Still wrapping up the horror movie reviews from October... Now we come to the third in director/writer/producer George Romero's zombie trilogy, Day of the Dead. The first two (Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead, which I reviewed here) are among my favorite scary movies of all time, but I'd never seen this one before. Did it hold up compared to the first two?
Not quite, although it's by no means a terrible movie. Where Night takes place the first evening of the zombie infestation, and Dawn a few weeks into it, as society is crumbling, Day takes place several months later, when society is long gone and most of humanity is dead. This one is set in Florida--an odd choice, since the first two take place around Romero's hometown of Pittsburgh. And except for a few scenes at the beginning in a nearby town, we don't even see much of Florida, because nearly the entire running length of the film is set in a miles-long underground cavern where various government records are stored.
The heroine is Dr. Sarah Bowman, one of a team of about half a dozen scientists working on a cure for the zombie infestation. There's also another a similar number of soldiers in the cavern, there ostensibly to protect the scientists but actually at odds with them under their petty-tyrannical leader, Captain Rhodes.
The head scientist, Dr. Logan, thinks he's close to a breakthrough. He's figured out the zombies can learn, and has even trained one zombie, Bub, to respond to voice commands and listen to music through headphones (!). He keeps his experimental zombie subjects in a fenced-off portion of the cavern, and also runs a disgusting lab where he's generally elbow-deep in blood and innards, trying to figure out how those zombies work.
However, Captain Rhodes thinks it's all a waste of time, and the scientists and their dumb experiments a waste of resources. It's not long before the camps led by Captain Rhodes and Dr. Logan are in open conflict, with that zombie pen just waiting to be opened....
Unfortunately, the monotony of the cavern setting and the reliance on melodramatic yelling matches between the members of the two groups to advance the plot mean this one drags at parts. On the other hand, it has by far the best gore and special effects--make-up artist Tom Savini won a Saturn Award for his work on Day of the Dead, and the awesomely disgusting zombies are still among the best work ever done in horror. This one's not for everyone, but if you like zombies and have a strong stomach (the gore dial here is really turned to the maximum), it's not a bad way to pass an evening.
Day of the Dead (1985)
Story/Plot/Characters--I don't think you'd say it was Shakespearean or anything, but the Dead movies prior to this one at least had better acting than your typical horror flick. Not here. Decent premise but plot's a little thin. Characters not totally stereotypical but not real well-rounded either. Better than most low-budget horrors but feels perfunctory after the horror magnificence of the first two movies. (1.5 points)
Special Effects--Superb. Best zombie make-up and prosthetics ever, awesome gore. (2 points)
Scariness--Relies too much on gore and melodrama to be really scary, but definitely has its moments. (1 point)
Atmosphere/Freakiness--Dr. Logan's zombie lab and the zombie pen definitely give this a freaky vibe. A half point off for the endless samey-ness of the caverns, though. (1.5 points)
Total=6 points (Pretty Good)
______________________________________________________________________________
Here's the master list of horror movies I've rated so far. (Click the title for a link to a review of the movie.)
Excellent
Alien (1979)=10 points
Dawn of the Dead (1978)=9.5 points
Bride of Frankenstein (1935)=8.5 points
A Quiet Place (2018)=8.5 points
Frankenstein (1931)=8 points
King Kong (1933)=8 points
Village of the Damned (1960)=8 points
Night of the Living Dead (1968)=7.5 points
Carrie (1976)=7.5 points
The Haunting (1963)=7.5 points
Jaws (1975)=7 points
Pretty Good
Witch: A New England Folktale (2015)=6.5 points
Aliens (1986)=6.5 points
The Birds (1963)=6.5 points
Carnival of Souls (1962)=6.5 points
Night Creatures (1962)=6.5 points
Phantom of the Opera (1962)=6.5 points
The Thing (1982)=6 points
Tales of Terror (1962)=6 points
Day of the Dead (1985)=6 points
Okay
The Raven (1963)=5.5 points
The House on Haunted Hill (1959)=5 points
Gremlins (1984)=5 points
Lady Frankenstein (1971)=4.5 points
Man-Thing (2005)=4 points
Creature From the Black Lagoon (1954)=3.5 points
Avoid
Alien 3 (1992)=3 points
The House of Wax (1953)=3 points
The Wolf Man (1941)=3 points
The Last Man on Earth (1964)=2 points
Wednesday, November 14, 2018
Friday, November 9, 2018
What I'm Reading: Stories of Daily Life From the Roman World
Stories of Daily Life From the Roman World: Extracts From the Ancient Colloquia, translated and with commentary by Eleanor Dickey, is not precisely what I was expecting, although it was close enough.
