The 'Burbs

Since the early 80s, Tom Hanks has been a hot commodity sought after for starring roles in movies.  He has been in a countless string of hits ranging from 1984’s Splash to, recently, 2013’s Captain Phillips.  Hanks broke out on the comedy scene with the 1980 television sitcom, “Bosom Buddies” (along with Peter Scolari), as two guys needing to find an affordable apartment, resorting to dressing in drag as they live in an all-women’s apartment building.  Though it was hard to believe that the series lasted two seasons, one thing that had been evident was that Tom Hanks stood out as one hell of a funny actor, so it was a no-brainer to cast him into comedy films soon after the success of that show.

Although most of his films in the decade of the 1980s were hilarious romps that ranged from fantasy comedies (Splash and Big) to gratuitous lampoon (Bachelor Party and The Money Pit), one thing that was always evident was that the man could act and had quite a range from his great comedic timing to being quite serious.  In fact, as time went on, Hanks began taking on more earnest roles, leaving the comedy behind.  I was floored the first time I had seen Philadelphia, the movie having such a heavy tone as he played a gay man who contracts AIDS.  The role won him his first Academy Award and definitely sent him on his way into being the great actor that he is today.

All that aside, the 80s were his comedic era and the films he had been featured in were fun frolics that were enjoyed by many.  He had made a name for himself on his TV series, even garnering some attention on his guest role in Family Ties (where he played the uncle with a drinking problem) as his part was funny-turned-serious, and with his break-out hit, Splash, he was quickly on his way toward some really funny films.

So, the year after he was featured in Big and shortly after the release of Turner & Hooch, Tom Hanks continued his crazy comedy ways—although a little subdued here—in a fun little thriller-comedy, The ‘Burbs.

Now, I have to admit, I hadn’t gone to see this in theaters when it was first released in 1989, but opted to rent the film when it came out on VHS.  So, focusing primarily on his outrageous comedies in the past, I was expecting this film to be sort of the same thing where it’d be a laugh-a-minute.  With that in mind, I think that’s why I felt let down a bit after watching it back then and never really thought about it until recently, where I found the DVD for a couple of bucks in a dump bin at Wal-Mart.  After re-watching the film as of late, I’ve found that I have changed my mind on my opinion from years ago and I’m actually partial to this movie.

One aspect I see in this film as to why I’ve changed my opinion is the fact that the whole film was shot on the backlot of Universal Studios, mainly on Colonial Street (now called Wisteria Lane, due to the success of the television series, “Desperate Housewives”), where well known TV shows were filmed.  Shows like “Leave it to Beaver” and “The Munsters” were just some of the many productions that were featured on that famous street set.  I guess I’d just never noticed—or cared—when I first saw The ‘Burbs.  But ever since 1998, when I first set foot in the Hollywood amusement park and the studio backlot tour, I found a new love for everything Universal.

But enough of me waxing poetic about the studio and everything associated with it…let’s get into The ‘Burbs.

The film takes place in a cul-de-sac neighborhood in the town of Hinkley Hills.  Ray Peterson (Tom Hanks) is curious about his mysterious new neighbors, the Klopeks, who live next door as he begins to notice some peculiarities that they display.  Ray and his friend, Art (Rick Ducommun), and along with the military veteran neighbor, Lt. Mark Rumsfield (Bruce Dern), start noticing weird goings-on at the house.  They see flashes of lights coming from the basement and notice the neighbors coming out in the middle of the night to dig in their backyard.  It’s when an older neighbor, Walter Seznick (Gale Gordon), goes missing, that the men decide to investigate…thinking the worst about the new neighbors.

I’ve got to say, I’ve gained a new admiration for this film and see it in a completely different light now.  I made the mistake, back when I first saw this movie, of thinking it was going to be a big laugh riot with Tom Hanks leading the way.  In actuality, this flick is a nice little funny story with an equally humorous ensemble cast that all give something to the movie.  Mainly it’s a funny tale, with the typical farfetched plans of neighbors having nothing better to do than to trespass and spy on people who they believe to be murderers. 

Although Hanks is not over-the-top funny, he still has some cool comedic moments as he plays the straight man that gets caught up and pressured by his friend to believe some crazy theories about the new neighbors.  Seeing him go from just a curious neighbor to some obsessed meddler is pretty amusing and seems believable.  The way it ramps up from the beginning makes it sort of acceptable that someone would actually go that far to find out what their neighbors are doing in their own home.  Though he stays pretty straight throughout the whole movie, when he loses it before the climax of the film, you’ll most likely get a little chuckle out of it.

