Horror Thoughts ’11 Week 3: Oct. 14-20

Hocus Pocus (1993) **

Director: Kenny Ortega

Writers: Mick Garris, Neil Cuthbert, David Kirshner

Starring: Bette Midler, Sarah Jessica Parker, Kathy Nijimy, Omri Katz, Thora Birch, Vanessa Shaw, Sean Murray

It’s always a struggle for me to find good family oriented films to feature at Horrorfest, because I like my horror flicks to be scary. Sometimes it’s a good idea for me to lean on my wife a bit for the family friendly programming at Horrorfest. “Hocus Pocus” comes from the canon of movies she enjoyed as a child. While I’m not a fan of the movie, I suppose it is a pretty good one for kids.

This is a silly movie with silly performances by the marquee names playing three witches terrorizing child heroes on Halloween. The performances by Bette Midler, Sarah Jessica Parker and Kathy Najimy are absurd and I guess that’s what they need to be with a target audience that still participates in trick or treating. The heroes are adolescents, a very young Thora Birch, and a talking cat. The set up involves the participation of a virgin; and as a parent, I sat there trying to prepare an answer for what a virgin was to my youngest, which thankfully he never asked.

I can’t recommend this movie to anyone above the iCarly mindset, but I will admit that for those tweenies, I can see this movie having just the right amount of Halloween fun to set in their minds as a good movie. Of course that means years from now they may return to it, remembering how fond they were of it as children and wonder just what they were thinking.

Scream (1996) ***½

Director: Wes Craven

Writer: Kevin Williamson

Starring: Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox, David Arquette, Skeet Ulrich, Matthew Lillard, Rose McGowan, Jamie Kennedy, Henry Winkler, W. Earl Brown, Drew Barrymore

I haven’t seen the original “Scream” since it was released in theaters. As a horror aficionado, I enjoyed it, but wasn’t incredibly impressed at the time. I didn’t think it was very scary. I did include it in a list of my favorite spoofs a couple of years ago, and I stand by that. “Scream” is a send up of the very genre that Wes Craven helped make so popular.

Upon this viewing, however, I was struck by how good a horror movie it really is. I wasn’t scared by it originally because I was so used to the conventions it utilized, both as a spoof and as a legitimate slasher flick. I’d forgotten how gory it was in some sections, most notably the opening sequence with Drew Barrymore. But, it also withholds the gore at key moments. It isn’t an exploitation movie, the way so many so-called horror movies are today. I like the term torture porn, because it so accurately describes what so much of today’s “horror” is about. “Scream” does not fall anywhere near that category. It’s a classically constructed slasher movie, if by classic you mean the early ‘80s. It may not be one of the best horror movies ever made, but as cinema, it’s not too shabby.

The Mummy’s Tomb (1942) **

Director: Harold Young

Writers: Griffin Jay, Henry Sucher, Neil P. Varnick

Starring: John Hubbard, Elyse Knox, Turhan Bey, Lon Chaney, Wallace Ford, Dick Foran, Mary Gordon, Virginia Brissac, Cliff Clark, George Zucco

Torture porn is also most certainly not what “The Mummy’s Tomb” is. These old Universal monster movies were content to talk their audiences to death. It’s almost as if what they had figured out at that time was that audiences just wanted to see the monsters some more. They didn’t care how they got to see them, they just needed to see Lon Chaney Jr. appear as the Mummy again.

The writers were hired to come up with some excuse for this to happen and they were given free reign with how to get there. Explaining it seemed to be their only direction. It didn’t matter how long that explanation went on. The audience would sit through it, just as long as they got to see that monster. None of these movies are really bad. They just aren’t very good.

I found the use of actor Turhan Bey interesting here. He’s one of the few examples in early Hollywood of an actor of some Middle Eastern heritage being used for Middle Eastern character work at that time. “The Mummy” franchise in particular had several characters within it that were Egyptian. Bey, whose father was Trukish and mother was Czechoslovakian, is the closest the series would come to casting an actual Egyptian in one of their roles. Bey only appeared in this film of the series.

Triangle (2009) **½

Director/Writer: Christopher Smith

Starring: Melissa George, Michael Dorman, Henry Nixon, Rachel Carpani, Liam Hemsworth

As is often the case with Horrorfest, sometimes a movie just swims onto the radar, and I watch it for no other reason than that. Such a movie is “Triangle”, a sea bound horror gimmick flick that is much more interesting than it has any reason to be.

I call it a gimmick flick because it involves a trick of the mind suffered by the main character, who finds herself on board a ghost ship with some other survivors of a freak squall while on a sailing trip. She relives the same period of time over again trying to figure a way out of the time loop in which she seems to have gotten stuck. Each time around involves the murder of each of the survivors in an attempt to get off the ghost ship.

For the most part a plot like this is merely an exercise, something more fitting for a horror anthology series like “The Twilight Zone” than its own feature length movie. I liked how the loop was explained in the end, however. It was unexpected and yet within the bounds of the rules established. The loop itself goes on a little too long and would be more effective in a shorter format than a feature-length film.

The Thing (1982) ****

Director: John Carpenter

Writers: Bill Lancaster, John W. Campbell Jr. (short story “Who Goes There?”)

Starring: Kurt Russell, A. Wilford Brimley, T.K. Carter, David Clennon, Keith David, Richard Dysart, Charles Hallahan, Peter Maloney, Richard Masur, Donald Moffat, Joel Polis, Thomas Waites

I did not come right out and say this in my review of the new version of “The Thing”, currently playing in theaters, because it was news to me going into that movie, but the new movie is actually a prequel to the 1982 horror classic “John Carpenter’s The Thing”. Apparently, I just wasn’t paying attention, because now that I’m looking at the press for the new movie, I find that everyone seemed to know it was a prequel ahead of time. It’s much more effective if you don’t know, though.

I’m very glad I didn’t feel the need to watch the ’82 version in preparation for seeing the new one. The new one works well with the previous movie only remembered vaguely. However, I could not resist popping this one in my BluRay player as soon as I got home from watching the new one. The new one ends right at the moment this one begins, with those hollow electronic notes from the Ennio Morricone credited score. I say credited because if you watch this movie with the audio commentary by Carpenter himself, you’ll discover that he replaced the opening score by Morricone with his own composition. If you know Carpenter’s music, you might’ve already figured that out. He uses this piece to close the movie as well, but the rest of the score is Morricone’s.

What you really miss in the new version that is such an integral part of the ’82 version is the stop motion creature photography and animitronics. Despite the fact that the older special effects are more primitive, there’s something more real about them as well. When a guy’s head pulls off its own body, sprouts legs and crawls away, there’s are creepiness about it that can’t be matched by the new version’s seamless CGI of a woman’s body becoming a gaping jaw of teeth.

The Mummy’s Ghost (1944) **

Director: Reginald Le Borg

Writers: Griffin Jay, Henry Sucher, Brenda Weisberg

Starring: John Carradine, Robert Lowery, Ramsay Ames, Lon Chaney, Barton MacLane, George Zucco

These “Mummy” movies are actually starting to become a little tedious. As I described for the last installment, these movie only seem to exist as an excuse for people to see Lon Chaney as the Mummy monster yet again. The reasoning within the plot of the movie is inconsequential.

This time they’ve dragged down yet another big name star to try and keep some life in the paint by numbers story they’ve assembled. The poor victim this time, John Carradine as the Mummy’s new handler. Carradine is a strong screen presence, far too strong for the story contained here. What boggles my mind the most is why the movie could possibly be titled “The Mummy’s Ghost”. There are no ghosts in the movie. The mummy’s isn’t a ghost, nor does it have one. I suppose they thought the Mummy was destroyed in the last movie, so maybe they think it’s a ghost this time. But, nobody says that. Thank God I only have one left.

Lips of Blood (1975) **½

Director: Jean Rollin

Writers: Jean Rollin, Jean-Loup Philippe

Starring: Jean-Loup Philippe, Annie Briand, Natalie Perrey

When I scheduled the French erotic vampire movie “Lips of Blood” for this year’s Horrorfest, I had read some customer reviews on Netflix about how the streaming version of this movie had no subtitles. That seemed to be the main complaint against this very European cult film. I was intrigued to see the movie without the English language to guide me. As it turns out, Netflix Instant most certainly does have subtitles on this Dario Argento wanna be.

The movie is a little light on the eroticism and on the shock and awe of an Argento, but it does have its charms. It has the same European photographic notions that horror should contain a broad pallet of bright colors. The colors are striking and beautiful. There are some images that transcend the material as well, although not as plentiful as those found in Argento’s classics.

The plot is rather flimsy, involving a man who remembers a place from his childhood where something happened to him and his family. He is pursued by a coven of vampires who try to seduce him to free their vampire mother. That’s really about all there is to it. The movie has some fun getting there, but is a fairly minor effort in terms of European 70s horror.

Western of the Week

The Burrowers (2008) ***

Director/Writer: J.T. Petty

Starring: Karl Geary, William Mapother, Sean Patrick Thomas, Clancy Brown, David Busse, Alexandra Edmo, Doug Hutchison

“The Burrowers”, like all the horror westerns I’ve looked at this year, is very low budget. Unlike the others, it does a lot with what it doesn’t have. First, it approaches the material like a western, showing echoes of Brad Pitt’s “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” in its opening moments. It keeps the material squarely planted in the western style of filmmaking as it introduces a monster into the American West mythology.

The story follows a posse looking for a missing family they think has been abducted by Indians. They come across a girl buried alive in the dirt. She seems to be awake yet in a comatose state. How did she get there? What is wrong with her? Eventually all these questions will be answered for them in a way that probably leaves them wishing they didn’t know.

I like that writer/director J.T Petty doesn’t feel the need to give every storyline closure and that he’s willing to leave the hero with a bleak outlook on how things turned out. He handles the monsters well by making them creatures that are hard to get a visual on in any situation. This allows the director to make a competent movie without all the special effects usually required for a creature feature. “The Burrowers” stands next to “Dances With Wolves” as another reminder of our arrogance in the way we treated the buffalo.

The Thing / *** (R)

Kate Lloyd: Mary Elizabeth Winstead

Braxton Carter: Joel Edgerton

Dr. Sander Halvorson: Ulrich Thomsen

Adam Goodman: Eric Christian Olsen

Jameson: Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje

Colin: Jonathan Lloyd Walker

Griggs: Paul Braunstein

Edvard Volner: Trond Espen Seim

Lars: Jørgen Langhelle

Universal Pictures presents a film directed by Mattijs van Heinjningen Jr. Written by Eric Heisserer. Based on the short story “Who Goes There?” by John W. Campbell Jr. Running time: 103 min. Rated R (for strong creature violence and gore, disturbing images, and language).

I went into the latest cinematic version of John W. Campbell’s short story “Who Goes There?” without much thought about the previous versions. 80’s horror maestro John Carpenter famously remade the Cold War horror analogy “The Thing from Another World” as simply “The Thing” with considerable changes to the anti-communist story. It was one of the rare examples of a remake being better than the original. It is also one of our greatest horror director’s best films. I didn’t want all of this weighing too heavily on the new movie’s shoulders, so I put Carpenter’s movie out of my mind going into this new one. This made discovering some of the new movie’s secrets a surprising pleasure.

2011’s “The Thing” is good, not great, sci-fi horror. But, noting where it relates to the 1982 version makes it a little bit more interesting. Made with a mostly Norwegian cast and crew, save for a few key leading roles, the makers of this new version appear to have studied the earlier movie intently, yet set out to make their own individual story.

The movie opens in a cold barren landscape. Antarctica, 1982. Some scientists in a snow cat are searching for something. They find it. Soon a young American paleontologist is being recruited for a top-secret project. This is Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead, “Live Free or Die Hard”). She’s being recruited by Dr. Sander Halvorson (Ulrich Thomsen, “Season of the Witch”) to extract some type of animal from the ice. It’s all very hush hush.

These opening passages are done with patience, allowing the audience to understand the situation and get to know the characters. Kate doesn’t come across as a strong woman and doesn’t seem to be respected by Sander for any more than her experience at extracting things from ice. There’s even a sense that as an American she’s looked down upon by the Norwegians. For a moment, I thought all this was the start of a thematic statement by the filmmakers, but I think it has more to do with setting the time period. Women were becoming more prominent in the workforce in the early eighties but were not highly respected. The globalization of the work force had not quite gotten into gear then either. The world was more segregated in terms of nationality at that time.

The helicopter pilots at the snow bound research station are also Americans.  One, Braxton Carter (Joel Edgerton, “Warrior”), reaches out to Kate, but there seems to be a class separation there as well. By the time the movie ends, none of these things will matter anymore, and Kate will be in charge.

What the Norwegians have found frozen in the ice is an alien spacecraft and an alien specimen. As it turns out, they don’t need as much of Kate’s expertise in extracting the alien as they first though, since it eventually extracts itself from the ice. But, what is the nature of this alien life form? Anyone familiar with the previous versions will know that it can replicate any life form it comes into contact with. Out in the isolated Antarctic, it has the people in the research station and their sled dogs. That’s about it, but it’s a start for an entity that acts as a kind of virus, spreading from host to host.

The filmmakers don’t rush the characters into any leaps of logic in their conclusions about what will happen once the creature escapes. It’s interesting how these characters take slightly different approaches to reach their conclusions about the alien than the characters in the previous film. It all amounts to the same thrilling story, but with different beats, different details. What cannot change between the versions is that no one can trust anyone else to be who they think they are. This is a story built upon a heightened paranoia that may well just be a natural part of the human condition.

This new “The Thing” doesn’t just tell a similar story to the previous incarnations, however. There are many plot point quotes in this movie’s homage to the 1982 movie. In the ‘82 movie the scientists knew at least one of them had been infected by the alien when ripped underwear was found, in this one they find tooth fillings made of inorganic material that the creature couldn’t replicate. Braxton is a pilot, like the Kurt Russell character in the previous movie. Both characters go missing at one point, and when they return no one trusts them. A test is developed by both research crews to determine who is still human. Even some of the images are duplicated, like the double-faced creature and the crewmember who is burned by a flamethrower while sitting at a book shelf.

It seems, however, as if the movie is needlessly held back by its 1982 setting. It doesn’t really seem to have much to say about our current world, playing mostly as homage to the earlier movie. If you’ve seen the earlier movie, however, it will become apparent that the new version is no mere homage. It acts as more than just a stand-alone version of the movie. That works in its favor for those who are fans of the 1982 film, but not so much for those who aren’t familiar with that movie. Still, it is a patient sci-fi horror film that pays off in terms of scares and tension. Its winter location and isolation fuel the paranoia felt by the characters and impress the ramifications should the alien find its way to the main population of the planet. Since it takes place in 1982, we know it didn’t. Or do we?

Horror Thoughts ’11 Week 2: Oct. 7-13

The Mummy (1932) ***

Director: Karl Freund

Writers: John L. Balderston, Richard Schayer, Nina Wilcox Putnam

Starring: Boris Karloff, Zita Johann, David Manners, Arthur Byron, Edward Van Sloan

I introduced the kids to the classic Universal monsters this week with the original “The Mummy”, starring Boris Karloff as the titular Imhotep. This was an interesting one to start them off on, since it is essentially a talkie. There isn’t much in the way of scares or action of any kind. Karloff is a mummy raised from the dead, but he spends most of the movie looking like and old man, with some pretty intense eyes. It was no surprise that Jack and I were the only ones who stuck with it out through the whole thing.

Despite the features mentioned above, which might turn some horror fans off, it’s not at all a bad movie considering it’s 80 years old. Yes, you have to listen to all those words and follow their intentions instead of just sitting there and getting shocked by a barrage of images. Certainly, the filmmaking community still hadn’t figured out some of the delicacies of pacing in film. But, they also had the bravery to hold silences, and that is a practice that works pretty well for horror.

Then there is Karloff himself. Most of these Universal monster characters actors were never given much credit for the work they did. Most people attributed their performances to their make up. This is really selling them short. You could put a bunch of make up on one of the time period’s romantic leads and their performances would look ridiculous, because the make up requires an even subtler approach to facial expression. Karloff isn’t given much in the script or direction to portray the fear his character imposes, but he does it with his unwavering tone and nearly expressionless face. Look at the eyes in the picture above and you’ll see a true monster performance.

Dracula: Dead and Loving It (1995) **

Director: Mel Brooks

Writers: Mel Brooks, Rudy De Luca, Steve Haberman, Bram Stoker (characters)

Starring: Leslie Nielsen, Peter MacNicol, Steven Webber, Amy Yasbeck, Lysette Anthony, Harvey Korman, Mel Brooks

Mel Brooks’s send up of the classic monster, “Dracula: Dead and Loving It”, was one of the unplanned features in this year’s Horrorfest. Sometimes it’s necessary to inject a little laughter into Horrorfest. In typical Brooks style, this spoof undermines all of the genre clichés and more specifically Francis Ford Coppola’s vision of the vampire legend in “Bram Stoker’s Dracula”.

This one lacks the brilliance of Brooks’s early work. His later spoofs lack their own originality and act more mock ups that merely set up the jokes. The jokes are all referential, while movies like “Young Frankenstein” and “Blazing Saddles” also offer up their own material to harp on. “Dracula: Dead and Loving It” adds nothing to the spoof canon and is essentially just a bad movie with a series of independent jokes strung through it. There are a few classic Brooks moments within it, however. The spider web that Renfield walks through, “What are you doing to the furniture?!”, and the torrent of blood from the staked Lucy, “She just ate!”, all provide pretty big laughs in this minor Brooks effort.

Season of the Witch (2011) **

Director: Dominic Sena

Writer: Bragi F. Schut

Starring: Nicolas Cage, Ron Perlman, Stephen Campbell Moore, Claire Foy, Robert Sheehan, Stephen Graham, Ulrich Thomsen, Christopher Lee

I was surprised to find that if the filmmakers had just avoided a few hackneyed ideas, this could’ve actually been a pretty good movie. The biggest mistake they make is showing that the woman that a couple of deserter Crusader knights are charged with transporting to a monastery where she will be tried as a witch is actually imbued with supernatural powers. It should’ve been a question as to whether she was actually capable of creating obstacles for their journey. All of the evils she conjured up should’ve been easily explainable by natural causes, therefore Nicolas Cage’s knight, who questions his faith, would have more to question.

The filmmakers also incorporate cheap thrill CGI effects into a pack of wolves that would’ve been more frightening had they just been allowed to be wolves, as opposed to demon dogs controlled by the witch. The film begins with an introduction that reveals too much and doesn’t leave room for the possibility that the church is executing women for being witches without reason. And, the montage of battle scenes that introduce us to the hero Crusaders is clunky and awkward, where a dialogue scene explaining their experiences and one battle scene would’ve sufficed.

I liked the mood of the story and where it went at the end, however. I did not expect the witch’s true intentions, and Cage gives much more depth to his knight than the story deserves. I also liked that his friend didn’t turn out to be something else.

