Reviews

Thomas Tryon's "The Other" has been long been championed by cult film fans as a neglected/forgotten gem of subtle 70's horror. Yes, there is a definite feel of craftsmanship and creepiness to the movie, but these virtues are easily eclipsed by the films large weaknesses.

This 1935-based tale of 12 year-old twin boys(1 good/1 bad-supposedly),their evil, mysterious secrets and the effects of such on their family does have a good foundation. The 30's New England country is really brought to life visually. You can almost feel the smothering summer heat and cool crispness of the local swimming hole. Add to that an excellent supporting cast and a stunner of a musical score from Jerry Goldsmith and things should turn out pretty satisfying.

But- They don't. There are an abundance of problems that crush the movie's basic setting.

First off, we have to deal with the Perry twins, played by real twins Martin & Chris Udvarnoky. It's easy to see why neither of them made another appearance. Since the plot completely revolves around them, their performances need to be strong. They're just not up for the task, and their puffy-lipped, hyper "acting" proves not only quite irritating, but also serves to actually push the viewer away from wanting to invest emotions into the story.

Next up is the pacing. The whole thing moves along like a turtle with weights on its legs trying to climb a molasses covered hill. It's a dialogue laden trudge that seems to happen onto moving forward rather than seeking it.

Finally, there is the story itself. It's simply weak. It tries to bolster itself through loads of red herrings and unanswered questions, but when the key "secret" is apparent almost immediately, these mysteries prove to be nothing more than poor attempts to hide underdeveloped storytelling. Even the conclusion of the flick disappoints; it's grim, uneasy nature and lack of a much-needed sense of justice ends the proceedings on a sour note.

Like many others, I was a pre-teen in the 70's who loved the late-night horror films/shows that dominated the era. In fact, I probably enjoy them now more than ever, pursuing and adding them to my collection at every possible opportunity. So, when I say "The Other" is a misfire not worth watching, it's with disappointment, not malice.

A quick glance at the premise of this film would seem to indicate just another dumb '80's inbred/backwood slash-fest; the type where sex equals death and the actors are all annoying stereotypes you actually want to die. However, "JBD" delivers considerably more.

Rather than focus on bare flesh and gore (though there is a little of each- no sex however), the flick focuses on delivering impending dread/mounting tension amidst a lovely scenic backdrop. These feelings are further heightened by a cast of realistically likable characters and antagonists that are more amoral than cardboard definitions of evil. Oh yeah- George Kennedy is here too and when is that not a good thing?

If you liked "Wrong Turn", then watch this to see where much of its' methodology came from.

If you went by posters and TV ads, "It's Alive" would appear to be one of two things: Either a 50's-style monster romp or a chilling slab of dread served up in the usual gritty 70's vein. It's not either; in fact, it's not much of anything.

As promised (one of the few kept by advertising), there is indeed a murderous mutant tike on the loose and he's a nasty lookin' little critter. Well, I think he is at least, because he rarely shows up during the movie. Ultra-brief glimpses every 20 or so minutes and a shamefully low body count keep the "horror" at an absolute minimum.

OK, so if it's not really a scary film, just what exactly is it? Unfortunately, it's proves to be little more than a snail-paced melodrama that tries to deal with a ridiculous overload of "socially relevant" topics such as parenting and its natural bonds, the effects of pollution and drugs, corporate deceit/government cover-ups, loss of family values and the desensitized nature of modern society to name a few. As you might have surmised, this turns the film into total mess by merely broaching these issues in a rapid-fire, circular succession but never delving in properly or offering any explanations. Matters are certainly not helped by a dull backing cast and having the two main characters (the parents of said monster) coming across with jittery, bug-eyed hokeyness (dad) and incessant whiny babbling (mom).

I am usually against the idea of remakes, but in the case of this movie, it makes perfect sense. Give the killer toddler some serious screen time and ample victims while wholly dumping all the supposed "deeper" aspects and there might be some enjoyment to be had, unlike what is presented in the very skippable original.

Eight people are killed on a San Francisco bus by a greasegun-toting maniac, and one of the victims happens to be a cop who was supposed to be somewhere else. The combination of mass murder and losing one of their own sends the SFPD scrambling for quick answers, so they send out Bruce Dern and the dead policeman's former partner (Walter Matthau) to piece it all together.

OK, that covers the first 10-15 minutes of film, and it's the only part of this 2 hour fiasco that makes any bit of sense.

From this point on, the film turns into a jumbled, boring mess, filled with endless red herrings involving deviant sex, pimps, hookers, drug addicts and weirdos in general. No matter how closely you follow things and everything appears to lead nowhere, somehow the two detectives pull clues (and not very good ones at that) seemingly out of the air. This cyclical nonsense keeps rolling almost to the end, when finally, the policemen kinda/sorta/maybe think they have their man. In following the tone of all that's come before, the suspect conveniently makes a quick succession of unbelievably stupid moves to bring this impossible-to-follow disaster to a shoehorned-in conclusion.

As if all that's not bad enough, we get to see what would normally be a solid cast looking pretty weak. Matthau seems as utterly bored as the rest of us, Dern's usual maniacal glee gets twisted into goofiness, and everybody else ends up stuck being colorless backdrop.

I normally enjoy just about any gritty 70's police flick, but "The Laughing Policeman" doesn't even come close to making the grade. Please- Don't waste your time.

For 13 summers, animal activist Timothy Treadwell traveled to Alaska to live among and "protect" his most cherished of creatures, the Grizzly bear. During the last 5 of those seasons, he brought video equipment to capture his interactions with the native wildlife. Unfortunately for him and his girlfriend, the number 13 would prove most unlucky as both were eaten by, unsurprisingly- A Grizzly.

Enter filmmaker legend Werner Herzog. With over 100 hours of footage and an immense belief, he gives us "Grizzly Man", a superb documentary far more involved with frail human conditions than anything about nature.

With Treadwell as the main attraction, it couldn't have been any other way. It is truly mind-boggling to witness all the mental/emotional problems colliding and bubbling so, so close to the surface- Exaggerated ego, self-loathing, (possibly) repressed homosexuality, willful ignorance, dangerous hypocrisy, and some form of bi-polar disorder are just some of them.

Here are some pretty good examples:

Throughout the film, Treadwell boasts of unsurpassed expertise and intimacy when dealing with bears, but as it happens, he has NO form of training dealing with wildlife whatsoever. He went from being a wannabe actor with alcohol and drug issues to super-activist almost overnight and with too few questions.

Treadwell repeatedly speaks of his contempt for mankind, yet he somehow manages to endow the bears around him with very human characteristics. Full of delusion, he sees love in cold eyes and takes "Back off dude" gestures as welcoming advances.

20 takes and multiple diatribes, all while mugging for the camera, seriously clouds Treadwell's integrity in several instances. And finally............

If you're going to brag about being the bears "only protector", you really shouldn't do it when you and the animals always reside on a government sponsored preserve. Furthermore, when tourists throw rocks at your "friends" and you hide in the bushes and do nothing about it because you can't "blow your cover", it's time to question your protective abilities.

Believe me, there is MUCH more, but hopefully these will be just enough to grab your interest.

Now as far as Herzog's work goes, it's quite good. He intersperses footage with interviews evenly and keeps things flowing nicely. Admittedly, a large portion of the interviews feel contrived/staged and some footage seems redundant, but on the overall, this a well put together and absorbing package.

In the end, "Grizzly Man" is an excellent viewing experience about a complicated, troubled man-child and his severely misguided endeavors.

(Strangely enough, Treadwell had a far more genuine bond with the foxes of the preserve; they really seemed to care for him and enjoy his company. Maybe if he had focused on them, he'd still be with us.)

Made in 1968, "Madigan" is a movie caught square in the changes all around it. It really tries to make both ends meet the middle, but falls a bit short.

The story seemingly centers around tough NYC Det. Madigan (Richard Widmark) and his partner losing a murder suspect and their efforts to find and capture him (again) within a 72 hr. time limit. "Seemingly" is the keyword because there is much more going on behind the scenes than out on the streets.

Branigan's wife is more than a little unhappy with his relentless schedule and ugliness is approaching fast. His superior, Chief Inspector Kane (James Whitmore), has become involved with a loanshark and no one knows why, but the top brass is trying to find out. Poilce Comissioner Russell (Henry Fonda) has to deal with both situations and their nuances while sorting out his own thing. You see, Russell is a by-the-book former officer having an affair with a married woman, which is causing him to deal with an undeniable need to reevaluate his morals/judgments amongst all the other nonsense.

Now if you're thinking that the problem(s) with the film come from a bad meshing of these two elements- Think again. Along with great acting, it's the main strength. The many characters are amply fleshed out, the spacing and pace are balanced, there are no plot holes and no dilemmas are left hanging.

The problems come in the details and each of the elements (action & drama) has a distinct glitch-

Drama/Personal lives: Starts off strong by making us care about each person's plight, but eventually devolves into afternoon soap opera melodrama by allowing too much wallowing/whining and not enough in-time results.

Action/Street Time: The movie makers cannot decide which side of the fence they want to be on. The detectives are clearly supposed to be gritty, tough and streetwise, but their clunky dialouge and uptight attire have them come across more often than not as characters from a Dragnet episode. It doesn't help matters that the mean streets of New York sometimes appear to be more like a dirtied-up studio lot than the real deal.

In the end, "Madigan" plays more like a well made TV movie than the theatrical release it actually was. Stuck right between Joe Friday and Popeye Doyle, it doesn't do anything to overcome it's unenviable position, but still manages to be enjoyable in a Sunday afternoon way.

I remember seeing "Over The Edge" when it first hit HBO in the early '80's. I was just starting my teen years at the time, but unlike a lot of others who have posted here, didn't buy it. To this day, I still don't. As far as the clothes, hair, music (the movie's biggest plus), and some of the language, the movie is pretty accurate. It's everything else that smells fishy.

"OTE" tells a simple story- Teens in a developing Southwestern community are bored. So bored and disillusioned in fact that they resort to overly obnoxious, increasingly destructive behavior that (of course) will end in tragedy......

....And so begin my gripes. First there are the parents. With the exception of literally one grown-up that works at the youth center, every adult in the town is completely clueless as to how to talk to their kids or find out what they are up to after school. Instead of making them real people, they are all portrayed as one-dimensional morons that seem to only care about property value. Some parents I could handle- But an entire town of dolts? It's totally unbelievable and insulting.

As for the kids, well, they don't fare any better. Right from the beginning, each and every one is thoroughly unlikable and has no reason (the viewer certainly isn't ever given one either) to act so "deprived". Poor babies! They not only treat their families like crap, but each other as well. We never get to see one ounce of good come from these kids. I wasn't a sweet teen all the time myself, but I didn't even like these clowns 20+ years back. And again- A whole town of teenage jerks? 'Cmon now!!!

If you're going to make a film about alleged social ills (yeah right), you might want to have characters that are at least a little more than the cardboard, unsympathetic caricatures that we get saddled with here. Everybody else can claim how "real" this flick is/was, but to me it reads as clumsy exploitation that would make even Roger Corman wince.

Good tunes though!

Though I'm not quite as enamored with the film as others here, there is still much to enjoy in this sorely neglected tale of a young man researching a creepy old windmill's lurid "carousel" and his love for the owner's mysterious daughter.

Made at the same time as Bava's "Black Sunday", Ferroni's "Mill" relies on and succeeds at it's goal for the same reasons- Atmosphere in abundance and true artistic flair. Every inch of the windmill is ominous and each room (and there are many) has its own distinct feel, lighting, and color palette. With this strong foundation in place, the movie builds in the details, including a wild hallucination scene, the actual workings of the carousel, a daughter who appeared very dead but is soon quite fine, and many others.

Despite being a visual feast, well acted, and having a solid (if not overly original) plot line, the movie still suffers from a sizable problem- Pacing. As a die-hard fan of '60's horror, I have no beef with a deliberate build-up, but in this case it goes a bit overboard. There are a fair share of scenes that are filled with stretches of unnecessary dialog and lots of wandering around the mill with no real reason to be found at the end. Tighter editing would have helped immensely.

Flaws and all, "Mill Of The Stone Women" is a classy film that needs to be seen. Had I watched it just once, I have little doubt my rating would have been higher. Give it a one-time viewing and absorb it for maximum effect.

With a voice dub from the always awesome Bruce Campbell, oodles of "cult classic" comments/reviews, and a DVD release from Anchor Bay, you'd be led to believe this is truly a lost gem resurfaced. Wrong, wrong, WRONG.

Give a 18-ish man-boy (J.R. Bookwalter) two weeks worth of grocery money and let him indulge his crippled "genius" through a Super-8, and this is what you get. Every minute of this movie is saturated in ineptitude. The plot is unimaginative to the extreme, the gore is laughable, the acting is beyond HORRIBLE, and the original actors voices have been clumsily dubbed back in (why???) complete with loads of woodenness.

Looking for something more specific? How about that most of the characters in this movie have names like Raimi, Carpenter, Savini, etc., and get this- The zombie loving cult leader's name is Rev. Jones. Wow, how original; must have taken weeks to come up with that one. The "sets" are a real joy to behold too. Double-wides, abandoned houses, and a high school serve oh-so-realistically as hi-tech labs, government offices and a cult headquarters. Get the idea?

"TDND" isn't low-budget- It's NO-budget and worthless in every aspect. Bookwalter is still at it today, nearly twenty years later, and is just as talent deprived (ie- Ozone) as he was when this piece of trash first came out. Surprise, surprise.

(The 1 star- It's for Campbell.)

"Madman" has some things going for it- Decent gore, a nasty lookin' killer, moments of tension, and some good blue-tinged camera work for the forest (and abandoned house) scenes. Unfortunately, that only accounts for about 1/3 of the movie. The rest is garbage.

The acting and dialog are all over the place, either stiff as a board or ultra-hammy with nothing in between. There is not one ounce of depth or common sense (even by slasher standards) to any character in the film. And how's this for an engaging plot- One dummy heads into the woods by themselves (of course), doesn't come back, so another goes to find them. Repeat over and over and over. The "fridge" scene alone sums up the sheer stupidity of the movie.

On the overall, this movie makes "Friday The 13th" look like "Citizen Kane".

It takes a very certain type of horror fan to appreciate 99% of Jean Rollins' work, and for better or worse, I'm not one of them. However, most rules have an exception and "Grapes" is an excellent example of such.

Rather than following his usual blueprint of dreamy atmosphere, barely existent plots, sleepwalker-like acting and an abundance of useless lesbian activity, Rollin goes directly for the throat this trip. The plot is straight forward, the acting excellent, and action starts quickly and only lets up in time for a downbeat conclusion. The wine-induced "zombies" are quite effective with nasty oozing sores and an unrelenting nature for the worst cases, and a quirky onset of mania for those in the less severe stages. The one thing Rollin does (thankfully) carry over is his eye for polarity; the french landscape is beautiful but filled with impending, hazy dread. And- No worthless sex scenes!

This wonderful film is a true odd-ball in Rollin's canon. It's easily his most accessible and gory film to date. If you're looking for an entry point to his films, this really isn't a place to start since it's SO different from the rest. But- If you've seen the man's other work and didn't care for it, give this one a chance. I think you will be very pleasantly surprised.

(Note- Synapse's DVD release is nothing short of stunning. The print is flaw-free and bursting with sharpness and color. This may very well be the best transfer of any obscure '70's film I've viewed yet. And I've seen a lot of 'em!)