Although Rick Ducommun, as Hanks’s friend, is a little annoying, the film needed him as the little push to get Hanks’s character go over the top.  But Bruce Dern was a nice touch to play the respectable military man of the neighborhood—not to mention his gizmos and gadgets help the plot along as it sees fit.  Even though it’s a little overblown to have this story of three guys going out of their way to spy on the new neighbors, it gives the characters the air of great chemistry between them as they plan and strategize ways to gain information from the Klopeks’ residence.

Along for the ride are your typical icons from the 1980s, like Carrie Fisher playing Ray’s wife, Carol.  You’ll recognize the Klopeks: Henry Gibson as Dr. Werner Klopek with Brother Theodore as Uncle Reuben and Courtney Gains as Hans.  Of course, what’s an 80s movie without Corey Feldman?  He’s thrown into the mix as the local teenager, Ricky Butler.  Overall, the film has the same feel and look to it as Gremlins.  Seeing that both that film and this one were both directed by Joe Dante, it's understandable.

If you’re a fan of the golden age of television, or even of more recent TV shows, you’ll definitely recognize the street the neighborhood is set on as it still appears like it had years prior.  Although it has changed for more modern day television shows these days, it will always be Colonial Street to me, where the Cleaver boys walked home from school during the credits of “Leave it to Beaver.”

So, what’s my final “bit” on The ‘Burbs?

Not a Tom Hanks classic in any sense, but a very good film that’s pretty tame for the family to see.  It’s entertaining and certainly worth a watch.  I’m glad I picked it up and discovered my new found appreciation for it…maybe you will too.

Thanks for reading and have a Happy Halloween!

Cinema Bits is on Twitter and Facebook.

Re-Animator

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers

After successfully bringing back the Halloween franchise from the brink of obliteration due to the apparent demise of the main antagonist at the end of the second film, the screenwriters and filmmakers listened well to the fans that had been disappointed and brought back the masked killer everyone had come to know as Michael Myers.  His whited out mask with the crazy tuft of hair on top had become well known and had brought fear to all who’d seen the films.  It was a train that had been building up speed and power with the first two films and solidified itself even more after the 1988 sequel where the slasher icon was resurrected and was now back on the horror movie map.

The filmmakers of the 1988 follow-up productively solved the problem of Laurie Strode’s absence by having her death explained in exposition and introducing her daughter she left behind as the new target of Michael Myers.  But after that sequel, where do you go from there?

I do remember seeing this film in the theater—as I was steadily going to see movies during the 80s as horror movies were big then and constantly being released during that decade—and had my reservations about it as it was playing out before my eyes.  Years later, as I’ve seen this movie countless times—being that it’s a staple of my October movie-watching experience—I’ve come to scrutinize it even more.

Directed by Dominique Othenin-Girard, he was able to keep the feel of part four within the film, but the story, as a whole, seems a little forced and uneven.  Whether it’s because of his direction or the performances of the actors and actresses, I’m not sure.  But there definitely were some decisions on the tone of some of the scenes that are questionable.  I’ll get into that a little later.  First, let me synopsize.

The film takes place right after the events of part four, showing Michael Myers (Don Shanks) being able to get away as he’s injured and clinging to life.  An old blind man (Harper Roisman) takes him in and nurses him back to health over the course of a year.  When Halloween arrives, Michael awakens, kills the man, and continues his pursuit of Jamie (Danielle Harris), who is now mute and is a patient at the Haddonfield Children’s Clinic under the care of Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasence). 

Now, as this sequel continues with most of the cast of part four, featuring Jamie’s adopted sister, Rachel (Ellie Cornell), I felt it was a return to what we saw in the previous movie.  But as the shift

changes to focus on the character of Tina (Wendy Kaplan), Rachel’s friend, I felt this was the downfall of the film.  Kaplan’s performance was so irritating and annoying…it made me cringe at times.  I used to wonder to myself, “Who’d be friends with that chick?”  She was so overly happy and joyful, being loud and obnoxious, it seemed a little unreal.  She established herself as someone I wanted Michael to kill off right away…especially when she chooses to go off and party after Jamie recovers from being mute, begging Wendy to stay with her! 

