Showing posts with label Karen Black. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Karen Black. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 9, 2014

Invaders from Mars (1986)

                                                                                                                                                                                                     
Invaders from Mars (1986)

Director: Tobe Hooper

Cast: Karen Black, James Karen, Louise Fletcher, Laraine Newman, Bud Cort

I have a lot of love for this movie because I grew up watching it. When this film was released, I was about 11 years old or something, I didn’t even know it was a remake back then. I just knew that I loved those goofy aliens. I guess I just watched this movie at the right age and time, I connected with the little kid in the movie and his feeling of paranoia, after all, who doesn’t feel that there’s sometimes something slightly ‘off’ about the world they live in right? Hell, I still feel that way today! Weird thing is that as time passes by, I like this movie even more! Last night I screened it, and the crowd stayed glued to it all the way to the end, I guess that says something about the kind of spectacle that Tobe Hooper created with this film.


Invaders from Mars is all about David Gardner, a little kid who actually sees an alien spaceship land on the hill, just behind his house. Is his mind playing tricks on him? Did he dream it? Soon after that, David noticing that people are acting weird all over town, even his mom and pops are talking in this weird tone and doing weird things like putting tic-tacs in their coffee and eating burnt bacon. What gives with everyone in town? Are they all being controlled by Martians like David suspects? Can David stop the Martians from taking over his town?


So yeah, this is that kind of movie. The kind in which everyone in town starts acting strange, as if they were all telepathically connected in a hive like mentality, not unlike the plot we can find in films like Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) which has an extremely similar structure. If we take in consideration the type of atmosphere that Americans were living back in those days, it makes perfect sense that films like these were being made. You see, back in the 50’s, Americans hated and feared communism. Communism was like this decease that had to be eradicated from society. This mentality bled into films such as these, as mentalities often do. We can easily say that they Martians in the 1950’s version of this film represented the fear Americans had for communism and the fear that this mentality might spread somehow. In the film, Martians were secretly gathering and plotting against the humans, the same way Americans thought that there were communists amongst them secretly gather and plotting against capitalism and the American way of life. Of course, it’s the American military that saves the day in the film! The film makes a whole lot more sense when we see it from that perspective don’t it? Suddenly, it’s not just a film about an alien invasion. Fast forward a few decades and here comes the 1980’s version of the film, did it still hold the same meaning it did in the 50’s? Would this remake still be about the fears of communism?


The way I see it, Hooper's remake takes a slightly different route with its meanings. Now it’s not so much about communism, to me it’s more about the evils of the powers that be controlling the masses with lies. The leader of the Martians is called the “Supreme Intelligence” and it is essentially a giant talking brain. The Supreme Intelligence injects a needle into the brains of humans in order to control them and use them for world dominating purposes, so while yeah, it’s still about plotting against the humans, it’s also a plea against controlling the minds of the masses. It’s a film about letting the people think for themselves, about letting people make their own choices in life instead of manipulating their perceptions with lies. In one pivotal scene David Gardner actually begs the aliens not to control people. It’s wrong, he tells them, they never did anything wrong, he pleas. This film actually has something to say as opposed to what a lot of people might think about it, it isn’t as empty as you might think! The beauty of the film is that it delivers these deep themes through an awesome and entertaining spectacle and an otherworldly story about Martians wanting to take over our minds, and our planet.


This remake pays its respects to the original film with a few homages here and there, while still offering welcomed new elements. For example, there’s a scene in which two cops come over to David’s house because he files a complaint, well, one of the cops is the original actor who played David Gardner in the original film! As the cop inspects the hill, he says “I haven’t been up here since I was a kid”, which is true of course. The update on the Martians is a welcomed element, they were designed by the great Stan Winston, and trust me, they are a real highlight of the film, The Supreme Intelligence is an awesome creation that looks alive, it pulsates, it breathes! It’s so refreshing to see creatures that are actually physically there and not computer generated, I miss this kind of physical effect on films. Finally, there’s this sense of wonder throughout the whole film because we see everything through the eyes of a child, everything happens because of this kid, and for once the adults actually listen to the kid! This is one of those '80’s Kid Movies', where the pre-teens are the main characters of the show. Sadly, the only weak link in the film is the kid himself, played by Hunter Carson. Still, it’s about the only bad thing I can say about this film. In an interesting turn of events, Hunter Carson the kid who played David Gardner was actually acting next to his mom, actress Karen Black, who plays the nurse in the film. It’s interesting to see them acting side by side. And speaking about the acting, I’d say it’s Louise Fletcher the actress who plays Mrs. McKeltch, the evil teacher whom the Martians take control of, that steals the show, she plays a memorable villain here.