What I was expecting was stories from different sources of everyday life in Rome presented in something of a comprehensive manner. The problem was I didn't understand the term colloquia in this context. It turns out the Colloquia are a collection of texts from antiquity that Romans, especially children, used to learn Greek. They're essentially dual-reading texts, presenting common everyday situations (attending school, going to the baths, eating dinner) with one side written in Latin and the other in Greek. The Roman could read the Latin side that he understood and compare to the Greek side to learn the vocabulary used in different situations. It's maybe a little different than a modern-day foreign language textbook, but the same idea.
The reason they're valuable to scholars today is because they describe situations that don't usually come up in ancient literature. How exactly did Romans behave in court, or go to bed, or conduct a transaction at the bank or the market? Because these things were so common and mundane, Plutarch or Cicero, say, never bothered to address them.
Two parts really stood out as interesting to me. The first is the chapter on going to the baths. Because public bathing is foreign to Americans today (but not to Scandinavians or Russians, with their saunas in winter), it was fun to find out about the different rooms for exercising or rinsing, or the way the way they would cover themselves in olive oil and then take the oil off with a scraping instrument called a strigil. Of course I'd heard about the Roman public baths before, but I didn't realize that everybody in Rome bathed nearly every day--even slaves. The rich might have had their fancy bathhouses and the poor cheaper ones, but there was a place for everyone to keep clean.
The other part is slaves. Many scenes in the book describe vocabulary or phrases for ordering slaves to cook your meal, or help you dress, or carry your items while you shop. I suppose those who were rich enough to study a foreign language were also rich enough to own slaves, so slave-owning was perhaps not as widespread as the scenes in the book would lead one to believe. Nevertheless, for a significant portion of the population, dealing with slaves was an everyday matter. (Parts of Xenophon's Conversations of Socrates, which I read last year, also dealt with this topic.)
Dickey has supplemented her translations of the colloquia with her own explanations of the text to fill in the blanks, and has added some well-selected pictures to give us an idea. However, due to the fragmented nature of the colloquia, there are lots of aspects of Roman daily life I might have liked to read about but that didn't come up--religion in daily life, for instance, or the interaction between parents and children. Still, there was a lot of good information here and I would recommend this book to anyone interested in how ancient people really lived.
What I was expecting was stories from different sources of everyday life in Rome presented in something of a comprehensive manner. The problem was I didn't understand the term colloquia in this context. It turns out the Colloquia are a collection of texts from antiquity that Romans, especially children, used to learn Greek. They're essentially dual-reading texts, presenting common everyday situations (attending school, going to the baths, eating dinner) with one side written in Latin and the other in Greek. The Roman could read the Latin side that he understood and compare to the Greek side to learn the vocabulary used in different situations. It's maybe a little different than a modern-day foreign language textbook, but the same idea.
The reason they're valuable to scholars today is because they describe situations that don't usually come up in ancient literature. How exactly did Romans behave in court, or go to bed, or conduct a transaction at the bank or the market? Because these things were so common and mundane, Plutarch or Cicero, say, never bothered to address them.
Two parts really stood out as interesting to me. The first is the chapter on going to the baths. Because public bathing is foreign to Americans today (but not to Scandinavians or Russians, with their saunas in winter), it was fun to find out about the different rooms for exercising or rinsing, or the way the way they would cover themselves in olive oil and then take the oil off with a scraping instrument called a strigil. Of course I'd heard about the Roman public baths before, but I didn't realize that everybody in Rome bathed nearly every day--even slaves. The rich might have had their fancy bathhouses and the poor cheaper ones, but there was a place for everyone to keep clean.
The other part is slaves. Many scenes in the book describe vocabulary or phrases for ordering slaves to cook your meal, or help you dress, or carry your items while you shop. I suppose those who were rich enough to study a foreign language were also rich enough to own slaves, so slave-owning was perhaps not as widespread as the scenes in the book would lead one to believe. Nevertheless, for a significant portion of the population, dealing with slaves was an everyday matter. (Parts of Xenophon's Conversations of Socrates, which I read last year, also dealt with this topic.)
Dickey has supplemented her translations of the colloquia with her own explanations of the text to fill in the blanks, and has added some well-selected pictures to give us an idea. However, due to the fragmented nature of the colloquia, there are lots of aspects of Roman daily life I might have liked to read about but that didn't come up--religion in daily life, for instance, or the interaction between parents and children. Still, there was a lot of good information here and I would recommend this book to anyone interested in how ancient people really lived.