Another big mistake that the director made is incorporating too much comedy with the inclusion of the bumbling cop characters (Frank Como and David Ursin).  It was bad enough to show them as a couple of dumbasses, but they were given a sort of clownish music theme.  It’s as if the filmmakers thought, “Well, the audience might not know that they’re a couple of idiots so let’s make sure to hammer it home by giving them some cartoon melody complete with silly honking horns whenever they’re on screen.”  I didn’t think it was funny whatsoever.

All in all, the movie has some good moments, but one thing you’ll see is that you really don’t care about any of the characters Michael kills off.  Most of them you’ll want dead when you first see them, so you really can’t connect with them.  The filmmakers were too busy to give each individual within the movie clichéd characteristics that they didn’t realize how superficial they were going to turn out.

You can still enjoy this movie for the simple fact that Michael is still continuing his stalking and killing ways.  Really, there are no surprises that you’ll find here until the end of the movie.  It all starts with confusing glimpses of a man in black with no explanation as to who he is or why he arrives in Haddonfield and leaves you with even more confusion at the very end of the film.  Although we get sort of clarification in part six (a mere six years later), it’s a very contrived explanation that I’ll go over in that film’s review.

So, my final “bit” on Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers?

The last of the Halloween films within the decade of the 80s that doesn’t completely disappoint and actually has a few good scenes within it, I usually enjoy it during my annual October viewing and will continue to do so every year.  It’s not the best of the lot, but worth your time if you have the urge to watch a slasher film that correlates with the Halloween season.

Thanks for reading and have a Happy Halloween!

Cinema Bits is on Twitter and Facebook.

Shocker

It’s amazing to me how easy it was for audiences to suspend disbelief back before the turn of the century.  Whether it was inserting a McGuffin plot devise or just some magical reason why something came to be, moviegoers didn’t seem to call foul when these concepts were presented.  Transferring ones soul or consciousness seemed to be of the norm back in the 80s as I can think of a few films, which were big hits that used that bit of an idea.  Movies like 1986’s Deadly Friend, 1988’s Child’s Play and 1989’s The Horror Show were a few which used that plot device.  So, knowing that the notion was a tried-and-true subplot that wouldn’t be scoffed at, Universal Pictures, in association with Carolco Pictures, released the Wes Craven film, Shocker.

Written and directed by Craven, it was here that his A Nightmare on Elm Street credentials began to peter out.  Although I enjoyed the film when it was released back in ’89—and still do—the 90s were about to begin and moviegoers were starting to tire of the typical horror films of the 1980s.  Not only that, butShocker almost seemed like a rip-off of Craven’s Nightmare film, so it was perceived by some that Craven was only recycling his idea from 1984.

Now, the latter part of this decade was big for me and a time I’ll never forget…uh…never mind.  I don’t want to seem redundant in my nostalgic waxing.  So I’ll just say that when I look back to these times, I remember how excited and anxious I’d been when watching these types of films in the theater, even when going with large groups of friends.  So, nowadays, when throwing these movies on my Blu-Ray player, I feel that the flicks are laughable and I’m sometimes embarrassed to let my wife see them.  Luckily, she has no interest in horror films, but every so often she’ll walk by while I have one of these gems on.  It seems like she always happens to come in right when some ridiculous part of the movie is on, too.  When I was watching The Return of the Living Dead, she walks in during Linnea Quigley’s nude dance scene on top of the grave or while I was viewingRe-Animator, she happens by as Dr. Hill’s body-less head is attempting cunnilingus on Megan.  I don’t know…my wife’s timing is uncanny. 

One thing about Shocker is something that I had noticed way back at the time of release and that was the similarities to the movie,The Horror Show.  Now, I discussed that film back in December of 2013 (which you can read here) and went over that little bit of peculiarity in the timing of both releases.  I’ve tried researching the films to see if there were any double sales that writers may have made, selling the story to two studios, but I didn’t find anything like that.  Besides, Craven wrote this one, solely, so we’ll just go from there.

A serial killer is on the loose in Los Angeles and Horace Pinker (Mitch Pileggi) becomes the prime

suspect by the lead detective, Lt. Don Parker (Michael Murphy).  After Pinker kills Parker’s wife and foster children, Parker’s surviving foster son, Jonathan (Peter Berg), seems to have a strange connection to Pinker as he has a vivid dream of where the killer’s hideout is and, upon waking up, leads his foster father and the police department to the location.  After escaping the police and later trying to kill Jonathan, Pinker is arrested and sentenced to die by the electric chair.  When the day comes and the switch is thrown, Pinker’s soul is converted into pure electric energy and is able to possess other people’s bodies, jumping from one to another.  Since Jonathan is the only one who discovers that Pinker is still alive in some energized force and able to take over other individuals, he must try and find a way to stop and defeat Pinker for good.

