: But seriously, I was sitting there bored, and people—young people—were gasping and chattering nervously. I didn’t get it.

LS: You can say this movie was not made for us; it was made for a younger crowd. But the truth is, a good movie is a good movie, no matter who it’s meant for. And this movie isn’t good.

So here’s my rating. I give THE ROOMMATE half a knife. And I only give it that because I dig Minka Kelly, and she’s done work in the past that proved to me she really is, deep down, a serious actress. You would never tell it from watching THE ROOMMATE.

But I can’t give more than that. This movie is just embarrassingly bad.

MA:  I liked it better than half a knife. As I already said, I enjoyed Minka Kelly a lot in this movie, and, taken as a whole, the acting in THE ROOMMATE was pretty darn good.

The writing, not so much. Sonny Mallhi wrote the screenplay, and it’s average at best. Considering that it’s based almost exactly on SINGLE WHITE FEMALE, with really no improvements to the original story, I’d say that’s disappointing. If you’re going to remake something, you really should try to make it better.

LS: And if this is a remake, then give the original some credit. (Of course, they’d deny that.)

MA: That’s a good point.  There’s nary a mention or a nod to the original.  It’s like the filmmakers were pretending this was an original movie, which it’s anything but!

And there was an odd moment when Sara phones Rebecca, and it’s a collect call!  What’s up with that?  There are still collect calls in today’s age of cell phones and wireless service?  I didn’t get that. Today, who would need to make a collect call?

THE ROOMMATE was directed by Christian Christianson. I wonder if he’s religious?  He does an adequate job in telling this average story. Where he fails is in generating suspense. THE ROOMMATE isn’t really all that suspenseful. Plus this movie feels less like a horror movie and more like a made-for-TV thriller.

LS: It almost would be right at home on the LIFETIME channel.

MA: It’s OK. Like I said before, mediocre is the word that comes to mind, but since oftentimes I see films that I think are downright awful, with horrible acting, writing, and special effects, I hesitate to place THE ROOMMATE in this category.

LS: I’ll do it for you.

MA: I did find one scene scary, when Sara discovers her friend Irene tied to her bed. In restraints, Irene jumps up at the camera, and I thought this was a good quick fright. I also liked the belly ring scene in the shower. That caused a few winces.

LS: Yeah, the scene where we find Irene tied to the bed works. It might be the only scare in the movie.

MA: But I’m not surprised that you hated this movie, since ultimately it was a watered down version of SINGLE WHITE FEMALE, which I believe was an R rated movie, and this one was PG-13. Gone is all the nudity and all the murders. Not that that made SINGLE WHITE FEMALE any better, because I was never a big fan of that movie either, but THE ROOMMATE is definitely lacking, and any kind of an edge would have been a good thing, so the decision to water down the original material probably wasn’t a good one.

LS:  Well, despite being R-rated, I wasn’t that impressed with SINGLE WHITE FEMALE either—and it had better acting and a far better director—it just wasn’t that great a movie. THE ROOMMATE is even worse.

MA: THE ROOMMATE is an average passable movie that is okay if you want to watch it on DVD and have nothing better to do, but it’s hardly worth the effort of seeing it at the theater. I give it two knives, mostly because all the actors in this one do a good job and they’re easy to watch. Too bad I can’t say the same for the rest of the movie.

LS: Okay, enough chit-chat. We have some other work to do.

MA: Work?  What the hell were we just doing?

LS: Writing Cinema Knife Fight is fun. It’s not work. Well, most of the time.

MA:  That’s true. Okay. So what work are you talking about?

LS:  Did you think we could just sit here, enjoying the sun and watching skimpily-dressed co-eds?

MA:  Well, the thought had crossed my mind.

LS:  You are very naïve, my son.

(Pulls out shovels)

MA:  Are we robbing a grave?

LS: We need to clean up the trash on campus.

MA:  Are you kidding me?

LS:  Nope. That’s why we’re really here. And the first heap of garbage we have to shovel is none other than THE ROOMMATE!

MA: I am dumb-founded!  Well, like I said before, it’s hard to defend mediocrity. Let’s get shoveling!

—END—

© Copyright 2011 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

Michael Arruda gives THE ROOMMATE – 2 knives

LL Soares gives THE ROOMMATE – 1/2 knife


1 Comment »

Monstrous Question of the Month—Response # 4—OCTOBER 2010

Posted in 2010, Classic Films, Horror, Monstrous Question of the Month with tags , , , , , on October 27, 2010 by knifefighter

THE MONSTROUS QUESTION OF THE MONTH – OCTOBER 2010
(Questions Provided by Michael Arruda)

THIS MONTH’S QUESTION:

You know how movie stations load up on horror movies on Halloween night?  If you were in charge of one of these channels, and if it was up to you to choose a triple feature of horror films showing on Halloween night, which three movies would you choose and why?

RESPONSE # 4—DAN KEOHANE:

I’d say, and I’m sure a lot of others might pick these as well:

PSYCHO (1960)


THE EXORCIST (1973)

and of course HALLOWEEN (1978)

These are all a bit different theme-wise, of course, but aside from all being brilliant films on a lot of levels, the most common thing between them is atmosphere. All take their subjects seriously, no goofy camp or overabundance of humor thrown in.

Really good horror—when it’s good, mind you—has such an impact when the audience isn’t pulled from the illusion of the film with a joke or a sly wink. You can still have these, in moderation, but… these films have a constant sense of dread, but aren’t so oppressive you feel like you’ve spent an hour and a half trapped underground in a coffin.

Take HALLOWEEN for example. Constant outdoor shots, normal neighborhood, breeze blowing leaves down the street. These shots keep the setting real and blow air into the lungs of your imagination, before pulling you back into the house for a good screech.

It’s the same with PSYCHO. Wide overcast skies between the motel and house, give a sense of openness, before you’re pulled in. OK, waxing a little poetic here. But these movies are so well done, from direction to acting (granted, the acting in HALLOWEEN doesn’t compete much with the other two), to overall atmosphere, that they only add to the overall joy of Halloween.

Note, you might substitute the original THE OMEN (1976) with THE EXORCIST, if you so choose. I’m not picky. THE EXORCIST would be my first choice, though. But I would save HALLOWEEN for last. It has more action and overall hoot-ness to end the holiday with a bang. Or a scream.

—END—

~Dan Keohane, October 2010

Leave A Comment »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 81 other followers