Friday, November 2, 2018
Scary Movies: The Haunting
Ach! Behind by three scary movies! Okay, last time I promised I would review a bad one and a good one, and I did the bad one. This time, we'll do a good one, The Haunting, directed by Robert Wise in 1963. This was remade just this year, and the reviews are terrible. I think I'll stick with the older version.
You see so many b-movies when you're a horror fan, it's refreshing every once in a while to see a movie that actually had a budget, A-list actors, and a real director (the film Wise directed just before this was West Side Story, and the one right afterwards was The Sound of Music--although he also directed The Day the Earth Stood Still and Star Trek: The Motion Picture, so this may not have been as big a departure for him as it appears at first).
The plot, based on a short story by Shirley Jackson, is pretty simple. Dr. John Markway is a paranormal researcher, and Hill House in rural Massachusetts has the reputation of being the most haunted house in New England. He decides to spend a week investigating the house, and invites several guests who have past experiences with supernatural phenomena, although only two arrive--including Theodora, a psychic who can sometimes read minds, and Eleanor, who had a run-in with a poltergeist as a child-- as well as Luke Sanderson, the nephew of the house's owner, who stands to inherit the place and is completely skeptical.
I don't suppose it's a surprise to learn that bizarre things start happening almost immediately. Does Luke Sanderson become a true believer in ghosts? Does Dr. Markway get material for his research? Do any of the characters have secrets that come out in the course of the film? I don't think I'm giving anything away by saying the answer is yes to all three of those.
I will say, unlike many other movies of this era, the movie doesn't cheat by trying to explain away the various ghostly events at the end. It is also genuinely scary, or at least creepy. My daughter (age 9) watched it with me and though there's no gore, or really anything inappropriate for a kid, she said she might have trouble going to sleep that night. I can't blame her--the scares in this movie are really effective.
The Haunting (1963)
Story/Plot/Characters--Great script, great acting, great pacing. I might have wanted a little more development of the characters. Theodora seems really fascinating but we hardly learn anything about her, and Luke Sanderson is two-dimensional. But that's quibbling--Eleanor is well-rounded, and Dr. Markway turns out to have some surprises. (3 points)
Special Effects--Not really a special effects movie, but what's used is done well. (1 point)
Scariness--It's a little hard to pinpoint what's so effective here, because not a whole lot actually happens--strange noises, things moved around when people aren't looking, but it's all done so well that the suspense builds throughout the film. Very scary for a movie from 1963. (1.5 points)
Atmosphere/Freakiness--This is almost the definition of atmospheric-- a haunted house in a rural New England setting. (2 points)
Total=7.5 points (Excellent)
______________________________________________________________________________
Here's the master list of horror movies I've rated so far. (Click the title for a link to a review of the movie.)
Excellent
Alien (1979)=10 points
Dawn of the Dead (1978)=9.5 points
Bride of Frankenstein (1935)=8.5 points
A Quiet Place (2018)=8.5 points
Frankenstein (1931)=8 points
King Kong (1933)=8 points
Village of the Damned (1960)=8 points
Night of the Living Dead (1968)=7.5 points
Carrie (1976)=7.5 points
The Haunting (1963)=7.5 points
Jaws (1975)=7 points
Pretty Good
Witch: A New England Folktale (2015)=6.5 points
Aliens (1986)=6.5 points
The Birds (1963)=6.5 points
Carnival of Souls (1962)=6.5 points
Night Creatures (1962)=6.5 points
Phantom of the Opera (1962)=6.5 points
The Thing (1982)=6 points
Tales of Terror (1962)=6 points
Okay
The Raven (1963)=5.5 points
The House on Haunted Hill (1959)=5 points
Gremlins (1984)=5 points
Lady Frankenstein (1971)=4.5 points
Man-Thing (2005)=4 points
Creature From the Black Lagoon (1954)=3.5 points
Avoid
Alien 3 (1992)=3 points
The House of Wax (1953)=3 points
The Wolf Man (1941)=3 points
The Last Man on Earth (1964)=2 points
You see so many b-movies when you're a horror fan, it's refreshing every once in a while to see a movie that actually had a budget, A-list actors, and a real director (the film Wise directed just before this was West Side Story, and the one right afterwards was The Sound of Music--although he also directed The Day the Earth Stood Still and Star Trek: The Motion Picture, so this may not have been as big a departure for him as it appears at first).
The plot, based on a short story by Shirley Jackson, is pretty simple. Dr. John Markway is a paranormal researcher, and Hill House in rural Massachusetts has the reputation of being the most haunted house in New England. He decides to spend a week investigating the house, and invites several guests who have past experiences with supernatural phenomena, although only two arrive--including Theodora, a psychic who can sometimes read minds, and Eleanor, who had a run-in with a poltergeist as a child-- as well as Luke Sanderson, the nephew of the house's owner, who stands to inherit the place and is completely skeptical.
I don't suppose it's a surprise to learn that bizarre things start happening almost immediately. Does Luke Sanderson become a true believer in ghosts? Does Dr. Markway get material for his research? Do any of the characters have secrets that come out in the course of the film? I don't think I'm giving anything away by saying the answer is yes to all three of those.
I will say, unlike many other movies of this era, the movie doesn't cheat by trying to explain away the various ghostly events at the end. It is also genuinely scary, or at least creepy. My daughter (age 9) watched it with me and though there's no gore, or really anything inappropriate for a kid, she said she might have trouble going to sleep that night. I can't blame her--the scares in this movie are really effective.
The Haunting (1963)
Story/Plot/Characters--Great script, great acting, great pacing. I might have wanted a little more development of the characters. Theodora seems really fascinating but we hardly learn anything about her, and Luke Sanderson is two-dimensional. But that's quibbling--Eleanor is well-rounded, and Dr. Markway turns out to have some surprises. (3 points)
Special Effects--Not really a special effects movie, but what's used is done well. (1 point)
Scariness--It's a little hard to pinpoint what's so effective here, because not a whole lot actually happens--strange noises, things moved around when people aren't looking, but it's all done so well that the suspense builds throughout the film. Very scary for a movie from 1963. (1.5 points)
Atmosphere/Freakiness--This is almost the definition of atmospheric-- a haunted house in a rural New England setting. (2 points)
Total=7.5 points (Excellent)
______________________________________________________________________________
Here's the master list of horror movies I've rated so far. (Click the title for a link to a review of the movie.)
Excellent
Alien (1979)=10 points
Dawn of the Dead (1978)=9.5 points
Bride of Frankenstein (1935)=8.5 points
A Quiet Place (2018)=8.5 points
Frankenstein (1931)=8 points
King Kong (1933)=8 points
Village of the Damned (1960)=8 points
Night of the Living Dead (1968)=7.5 points
Carrie (1976)=7.5 points
The Haunting (1963)=7.5 points
Jaws (1975)=7 points
Pretty Good
Witch: A New England Folktale (2015)=6.5 points
Aliens (1986)=6.5 points
The Birds (1963)=6.5 points
Carnival of Souls (1962)=6.5 points
Night Creatures (1962)=6.5 points
Phantom of the Opera (1962)=6.5 points
The Thing (1982)=6 points
Tales of Terror (1962)=6 points
Okay
The Raven (1963)=5.5 points
The House on Haunted Hill (1959)=5 points
Gremlins (1984)=5 points
Lady Frankenstein (1971)=4.5 points
Man-Thing (2005)=4 points
Creature From the Black Lagoon (1954)=3.5 points
Avoid
Alien 3 (1992)=3 points
The House of Wax (1953)=3 points
The Wolf Man (1941)=3 points
The Last Man on Earth (1964)=2 points
Wednesday, October 24, 2018
Scary Movies: House of Wax
As usual in October, I'm running a little behind on my horror movie reviews! Okay, we've seen a good one and a bad one in the past couple weeks. Let's start with the bad one!
The House of Wax stars Vincent Price as Dr. Henry Jarrod, a sculptor who creates wax figures for a wax museum in New York. Dr. Jarrod is a real artist and creates sensitive representations of historical figures such as his masterpiece, Marie Antoinette. But his partner is a hard-nosed businessman, and wants Dr. Jarrod to sculpt figures from crime scenes, like the public wants. When Dr. Jarrod refuses, his partner burns down the museum for the insurance money. Dr. Jarrod seems to die in the fire as well.
A year later, a new wax museum opens up across town. The owner has badly burned hands and is confined to a wheelchair, but he is a genius at designing wax figures with the help of his assistant, Igor (played by Charles Bronson!). Around the same time the museum opens, Dr. Jarrod's former partner disappears, while a wax figure that looks a lot like him appears in the new museum. Soon after, the partner's girlfriend also disappears, while a Joan of Arc wax figure who could be her double becomes the museum's new hit exhibit. Can you guess the secret of these new wax figures, or who the proprietor of the new museum really is?
I bet you can guess from the very first minute. This was not a subtle movie, and it has a number of weaknesses. First, apparently at it's original showing in 1953, the movie was displayed in 3-D, and there are at least two long scenes in the movie that have little to do with the plot but must have been meant to demonstrate the 3-D technology. One of these, of an annoying man with a grating schtick and playing with a paddleball to advertise the opening of the museum, goes on for at least five minutes and is really unbearable. But these scenes are just indicative--practically every element of the movie screams amateurishness. Not like a low-budget B movie where the people involved have passion but no idea what they were doing--this was Warner Bros. Production values are perfectly adequate, it's just a film where nobody cared or gave much effort.
The main exception is Vincent Price, whose performance as both the sensitive Dr. Jarrod, and later the deformed and revenge-crazed proprietor of the new wax museum, is really superb. In fact, Vincent Price is the only thing that makes this movie watchable. At the time, this movie established his reputation as a master of horror.
There are also a couple effective scenes--the shots of the wax figures melting in the fire, with Dr. Jarrod trying in vain to put out the flames destroying his beloved Marie Antoinette, are really done well. Later on, a scene of the deformed man chasing a woman through the streets of New York is pretty spooky, so long as you don't stop to wonder why multiple streets in SoHo have absolutely no pedestrians or trafffic. (I've been in NYC in the middle of the night--there are people out even at 3AM!)
In the end, though, I can't really recommend this movie, unless you have a special love for Vincent Price. Even then, you'd be far better off watching, say, one of the Edgar Allen Poe movies he did with director Roger Corman, or practically any of the dozens of other horror movies he starred in.
The House of Wax (1953)
Story/Plot/Characters--Dull script with merely functional dialogue. Insipid characters. Story was a potentially interesting mystery, but all the mysterious aspects were fumbled. Inclusion of pointless, time-wasting scenes. Vincent Price's acting is the only saving grace here. (1 point)
Special Effects-- Great make-up job on Vincent Price after the fire, and the fire in the wax museum was well done. (1 point)
Scariness--Not scary. My nine-year-old daughter watched this with no problems. (0 points)
Atmosphere/Freakiness--Some nice spooky atmosphere in the wax museum at night, and the New York night scenes. Some surprisingly freaky bondage-type stuff in the finale, as the endangered young lady is about to have boiling wax poured over her writhing handcuffed body. (1 point)
Total=3 points (Avoid)
______________________________________________________________________________
Here's the master list of horror movies I've rated so far. (Click the title for a link to a review of the movie.)
Excellent
Alien (1979)=10 points
Dawn of the Dead (1978)=9.5 points
Bride of Frankenstein (1935)=8.5 points
A Quiet Place (2018)=8.5 points
Frankenstein (1931)=8 points
King Kong (1933)=8 points
Village of the Damned (1960)=8 points
Night of the Living Dead (1968)=7.5 points
Carrie (1976)=7.5 points
Jaws (1975)=7 points
Pretty Good
Witch: A New England Folktale (2015)=6.5 points
Aliens (1986)=6.5 points
The Birds (1963)=6.5 points
Carnival of Souls (1962)=6.5 points
Night Creatures (1962)=6.5 points
Phantom of the Opera (1962)=6.5 points
The Thing (1982)=6 points
Tales of Terror (1962)=6 points
Okay
The Raven (1963)=5.5 points
The House on Haunted Hill (1959)=5 points
Gremlins (1984)=5 points
Lady Frankenstein (1971)=4.5 points
Man-Thing (2005)=4 points
Creature From the Black Lagoon (1954)=3.5 points
Avoid
Alien 3 (1992)=3 points
The House of Wax (1953)=3 points
The Wolf Man (1941)=3 points
The Last Man on Earth (1964)=2 points
The House of Wax stars Vincent Price as Dr. Henry Jarrod, a sculptor who creates wax figures for a wax museum in New York. Dr. Jarrod is a real artist and creates sensitive representations of historical figures such as his masterpiece, Marie Antoinette. But his partner is a hard-nosed businessman, and wants Dr. Jarrod to sculpt figures from crime scenes, like the public wants. When Dr. Jarrod refuses, his partner burns down the museum for the insurance money. Dr. Jarrod seems to die in the fire as well.
A year later, a new wax museum opens up across town. The owner has badly burned hands and is confined to a wheelchair, but he is a genius at designing wax figures with the help of his assistant, Igor (played by Charles Bronson!). Around the same time the museum opens, Dr. Jarrod's former partner disappears, while a wax figure that looks a lot like him appears in the new museum. Soon after, the partner's girlfriend also disappears, while a Joan of Arc wax figure who could be her double becomes the museum's new hit exhibit. Can you guess the secret of these new wax figures, or who the proprietor of the new museum really is?
I bet you can guess from the very first minute. This was not a subtle movie, and it has a number of weaknesses. First, apparently at it's original showing in 1953, the movie was displayed in 3-D, and there are at least two long scenes in the movie that have little to do with the plot but must have been meant to demonstrate the 3-D technology. One of these, of an annoying man with a grating schtick and playing with a paddleball to advertise the opening of the museum, goes on for at least five minutes and is really unbearable. But these scenes are just indicative--practically every element of the movie screams amateurishness. Not like a low-budget B movie where the people involved have passion but no idea what they were doing--this was Warner Bros. Production values are perfectly adequate, it's just a film where nobody cared or gave much effort.
The main exception is Vincent Price, whose performance as both the sensitive Dr. Jarrod, and later the deformed and revenge-crazed proprietor of the new wax museum, is really superb. In fact, Vincent Price is the only thing that makes this movie watchable. At the time, this movie established his reputation as a master of horror.
There are also a couple effective scenes--the shots of the wax figures melting in the fire, with Dr. Jarrod trying in vain to put out the flames destroying his beloved Marie Antoinette, are really done well. Later on, a scene of the deformed man chasing a woman through the streets of New York is pretty spooky, so long as you don't stop to wonder why multiple streets in SoHo have absolutely no pedestrians or trafffic. (I've been in NYC in the middle of the night--there are people out even at 3AM!)
In the end, though, I can't really recommend this movie, unless you have a special love for Vincent Price. Even then, you'd be far better off watching, say, one of the Edgar Allen Poe movies he did with director Roger Corman, or practically any of the dozens of other horror movies he starred in.
The House of Wax (1953)
Story/Plot/Characters--Dull script with merely functional dialogue. Insipid characters. Story was a potentially interesting mystery, but all the mysterious aspects were fumbled. Inclusion of pointless, time-wasting scenes. Vincent Price's acting is the only saving grace here. (1 point)
Special Effects-- Great make-up job on Vincent Price after the fire, and the fire in the wax museum was well done. (1 point)
Scariness--Not scary. My nine-year-old daughter watched this with no problems. (0 points)
Atmosphere/Freakiness--Some nice spooky atmosphere in the wax museum at night, and the New York night scenes. Some surprisingly freaky bondage-type stuff in the finale, as the endangered young lady is about to have boiling wax poured over her writhing handcuffed body. (1 point)
Total=3 points (Avoid)
______________________________________________________________________________
Here's the master list of horror movies I've rated so far. (Click the title for a link to a review of the movie.)
Excellent
Alien (1979)=10 points
Dawn of the Dead (1978)=9.5 points
Bride of Frankenstein (1935)=8.5 points
A Quiet Place (2018)=8.5 points
Frankenstein (1931)=8 points
King Kong (1933)=8 points
Village of the Damned (1960)=8 points
Night of the Living Dead (1968)=7.5 points
Carrie (1976)=7.5 points
Jaws (1975)=7 points
Pretty Good
Witch: A New England Folktale (2015)=6.5 points
Aliens (1986)=6.5 points
The Birds (1963)=6.5 points
Carnival of Souls (1962)=6.5 points
Night Creatures (1962)=6.5 points
Phantom of the Opera (1962)=6.5 points
The Thing (1982)=6 points
Tales of Terror (1962)=6 points
Okay
The Raven (1963)=5.5 points
The House on Haunted Hill (1959)=5 points
Gremlins (1984)=5 points
Lady Frankenstein (1971)=4.5 points
Man-Thing (2005)=4 points
Creature From the Black Lagoon (1954)=3.5 points
Avoid
Alien 3 (1992)=3 points
The House of Wax (1953)=3 points
The Wolf Man (1941)=3 points
The Last Man on Earth (1964)=2 points
Sunday, October 21, 2018
What I'm Reading: A Single Happened Thing
Ack, I'm falling behind! Before I rate some more scary movies, I want to briefly review A Single Happened Thing, by Daniel Paisner. This book follows New York City book publicist David Felb, who has a boring, normal, and kind of disappointing life until one evening at a meaningless late-season Phillies game in Philadelphia. The game happens to have the longest single at bat ever recorded--that's the Single Happened Thing of the title--and somehow that expansion of time, as it were, allows a long-dead player from baseball's distant past to slip through into our time.