Yeah, I know…it’s a pretty contrived plot, isn’t it?  But people accepted it back then and it wasn’t ridiculed whatsoever—not even by me. 

Now, I’d discussed a bit about the likeness to The Horror Show, but there’s actually a lot more in common with A Nightmare on Elm Street.  Both films feature a serial killer who—after death—is able to go into a different realm other than the real world, both include a main character having nightmares featuring said serial killer, and both include a plan to get the killer back into the real world to find a way to defeat them.  I’m sure there are a few more things that I’d missed, but those are the main glaring issues one may see with the movie.  Considering that Wes Craven wrote and directed both movies, it kind of makes him look like he didn’t really try that hard to write this story.  Even the whole concept of an evil entity jumping from one body to another, possessing each one, is recycled as well from the film, The Hidden.

Don’t get me wrong, I know I’d pointed out quite a few issues from the film, but they’re not really complaints.  More or less, those items of note are more attention-grabbing than anything else.  But the movie, as a whole, seems to be an interesting concept that wasn’t fleshed out enough to be made into a good horror movie.  So in that respect, I feel The Horror Show was a bit better.

It’s a shame this film didn’t fare a bit better as it had potential to go on as a pretty good franchise.  The character of Horace Pinker was ripe to add as another horror icon to the mantel of slasher killers.  He was very memorable in the outfit he ends up wearing throughout most of the movie and what’s seen on the movie poster.  Much like Bruce Lee will be remembered for that yellow jumpsuit in the never-completed (by Lee anyway) Game of Death, Pinker will be remembered by horror aficionados for his orange jumpsuit with the checkered pattern across the chest.  I know that’s a weird comparison, comparing this little-known slasher flick to the Kung Fu icon, Bruce Lee, but it came to mind first and I went with it.

So, what’s my final “bit” onShocker?

Altogether, this is a fun horror flick, which, surprisingly, is taken pretty seriously as it goes along.  Having not too much humor might be a slight downfall, but there’s actually enough to make the average horror fan enjoy this late 80s gem and it’s probably the last of Craven’s fun flicks until he wrote and directedScream seven years later.  My advice is to rent this during this silly season of horror, turn off your brain and take a trip back to the 80s, enjoying this Wes Craven jewel.

Well, thanks for reading and have a Happy Halloween!

Cinema Bits is on Twitter and Facebook.

30 Days of Night

It’s no secret—I love horror movies, as I’ve said time and time again, and that’s the one genre I always have in mind when thinking about a title to watch.  My favorite of the bunch is slashers (the Friday the 13th franchise being my favorite), creature features and zombies, so is the werewolf variety and many others.  But the one genre that I enjoy watching is one that needs to be conveyed in a very, very good movie, one that needs to be scary and horrific with a great story and originality as well.  Because if this type of movie doesn’t have everything needed, including the correct rules and legends, to satisfy my horror pallet, then it falls flat.  The genre I’m referring to is the vampire assortment of films and the one that did a damn fine job of introducing a modern take on the lore is 30 Days of Night.

From the outset, when I’d heard about this film and what it was about, it had me intrigued.  I knew it was based on a comic book series of the same name, but I’d found out later was that this story was originally meant to be a movie when conceived, only made into a comic book when studios rejected the treatment.  All that aside, just hearing of how the story is about a group of vampires that take over an Alaskan town that goes through thirty days of darkness due to its fictional polar location had me stoked.  I just thought that it was brilliant and left me wondering how the bloodsuckers would be defeated when there was no sun to kill them.

Excellently directed by David Slade (Hard Candy) and conceived by Steve Niles, the story takes place in the small Alaskan town of Barrows as the residents get ready for the “thirty days of night,” as most of them leave for the winter, not wanting to go through the long period without daylight.  The Stranger (Ben Foster) wanders into town and ends up stealing and destroying all cell phones, incapacitates the town’s helicopter, kills all the sled dogs, and basically cuts the town off from the rest of the world.  Sheriff Eben Oleson (Josh Hartnett) starts investigating these strange crimes as darkness falls over the town.  When The Stranger causes raucous in the town’s diner, Sheriff Eben takes him in and locks him up.  Soon after, the remaining residents of Barrows are faced with what is hunting them and have to hide or fight back these powerful monstrosities.