Ultimately, what we get with Tobe Hooper’s Invaders from Mars is a loving homage to the original. This was one of Tobe Hooper’s favorite films, he says that the original film burned holes in his memory. This was obviously a film that made an impression on him when he was a child. What Hooper did with this remake was recreate some of the images that the original director William Cameron Menzies had created in the original film, by using the original film as a very definite foundation, but embellishing the classic imagery, making  it bigger, flashier. Hooper took the classic film and amplified it. I’d say he achieved this quite well because the remake feels familiar, yet more spectacular in a lot of ways. It’s certainly flashier and louder than the original; the visual and make up effects were obviously improved upon. It was Stan Winston’s intention to create aliens that didn’t feel like a man in a suit. The design of the aliens surpasses anything we saw in the original film by leaps and bounds. So this film comes to us from a crew of people who really loved the original film and wanted to pay their respects to it by keeping what worked so well in the original, while improving the effects and visuals, that makes it, in my book an excellent remake.

Rating: 4 out of 5

Tobe Hooper (extreme left) on the set of Invaders from Mars (1986)


Monday, October 24, 2011

Trilogy of Terror (1975)


Title: Trilogy of Terror (1975)

Director: Dan Curtis

Cast: Karen Black, Karen Black, Karen Black, Karen Black and Robert Burton

Review:

Dan Curtis was the kind of director who loved haunted houses, and vampires and ghosts. He was best at making movies that employed old horror movie tropes like haunted houses, stormy nights, cobwebs, cold spots, cemeteries, thunder and lightning, black cats, the wind howling in the middle of the night…you know, all the horror clichés. I’ve seen a couple of his films and they all have these elements in one form of another. Something else that distinguishes a Dan Curtis film is his love for working on television. Though he did manage to make some theatrically released films, the bulk of his work was for television. But let me tell you, the guy pushed the envelope as far as horror television went. He was responsible for the Dark Shadows television show, plus a couple of Anthology television films like the film I’ll be reviewing today: Trilogy of Terror.


Trilogy of Terror tells three stories; each story is named after the female character that is the lead of the story. Interesting part about this film is that all the female leads in all three of the stories were played by Karen Black herself. The first story is called ‘Julie’ and this is the story of a university professor who suddenly finds herself dealing with a student that is head over heals attracted to her. And not just in a “gee your so cute” kind of way, this guy wants to go all the way! So he takes her out on a date and drugs her so he can do just that! How will Julie take all this? The second story is called Millicent and Therese and this one is about two sisters, one is a reserved religious type always trying to be in her best behavior; this is Millicent. And then we have Therese, the wild and obscene one. Who will win this battle of sibling rivalry? Finally, we have the last story called ‘Amelia’ and this is the story of a young girl who lives on her own, trying to be her own person and all that. One day she decides to buy a doll called a “Zuni Fetish Doll”. To her the doll is nothing more than an interesting little curiosity she bought. Along with the doll comes a scroll that warns buyers that the golden chain hanging on the doll entraps the spirit of a Zuni hunter, if the chain should fall, the spirit of the killer warrior will be released. Too bad for Amelia she accidently drops the golden chain from the doll! Is the warning on the chain nothing more than a silly superstition? Can Amelia survive fighting against a killer voodoo doll?


Made for television horror movies survive through time but only if they are good, and only if they are memorable. I’m talking about films like Salem’s Lot (1979), Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark (1973), Dead of Night (1977) and Someone’s Watching Me! (1978). These horror themed television movies proliferarted during the 70’s, today the mini-series is a lot more popular, but back in the 70’s, a lot of these made for television horror films were made; and Dan Curtis was king of making these made for television horror movies. And most of the time they were actually really good. Trilogy of Terror is his most recognized one, but he also did films like Curse of the Black Widow (1977) a couple of Dark Shadows television films (plus many episodes of the television show) and a science fiction film called Intruders (1992) which I’m dying to see. But his contributions to horror didn’t stop in the world of television, he also branched out into theatrical releases with films like Burnt Offerings (1976), House of Dark Shadows (1970) and Night of Dark Shadows (1971). I think it’s safe to say that Curtis was an important director within the horror genre, and one whose filmology I’ve enjoyed exploring. He also made films that had nothing to do with horror, but horror was definitely his main thing. He often times collaborated with horror legend Richard Matheson, the screenwriter behind most of Curtis’s films including Trilogy of Terror. Tim Burton is currently working on a film version of Dark Shadows; let’s hope that it’s a return to form for Tim Burton who has been slacking lately in the quality department.