The player is Fred "Sure Shot" Dunlap (a real person, by the way), who had one of the greatest seasons in baseball history for the short-lived Union Association League in 1884, was forgotten not long after, and died penniless in 1900. For some reason he takes a liking to David, or at least thinks David can help him, and after a strange encounter at the baseball game, tracks David down to his hotel the next morning, and then meets him again as David takes the train home to New York.
Dunlap disappears after that, but in David's gushing to his wife and family about the bizarre encounter, his wife decides he's delusional and insists he starts seeing a psychiatrist. In fact, Dunlap becomes a wedge in their marriage, as David refuses to back down from the reality of his experience, even as his wife is certain that he could not possibly have met a...what? ghost? Long-dead person resurrected?
However, David's teenage daughter Iona takes his side after a strange man shows up at her softball practice one day and teaches her an unusual side arm throw that makes her the star pitcher of her school league. Who else could the strange man have been but "Sure Shot" Dunlap?
While the baseball forms a framework for the novel, it's in the subtle divisions and alliances of a troubled family that Paisner's novel really resides. It's really beautifully written and pretty fun to read--maybe more so for a baseball fan, but I think any thinking adult would appreciate the careful descriptions of a slowly fraying marriage and the ups and downs of parent-child relationships in light of that. A Single Happened Thing is highly recommended.
The player is Fred "Sure Shot" Dunlap (a real person, by the way), who had one of the greatest seasons in baseball history for the short-lived Union Association League in 1884, was forgotten not long after, and died penniless in 1900. For some reason he takes a liking to David, or at least thinks David can help him, and after a strange encounter at the baseball game, tracks David down to his hotel the next morning, and then meets him again as David takes the train home to New York.
Dunlap disappears after that, but in David's gushing to his wife and family about the bizarre encounter, his wife decides he's delusional and insists he starts seeing a psychiatrist. In fact, Dunlap becomes a wedge in their marriage, as David refuses to back down from the reality of his experience, even as his wife is certain that he could not possibly have met a...what? ghost? Long-dead person resurrected?
However, David's teenage daughter Iona takes his side after a strange man shows up at her softball practice one day and teaches her an unusual side arm throw that makes her the star pitcher of her school league. Who else could the strange man have been but "Sure Shot" Dunlap?
While the baseball forms a framework for the novel, it's in the subtle divisions and alliances of a troubled family that Paisner's novel really resides. It's really beautifully written and pretty fun to read--maybe more so for a baseball fan, but I think any thinking adult would appreciate the careful descriptions of a slowly fraying marriage and the ups and downs of parent-child relationships in light of that. A Single Happened Thing is highly recommended.
Wednesday, October 10, 2018
Scary Movies: The Raven
It's October, and time for the annual Bruner horror movie festival! Our first movie this year is The Raven, the third Roger Corman-directed Edgar Allan Poe movie we've watched (last year I reviewed Tales of Terror and somehow neglected to review The Pit and the Pendulum). It will also probably be the last for a while, because we've now exhausted the Poe movies on our DVD collection.
The Raven is a horror-comedy, starring Vincent Price, Peter Lorre, Boris Karloff (!), and a very young Jack Nicholson (!!). The main character is Dr. Erasmus Craven, a magician of some power who lives a quiet life of drinking warm milk before bed and worrying over his teenage daughter, Estelle. He also mourns his late wife (Estelle's stepmother), Lenore. One evening, a raven taps on the window to his study, and when Dr. Craven lets it in, is surprised to find the raven speaking to him.
The raven is actually Dr. Bedlow, who was transformed into the raven in a wizard's duel with the evil Dr. Scarabus, and has come to Craven for help because they met at a wizard's convention some years back. The restored Dr. Bedlow sees a picture of the late Lenore and tells Dr. Craven he saw her at Scarabus's house that very evening. Bedlow and Craven decide to pay Scarabus a visit--Bedlow wanting revenge for losing the duel, and Craven to find out if Scarabus has somehow imprisoned the spirit of his beloved Lenore. What they find at Scarabus's castle will surprise them both, and viewer as well.
This movie was fun from start to finish, well-paced and never flagging in interest. I can't say the humor was hilarious or the scares were very frightening, but the various wizards' duels, unexpected magical transformations, and double crosses kept my interest and my childrens' as well. We'll rate this at the high end of Okay on the rating scale.