Videodrome (1983) ***½

Director/Writer: David Cronenberg

Starring: James Woods, Deborah Harry, Sonja Smits, Peter Dvorsky, Les Carlson, Jack Creley, Lynn Gorman, Julie Khaner

“Videodrome is the second film screened this week that was not scheduled to appear during this year’s Horrorfest, but after launching this year’s film festival with Cronenberg’s “eXistenz” I’ve seen several signs pointing me in the direction of revisiting this Cronenberg horror classic. When I saw Deborah Harry perform on Leno last week, that was the final straw. It was long past time for me to return to this movie that I hardly understood as a teenager.

I can’t say as I have any greater understanding of Cronenberg’s exploration of video eroticism and violence desensitizing than I did before, but I do have a greater appreciation for it. The craft here is undeniable as Cronenberg seduces the audience into his twisted vision in much the same way his main character is seduced by the pirated television signal he discovers where the only programming involves torture and death. He’s so deceived by his television commanded world that it doesn’t even occur to him at first that what he’s seeing is real.

The way Cronenberg works sex into this world dominated by television violence has you thinking that the two are not related at first, and again the audience’s reaction to Deborah Harry’s first invitation to James Woods to inflict pain upon her during sex is filled with the same amount of fascination as the character’s.

Cronenberg’s images are those of pure cinema. The type that imbed themselves into your brain and will never be forgotten: Woods inserting his head into the television screen as if it’s a sexual orifice, the dream recorder that makes him look as if he’s some sort of alien explorer, and the gun that attaches itself to Woods’s hand. These are unforgettable images from an alienating, yet unforgettable film.

The Rite (2011) ***

Director: Mikael Håfström

Writers: Michael Petroni, Matt Baglio (book)

Starring: Colin O’Donoghue, Anthony Hopkins, Alice Braga, Marta Gastini, Ciarán Hinds, Rutger Hauer, Toby Jones

“The Rite” offers us yet another true life possession story. I guess it’s not really a possession unless it’s based on fact. I would question just how much fact this film is really based on however, since the true story told in the book upon which it is based was only a “suggestion” according to the film’s credit sequence. But, it’s not too bad.

This fact isn’t even mostly due to the fact that Anthony Hopkins plays an exorcist plagued by a demon. The film’s power is found in the way it classically builds its horror story with good characters with solid background foundations and an old school horror sensibility that getting the story out is just as important as the scares.

I did have some problems with the way the story was structured around a young priest’s doubts about possession and his own faith in general, while the pregnant woman who claims to be possessed is so obviously taken over by a supernatural force. Like this week’s earlier entry, “Season of the Witch”, a story based on doubt would work better if the audience could doubt the validity of the possession as well.

Also, the supernatural aspects of take over the story for its climax, so the movie becomes more about scares than catharsis. For the most part, however, this is solid horror filmmaking. We’re given a character that we can relate to, who is placed in an extraordinary situation that scares the hell out of us. If the church is good for one thing, it’s always been great for scaring the bejeezus out of people. I suppose there are other benefits. But that’s one of my favorites.

Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977) ½*

Director: John Boorman

Writer: William Goodhart

Starring: Richard Burton, Linda Blair, Louise Fletcher, Kitty Winn, Max Von Sydow, James Earl Jones

There have been five films in the “Exorcist” franchise. Two were very good. Two were terrible. One was just boring. All three of the series’ failures came from the idea of exploring the exorcism in which Father Merrin, the priest played by Max Von Sydow in the original, first encountered the demon who possesses the young girl in that film. “Exorcist II: The Heretic” is the worst of the bunch.

It was the first attempt by Warner Bros. at either a sequel or a prequel, and it acts as both, following Regan MacNeil after her exorcism only to find that she is still slightly possessed by the demon. Richard Burton is brought in by the Vatican to investigate Merrin’s death and determine whether he held any fault in the events that occurred in the first film. Merrin’s previous exorcism of the same demon is dealt with in flashbacks in Africa.

This movie has lost all touch with what made the first film so good. It has attempted to reproduce the winning elements by providing a priest at the center of events who has his doubts about his own place with God. Regan’s psychiatrist, played by Louise Fletcher, bears a striking resemblance to Ellen Burstyn, who played her mother in the original but declined to reprise her role in this one. It misses the depth of the Catholic Church’s involvement in the business of exorcism. It doesn’t depict their stance as quite so skeptical or serious as the first film. It involves modern psychology into the notion of possession, just as the first film did, but this time it creates some pseudo-post modern psychology that involves a device that allows two people to share one participant’s memories.

Most of all, this story seems aimless. Having no clear goal, besides capitalizing upon the success of the original, the filmmakers pander to the audience with cheap thrill devices, like having a cab crash through the gates of the house where the first film took place. The whole movie plays as if no one really knew how to follow up the original. More than a decade later it would dawn upon producers that they should use the original author’s own sequel novel, “Legion”, as the source material and hire him to make it, and “Exorcist III” became the only other “Exorcist” movie worth watching.

The Mummy’s Hand (1940) **

Director: Christy Cabanne

Writers: Griffin Jay, Maxwell Shane

Starring: Dick Foran, Peggy Moran, Wallace Ford, Eduardo Ciannelli, George Zucco, Cecil Kellaway, Charles Trowbridge, Tom Tyler

Universal let their “Mummy” franchise sit on the shelf for a while whilst some of their other monster properties, Frankenstein and Dracula, played some of their sequels out. By the time they returned to the series, they had decided to switch directions a bit. They use some of the footage from the original movie in flashbacks, but they pretty much ditch the story line of that one in favor of a new, more aggressive mummy, who is more monster than man. He’s more ferocious… well, by mummy standards, and less imposing than Boris Karloff was in the role. His eyes are much creepier, however.

It’s also glaringly apparent that they were not given any sort of budget upon which to reboot the series. The mummy’s tomb is a stony outcropping on a grassy hill that is obviously located somewhere in the Hollywood Hills, rather than somewhere in the Tunisian desert that it claims to be located. Some portions of the film look as if they could belong to an Ed Wood production.

The leads are a sort of Abbott and Costello pairing of Dick Foran and Wallace Ford. Foran tries to retain a fairly serious and stable demeanor, while Ford is the comic relief. It’s not a terrible approach and acts as a kind of distraction from the less impressive production values. Unfortunately, the movie never really gets its footing as a horror show. It’s a fun distraction at best, not one of the movies that helped to make the Universal monster series into an iconic catalog in cinematic history.

The Human Centipede (First Sequence) (2009) **

Director/Writer: Tom Six

Starring: Dieter Laser, Ashley Williams, Ashlynn Yennie, Akihiro Kitamura

“The Human Centipede (First Sequence)”, the first in a planned trilogy, has become one of the most controversial horror movies in recent years. It’s a controversy that has found new life as the second film “The Human Centipede (Full Sequence)” is about to be released in American cinemas. It won’t show up in a lot of American cinemas. It’s a German film, and after the reactions the first film received upon its release, I can’t imagine there is much demand for the second.

What people just can’t get past in this unique movie is its horror premise. It’s about a mad scientist who creates a human centipede by connecting people together at the mouth and anus, using the gastro-intestinal system as the shared organ of the new organism. This is disturbing, yes. It’s not an idea you really want to see, even if you enjoy depraved horror. But, there it is.

What’s interesting is that movie isn’t really all that bad as an entry into the forced imprisonment horror subgenre. The scientist, actually a surgeon here, is a true horror monster. As played by Deiter Laser, he is freakish in appearance and behavior to go along with his truly horrible desire to connect three human beings in the manner explained above. The direction is cold and tense. A good portion of the action involves an escape attempt by one of the victims. It’s well constructed, and provides a satisfying conclusion that makes you wonder just how they’re going to make two more movies out of the concept.

But, that very concept just sticks in your craw. The movie is as tasteful as it can be in depicting such a tasteless fate for three people. It covers all the uncomfortable necessities of such an arrangement, but tries not to dwell on them. Writer/director Tom Six realizes that the audience will dwell on them enough. That’s just the movie’s problem, though. There is no way to get past the facts of this human centipede condition. I could never recommend this movie for that very reason. I can appreciate it, however. You’d have to be a pretty heavily devoted horror fan to do that.

Best Worst Movie (2009) ***

Director/Writer: Michael Stephenson

Starring: George Hardy, Michael Stephenson, Jason Wright, Darren Ewing, Jason Steadman, Margo Prey, Connie Young, Claudio Fragasso, Rosella Drudi

During last year’s Horrorfest I watched a movie that has become known as the worst movie ever made. “Troll 2” was pretty bad, but I wouldn’t call it the worst movie ever made. I can see how many people would, however. I can also see why some people would latch onto it as a classic cult flick of the ilk of “The Rocky Horror Picture Show”. It is so gloriously bad that it could be fun to make a point to convert people to its horridness with midnight madness screenings and film club parties devoted to it.

“Troll 2” is the subject of the documentary “Best Worst Movie”, made by one of its stars. Too much of the doc focuses on the film’s worshipers. It would’ve been nice to see a little more on the critics and detractors against the film. I suspect they’d be easier to find. The greatest critics of the movie according to the doc, however, seem to be the people who starred in it. George Hardy, a dentist from Alabama who played the dad in the movie, is the film’s primary focus. The doc was made by the boy, now a man, who played the lead.  They’re horrified by their own involvement in the film, but are astounded to discover that so many people love them for their failings.

It’s hard to find too much fault with the doc because these people are actually very charming and fun to hang out with as they discover their infamy has turned into fame. It even begins to build my own affection for “Troll 2” itself. But, I was able to refrain from a second screening, for now.

Western of the Week

The Quick and the Undead (2006) *

Director/Writer: Gerald Nott

Starring: Clint Glenn, Nicola Giacobbe, Parrish Randall, Erin McCarthy, Dion Day, Jeff Swarthout

The ultra-indie horror western “The Quick and the Undead” was produced by Nott Entertainment. Writer-director-producer Gerald Nott should’ve considered longer the accuracy of his production company’s name before he settled on it. There is very little entertainment value to be found here. There will be some cult followers that liken it to the genius of “Troll 2”. It doesn’t have the charm of that one’s innocence. It does have a little more logical progression than that piece of horror misery, however.

The hero is a version of the Man with No Name, popularized by Clint Eastwood in the Italian westerns directed by Sergio Leone. The story similar to Louis L’Amour’s “The Quick and the Dead” involves the hero’s former gang betraying him and leaving him for dead, this time to be eaten by zombies. What they don’t know is that he’s long injected himself with the very virus that has caused the zombie apocalypse in which they live, making him immune to it. So he chases his old companions down for revenge.

Now, absurd as it sounds, this might make a good premise for a horror western. Unfortunately, an indie feature of this extremely limited budget cannot pull it off. Between the terrible production values and atrocious acting provided by all the friends and family Mr. Nott could gather and agree to put zombie make up on, the story just can’t survive; and the horror becomes like a zombie itself, on autopilot, surviving in an undead state that no longer has any appeal to the living. 

Moneyball / **** (PG-13)

Billy Beane: Brad Pitt

Peter Brand: Jonah Hill

Art Howe: Phillip Seymour Hoffman

Scott Hatteberg: Chris Pratt

David Justice: Stephen Bishop

Casey Beane: Kerris Dorsey

Columbia Pictures presents a film directed by Bennett Miller. Written by Steve Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin and Stan Chervin. Based on the book “Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game” by Michael Lewis. Running time: 133 min. Rated PG-13 (for some strong language).

I’m not a baseball person. I got most of my passion for any sports from my father, who turned me into an avid football fan, but none of my family ever watched baseball when I was growing up. My dad got into it long after I’d left home and my brother has become a fan as well. I suppose the fact that my area Major League team is the Kansas City Royals hasn’t helped me develop a taste for it. I’ve enjoyed the games I’ve seen in stadium, but I just can’t get into all the numbers that the majority of baseball fandom seems to be about.

As a cineaste, however, I can tell you that no sport has provided more great movies than that of baseball. The new true-life story of “Moneyball” is in the best tradition of great movies based on sports. It tells the story of Billy Beane, one time pro player who finds himself later in life the general manager of the financially challenged and performance struggling Oakland A’s. Beane became famous in 2002 for building a roster of players based on a computer program that calculated the best percentages of under valued players getting on base. His outside of the box thinking paid off by producing the longest winning streak in league history and a trip to the playoffs for one of the league's lowest budget teams. Beane feared that not making it to the World Series would erase his achievement from the history books, but after his amazing season many of the league franchisees adapted his methods of recruitment.

I didn’t know much of this going into the movie, but any knowledge of the events depicted here has little impact on the effectiveness of the filmmaking. “Moneyball” is a basic great movie. It isn’t flashy. It doesn’t have car chases or sex scenes. It doesn’t go into drug use. It doesn’t muddy up its story with a romance or a false conflict with a superior. It doesn’t give you a rollercoaster rise and fall story. There isn’t even really a whole lot of baseball in it. It’s simply a fascinating story about a real person and the thing he did that nobody believed would work.

Brad Pitt plays Beane. We see him struggling with frustration towards his scouts as they maintain business as usual after the team loses their three marquee players to teams with more money. They don’t understand his notion that they’re playing a game with the big budget teams that they cannot win. They’ve accepted it; he refuses.

With this performance and his work in the past summer’s “The Tree of Life”, Pitt is bound to have a major push for a best actor nomination this awards season. It is more likely that his work in the previous film will garner the awards bid, but his presence in this film, along with his producer’s credit here, is bound to play a role in an inevitable nomination. In keeping with the overall mood of the movie, Pitt plays Beane with a cool demeanor that rarely discloses the tension he holds beneath the surface. There is a funny moment when he asks his daughter if he looks worried. She doesn’t hesitate to proclaim that he does.

Beane finds a kindred spirit when he goes to Cleveland to bargain for a new marquee player. He notices that a meek little man in the corner seems to have the ear of the manager and therefore the GM on every player decision. This man is Peter Brand, who feels that he is misunderstood although he is listened to by upper management to some degree. He sees a gaping misuse of talent in the league, and soon discovers that instead of buying a marquee player, Beane has purchased him to be Oakland’s new Assistant GM.

Jonah Hill (“Superbad”) deserves as much, if not more, acclaim for his performance here as Pitt does. Hill’s presence here suggests that he will play the sassy sidekick that he has in the variety of gross out comedies that populate most of his resume. On the contrary, Hill plays Brand as even more subdued than Pitt’s fairly laid back Beane. In doing this, Hill is able to capitalize on an actor’s greatest skill—the ability to listen.

I can’t remember a major role in which we get to see an actor truly listen to the people around him as much as we get to see Hill listening in this movie. It makes his character stronger that he has the patience to take in what everyone else is doing and telling him. When he does speak, it is important. The juxtaposition of that importance against Hill’s quiet, benevolent delivery makes him more real, more in the moment than most performances you’ll see in any other major Hollywood production.

Director Bennett Miller (“Capote”) and screenwriters Steven Zaillain (“American Gangster”) and Aaron Sorkin (“The Social Network”) trim all the fat off this story, so all you get are the essentials. There aren’t the typical histrionics that populate most real life sports stories. There are no dramatic realizations, no surprising revelations. This is a pure workplace drama, where everyone behaves pretty much as if this is his everyday job. There are players who are partiers, but everybody knows that ahead of time. People are fired and traded to other teams, but that’s part of the business of professional sports. Everybody behaves as if this is their chosen path and they have to live with it.

The filmmakers do award the audience one sports cliché in their depiction of the A’s record-breaking 20^th consecutive win. But this is not done merely as some dramatic device, because it really happened. The A’s really did have an 11-0 lead that the Kansas City Royals actually overcame to nearly stole the game away from the A’s. Because of the nature of this nail-biting event, it plays like one of those sports movie moments. But, it also gives the dramatic closure that the A’s failed to find in the big game that year.

Unlike many cinematically reproduced stories from real life, “Moneyball” lacks all the expected rhythms and developments of formula. Instead it considers its subject, not as something greater than the real world from which it is inspired, but rather a part of reality. It is grounded and set in its true origins. The men depicted in it are just men. They changed the business direction of an American institution, but they were only trying to do their jobs. In depicting their story simply and succinctly, the filmmakers have realized a mirroring accomplishment with their film about those men. This is what they did. This is how they did it. The movie lets that speak for itself.

Horror Thoughts ’11 Week 1: Sept. 30-Oct. 5

eXistenZ (1999) ***

Director/Writer: David Cronenberg

Starring: Jennifer Jason Leigh, Jude Law, Ian Holm, Willem Dafoe, Don McKeller, Callum Keith Rennie, Christopher Eccleston, Sarah Polley

“eXistenZ” takes the David Cronenberg notion that everything is creepier if it’s organic to the video game front as it imagines the next generation of video experience to involve a virtual reality world, which people will enter through controllers the plugs directly into their bodies and breathes and moves as if they are as alive as their users. There is a great deal of sexual innuendo in the concept, like the way that people who don’t have game ports in their bodies are referred to a ‘virgins’. The act of plugging in is not a very veiled suggestion of sexual activity. And, like today’s video game culture, this future version is just an extension of the sex and violence that dominates our most popular entertainment.

“eXistenZ” doesn’t really play like a horror movie, however. It’s more like what an action thriller might look like if filtered through “Naked Lunch”. It does sport a high “Twilight Zone” feel to it, especially in the way the movie ends up. The notion that nothing that you’ve seen is what you thought at first and the twist of who the Jude Law and Jennifer Jason Leigh characters really are at the end all owe a great deal to “The Twilight Zone”. The production design is pure Cronenberg, though.

Transylvania 6-5000 (1985) **½

Director/Writer: Rudy De Luca

Starring: Jeff Goldblum, Ed Bagley Jr., Jeffery Jones, Joseph Bologna, John Byner, Carol Kane, Michael Richards, Geena Davis

My dear precious wife does love her silly eighties movies, and I can see the appeal. “Transylvania 6-5000” is really minor work, but it’s done with heart. The cast is surprisingly strong. I doubt that when Geena Davis was running around the set in her skimpy Vampira costume she ever could’ve imagined that one day she’d be playing a first female president on the small screen in the series “Commander In Chief”.

What works in this implausible comedy that never quite becomes spoof is the interjection of absurdity into the comic details of each scene. Carol Kane telling her husband which spots to clean on the window, Michael Richard trying to get Ed Bagley to slip on banana peel, the psychic bashing a hole in her table after every reading, all these quirky details add to the absurdity of this plot, which just wouldn’t amount to much without the extra effort. I have to say in the end that it isn’t entirely recommendable; but if you’re in the right mood, it will give you a good laugh.

Insidious (2011) ***½

Director: James Wan

Writer: Leigh Whannell

Starring: Patrick Wilson, Rose Byrne, Ty Simpkins, Lin Shaye, Leigh Whannell, Angus Sampson, Barbara Hershey

“Insidious” is a damn scary movie! I mean this movie will scare the crap out of you. It’s scarier than it has any right to be. It’s certainly scarier than any PG-13 movie has any right to be. In fact, it’s so scary; I don’t think PG-13 is an appropriate rating for it. This movie should be rated R, based on its frightening images alone. One F-bomb is dropped, but there’s no gore, no sex, no nudity, barely even any violence. It’s just scary as ‘H’, ‘E’, double hockey sticks.