Karen Black is an actress that Curtis loved working with; he used her in many of his films. But it was Trilogy of Terror that got the most recognition for her because she plays all the female roles in the film. Mrs. Black carried this film on her shoulders and did a fine job at it. One of the episodes has her playing twin sisters, one all mousy and conservative, the other all wild and sexy, she shows her range as an actress there. In all these anthology films there is always one story that grabs everyone’s attention and it’s usually the one that’s saved for last because as they say “all good things are saved for last”. In Trilogy of Terror that segment is the one entitled ‘Amelia’ in which Karen Black must do battle with an African Voodoo doll that is possessed by the spirit of a murderous warrior. I agree with everyone in saying that this is definitely the best segment of the film. It moves pretty fast and the camera work is kinetic. I couldn’t help feeling like this Zuni Fetish Doll was Chucky’s granddaddy. Seriously, the story is so freaking similar to Child’s Play (1988)! In fact, I’ll go down and say that when Don Mancini and Tom Holland sat down to write Child’s Play all they did was expand on the ideas presented in this little segment of Trilogy of Terror. Hell, even the ending is extremely similar. Watch this little segment and be the judge of that.


Still Trilogy of Terror has its own surprises in store, and like many of these anthology films, all three stories end with a twist and a shock, functioning in many ways like an old Tales from the Crypt comic book. Trilogy of Terror was a fun movie to watch. The dvd has some interesting special features, a very special feature is one in which they interview Richard Matheson. If you’re into horror history, then you should find listening to one of the greatest horror writers ever, fascinating to say the least. I strongly suggest checking out that interview. My exploration of Dan Curtis’s filmology continues next week when I will be reviewing Dead of Night (1977) another creepy anthology film from Curtis. Be on the look out for that!

Rating: 3 1/2 out of 5    

   

Thursday, October 20, 2011

Burnt Offerings (1976)


Title: Burnt Offerings (1976)

Director: Dan Curtis

Cast: Oliver Reed, Karen Black, Bette Davis, Burgess Meredith,

Review:

While watching Burnt Offerings, I couldn’t help noticing the similarities with a few horror films that came before and after it and how influential this film was in the horror world. Burnt Offerings is a horror film that was made with the intention of making a horror film that gave a lot of importance to characterization, Dan Curtis, this films director (and genre veteran) set out to make a film entirely carried by performances. I thought it was interesting how it is a supernatural thriller yet it never once uses visual effects, supernatural beings and ghosts are invisible to our eyes, but you definitely get the vibe that they are there. In this sense it reminded me of Robert Wise’s The Haunting (1963) because we never really see a ghost or anything, the dread all comes from our imaginations and the mood set by the filmmakers and actors.


 In Burnt Offerings we meet the Rolf family, a family that’s looking forward to a beautiful summer vacation in the country. You see the Rolf’s have rented a mansion for the summer and apparently, it’s a real steal! For a mere 900$ they can have the house all to themselves for the whole summer! But of course there’s just one small catch: they have to take care of an old lady that lives alone in one of the rooms in the house. According to the owners of the house, they won’t even know she is there. All they have to do is take a tray of food up to her once a day. That’s it. And that they do. I guess they figure that for that price, and this house, taking food to an old lady really isn’t much of a sacrifice. Problem is that once they settle in, they realize that something is awfully wrong with this house. Small incidents begin to occur that start pulling the family apart. Is some evil invisible force making all these bad things happen? Why is everyone in such a dreadful mood all the time?


 So this is the kind of film in which a home is given human traits, characters talk about the house being “evil”, same way characters talked about the house in Wise’s The Haunting. In fact, same as The Haunting, characters get obsessed with the house, they want to be in it all the time, stay in it, characters get the feeling that this house is their destiny. Or is it? So the film that Burnt Offerings is most similar to is Wise’s The Haunting. It has that same ‘evil house’ vibe going for it, we never see any ghosts or evil spirits but the negative vibes let us know they are there. Sometimes it feels as if The Haunting was the blue print for every other haunted house film ever made. But Burnt Offerings isn’t built on influences alone, Burnt Offerings itself served as inspiration for films that came after it. For example, I also think that Burnt Offering’s influenced The Amityville Horror (1979) with this idea of having a haunted house destroy the family unit by having little evil incidents happen that pull them apart.