Now, I like this film as a whole—everything within it is awesomely crafted and laid out, giving us one hell of a vampire flick.  But certain aspects of it stand out from the rest, pointing out the originality and creativity of the look of the film. 

First off, the look of the vampires is something we really haven’t seen before.  When most of us think of how vampires look, we think of normal-looking people who happen to have two extra-long canine teeth—sometimes being able to lengthen or shorten them at will—or having the ability to shape-shift their appearance.  Here, in 30 Days of Night, the vampires are simply monsters—large blackened pupils with distorted faces and a mouthful of razor sharp teeth, similar to a shark.  Basically, these aren’t your average vampires where they can easily blend in with the people of town—on the contrary, they stick out like a sore thumb.  They’re a little frightening to look at and you can imagine the fear the residents must feel when they come face-to-face with these creatures.

Another interesting item of note is the language they speak, almost alien as you can’t decipher it as being from another country or even from this world.  The way the vampires speak to one another is sort of guttural and animalistic, matching the way they look.  The fact that we never learn where they come from is an interesting subject to ponder, because there’s not much information given on their origins.  We only learn that they travelled to the area by cargo ship and that The Stranger had helped them somehow.  It’s also fascinating, in a way, that they all appear somewhat well-dressed.  All this adds up to some very scary-looking vampire creatures.

The set of Barrows was very well done, created to look very much like an Alaskan small town, completely isolated and claustrophobic in its compactness.  If it weren’t for the danger and darkness this town endures throughout this film, the burg would seem like a desirable place to live.  But it just goes to show you how, when an element of evil is introduced to an otherwise happy area, a relatively covetable township can turn to hell very quickly.

I also love the slow burn 30 Days of Night displays, how we don’t exactly see what the townies are up against right away, only giving us eerie scenarios where things may or may not be lurking in the shadows.  With the isolation of some of these scenes, it definitely gives you the understanding of trepidation these characters are feeling when they’re faced with it alone.  We get many of these scenes until the whole hoard of vampires is shown…and by that time, the whole town is in the midst of their domination.

If there was anything that I didn’t like, it wasn’t much to veer me from seeing this again when I decided to purchase the Blu-Ray.  Mainly, it was the scenes when the survivors of the town decided to find sanctuary in the attic of one of the abandoned houses.  It wasn’t bad, but you really didn’t get the sense that they were up there that long.  The other hint of that was the fact that we see Sheriff Eben’s beard has grown a little scraggly and if it weren’t for that, the film makes it look like they had gotten bored with waiting in the attic.  They had placed some text in the bottom of the screen that read, “one week later,” or something to that extent, but it still was a bit of a slowdown during the flick.  It’s just one minor complaint that really doesn’t bother me and really doesn’t deter from enjoying this film.

The cast was great, all pulling out believable performances, especially from Ben Foster.  Just about every movie I’ve seen him in I’ve appreciated, as I think he’s got a prodigious career ahead of him.  I had a hard time accepting Josh Hartnett as a sheriff of a small town, thinking he looked too young to be head of a borough, but I grew to accept it as the film went on.  David Slade, as a director, did a phenomenal job with this unique vampire tale, making this film a cut above the rest.

I’ll stop here, for fear of being tempted to give too much more away, and leave you with my final “bit” of 30 Days of Night.

Besides the praise I’ve just given this film in the paragraphs above, I’ll say this.  Whenever I run into anybody, anywhere, who even try to cite any of the Twilight films as a novel look at vampire mythologies, I quickly fire back with, “You want a quintessential vampire movie?  Watch 30 Days of Night!  The best I’ve seen in a long time!”  And I walk away, triumphant.

So that’s another film down in the Cinema Bits library of reviews…thanks for reading and I welcome any comments!

Cinema Bits is on Twitter and Facebook.

Poltergeist

As I’ve posted quite often here on Cinema Bits, I’ve mentioned that I’m a self-decreed horror movie devotee.  I love most areas of horror films and will try to watch whatever level of the genre at least once.  As they get more and more extreme, to shock and disgust, I’ll at least try to view it and see reason to continue doing so.  See, if there’s no point to what’s being shown on the screen, I’ll just shut it off and look for something else to watch.  Horror movies are about scaring you and putting a sense of dread in you, it really shouldn’t be about grossing you out or making you sick to your stomach.  So, with that said, I can enjoy many subgenres of horror.

One section of horror that needs to be perfectly executed, for me to appreciate, is the haunted variety.  So many films miss that mark, in my opinion, and I find it tough to seek out a good film to revel in.  I really didn’t think Insidious was all that great and I thought The Conjuring was a little bit better, but both those films aren’t—nor will they ever be—in my home media library.  Although, there have been some classics that I’ll watch repeatedly and have a great time with, like The Shining, 1408, Stir of Echoes, the Paranormal Activity films, and…Poltergeist.

The year 1982 gave us a couple of great movies that had a common denominator of Steven Spielberg—and it was probably more than just that—as he gave us his great family film, E.T.: The Extraterrestrial, and the modern take on haunted house films, Poltergeist.  But there has been some controversy regarding these two films and the involvement Spielberg had in their creation.  See, if you glance at his bio on IMDb.com during 1982, you’ll notice that he is credited as director of one and producer of the other.  However, some of the cast and crew of both films have gone on the record saying that he took on the directing tasks of both films, even though Tobe Hooper is solely credited as the director of Poltergeist.

One of the reasons this has been discussed time and time again is because, I’ve heard, it was a director’s guild issue that he wasn’t allowed to helm two films simultaneously.  I’ve also heard that it was probably a stipulation in Spielberg’s contract with Universal Studios while doing E.T. that he wasn’t allowed to work on anything else while working on their production.  Whatever the case, I never really thought about it one way or the other and I’m sure most people will feel the same.  But as a fan of film, I like to take note of certain vivacities and motifs of movies, observing signature charms some have over others.  And that’s one thing you can say about Spielberg’s films, is that they always have this certain panache you can discern from other films of the same type.  On top of that, Tobe Hooper has a particular way about filmmaking as well, and you really don’t see much of his style in this flick.  Nevertheless, it is what it is and regardless of who’d directed it, I love Poltergeist.

Steven Freeling (Craig T. Nelson), a successful real estate agent, and his family live in the new suburbs of Cuesta Verde.  One night, his daughter, Carol Anne (Heather O’Rourke), walks over to the family television while everyone is asleep—including Steven as he’s passed out on the recliner.  As the white noise is on after the television station goes off the air, she kneels down in front of the TV set and has a one-sided

conversation with something unseen in the screen.  After she does this a second time—this time in the parents’ bedroom—some entity within the television reaches out and causes the house to shake, waking up the Freelings.  It’s at that point that Carol Anne states the all-too-famous line, “They’re heee-ere.”  Soon after, Steven’s wife, Diane (JoBeth Williams), discovers strange goings-on within the house (things moving on their own and able to slide Carol Anne across the kitchen floor).  Later, as a storm passes over the neighborhood, the old tree in family’s backyard comes to life and reaches into the kids’ bedroom, taking Robbie (Oliver Robbins) as Carol Anne is left by herself in the house while the rest of the family is outside trying to save Robbie from the tree.  While alone in the bedroom, the closet turns out to be the portal to another dimension as it takes Carol Anne, leaving the Freelings to figure out how to get her back.

Poltergeist is such a great movie and has such memorable scenes that still scare me to this day.  I actually remember seeing this movie when it was released in theaters back then (I was around 13, going on 14) and thought it was disturbing, yet fun.  Whenever popping in this disc to watch the movie, it brings me back to my early teenage years and how I really wasn’t a man yet, because this film reduced me to a little boy, every time.  To this day, I still cringe during some of the film.

The film has its share of family fun, as we see the modern take (at the time) of parenting, and how the Freelings deal with a teenaged daughter as well as a couple of preadolescent children.  I was amazed, as a teenager, to see the parents smoking pot in their bedroom and nearly getting caught by their son as he walks in on them when they’re getting kind of frisky.  But still, you see how caring they are, particularly with the scene when Steven talks to Robbie about the thunderstorm.  I still use the same method to this day to determine if thunder is coming closer or going away.  Yes, the family dynamics displayed in this film is part of what makes this movie great—as well as giving it away that Spielberg had a heavy hand in the film’s direction, as familial undercurrents is a signature subject matter in his films.

Along those lines, what really grabs most of us who see Poltergeist is connecting to the fears instilled in all of us.  I’d mentioned the thunderstorms—which most of us as young children were afraid of—but I’m sure we can all relate to the massive shadow at the window of the big tree in their backyard or the clown doll that sits on Robbie’s chair in the kids’ bedroom.  I know most of us who have seen this movie probably have thought to themselves, “Why doesn’t he just throw that thing away or give it to Goodwill?”  The thing is, these items don’t scare us during the day—which would be the time to toss the doll—they only frighten us at night, which the filmmakers display brilliantly in this movie.

The special effects in this film are what really made it stand out from most other haunted house films (at the time).  All practically done, in very innovative ways, a lot of it adds to the dread and tone of the scenes it’s featured in.  The growing hallway scene is pretty intense and conjures up dreams most of us have had in where we’re trying to get somewhere in a hurry, only to never reach it.  Yes, the crazy bedroom, with all the toys and items floating and spinning around was shocking at the time, and the ghost creatures/monsters were pretty terrifying too.  But the one scene I think everyone recalls is the scene in where the member of the paranormal team, Marty (Martin Casella), goes to the kitchen to get something to eat.  After seeing a crawling and exploding steak, as well as spitting out a maggot infested leg of chicken, he goes to the washroom to clean out his mouth and face.  The light suddenly grows extremely bright and he notices a lesion on his face.  He begins picking at it, peeling skin off his face, more and more until his head is a gory mess of a skull, then suddenly there’s a flash and he’s back to normal.  That scene, above all else, was so disturbing to me back then and still presents a shock today…it’s definitely a highlight to see.

The music in Poltergeist is wonderfully composed and fits perfectly into each scene.  It’s not overly forced in or obvious in any way, nor is it excessive or sticking out in any scene.  It knows when to add to the scares and knows when to make you—as well as the characters—feel good.  Jerry Goldsmith is probably a name you recognize—maybe not—but I really love the compositions he’s contributed in most films I’ve heard.  He’s composed music in over 200 films and television series…a very impressive career, up until his death in 2004.

So, what’s my final “bit” on Poltergeist?

The movie is awesome, a spectacular spectacle that is one of my all-time favorite haunted house films.  The

 cast is wonderful, the story is great, the sets are superb…I just love this movie all around.  Besides the somewhat dated special effects—which you can’t fault since it really wasn’t perfected Hollywood-wide at that point—there’s nothing wrong with this film.  If it really was a Tobe Hooper joint, it’s the best movie he’s ever directed; if it’s what it really seems to be—a Spielberg picture—it’s definitely the best horror movie he’s done.  Either way, whether it’s ever put on record who directed it, the film is fantastic.

Here’s a post “bit”: something I like to do occasionally is to search out the address of the house and check it out on Google Earth’s Street View.  It still looks the same!  See for yourself: 4267 Roxbury Drive, Simi Valley, CA.  The house looks exactly the same as it did in the movie…enjoy!

Well, that’s it for today’s post…thanks for reading…and I welcome any comments!

Cinema Bits is on Twitter and Facebook.

The Howling

During the month of October, I have many go-to DVDs and Blu-Rays that I make sure to watch.  I really don’t know why these films seem more entertaining now than if I decide to view them in, let’s say, the spring.  Maybe it’s the time change, where this month is the period when the nights come sooner, darkening the skies around five or so.  Perhaps it’s just a subconscious thing that makes me want to see these types of flicks.  Possibly, what makes the most sense is comparing it to watching Christmas movies.  You don’t usually want to see a Christmas movie in July, do you?  So the same can be said about movies that take place during the fall.  I guess it’s just a given that October is the month to see horror movies and that’s why this is my favorite time of the year.

I’ve mentioned it a few times over the course of my reviews that I keep all my home media—DVDs and Blu-Rays—in binders, being able to gather more movies that way rather than keeping them in their cases and taking up too much room on my bookshelf.  I’ve also probably beat the dead horse by explaining it time and time again that horror films from the 1980s are the ones that I prefer to watch.  So when October comes around, it becomes a perfect storm for my movie-watching.

But out of all the discs I go through, I sometimes have a difficult time in trying to pick something out.  Am I in the mood for zombies?  How about vampires?  Old time classics?  Do I go with the tried and true slashers?  Sometimes, I’m standing in front of the bookshelf, leafing through my binders for minutes at a time before I settle on a title.  But if I ever get a hankering for a werewolf movie, there are usually two films I flip a coin on.  Sometimes I go with the John Landis classic, An American Werewolf in London.  But other times, like this instance, I go with The Howling.

Recently, Scream! Factory (the subsidiary tier of Shout! Factory) had released this film on Blu-Ray, giving it a fantastic treatment with terrific clarity and awesome sound.  My DVD was becoming worn out, the look and sound becoming very apparent that is wasn’t up to snuff with the advent of HDTVs and surround sound, so when Scream! Factory announced they were going to release a Blu-Ray version of The Howling, I pre-ordered it as soon as I could.  As I had already collected quite a few titles from them—which isn’t hard to do since they seem to be releasing all my favorites, especially quite a few movies that have been out-of-print or never released on home media—the disc was happily added to my growing collection.

Without further ado, here’s the breakdown to director Joe Dante’s 1981 classic, The Howling…

Television news anchor, Karen White (Dee Wallace), is traumatized after being involved in the death

of a serial killer, Eddie Quist (Robert Picardo), whom she had helped police track down and kill.  Her therapist, Dr. Waggner (Patrick Macnee), advises Karen to take time off and suggests she go to a retreat, called The Colony, to recuperate.  Along with her husband, Bill (Christopher Stone), Karen travels to The Colony for some rest and relaxation, being welcomed by all the other residents of the haven.  Soon, however, she realizes that the people there are all werewolves.

The Howling is definitely a nostalgic piece that many people today, especially the younger crowd that is used to seeing CGI in all aspects of a film, would scoff at the pacing.  It certainly takes its time and doesn’t show too much in the man-to-werewolf transformation department.  But that’s how films were back then, giving us a sense of tension by implying dread and bad things to come.  Character development is sadly lacking in today’s horror movies, but it’s here in this film which helps the story out intricately.

Dee Wallace certainly solidifies herself as one of the best scream queens of the 80s in this film as this is where she really started it all.  Though she’s had bit parts in numerous television shows and a few movies throughout the 70s, The Howling was her first starring role that made her a household name and a face of the 80s.  It’s nice to watch her in this film and see how she became a go-to actress for quite a few horror films in the 80s and 90s, even still acting in some of the best ones today.  She’s terrific in this one and I can’t see anyone else in the part.

All in all, the actors and actresses in this film pull off some excellent and believable performances, but it helps when you have some of the best direction from Joe Dante himself.  He definitely has a style in his films that you can distinguish while watching.  After watching The Howling, take a look at some of his other films he followed this with, like his segment on Twilight Zone: The Movie, Gremlins, and The ‘Burbs, and you’ll certainly notice his style of direction.  There’s always a quirkiness to his films and you’ll find yourself enjoying them a lot more because of the dark humor inflicted throughout each one.

Now, I’d mentioned before how I usually have to decide between An American Werewolf in London andThe Howling, and it turns out both movies have a lot in common.  First off, Rick Baker was actually tied to doing the makeup effects for this film before taking on the duties in the John Landis film.  In his departure, the responsibilities were handed to Baker’s assistant, Rob Bottin.  So, between the years of 1981 and 1982, there were two werewolf films made that included two makeup artists of the same caliber doing the transformation effects.  The results?  Both films were noted for having a standout werewolf transformation that had never been seen before (at that time).  Most everyone (horror movie fans anyway) are familiar with the transformation scene in An American Werewolf in London, but not too many people remember the part in The Howling where the character of Eddie Quist turns into a werewolf.  Although by today’s standards, it might be a little slow and exhaustive, but it really showcased some originality and creativity by Bottin.  What I liked about his strategy of the transformation and the subsequent monster design was that it seemed surreal and was perfect for a crazy movie like this one.

Okay, so there’s one scene that stands out as looking a little cartoonish—literally—and that’s the sex scene between the characters of Bill and Marsha (Elisabeth Brooks).  At first, their transformations were the norm, showing their faces contorting a bit and teeth beginning to grow, but it ends with a wide shot of them turning into werewolves before panning up and away from them.  The thing about that last cut was that it was decided upon to represent it with animation.  Since the scene was very quick, it can be forgiven, but it’s still there and very evident.  I guess we can all view it as a precursor to CGI, looking at it as Joe Dante being ahead of his time, so that’s that. 

Now, my final “bit” on The Howlingis that it’s a classic and cult favorite that you should see if you call yourself a horror movie fan.  The film is definitely an 80s movie, but it doesn’t throw in all kinds of clichés and styles of that era.  You can definitely see this as a timeless flick that doesn’t get bogged down with devices and subtleties of the year this was filmed…well, maybe a little.  But this movie should not be missed during this time of the year.

Thanks for reading and Happy Halloween!

Cinema Bits is on Twitter and Facebook.