Stephen King's IT (1990) - Part 1

Hey, you! Stop right there! Don't click away from this page! Because this...this will be a review you want to read. A review fit for the kings and other important people. If you don't believe me, just keep reading. You won't be disappointed.

Stephen King's It was a 1990 TV movie that aired in two parts, mostly because the original novel it was based on was thick enough to break a person's leg if you dropped it on them. Which, I'm told, was the main reason so many known mafia associates were flocking to bookstores in the 80s – to get that fucking book and kill people with it. You might not find any sources for that, but I did say it, and I'm on the Internet. So it must be true.

Director: Tommy Lee Wallace

Starring: John Ritter, Tim Curry, Richard Thomas

IMDb

Co-written with Tony.

But now I'm just rambling – which is, strangely enough, exactly what the movie does. So really, it's okay if I just keep going on and on without ever actually telling a coherent story. I'm also going to split the review into two parts, just like the TV movie was split into two parts when it originally aired. Isn't that how these movie reviews have always worked? I write them solely based on what lazy jokes I can throw in just to parody the films in a weak manner. It's just my style, man.

Stephen King's IT was a movie I had not seen in full since I was 14. I'm in my 20s now, but this movie, I saw in middle school immediately after I had finished the book. In a way, I think this was the first major disappointment of my life in terms of movies. This was the threshold I crossed, guys. It was my coming of age.

We start this crap fest off with Bill Denbrough, a writer who has a very hot wife who keeps pressuring him to go places with her, but Bill is too busy writing in his bedroom. This scene is great because all it's missing is for Bill to muse to himself, “Man, I wish I was as good a writer as Stephen King.”

Then they have dinner and he says he doesn't want to go to London with her. This is immediately followed by him getting a call from his old friend Mike, who tells him in an ominous way that “it's happening again,” which prompts him to immediately start packing his bags to leave for his hometown, Derry.

"What do you mean you want donations because I went to college there?!"

OK, that was a lot of information. Let's recap exactly what just happened: Man tells his wife he doesn't want to spend time with her, sort of blowing her off in general. Then the next second, he gets a phone call from a man he admits he hasn't seen in 30 years, and he's rushing out the door.

I'm sorry, what's that sound? Yes, I do believe it's divorce papers shuffling about!

Then we get a long rambling flashback that shows Bill and his brother Georgie as little kids. Bill is sick in bed while Georgie is suiting up to go play outside with a paper boat. Oh the good old days when kids could go outside and do this. Nowadays, you get shot by the police if you do something like this.

Tsk tsk, what a young hoodlum.

Anyway, Georgie meets Pennywise the Clown, who hangs out in the sewer. If this is all sounding a little too much like Sesame Street on really bad acid, I'd forgive you. As Georgie is apparently a complete idiot, he stays there and talks to the clown for several minutes. Well, I'm sold: he deserves whatever happens to him now.

It's just one of those sewer clowns. You know, the ones that were popular in the 50s...

What follows are some truly strange scenes showing Bill going into his little brother's room and finding a bleeding book on the ground – I dunno, something about this scene just doesn't work when you set it in broad daylight with bright pastel colors. It just doesn't come off as scary.

Get that fucking ketchup off the book, you slobs.

His parents also scold him for coming in there and tell him angrily never to enter his brother's room again. Because, apparently, this is how people act in the bizarre, lopsided world of Stephen King's IT! Yes, how dare you mourn your brother? Only WE, the PARENTS, can have THAT privilege, silly knave boy!

Then we flash back to present day Bill, who looks dazed, like someone just spiked his orange juice. What's that? You forgot we were even in a fucking flashback? Me too, don't worry. The way this first part of the movie is told is just so bad, pacing-wise. You get a few minutes of the characters in their adult lives, then a 15-minute flashback of them as kids. I get what they were going for here, for clarity and conciseness sake, but it's sloppy as fuck and doesn't end up very engaging when that formula is repeated five times in a row.

One of the others is Ben Hanscom, played here by the late John Ritter. Well, he wasn't the late John Ritter when he was making this movie. I mean, it's not like they took his corpse and just painted open eyes over his closed ones and used a shitty voice-over or something. That's crazy that you would think that's what I meant.

I just had to clarify that.

Anyway, Ben is an insane man who tells his dates how fat he used to be as a kid, which I guess is a real aphrodisiac for some of these women. I wonder if he seeks them out based on the "I used to be a fat kid" fetish? It's also especially weird because it isn't like he's that skinny now. He just has money, and used that as a way to not feel fat anymore.

In his flashback, we find out that he was immediately targeted as a kid by the 17-year-old bullies who have been held back apparently most of their whole lives in the same sixth-grade class. They're super realistic bullies who like to do normal bully things, like holding knives to kids' stomachs and literally threatening to cut them wide open.

Oh, kids will be kids.

In the book, this was a legit plot thread and came off as scary. Here it comes off as hacky and goofy, without any kind of sense to it. But don't worry, there's all kinds of other terrible things going on, too!

Like, really, do we need a subplot about the woman in the group, Bev, dealing with an abusive husband? It's as contrived and shitty as any abusive spouse plot from this time period. I know it's a realistic thing that happens to people, but the way it's done here is so bad. Most old movies like this never really had nuance or subtlety to these plots, and didn't present them as a way to get to know a character. Instead, most of them are just really hacky ways to give women something to do. “Yeah, being abused is a problem women can have.” Go fuck yourself, movie.