 I also caught similarities with Don Coscarelli’s Phantasm (1979). You see, in Burnt Offerings Oliver Reed’s character has these recurrent hallucinations and dreams of a hearse driving up to the house, and a mysterious, tall, skinny undertaker carrying a coffin around. Immediately I thought of the infamous ‘Tall Man’ from the Phantasm films. But the similarities don’t stop there, this film was actually filmed in the same mansion that they shot Phantasm! So on Burnt Offerings you will get these weird flashbacks of the ‘Morning Side Mortuary’ seen in Phantasm. One scene has the woods coming alive and attacking Oliver Reed same as in the Evil Dead films! So yeah, I would definitely say that Burnt Offerings was a very influential film, obviously it made quite an impression on a good deal of filmmakers.

 But is it a good horror film? Well, yeah, but only if you can take extremely slow paced movies. I myself enjoy a good slow burner, but I recognize many viewers will probably end up thinking that this movie is just too slow and that “nothing happens”. But that’s only because this is a film that focuses more on characterization than on special effects. The strength of this film lies on its cast, I mean I always considered Oliver Reed to be such a solid actor, he really adds weight to his performances, always bringing that special brand of Oliver Reed intensity to his characters. Karen Black is on this one and she was the scream queen of her day, in fact, to this day she still appears in horror films. If you guys remember, a couple of years ago she played Mother Firefly in Rob Zombie’s House of a 1000 Corpses (2003), so horror is in this actress’s blood! She’d worked with director Dan Curtis before in Trilogy of Terror (1975), a film that got her some big time recognition especially when we consider that she played four characters in that film! Burnt Offerings reunited her with director Dan Curtis and it was a successful reunion in my opinion, once again Mrs. Black gets the juiciest role in the film. Interesting tid bit of info: Karen Black was four months pregnant while filming Burnt Offerings. At times you can notice her belly in some shots, but most of the time they hid it with wardrobe tricks. Even curiouser: she ended up acting in Tobe Hooper’s Invaders from Mars (1986) with the baby that was in her belly while filming Burnt Offerings! That’s right, she ended up making a horror film with her own son!  


 Another plus on this films cast is veteran actress Bette Davis who plays the grandmother. Horror fans might remember her from such horror classics as What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962) and The Nanny (1965). Burnt Offerings plays a lot with themes of being old and having to accept the fact that age is taking its toll and that time does not pass in vain. Davis has a wonderful moment where she begins to doubt her sanity and starts asking “I wouldn’t forget something like that now would I?” It made me think about how we are all going to be in that position someday, loosing our marbles, scared of the fact that death is literally knocking at our door. And speaking of death knocking at the door, the film has a wonderfully poetic moment dealing with that phrase. And another old timer that adds to the film is Burgess Meredith’s performance as ‘Brother’, one of the owners of the mysterious house. I wasn’t aware of it, but Bergess Meredith appeared as a creepy old man in a couple of horror films, last I saw him was in The Sentinel (1977), which I reviewed a couple of days ago. On Burnt Offerings he is the owner of the house, and he knows exactly what he is getting these new tenants into. A strange and eerie sort of vibe comes from his performance, quite effective.

Bette Davis (front) and Karen Black

 So, all in all, this was a creepy haunted house flick. It’s not as exciting as others I have seen, but still quite good. If you don’t go in expecting to see lot of special effects or anything and if you go in knowing that it’s a slow burner relying on characterization more than anything, you should find yourself enjoying a creepy haunted house flick. This one comes to us from director Dan Curtis a genre veteran who was responsible for many a horror flick. He was the guy behind a lot of episodes from the vampire soap opera ‘Dark Shadows’ that ran during the 70’s and a couple of successful made for television horror films like the aforementioned Trilogy of Terror and it’s sequel Trilogy of Terror II (1996). Obviously, this was a director who enjoyed the good ole horror anthology film! He directed quite a few of these in his day, another memorable one is Dead of Night (1977), which I will be reviewing soon. Curtis was the kind of director who loved old school troupes like cobwebs, giant grandfather clocks sounding off at midnight, old dark houses and stormy nights. He brought all this horror movie knowledge and love to his films, Burnt Offerings being one f them. If you like old school, slow burners with solid performances and characterizations, Burnt Offerings is the haunted house film for you. Stick all the way to the end for a shocker of an ending!

Rating: 3 ½ out of 5    

Poster in spanish. The title translates to 'Diabolical Nightmare'

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails