Ever Seen It: The Bank Dick (1940)

            Despite the presence of a W.C. Fields book gracing my bookshelf for the better part of a year, this was my first encounter with one of the artist’s films.  In fact, having not read the book, I could have recited absolutely nothing about the comic himself or about his work in general.  This simple 72 minute film seems an apt enough introduction to his style and persona and certainly lends support to an argument for me to see more.

            Fields plays a father who spends every morning at the bar and advantageously fumbles his way through nearly every encounter with another human being.  One morning the fellow human is a movie producer whose director maintains an inoperable state of drunkenness.  Unwittingly, he accepts Field’s assertions that he is a director who has worked with the likes of Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin. He then promptly changes the film in its entirety while working with the same cast and crew.  Meanwhile, he gets his daughter’s soon-to-be fiancé involved in embezzlement with a good-hearted con man.  We are not all too surprised when the finale finds him successfully dodging any and all troubles and coming out unscathed.

            The film, and likely Fields himself, should be categorized alongside Chaplin and Keaton, as well as the Marx brothers.  It combines gags and physical stunts as well as doltish obliviousness and innocently earned outcomes.  His simple screen presence seems both character and caricature.  It is very likely that we will have more to come on this subject manner.

Ever Seen It: Topkapi (1964)

In 1955 Jules Dassin made the definitive caper film Rififi whose fame was further immortalized by a speechless heist where action reigns supreme. Eleven years later, after a slew of comical heist films clearly inspired by Dassin’s, he returned with a comedy of his own and succeeded in outdoing the competition. His 1964 film, Topkapi, is based on a novel by Eric Ambler and sets its sights on an emerald encrusted dagger housed behind glass in Istanbul’s impressive Topkapi Museum.

A professional thief amasses a crew of amateurs to help in the production. An acrobat to hover above the pressure sensitive floor, a strong man to hold the rope, and a bumbling fool to drive the car across the Turkish border. Naturally, the plan unfolds with both major and minor glitches yet the suspense depends as much on these as it does the heist itself. Dassin infuses small points with humor and sighs of relief, saving the biggest for an age-old idiom.

The caper film has only become more popular with the recent slew of films and remakes in the past decade. There exists an inherent suspense in a ragtag group of criminals defying the law and the audience cheering them on. The heist film also appears to be one of the most firmly structured genre films with its archetypical structure falling into three parts; planning, execution, and aftermath. The greatest fun can come from any of the three and the complexities of the inner workings have become spectacle themselves.

Ever Seen It: Coma (1978)

     Many people may be able to recognize his name, but many fewer are actually able to give an example of his work. Michael Crichton, author of such books as Jurassic Park, Sphere, Congo, Disclosure, and Timeline (to name a few), is known even less for his directorship. Director of the films Westworld (1973), The Great Train Robbery (1979), and Looker (1981) Crichton's slew of films may not be the most renowned, but are decent nonetheless. Coma, his 1978 adaptation of the book of the same name by Robin Cook, is definitely in the style of his other contributions to the world of cinema.
     Young doctor Susan Wheeler's best friend comes out of surgery in a coma. Nothing overly suspiscious about this, save for the fact that it was a routine surgery that went off with nothing more than a slight loss of blood pressure in the patient. Susan believes it to be more than just a mistake and decides to search deeper into the issue to determine the true reason behind the coma. What she discovers is shocking and horrid, and the worst part is: nobody believes her.
     At least, it is supposed to be shocking and horrid... unfortunately, this high-suspense action/drama is riddled with sidetracks and elongated chase sequences that provide the audience with little excitement. Where the true heart of the film lies within the shock received from paranoia, the chase sequences last too long. The audience is provided with a respite from pure paranoia and given the opportunity to prove the conspiracies, but then they are forced to watch poor Susan get chased for over ten minutes.
     The film comes down to the last fifteen minutes of the story, finally providing the audience with answers they most likely guessed after the first fifteen, but with at least one forgiving and relieving detail (that I won't discuss here due to its spoileristic qualities).  All-in-all, Chrichton's film is a bit bland, a bit predictable, but still intriguing. The acting, although decent, can be as bland as the plot of the story, especially from the supporting actors and extras.

Snooping in the O.R. by Vincent Canby

Ever Seen It: Swamp Thing (1982)

Wes Craven’s attempt the show he could handle stars, stunts, and action resulted in this 1982 film based on the comic book of the same name. The film shows a group of scientists working on some special concoction that glows a radioactive green. Its purpose is to create an animal plant hybrid that can survive the harsh conditions of the swamp. To the benefit of the audience, the scientist himself gets transformed into a rubbery plant man with superhuman strength and primitive linguistic skills. He seeks revenge on the military minds who sought to take his prized creation.

The $3 million budget doesn't let the film takes itself too seriously, a necessary ingredient for the given content. And aside from the stray exposition about human nature, much of the film is good old-fashioned cat and mouse, or rather, swamp thing and wanna-be Rambo. Filmed in the swamps of South Carolina, the film includes enough swamp thing destruction and rampage to make it’s 91 minute running time go by in less time than it takes to say AAAGAHAJAHAGAHAAGAgAGAGAHAHAAGAHAA!

One of the most creative and original cinematic experiences carried about in this film is its use of transitions. Be they radial wipes, sides wipes, or black ooze, the filmmakers never fail to find a creative way to branch the narratively distracting lapses in time. Their absurdity is vastly overshadowed by how fun it is to see which one they will use next. But the film’s visual spontaneity doesn't stop there. The zoom is employed to mass benefit and helps bring out the intricate details of the swamp thing’s well done effects. Likewise, the film cares not for consistency in spatial orientation and freely inserts suggested viewpoints that stray (through obvious differentiation in lighting and location) from actual environmental placement. Yet despite these sentimental flaws, the film is entirely fun.

And not to spend and hour and a half for nothing, we learn that the special chemical doesn't immediately make one powerful; it simply amplifies the users essence. The creature we are inside is brought to life. Fortunately for us, the head baddie, appropriately named Arcane (who appropriately followed this film with Octopussy), turns into a marble-eyed, wolf like beast with whose weapon of choice is a medieval sword. Naturally, he and swampie battle to the death in the campiest and most entertaining segment of the film.

RIP Dick Durock -17 September 2009

Joel Silver in talks for 3-D remake...

Ever Seen It: Freaks Revisited

Cinema has always shocked people, and filmmakers have always looked for the next way to do so. But Tod Browning, who had just directed the classic Dracula starring Bela Lugosi, was not trying to shock anyone. He was not trying to disgust anyone. He was simply make a film, from a story by Tod Robbin’s, about a dwarf’s infatuation with an average sized woman. The result was more than an oddly paired couple, it was more than a lust story, and it was more than the oft-described horror film that categorizes it today. In 1932, Freaks repulsed its audiences and was banned in the UK for 30 years. It essentially destroyed Browning prolific if not profitable career. And it now stands as one of the more potent and poignant films of cinema past.

Browning worked as a contortionist among other things during his teen years in the circus. The material of Robbin’s short story, “Spurs”, was natural to him. For the audience it was not. He cast real sideshow oddities; a testament to the abnormalities of human anatomy. The pinheads dance merrily in the forest, encircling the human skeleton whose thin physique exposes his inner framework. The legless Johnny Eck joins them; moving adeptly on his arms as if they were legs. The Human Caterpillar (aka Human Torso) rocks back and forth, moving inch by inch. Later, he lights a cigarette by manipulating the match with only his mouth. We may be shocked at what we see, we may be offended. We may wish, as one character does, that such creatures be smothered at birth. Browning does not, and while the inherent exploitation that exists because of cinema’s nature may argue against it, neither does his film.

The creatures on-screen, the freaks, are not monsters. The physically deformed and mentally unequipped are not the danger. It is those that are “normal” that cause the trouble, those that consciously harm others to better themselves. Browning not only humanizes those that look least human but he uglifies those that are the true monsters. It’s no little wonder that the film turned out as it did; the source story casts the freaks as incompatible and indeed freakish. Certainly a horror film today would make them the monster. And it could certainly be argued that such portrayal would be more effective. Does this mean that this film could not be made today, not only because of its content but because of its tone?

Cinema has undoubtedly changed since the early thirties and more legality surrounds what one can do, for better or worse. I would like to think that such an interesting and eye-opening film could be made today without suffering the expected turns. I recommend this film not only for its various success at fostering humanity and acceptance but also because it is, frankly, weird and amazing. I mentioned in an earlier post a quote that suggests the final interpretation is with the viewer. And in this case it may become shock value, we may watch it simply to see the freaks in all their glory, certainly the cult status this film has achieved can give credit to this reason. To me, that’s part of cinema; to see things, observe them, and hopefully be amazed.

Ever Seen It: Parents

In 1989 a 3 million dollar film was released in 94 theaters, grossing a total of 870,000 dollars in the 5 months that it was in theaters. Available now to watch on Hulu, You Tube and iTunes (for .99 cents), this low budget film has received many a poor review. What is it about Halloween that we will sit through the worst of films (Saw VI?) for anything (like an $8.50 ticket)?
So I watched it.
The film is about a young boy, who may have some mental dementia (he seems to be obsessed with blood and gore), who believes his parents are cannibals (The film was released in Germany as "Daddy ist ein Kaniballe"). He attends school where the teachers and students all believe him to have mental issues. (What parents would ever eat human meat?) The boy follows his father to his job, where the father works testing chemicals on various subjects, including a The social worker (who is very much a child herself) ultimately believes the child and follows him to his household.
The film was unique, if anything. With a Harold and Maude feel to it, the boy's fantasies about death and dying are intriguing, given that they are premonitions into the acts of the parents. The acting, especially on the boys part, is very subtle – almost disturbingly so. That might be partly why the story seems to do so well for how low-budget the film actually was. Unfortunately, it wasn't what audiences were looking for in 1989, and it may not be first of choice now 20 years later. Nothing really stood out in the film, but it is worth a watch if you find yourself longing for a silly film on all Hallow's Eve.

Ever Seen It: Troll 2

Yes, I watched Troll 2. Yes, it was pretty bad. Yes, you should watch it for free on Hulu. And no, you should not expect a polished piece of cinematic history that will inspire independent filmmaking and youngster film students for generations. But you should expect hoards of deliciously bad special effects, misplaced sound, and quite possibly the worst attempt at making a creature this side of The Killer Shrews.

For those of you who don’t know, Troll 2 is an unrelated plagiarism of an entirely different film and makes no explicit or even implicit reference to the namesake Troll film that, unlike number 2, actually contains a troll. This film is a perfect example of attempting to capitalize on something that had only minor success hoping that it fares better than absolutely no success. But we are smarter than this and in only one viewing, or even a montage, this piece of trash is instantly dethroned as nothing more than cheap, very cheap, entertainment. I suppose the poster could have hinted to that fact. The film is helmed by Italian schlockster Claudio Fragasso under the pseudonym Drake Floyd clearly suggesting that the film might not be such a proud achievement and its tagline, One Was Not Enough, strikes a comically ironic note.

The only redeeming factor, besides the endless amounts of green goo and human plants, comes in the form of Michael Stephenson. As the young Joshua he is the only one savvy to the goblin agenda cleverly disguised within the town Nilbog. Aided by apparitions of his dead grandfather and using his natural ability to scream he and his bad acting family defeat the plastic faced midgets to hilarious result. Stephenson has since directed a documentary about the cult phenomenon of the film. Tis a great example of how the Internet can, like nothing else, making something so bad into something so revered.

Do not forget, I beg you, Troll 2 is a bad movie. No, it’s not up there with Plan 9 From Outer Space but considering they probably put more effort into it than Ed Wood it’s not surprising. Lest I forget, the acting in this movie is horrendous and plays like a Troma film sucked dry of any drop of talent. Of course, credit where credit is due, they think they are acting well. And while it doesn't help that their scripted actions involved no improvisational freedom, much of what happens makes no sense. Let’s only hope that the pending Troll remake bears no resemblance to its unrelated follower.

Ever Seen It: *batteries not included

Steven Spielberg's blockbuster hit Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) and his higher grossing hit E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982), may have sparked some affinity for Aliens in his world of imagination. For in 1985 he found a cute little story about robotic aliens that he liked so much, he decided to have it made into a theatrical release (instead of the TV show it was planned for). Two years later, *batteries not included was released under the direction of Matthew Robbins (who has a cameo roll in Close Encounters), starring Hume Cronyn (an actor probably best known for his television acting).
The film didn't do amazingly in theaters, grossing approximately 33,000,000 domestically and 32,000,000 in the rest of the world. This comes at little surprise to me. 1) The film's genre is terribly difficult to determine. It looks a great deal like a comedy, but the acting makes it a drama, yet it includes crazy alien robots... 2) The quality of the formal techniques is sub-par. The lighting is almost all high key, and too high key for that. 3) The story is simple, quick, predictable, and ludicrous. The building is going to be demolished to make way for a sky-scraper (which reminds me of Pixars 2009 movie UP), leaving the residents with nothing to do but hope for the best. When some aliens who can fix material objects show up, it only makes sense what will happen in the end (I won't spoil it though, if you can't figure it out). And 4) The actors aren't very well-known, and their acting isn't the greatest.
The film tends to drift into more theatrical performances. Of course, it doesn't help that the main actor is from television, nor that they are all no-name actors (besides Jessica Tandy who really gives a good performance). Many of the lines are cheesy, or simply wouldn't be said in those situations. And many of the situations wouldn't occur (I'm not talking about the robotic aliens...). The film had some unique aspects to it, but something about the execution of the story and the layout of the plot didn't suit the expectations Spielberg has left his audience with.
Generally though, I wasn't bored by the movie, nor was I overly enthralled. It has it's moments, be them heartwarming, silly, or just plain old corny, they were there. Recommendation? No need to see it, unless you enjoy watching cheesy effects and getting that sweet sense of nostalgia. (It is like watching Tron!)