The directing and writing team of James Wan and Leigh Whannell show for the second time in their careers a commanding sense of the horror genre. Previously they essentially invented the sub genre of torture porn with the original “Saw”, a movie that had better qualities than any of its sequels or copycats. Now, they’ve artfully pieced together a possession story that embraces many horror signatures, but implements them in such abundance and with such unique application that it’s as fresh as “The Exorcist” or “Poltergeist”. What’s more, it has more scares per minute than those classics. I’m serious. This movie will scare you.

Western of the Week

Undead or Alive (2007) *½

Director: Glasgow Phillips

Writers: Glasgow Phillips, Scott Pourroy

Starring: Chris Kattan, James Denton, Navi Rawat, Matt Besser, Chris Coppola, Leslie Jordan, Brian Posehn

Although the horror/comedy “Undead or Alive: A Zombedy” is not a good movie, I couldn’t help but hold some affection for it, or at least some affection for what it was trying to do. I chose it simply because the thought of SNL’s Chris Kattan starring in either a western or a horror movie is just ludicrous.

I was glad to see it was also a comedy, because a serious take on zombies in the old west is not something I’m sure I really want to see (although I will with a later Horrofest ’11 feature “Quick and the Undead”). The presence of comedian Brian Posehn as the first zombie was also something nice to see. He makes a good zombie. I recall a bit he had in his stand up act about the only role he’d ever play in a horror movie would be that of the creepy guy in the corner getting off on everything the killer did to the victims. He’s charming here as a zombie, however.

Unfortunately, all these happy qualities don’t a good movie make. It has a few good moments, but most of the jokes fall flat. It might’ve been funnier if the zombies had more to say about the inconveniences of being dead and hungry. There’s very little zip to the script, but it has a fun and unexpected conclusion.

Grace (2010) ***

Director/Writer: Paul Solet

Starring: Jordan Ladd, Gabrielle Rose, Samantha Ferris, Malcolm Stewart

“Grace” gets deliciously sadistic in its final act, making for a capable and somewhat sublime indie horror feature. The story involves a couple pregnant with their first child. The mother is a health food nut, who bears with her overbearing mother-in-law. After a car accident leaves her without her husband and her baby stillborn, she decides to continue with her plans for a natural birth with her wet nurse. Somehow the baby comes back to life upon birth, but there’s something not quite right with it.

I’ll spare you the baby’s secrets to discover on your own. These are the issues that occupy the somewhat meandering middle passages of the movie. I could’ve done with about twenty minutes less of the mother dealing with the baby’s special needs. With a running time of 83 minutes, that might seem a strike against the movie that it might not overcome, but the final fifteen minutes make every other minute of the movie worth it.

Desperation is a great motivator for horror, and this movie has desperation down to an art form. I love how the character relationships come together in one big bloody mess by the end of the movie. “Grace” may have been better as an hour-long episode of a horror anthology, but it is juicy horror.

Dylan Dog: Dead of Night (2011) *½

Director: Kevin Munroe

Writers: Thomas Dean Donnelly, Joshua Oppenheimer, Tiziano Sclavi (comic book series “Dylan Dog”)

Starring: Brandon Routh, Sam Huntington, Anita Briem, Taye Diggs, Peter Stormare, Kurt Angle

I misidentified the source material of “Dylan Dog” in my Horrorfest preview, stating that it was a video game adaptation, when it’s actually based on an Italian comic book. I’m not sure what an Italian comic book artist knows about New Orleans, but there it is.

I really wanted to like “Dylan Dog: Dead of Night”. One reason for that is because I think Brandon Routh got a bad deal with the whole “Superman Returns” thing. I liked that movie better than most people, and I particularly liked Routh as the seminal alien hero. I also very much enjoyed Routh’s run on the television series “Chuck”. How terribly miscast he is here, though. I suppose Dylan Dog is some sort of gumshoe go-between for the living and the undead in his New Orleans universe. Routh is about the furthest thing you could get from a noir hero, however.

I guess the whole thing is supposed to be some clever merging of genres: horror, film noir, and comedy. It never really digs into any of them. It’s got the noir atmosphere, but Routh’s good looks, well-mannered speech, and athletic self-confidence play against the noir archetype. The horror elements are played earnestly, but look schlocky. And, the comedy never quite snaps. All in all, it makes for a disappointing ride that looked like it could’ve been so much fun.

Red Riding Hood (2011) **

Director: Catherine Hardwicke

Writer: David Johnson

Starring: Amanda Seyfried, Shiloh Fernandez, Max Irons, Gary Oldman, Julie Christie, Virginia Madsen, Billy Burke, Lucas Haas

“Red Riding Hood” is another example of a concept that looked like it had the potential to be something good, but falls flat. It doesn’t fall quite as squarely on its face as “Dylan Dog” does, but it never quite musters up the scares it might have.

Catherine Hardwicke, the author of the first “Twilight” film, takes a classic creature feature approach to this adult look at the rather frightening fairy tale. Instead of filming on location, the setting is cast in the woods that are obviously sets built to give it a sort of Universal Monsters feel. Writer David Johnson has fashioned the tale of a little girl who meets a wolf into a werewolf plot that has a village terrorized and a werewolf hunter that might be more dangerous than the wolf. It still has all the stopping points of the children’s story, the heroine wears a red cape, there’s a brave woodsman, and a grandmother that might be hiding something.

There is some fun to be found here, but sometimes the references to the story have to stretch to fit into the plot they’ve built. Although, there’s a great cast, some of the veteran performers seem to struggle to connect with the material. Perhaps the attempts at showing the production’s seams require a stronger script to keep the material connected to a reality that allows the audience’s emotions to run at a pace necessary for the horror to work. Perhaps that thought is entirely too complex for a cinematic telling of “Little Red Riding Hood”.

Penny Thoughts ’11: Sept. 23-29

From Russia With Love (1963) ***½

Director: Terence Young

Writers: Richard Maibaum, Johanna Harwood, Ian Fleming (book)

Starring: Sean Connery, Daniela Bianchi, Pedro Armendariz, Lotte Lenya, Robert Shaw, Bernard Lee

Last week, our oldest boy found himself in a bunch of hot water when he not only played a video game he knew he was restricted from playing, but he had to steal it from the house to do it. We’re pretty strict about what the boys are exposed to in terms of violence and language. He knew we didn’t want him playing my James Bond video game, but it had been eating at him for the four years that I’ve had it, and he finally broke.