But don't worry, this movie doesn't let you forget that above all else, it's a cartoon made for children who ride the short bus. Like look at how she “escapes” him finally: she throws a makeup container at his head, he falls on his ass and she runs out the door. He just screams at her to come back, because yeah, I'm sure she's gonna do that now.

"I'm really commanding a lot of respect right now!"

Then we get a flashback sequence, where her father smacks her around a bit, too. She runs away from him as well, and he shouts at her to come back, too, and doesn't ever actually chase her. Are all the men in this chick's life just vampires who can't venture outside or else they'll burst into flames? Jesus Christ. I don't know why she even puts up with the abuse. If she steps outside the door for a second, they won't be able to follow – it's foolproof. These guys aren't anything to be afraid of, they're total wimps.

So I know everyone who saw this movie when they were younger than 10 is officially Afraid of Clowns (TM) for life. But honestly, there's nothing to be afraid of, and I'll prove that to you. I guess we'll start at the beginning, in which the movie decided it really had to show us the essential “little boy in the showers alone” scene. Yes, I can see why this had to be in the fucking movie...

It's for artistic integrity, we swear! Then again, it's not the worst child sex-related thing related to Stephen King's IT...

Then the shower heads start moving around following him, but that frankly isn't that weird. This will be in our Jetsons-style future in a few years, anyway. But then the clown shows up, and while Tim Curry IS having a lot of fun here as the clown, it just isn't that scary. He pops up out of a Bugs Bunny-style hole in the ground and just kind of hams it up. It's literally like a cartoon. There's no way an adult could find this nonsense scary.

Those are actually Tim Curry's real teeth, by the way.

BUT... I guess it could be scary if you want to imagine that it's actually Jared Fogle dressed up in clown makeup. There you go. I made IT scary again for you. I am a fucking genius.

Just in case you forgot what he looked like.

But the characters never thought it was passe or old hat. Take a look at Stan, the one guy in the group they haven't bothered to show as an adult until now. Why IS that, you might be wondering? Well, it's because when Mike Hanlon decides to give him a call, his immediate response is to go upstairs and kill himself in the tub. His wife comes up and finds him in the most drawn out and ridiculous way ever, dropping the beer she's holding and letting out a scream more befitting of a terrible and cliché horror movie than anything else.

Oh, wait.

Come back here for the second part of this in a few days! It gets so much worse!

Images copyright of their original owners, we own none of them.

Nostalgia, Ghostbusters and the Movies

If you've been on any movie or entertainment site lately, you probably want to kill yourself because of all this Ghostbusters news. If you haven't been, I'll sum it up in the most non-wrist-slittingly-way possible: Sony, that master of franchises, wants to put out a Ghostbusters movie with an all female cast. The Internet reacted poorly as it always does. I personally just thought it was at least something different from a remake with an all male cast, which would just be contrived as hell, so eh, whatever.

But lo and behold...

I swear it's like they're just trying to spite me now.

It's the nostalgia dollar at work again. People just love stuff from when they were kids now. I'm a 20-something millennial whatever, so I can speak from experience – we all just love remembering the late 80s and early-to-mid 90s. Why? I think it's a product of the Internet, fast moving technology and what it's all doing to our poor, putty-like brains.

With the Internet, time moves faster and people are closer together. We grew up with this Internet thing foisted on us by the over-eager minds of big tech companies. With that came the ability of hindsight to things we couldn't just watch normally without a Youtube or torrents. When people my age were young, we watched shows like everyone used to – you know, on the TV and then we had to use our memories. Nostalgia! Then Youtube came along and Netflix followed and it was all a snowball effect from there – no longer did we have to rely on just thinking about things we were nostalgic about. Now we could relive it and watch it in all its glory!

Now, even though it's not that old, we're reliving that sweet nostalgia like 80 year old men discovering childhood favorite storybooks on a trip back to our childhood home before we die of cancer. I know that sounds sardonic, but really I think it's just a human thing that everyone goes through no matter the age – we all love remembering things from when we were younger. Nostalgia doesn't have a time limit. Everything in our pasts has some kind of rosy border.

The problem came when movie studios dug their pudgy fingers into that proverbial rosy-bordered nostalgic pie. As they are wont to do, they turned it from a sort of charming, somewhat happy new trend - “we can watch all our favorite Nickelodeon cartoons on a tiny screen in our bedrooms!” - into a giant corporate megalith: the remakes and reboots we have all come to loathe more and more every year.

This is always how it goes. They listen to us, they listen to the demand – not out of some kind of love for genuine art and fun, but because they see us as money-spewing machines that will churn out dollar bills at the drop of any new movie about something we used to love. That's the corporate machinery at work. Maybe at some minuscule level someone enjoyed what they were doing, but I dunno, I just get the feeling a lot of these guys have to go visit guys wearing cowboy hats in the middle of the night and get threatened with death if they don't obey what they say:

Unfortunately, this is the way it always goes – something starts off genuine, then the big bucks come in, and it becomes a corporate, controlled version of itself. So I imagine we'll probably get a live action Hey Arnold movie with kids from various teen pop acts and maybe Shailene Woodley or Ansel Elgort thrown in as a consolation prize. Or a Rugrats movie that imitates Baby Geniuses. With dialogue written by low-rent Diablo Codys. Maybe they'll make a Powerpuff Girls movie next and then make a male version of that to appease all demographics! The possibilities!

I also just think it's strange how political pretty much everything has become thanks to the Internet. I mean, people always liked to spout off about politics, and movies have always – always – been powerful tools to espouse certain viewpoints. But with the Internet, we can make anything political now! Now, everything that comes out gets scrutinized to no end and held up or beat down by increasingly polarized, extreme opinions. When the all-women Ghostbusters idea came out, people went nuts – some people were hailing it as a victory for feminism; others just beat the old dead horse of “women can't be funny” with some bitching about "feminists ruining everything" to round out the horribleness...either way, it was a circus. Rinse and repeat with the announcement of the all-male one again.

Can't this just be a fun movie? It's fucking Ghostbusters. It was a silly 1980s comedy with great comedians in the starring roles. Now, it's a big political debate. That's what the Internet does, though – it gives all these people voices and they become so loud, they dwarf the qualities of the films we're arguing about. Movies like Ghostbusters aren't so much about the movies themselves now, so much as they are political tug-o-war talking points for feminists and anti-feminists and who the fuck ever else.

Not to say you shouldn't discuss or argue about things that bother you in these films, but you shouldn't lose perspective either. By all means, talk about feminism in movies and the all-white-male demographic of Hollywood's moneymaking elite, but not everything has to be another hurdle in the battlefield for equality – as important as it is for men and women to be equal and for there to be diversity, I just don't see Ghostbusters as being any part of that equation. I guess some people do though, so...more power to you, I guess?

(Plus, the funniest part of the whole "all male Ghostbusters cast" thing is that people have apparently forgotten that they did two movies already with an all-male Ghostbuster cast...so, whether or not you're happy with an all-male cast in some new movie, it's just hilarious that you'd act like this is some unprecedented thing. I get the idea that eventually, in an Idiocracy-esque way, people are going to forget the original Ghostbusters even existed. They'll keep on arguing about the remakes, but then go "who?" when Bill Murray's or Harold Ramis's names come up.)

I'd be lying if I said I expected greatness from a new Ghostbusters movie in 2015. But that's not even the main point, and neither is the male/female cast debate.

The point is that they're only now making any new Ghostbusters movies, because now, people think everything from their childhood is God. Why didn't they make a Ghostbusters III or spin-offs back in the 90s when the original was still fresh? Because there was no market for it then. There is one now, thanks to the nostalgia craze born from the Internet. Hollywood saw dollar signs and decided they could make money off it. That's the truth. It's commercialized, focus-tested nostalgia and it's how they do everything, from superheroes to remakes of classic horror films to now, classic childhood movies and cartoons. Nothing new under this sun, folks.

Images copyright of their original owners; I own none of them.

A Quick Review of "Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire"

Starring: Dan Castellaneta, Julie Kavner, Nancy Cartwright

Director: David Silverman

Created by: Matt Groening, James L. Brooks, Sam Simon

IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0348034/

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpsons_Roasting_on_an_Open_Fire

"But he's a loser. He's pathetic. He's...a Simpson." - Homer on Santa's Little Helper

I wanted to do a quick something for the holidays, so I figured the best way to do it would be to briefly review a Christmas special, which also happens to be the series premiere of my favorite TV show of all time.

Saying that "The Simpsons" is my favorite TV show is kind of like saying my favorite ice cream flavor is chocolate (it is, by the way): not everyone would say the same, but it is almost a boring choice. But there is good reason for that: the show has influenced nearly every aspect of our culture and is permanently etched in the minds of all who grew up with it. Some people go to church on Sundays religiously; I would watch "The Simpsons" on Sunday religiously. Heck, I still watch new episodes of it when I have the time. No, it is not nearly as good as it used to be and is done more out of habit and loyalty than anything at this point. But I am not here to talk about that. In the spirit of the season, and to commemorate the 25th anniversary of its original airing (which was before I was born, by the way), I am here to give you my (short) take of "Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire."

(Warning: I am assuming most of you reading this are fans who have seen this episode a million and one times, but just in case you are not, there will be spoilers).

The episode features the Simpsons running into trouble during the holidays when their sources of income fall through: Homer does not get his Christmas bonus because Mr. Burns is a greed bastard and Marge has to use their Christmas savings to remove a tattoo that Bart got without telling anyone. Homer keeps the former a secret and tries to find ways to make sure his family's Christmas is not a disappointment. This includes getting part-time work as a mall-Santa and attempting to get rich at a dog racing track by betting on a canine with a very familiar name.

By this description alone, it sounds like a fairly typical Simpsons episode, and indeed there are many aspects within it that have carried on throughout the years. However, you will probably notice that this is very much a series under construction. The animation is rather primitive, the voice actors seem very cautious in the way they deliver their lines, and the jokes are generally safe in terms of their content. And while most of the characters are more or less constructed the way most people view them today (especially Bart), others have undergone some noticeable changes since 1989. Ralph Wiggum makes only a brief appearance, but it is hard to overlook the fact that he sounds...uh...not "special." Lisa sounds like, dare I say, a normal 8-year old girl who wants a pony for Christmas. The character who seems most out of place is Homer: aside from the Walter Mattau-style voice (seriously, that is who Dan Castellaneta originally based it on), he seems a lot more straight-laced than he does in later seasons. His intelligence nothing to brag about but not abysmal, his anger seems more abrupt and threatening, and he appears to have a relatively strong moral conscience. When he and Bart go to the race track at the insistence of Barney Gumble (who has blonde hair, strangely enough), he seems genuinely ashamed about it. That's not the Homer Simpson I know! The Homer Simpson I know would have brought the whole family with him and blow their entire life savings on that damn dog!

By the way, does anyone else who has watched this see a lot of similarities between it and "Christmas Vacation"? Both feature the family patriarch failing to turn on the Christmas lights on his house while his family watches on, getting a tree from out in the middle of the woods instead of a lot,  and, yes, not getting his Christmas bonus. They both came out around the same time so unless there was some connection between the two productions, I cannot cry plagiarism for either. My guess is that the Simpsons and Griswold families are only a small faction of people who struggle during the holidays for similar reasons.

But I digress...

In a way, all this makes sense: the show was in the process of evolving from animated shorts that would appear between sketches on the Fox program "The Tracy Ullman Show" to a full-length series. This is not exactly an easy task even today; the creators of "The Simpsons" on the other hand were doing this at a time when Fox itself was just getting started and probably had barely any budget to give them, on top of the fact that there had not been a successful prime-time animated series since "The Flintstones" ended its run twenty years prior. So you can understand if the show seems like it is trying to figure itself out. Still, it is odd to think that this would become the longest-running primetime scripted show in television history; it looks like something that would barely last a half a season today.

As the episode goes on, however, you start to see an inkling of what made the series great. Lisa leaves the pony stuff aside to give a passionate defense of her father as her male role model. Homer meanwhile gets some laughs trying to make the Santa and dog track things work (and failing), with Bart contributing to the mix.

*Spoilers start here*

And then there is the end. Once it seems like rock bottom has been hit, they encounter the dog that Homer lost money on. His name, of course, is Santa's Little Helper, who is adopted by the family as everyone learns WHAT CHRISTMAS IS ALL ABOUT!!! Okay, it is very cheesy and cliche, but it works.

*Spoilers end here*

The Simpsons was always good at mixing humor with heart. I have the quote on top because it is a good synopsis of the episode and to a certain extend the series as a whole: while people (and animals) are flawed, they do their best to rise above it all. Even if they do not succeed, they still manage to find what is really important in life. And hopefully, have a laugh while doing it.

So that is "Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire." How does it hold up a quarter of a century later? Fairly well. It is not the greatest Christmas special ever, and certainly not the best "Simpsons" episode ever (at least it is not the Worst. Episode. Ev...sorry I could not help it...). Still, it has the Christmas spirit and is, in its own little way, a very appropriate start to a beloved series.

I definitely recommend it if you have not seen it already. And if you have...see it again!

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.

The pictures and links on this page do not belong to me and are being used for entertainment purposes only. Please do not sue me,

Double Feature: House of Wax (1953); Mystery of the Wax Museum (1933)

Hey guys!

For those of you wondering why I have not posted anything in almost a year, I should formally announce that I have retired from Cinema Freaks. What I mean by that is that I am no longer posting reviews on a regular basis. I am in a new stage in my life, and I simply do not have the time or the energy to write full scale critiques of movies. I realize the irony of this statement since I would usual go months at a time without posting anything even when I was active. However, I will still keep my account going in case I ever feel inspired to write about a movie or movie-related event I love (or hate). In other words, if I do reappear, it will only be on a rare occasion, which I think is a more appropriate relationship for me to have with the site at this point in time. Fortunately, I am confident that Dr. Doctor and whoever else decides to join will more than make up for my absence. So do not worry, you are in good hands.

All that being said, I have decided to dig up and finish up something that has been in the works for a really, really, REALLY long time. Remember way back in October of 2011 when we had "Month of Terror" theme? Remember how I didn't do anything for it? Well, things did not go as planned and this project was put on the shelf for a while. Anyway, since Halloween is coming up again, I might as well make up for it by completing and publishing the review that I had meant to show, which also happens to be my first double-feature review. While it has been a while since I have seen the films, I wrote down most of the stuff that I had seen (I mostly just added a few more pictures, plot points and jokes), so I do not think I skipped over any critical details. But just in case, I am sorry if I did. Anyway, without further ado:

Starring: Vincent Price, Frank Lovejoy, Phyllis Kirk

Director: Andre de Toth

IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0045888/

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Wax_(1953_film)

Haven't had your fair share of "House of Wax"? Really...you actually want more after the Paris Hilton version? Well...okay then...

Today we are going to look at the two pictures that inspired the 2004 film. Or at least the title because the plot for that movie has absolutely nothing to do with the two previous ones! And even though it is the younger of the duo, let's first start out with the Vincent Price version since it is the first one I saw and it is the movie that most people are familiar with:

It starts off in 1902 with a sculpture named Henry Jarrod, played by Price, who has a deep love for his wax creations. However, he is seemingly meets his end when his greedy business partner torches the place for insurance purposes, leaving him inside to burn. Several months later, mysterious occurrences begin to unfold, as the partner is found dead and a number of bodies are stolen from the local morgue. When a local girl finds her roommate murdered and she is stalked by a strange-looking being, she is convinced to go to the opening of the new wax museum to get her mind off of things. The man in charge is actually Jarrod, who survived the fire but is now partly paralyzed. Bound to a wheelchair, he is unable to sculpt himself and relies on the help of others to complete his work. The girl soon begins to suspect that the wax figures are a little too lifelike for their own good...

This movie was...okay. I think one of the biggest problems it has is that, despite being a thriller, it has no sense of, well, suspense. Almost everything is shown immediately, and you can pretty much determine what Price's plan is and how it is done. The loud, blaring music that is featured throughout the picture does not really help matters either.

Despite these problems, Price does manage to give an impressive performance. When introduced, he is shown to be a man who is very passionate about his work as he talks about his creations in a very calm yet highly articulate manner. You can tell that he believes that they are actually alive in his eyes. Therefore, despite only knowing him for a few minutes, you feel genuinely bad for the guy when his museum is burned down. But you also get a sense of his inner demons by observing the work that he designs after the accident, which show his anger at those who wronged him, and as he slowly drifts into madness.

See, he became so mad that, almost 40 years later, he was still doing the same damn thing!

Unfortunately, the other characters are kind of bland. Nothing really stands out about them in any way that transcends the usual stereotypes: the main suspicious female protagonist, the first female victim, the determined authority figure, etc. There is also a mute guy who works for Jerrod and is depicted as a simpleton. I think I am suppose to be offended by this, but I am not sure. Oh, the mysterious figure that goes around? Well, he looks like this:

HAHAHAHAHAHA! Are you serious?! What the hell is that?! It looks like the evil version of Sloth from "The Goonies" if suffered a server accident at a Silly Puddy factory! How is this guy suppose to be subtle anyhow?!

Then again, he could just be the grandfather of the Toxic Avenger...

Granted, subtlety was never really an option for this film. It was one of the first 3D movies released in theaters, and the first one in color by a major movie studio. Almost needless to say, I did not see the movie in 3D, but no worries: it very conveniently points out which parts you are suppose to be impressed by! The first scene is when the wax museum opens up and a street performer almost breaks the fourth wall by talking directly to the camera, though he is still technically speaking to the crowd in the film. So what does he do to astound us?!!!:

Why, he bounces a paddle ball in our faces!!! Gee, in any other circumstance that would have been pointless and annoying, but its in 3D, so ooooooooo!!! That's really what "Avatar" could have used!!! Some asshole trying to deck you with a paddle ball!!!

So what else gets the 3D treatment? A can-can dance...no explanation needed...

I think there was one or two other things that were suppose to be 3D, but I forgot what they were. To be honest, they were so minor it was hard to tell it. So...thanks "House of Wax"! You helped inspire a whole generation of directors, producers, and executives that you do not need story or character development as long as you have crazy images and sexually overtones!

Well, I guess the one other good thing about the movie is that the mysterious figure, despite how ridiculous it appears, is the only part of this film that possesses even somewhat of a mystery. But when it is revealed who it is, its kind of a mixed bag. The film does play tricks on you so there is some ambiguity about its identity and the revelation is kind of impressive. However, it also opens up a lot of questions that make the logic behind it very flawed, not helped by the fact that the films ends kind of abruptly. Kind of describes the film overall: a lot of potential, but improper execution.

When I was done watching this film, I discovered that the other movie featured on the DVD was not some cheap sequel like I originally suspected, but actually the 1933 film that this was based on. Yes, even in the 1950s, Hollywood was doing rip-offs of itself. Oh well, its not like I am going to find out that there is a 1925 silent version of "The Wizard of Oz" with campy slapstick and racist overtones! HAHAHA...oh, wait...

Anyway, I decided to watch it and this is what I got:

Starring: Lionel Atwill, Fay Wray, Glenda Farrell

Director: Michael Curtiz

IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0024368/

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystery_of_the_Wax_Museum

Directed by Michael Curtiz, who would go on to do classics like "The Adventures of Robin Hood" and "Casablanca," this movie has a somewhat similar set up as the Price version. It starts off in 1921 with a sculpture named Ivan Igor, played by Lionel Atwill, who has a deep love for his wax creations before his greedy business partner torches the place, leaving him to die. Twelve years later (which technically puts it in the present day), the partner is found dead and bodies are stolen from the morgue. A local reporter begins to investigate the issues and it leads her to a wax museum. The man in charge is actually Igor, who survived the fire but is now partly paralyzed and bound to a wheelchair, unable to sculpt himself and relying on the others to process his work. The girl soon begins to suspect that the wax figures are a little too lifelike for their own good...

Apparently this was the last of the two-color Technicolor films to ever be released. So, let's start off with the obvious: the picture quality is terrible! It is like they took the film reel and left it out in the rain for several hours! To be fair, the Wikipedia entry says that when it was converted to a DVD format, the people messed up the print job, giving it an appearance that is different from the original film, hence the bad quality. There may be a better version of it, but it is most likely not for the general public, so we are stuck with this. Oh well...

Visuals aside, the film is a lot lighter than the 50s version. I wouldn't even call it a horror film necessarily, its more like a relatively light-hearted mystery thriller, bordering on a comedy even. This is apparent when viewing the main characters. Atwill does a decent job. Unlike Price, he seems less obsessive and more quirky. But he also appears more bitter about his disabilities and has a more human quality. Despite this, I have to give the acting award to Price; he just has more of a presence and a subtle sinister nature that really brings the film together. Atwill just seems more like a wacky old crank by comparison.

However, the film generally focuses on the reporter, played by Fay Wray, who would star in "King Kong" later that year. She spends a good portion of the movie having a love-hate relationship with her boss, and the two do have good chemistry. It is also kind of fun to see her get other people annoyed but keeps on doing her thing. My major problem with her: she talks WAY too fast. A lot of actors in the olden days spoke with machine gun-style delivery (including others in this film), but she REALLY needs to chill out! Thank God for subtitles! Still, its a decent performance overall and as much as I love the original "Kong" its nice to see Wray in a role where she actually has a personality and is not screaming half the time she is on screen.

The rest of the characters do not fair as well. They are basically the stereotypes that you picture in your mind when you think of movies made in the era: authority figures in hats and coats walking around, acting tough and demanding answers while speaking really fast and in a lingo that no one uses anymore. It is almost like they are doing a parody of themselves!

So how does the creature in this movie compare to the one in the 50s version:

Mmm...not bad. A little more realistic that the 1953. It still looks kind of silly (this photo makes it look a lot creepier than it actually is), but again, not bad.

The only other thing I can really add is that the picture, at 77 minutes, speeds by really quickly, particularly the ending, which says a lot given how quickly the 50s version (only 88 minutes) ended. The Price version was at least tiring to conger up a feeling of suspense; this one simply does not have any time to do it.

So that concludes the two "Wax" movies. Which one of them holds up? Well...neither, to be honest. They both have cheesy special effects, a host of bland characters and a sometimes awkward plot. Simply put, they are pretty dated. But if I had to choose which one was the best? I would go with the 50s version. It has Price, the picture quality is better, its runs smoother, and it has a darker tone. A lot of this has to do with the fact that it had twenty years to improve itself, which may seem unfair, but hey, there are plenty of remakes that don't take advantage of that, so I have to give credit where it is due.

I won't say that either of these films are necessarily bad; they are okay for what they are. They are just not very high on my list of recommendations because there is better stuff out there. Still, if any of this stuff appeals to you, feel free to go and see them. You will probably like them better than the Paris Hilton one at least...



And that will do it. It has been great doing this blog, guys. Maybe I will see you again sometime...

The images and links in this review do not belong to me and are for entertainment purposes only. As always, please do not sue me.

REVIEW: Sting of Death (1965)

For this week’s review, I will take you back in time. Back to a time when things were more innocent. When people just liked to dance all day on sun-drenched docks and didn’t have to worry about anything except guys dressed up like mutant fish monsters killing them. Oh those were the days. Put on your nostalgia goggles and let’s dig into the wonderful wrongs of Sting of Death.

Director: William Grefe

Starring: Joe Morrison, Valerie Hawkins

IMDb

Got your nostalgia goggles ready?

Okay then! How about some booze?

Great! And the weed?

You’ll need it. Trust me.

We start off by establishing that girls wear bikinis and put on suntan lotion while sitting on docks - and they did so back in the 60s, too! And then we see that apparently sitting around sunbathing while fancy music plays is enough to make you a target for the worst scuba diver since Goofy and Donald Duck tried to find Atlantis and came up with a plastic fishbowl accessory.

Those fins are really dirty. Go clean them you neanderthal!

It’s also amazing how she gets replaced with a blow-up doll when he’s dragging her through the water…

If they got her to stay underwater that whole time, she's the one who deserves a movie made about her, not the shitty looking monster. If not, well, I guess one of the actors had a blow-up doll lying around in his trailer.

After that, I guess we get introduced to our main characters. For the uninitiated to 60s horror, they’re sort of like 80s slasher characters. Except instead of drugs and beer, they tuck their shirts into their pants, slick their hair back and talk about going to church or something. They’re all pretty interchangeable, except for one character, which is Egon.

No, not the Ghostbusters character…this guy is a shy and socially awkward misplaced caveman who can apparently sneak up on people even though he’s the size of a house. I bring this up because it’s a big deal. And because he is the killer.

Yeah, try not coming to work hungover next time, buddy!

I know, I know – I really disappointed a lot of people by revealing that fact. But just hear me out. If I had not told you guys that, the reveal would have been so terrifying that none of you would be able to sleep for weeks. Did you know that the Chernobyl disaster was caused because the people at the plant were watching Sting of Death at the time and were so surprised by the twist, that dozens of people died? It’s true. Most people won’t tell you about that part because they don’t want it to happen again.

They talk about boring things for a while. Mostly it’s a bunch of shit about who’s coming to the party and what not. They find a dead body washed up on the docks and say that maybe they should call a doctor who can do an autopsy and find out what’s wrong with him. Uh, I don’t think it matters THAT much to you guys what’s wrong with him. And yeah, maybe calling an ambulance would be the best idea when you find a dead body. Isn’t that like saying “hey, there’s a fire over there. Maybe I should call the fire department”?

But screw that shit, we have dancing to do!

Yeah, this becomes a “thing” in the movie for way longer than it probably should be. It’s a party, sure, we get it. Does that really mean we need creepy close-ups of people grinning like they just sucked in helium?

Or an abundance of ass shots?

Well I guess that isn't AS bad...

Not to mention the music, which is about as nerdy as you can get. I guess it’s still better than the 90s and early 2000s disposable waste featured in the Hitcher remake. Ugh – shivers, every time…

So eventually Egon shows back up and they decide, as a hive mind apparently, to make fun of him and chase him off the dock, like a bunch of jackasses. Why? Because they are jackasses. I mean seriously, what kind of cretins pick on somebody just because they look a certain way? What kind of asinine, horrible person would actually do that? I guess it’s just what passed for fun before the Internet, because nowadays we prefer to keep our bullying online.

But I digress – he gets chased off and then they just continue dancing. Even the one chick who scolds them for it stops caring in a second or two and just rejoins the dancing like nothing was wrong…talk about a short attention span. And seriously, MORE DANCING?! Why do we need more? In what unholy, hellish dimension is this considered entertainment? I’ve seen more enjoyable spectacles watching fat trailer park families at Walmart! It’s seriously just embarrassing. I bet if we showed this to these people all these years later, the ones who are still alive would pretend to have dementia so as to not have to face what they created. Nobody could watch this even a year or two later and pretend they were proud of it.

After that we get some more talking about boring stuff like who’s going to do what at the party…I can almost see my boredom as a physical entity. I mean good god. It’s like being at a party with an old folks’ home. Even 80s slashers had more compelling dialogue than this! I may not be speaking for everyone here, but I’d sure as hell take booze and sex over ‘what are we going to do next at the party?’ I mean come on! Give us a death scene or something!

Oh, and we also see one girl jump in the pool and then everyone starts talking about how she might die in the water. I can’t tell if it’s supposed to be ironic, if they really think you’ll die if you go in a pool alone, or…

Ohhhhhh. Was it supposed to be foreshadowing? Well, then it was the worst attempt at foreshadowing I have ever seen. Thank you, Sting of Death…you deserve a goddamn medal for that.

Anyway, yeah, she gets killed somehow in the water and nobody seems to see the monster, how amazing…I guess they were all too busy talking about their oh-so-important party chit chat. Seriously, how can they be so blind? HE’S RIGHT THERE. You’d think a full-grown dark figure in a swimsuit, in a tiny swimming pool, would attract a little attention, but I guess in the 60s it was pretty commonplace. I guess whatever this guy was saying to this woman was just too important to notice someone being attacked in the pool.

Real stand up people there…better not hang out with them. If you ever get mugged, they'll probably just ignore it. But don't worry - they're having a really good conversation!

After that we see one of the guys get attacked too, so everyone goes out on the water in a panic to take them to a hospital. While they’re doing that, I guess they get attacked, because the boat flips over and several of them die.

Like every party in the 60s, it started with bullying, had some dancing in the middle and ended up with complete carnage and chaos. No wonder our generation is so fucked up.

What is our heroes’ next move? Well, the only logical course of action: go home and eat dinner calmly!

Oh okay, this isn't the immediate next thing they do, but come on, it might as well be...how are they so casual? One of them says "Today was awful." Heh heh, yeah, THAT'S a bit of an understatement..."two people got attacked and many more were injured, what a bad day! If only we hadn't just ignored the big, dark, noisy shape in the water the first time..."

You sad, despicable pieces of crap.

The movie also shows us a GREAT plot twist by revealing Egon as the killer!

I never woulda guessed! You have completely taken me off guard, movie! Bravo. I also love how they show you he's the killer this early, thus effectively eliminating any suspense for the next 45 minutes of the movie.

Yeah, he goes into some cave with flashing spaceman lights and computers all around, puts his hands in some kind of opening and then transforms from a jellyfish space-alien monster into human again. Now, keep in mind this was before drugs got big in the 70s. Your guess is as good as mine what the hell the explanation behind this is…how does he have this stuff and, more than that, know how to use it? Is he an alien? I dunno. The movie never tells us! Perfect.

Then we get some more long drawn out bullshit where a bunch of the characters leave to try and go to the mainland. They stop in some Everglades type clearing and enjoy the wilderness for a while, because nothing says “people are getting attacked in the water” like going even further out into the wilderness, right? This one chick leaves the group and gets attacked by the monster. I think she deserves it. How can THIS sneak up on you? Is the guy really that hard to hear coming? There have to be some leaves or sticks or something cracking underneath those gigantic swimming fins!

Nothing? Nothing at all? Fine…ugh…

There are some other scenes with Egon trying to romance this one girl back at the camp. They’re really short and not all that fleshed out, but that’s not a surprise. We also get shower scenes, like this one, which rips off a kind of famous movie from a sort of well-known director…I can’t place which one though…

I always thought Psycho could have been improved if the killer wore elephant droppings and dirty vines as a costume. This movie gets it right.

Yeah, keep rubbing your forehead there, princess; someday you'll get it clean...

Hmm. Must be Rear Window.

So he kills this girl by putting a hand on her throat. I guess the special effects are really just that bad. He looks kind of like an astronaut that got eaten by a lawnmower.

Look at that thing on his head. I've seen that in the pillow sections of Walmart.

Then he kidnaps the one girl he likes and takes her to a cave under the water where he threatens her for thinking he’s ugly even when she insists she doesn’t. She hasn’t given any indication that she does, but still he throws a fit anyway. Then, because he doesn’t want to be ugly, he sticks his hands back in that thing again and electrifies himself. Because electrified people are totally not ugly at all! I bet nobody will make fun of you now…

Also, seriously, what is up with this underground alien robot magic cave? How can he just stick his hands in that thing and transform into his costume, which we see him take off like regular clothes in an earlier scene? In fact, what even is that thing? Is it a spaceship? Is he a superhero? An alien? What? WHAT?!

Okay, whatever…so in a very sexist re-enactment of how a caveman usually got a new girlfriend, this one guy comes and saves the girl.

"I'm here for the Asylum remake of The Time Machine?"

Seriously, the women in this movie are portrayed as weak as hell. She barely puts up a fight at all, which at first makes sense because he’s a fairly large guy. But when her friend comes in, they fight for a few seconds and then he kicks Egon once or twice and that’s the end of it! He wasn’t that tough! Are you telling me a woman has such a hard time standing up for herself at all that she couldn’t get away from this wimp? Come on!

Oh who am I kidding, look at the movie I’m reviewing, at the time it was released…I’m wasting my breath.

Anyway, yeah, check out the awesome fight scene these guys have. They shove each other’s arms a little, kick each other once or twice and that’s it. Real gripping. Kind of like the last time I watched my four year old cousins play-fight in the backyard.

And your guess is as good as mine what THIS shit is:

Looks like a science fair project done by Doctor Who villains.

The cave blows up or something and the two heroes get out, but sadly drown in the ocean before they can resurface, because they forgot they couldn’t breathe underwater.

…

…

Okay, that didn’t really happen, but wouldn’t it have been a much better movie that way? I think so. This was just ridiculous. Terrible story, no good effects and very little suspense. It’s just crap. But it is very enjoyable crap in its way…I won’t lie and say there’s absolutely nothing of worth in it, because there are very funny moments here and there, even if the movie didn’t intend them to be. But that’s usually the best kind of camp anyway, the schlocky kind. It’s terrible, but it’s also terribly endearing. I’d rather not see those dancing scenes again though. That was far scarier than the monster in the movie.

*Heart attack*

You can watch the full movie of Sting of Death at this location: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xlt08v_sting-of-death_shortfilms#.UeTHn43VCSq

Enjoy!

A Christmas Story (1983) Tribute

This movie really doesn’t need an introduction, but I am giving it one anyway. A Christmas Story is director Bob Clark’s triumph. A pure tale of nostalgia that everyone can’t help but love, and I’ve never really seen anyone say otherwise. And it’s odd because this is, essentially, a film without a story or conflict. It’s like watching a scrapbook of old family memories, and surprisingly, comes out as one of the best Christmas movies you’ll ever see. Am I a few days late on this, now that Christmas is over? No, because Christmas is never over on Cinema Freaks!

Director: Bob Clark

Starring: Peter Billingsly, Darren McGavin

IMDb

The first main selling point is Bob Clark’s directing. He does a great job of making this movie flow easy and smooth, and no matter what the subject matter, be it writing a paper in school or walking home and defending oneself from bullies, everything is given weight and gravity. Everything seems important, because to a little kid like main character Ralphie (Peter Billingsly), it is important – it’s life or death stuff. This is not a Christmas movie because it has Santa and snow and snowmen in it than a Christmas movie because it deals with family and memories, and Christmas is largely a time for memories that a family holds dear for years to come. There are so many humorous twists and turns here, from the infamous “leg lamp” debacle that the father is up in arms over...

to the infamous “Ovaltine decoder ring” tragedy...

...as well as the mother’s “wash your mouth out with soap” thing (the scene where Ralphie envisions a future where he goes blind because of this is priceless):

And they just keep on coming. Everything in this movie is imbued with the greatest sense of whimsical wonder and off-the-wall energy, bouncing from topic to topic with little coherence because that’s the way a kid’s mind would really work, in a nonlinear fashion with little coherency. And it is wonderful. The whole thing is tied together with Ralphie's attempts at getting this toy rifle, which everyone keeps telling him "you'll shoot your eye out," and thus refusing him. If only they'd just give in and let him live out his fantasies of being the last old school gunslinger! Even Santa Claus doesn't give him what he wants.

The second selling point that makes this so good is Jean Shepherd’s voice-overs as adult Ralphie looking back on everything years later, and without this, even Clark’s direction wouldn’t be as spotlessly perfect for this. Shepherd’s voice is old and hoary but he is full of verve and excitement too, remembering times when the world seemed bright and colorful. We never see anything about where Ralphie is now as an adult, because it isn’t particularly important. He’s well-off enough to sit down and tell this story for us, and that’s all that matters. Everything is focused on the childhood, the looking-back, the nostalgia. Shepherd moves the movie forward and keeps us as excited as he is – he sounds interested, so we are interested. The kooky fantasies and daydreams are just icing on the cake, and they're all really vivid and funny in just how oddball they are. But every kid had these fantasies, or ones like them, and so they're instantly relatable and likable too.

Of course, this wouldn’t be as good either without the strength of the actors. Darren McGavin as the Old Man is brilliantly over the top and zany, the perfect overly exuberant dad who tries too hard and Melinda Dillon as the overly exuberant mom that worries too much are both a ton of fun and play off each other really well. Though I wouldn’t bet on their children growing up overly sane with how caustic they constantly are. But at least they’re not the kind of parents who would dress their son up in a pink bunny outfit…

Oh, well, I recall my statement. Seriously, how is that a good gift for a nine year old boy? Whoever sent that must’ve been high.

Peter Billingsly as Ralphie is also great, and has to carry many of the scenes by himself, which is tough for a kid – and he does a very good job, becoming at once likable and also having the typical kid stuff like selfishness and a short-sighted scope of the world…he hasn’t grown out of them yet and the movie is touchingly realistic for all that. The scene where he finally beats up the bully who’s been tormenting him all movie long is one of the best in the film. He beats the shit out of him and then breaks down crying. A touching and emotional moment.

And that’s what it really comes down to with A Christmas Story. It’s not a movie you can stick in one genre because it’s full of every genre, from comedy to tragedy and everything in between, because life can’t be pigeonholed into one genre. This is a film that covers all of it, from the good to the bad to the awkward; the touching and the zany; the wild and exuberant and the quiet and mellow. Christmastime is a time for family and memories that end up being something one cherishes, even the most cringe-worthy moments, because in the end it all ends up OK. A Christmas Story is like watching a family photo album come to life, and you get a lot more out of it than you would from a photo album with great direction, great characters, great performances…this is just an all-around stellar Christmas movie.

I don’t really have much to add with this, as it’s a classic and everything about it has pretty much already been said. There isn’t anything I can say that people don’t already know about it, but I’m posting this anyway as a tribute to one of the best feel-good movies around, and a true Christmas classic. I may not get to watch a ton of Christmas movies every year, but this one is always one I throw on. If you haven’t seen it, you’re missing out, and if you have, then you’ll be nodding your head in agreement with every paragraph of this. A Christmas Story is the kind of thing I’d be proud to find under my tree every year.

Images copyright of their original owners.