It probably came as quite a surprise to him that after a week of no video games for that stunt I broke out “From Russia With Love” for our family movie night, the very movie that video game was based on. Needless to say, he was thrilled. My James Bond video collection has been gnawing at him nearly as bad as that video game had.

I chose to start him out on “From Russia With Love” for a few reasons. 1) It’s my favorite of the PG-rated Bonds. 2) It was the one the game was based upon, but the game had invented much more violence than can be found in the movie. 3) It’s one of the least action oriented Bonds. I hope this gave him an appreciation for that fact that there’s more going on in these movies than people shooting at each other.

The verdict: he loved it. The youngest, not so much. His favorite phrase throughout the screening, “When are they going to fight and stuff?” The oldest got it, though. I started watching Bond movies when I was about his age, and it’s probably the perfect age to start. It has all the silly action and comedy that are Bond signatures, but he’s old enough to pick up on the plots and the twists and even some of the innuendo. Hopefully, he won’t really understand that for another few of years, though.

The Conspirator (2011) ***

Director: Robert Redford

Writers: James Solomon, Gregory Bernstein

Starring: James McAvoy, Robin Wright, Kevin Klein, Evan Rachel Wood, Tom Wilkinson, Justin Long, Danny Huston, James Badge Dale, Colm Meaney, Alexis Bledel, Johnny Simmons, Toby Kebbell, Norman Reedus

I had read some disappointing reviews of this movie at the time of its theatrical release. At that time, many accused the movie of lacking power behind its historical material. Director Robert Redford hasn’t had a great track record of late, coming off a couple of commercial and critical flops, which followed a string of critically lauded movies. “The Conspirator” is closer to the former category than the latter, but it’s not a bad movie.

This is the first of a couple of movies about our 16^th President, Abraham Lincoln, that have been in the works for quite some time. It isn’t really about Lincoln, however, but about the country’s lust for revenge after a national tragedy. It follows the military criminal hearings of the assassins of Lincoln, focusing specifically on the trial of Mary Surratt, the mother of one of the men suspected of conspiring to kill the President, Vice President and Secretary of State during the final months of the Civil War. Surratt was the lone female indicted as a co-conspirator and with her son the only unaccounted for member of the conspiracy; the pressure was on the military tribunal to convict her for her son’s crimes.

James McAvoy plays her reluctant lawyer, who only takes the case because of the apparent violation of her rights as an American citizen to a public trial by her piers. The movie wisely doesn’t really answer the question as to whether she was actually a conspirator in the assassination, because that’s not the point. The point has more to do with our government’s recent decision to try suspected terrorists by military tribunal, rather than within the bounds of our public legal system. It’s about what America is supposed to stand for, the rights we allow our citizens to assure that such matters do not amount to petty revenge above justice. The difference is that Surratt was a citizen and most of the terrorist suspects were not. But when it comes to the ideals of a society, should that matter?

Of Gods and Men (2011) ***½

Director: Xavier Beauvois

Writers: Xavier Beauvois, Etienne Comar

Starring: Lambert Wilson, Michael Lonsdale, Olivier Rabourdin, Philippe Laudenbach, Jacques Herlin, Loïc Pichon, Xavier Maly, Jean-Pierre Frin

“Of Gods and Men” tells the fascinating true story of Trappist monks in Algeria who get caught up in the local politics of fundamentalist terrorists inflicting their terror on the impoverished community that they are charged to care for. Their story isn’t really about the politics, however, but rather their choice to walk in the shadow of God.

I’ve never seen anyone’s decision to live within the grace of God so well explained as it is in this movie. The choices these monks are faced with force each of them to question their beliefs and their choices. They don’t only question their personal choice to live as men solely devoted to their God, but also the choices they are forced to make by both sides of the conflict. As men of God they cannot refuse to help any one in need, even the terrorists when they come with a wounded man. They understand, however, that the terrorists will use any help they get as an excuse to demand even more from them. Any help they give the terrorists will seem a betrayal to their flock, who struggle daily with the havoc wrecked on their lives by the terrorists. What’s a true man of God to do?

The message of love these men send with their sacrifice to humanity through their devotion to God is clearer than any government decree or fanatical demand. Love is the answer. If only more of us could understand that, we might just have Heaven here on Earth.

Western of the Week

Yellow Sky (1948) ***

Director: William A. Wellman

Writers: Lamar Trotti, W.R. Burnett

Starring: Gregory Peck, Anne Baxter, Richard Widmark, Robert Arthur, John Russell, Henry Morgan, James Barton, Charles Kemper

William A. Wellman’s western “Yellow Sky” brings a great many things to mind. It isn’t a great western, but it is a good one. It’s good for the time period in which it was made. It’s entertaining. It has some good action sequences. It has some cookie cutter characters, but not the main ones.

First, there’s Gregory Peck in a fairly early role, although he was already a star. He wasn’t Atticus Finch yet, and it shows. He plays the leader of a band of thieves who has a change of conscience. He’s not a good guy to begin with, and it’s easy to see why the rest of the group might turn on him. He’s Gregory Peck with that voice of his, so you can see how he got the job, but his hold on it is tenuous thanks in part to a much more sinister Richard Widmark as the second in command. But also, thanks to Peck’s own lankiness and ability to show his weaknesses and doubts.

Second, was rape not a crime before the 60s? It seems the heroes of these older westerns get away with actions against women that no hero, no matter how flawed, could even think of getting away with today. Now, of course Peck attacks the cute as a button Anne Baxter before he has his change of heart. In fact, it’s what begins to change it. But still, the way he goes at her is just wrong, and everyone in the movie just shrugs it off as something that happens. Of course, she does shoot him. I guess if rape victims were given a chance to shoot their assailants there would be more justice in the world.

Third, I’ve been a fan of James Bond for a long time and I can’t believe I had never heard of this movie before I saw it on Netflix Instant. I don’t know if this movie is cited as an influence on Bond, but there is one shot in this movie that is undeniably repeated in almost every Bond movie. Near the end of the film, when Widmark is trying to gun down his former colleague, we get a point of view shot from inside the barrel of his gun. This is the exact same shot that opens all but one of the official Bond pictures.