The Raven (1963)
Story/Plot/Characters--Fine acting and a great script with extra points for originality. Characters were somewhat stereotyped, but overall well-done. (3 points)
Special Effects-- Dated, although they must have been something in 1963. (1 point)
Scariness--Well, zero. Not scary at all. As a horror-comedy, maybe I should be rating this on humor, then. A nice jovial atmosphere, but specific jokes were pretty lame--this was no Young Frankenstein. (.5 points)
Atmosphere/Freakiness--Scarabus's castle was pretty cool, with its elaborate, floating fire braziers. (1 point)
Total=5.5 points (Okay)
______________________________________________________________________________
Here's the master list of horror movies I've rated so far. (Click the title for a link to a review of the movie.)
Excellent
Alien (1979)=10 points
Day of the Dead (1978)=9.5 points
Bride of Frankenstein (1935)=8.5 points
A Quiet Place (2018)=8.5 points
Frankenstein (1931)=8 points
King Kong (1933)=8 points
Village of the Damned (1960)=8 points
Night of the Living Dead (1968)=7.5 points
Carrie (1976)=7.5 points
Jaws (1975)=7 points
Pretty Good
Witch: A New England Folktale (2015)=6.5 points
Aliens (1986)=6.5 points
The Birds (1963)=6.5 points
Carnival of Souls (1962)=6.5 points
Night Creatures (1962)=6.5 points
Phantom of the Opera (1962)=6.5 points
The Thing (1982)=6 points
Tales of Terror (1962)=6 points
Okay
The Raven (1963)=5.5 points
The House on Haunted Hill (1959)=5 points
Gremlins (1984)=5 points
Lady Frankenstein (1971)=4.5 points
Man-Thing (2005)=4 points
Creature From the Black Lagoon (1954)=3.5 points
Avoid
Alien 3 (1992)=3 points
The Wolf Man (1941)=3 points
The Last Man on Earth (1964)=2 points
The Raven is a horror-comedy, starring Vincent Price, Peter Lorre, Boris Karloff (!), and a very young Jack Nicholson (!!). The main character is Dr. Erasmus Craven, a magician of some power who lives a quiet life of drinking warm milk before bed and worrying over his teenage daughter, Estelle. He also mourns his late wife (Estelle's stepmother), Lenore. One evening, a raven taps on the window to his study, and when Dr. Craven lets it in, is surprised to find the raven speaking to him.
The raven is actually Dr. Bedlow, who was transformed into the raven in a wizard's duel with the evil Dr. Scarabus, and has come to Craven for help because they met at a wizard's convention some years back. The restored Dr. Bedlow sees a picture of the late Lenore and tells Dr. Craven he saw her at Scarabus's house that very evening. Bedlow and Craven decide to pay Scarabus a visit--Bedlow wanting revenge for losing the duel, and Craven to find out if Scarabus has somehow imprisoned the spirit of his beloved Lenore. What they find at Scarabus's castle will surprise them both, and viewer as well.
This movie was fun from start to finish, well-paced and never flagging in interest. I can't say the humor was hilarious or the scares were very frightening, but the various wizards' duels, unexpected magical transformations, and double crosses kept my interest and my childrens' as well. We'll rate this at the high end of Okay on the rating scale.
The Raven (1963)
Story/Plot/Characters--Fine acting and a great script with extra points for originality. Characters were somewhat stereotyped, but overall well-done. (3 points)
Special Effects-- Dated, although they must have been something in 1963. (1 point)
Scariness--Well, zero. Not scary at all. As a horror-comedy, maybe I should be rating this on humor, then. A nice jovial atmosphere, but specific jokes were pretty lame--this was no Young Frankenstein. (.5 points)
Atmosphere/Freakiness--Scarabus's castle was pretty cool, with its elaborate, floating fire braziers. (1 point)
Total=5.5 points (Okay)
______________________________________________________________________________
Here's the master list of horror movies I've rated so far. (Click the title for a link to a review of the movie.)
Excellent
Alien (1979)=10 points
Day of the Dead (1978)=9.5 points
Bride of Frankenstein (1935)=8.5 points
A Quiet Place (2018)=8.5 points
Frankenstein (1931)=8 points
King Kong (1933)=8 points
Village of the Damned (1960)=8 points
Night of the Living Dead (1968)=7.5 points
Carrie (1976)=7.5 points
Jaws (1975)=7 points
Pretty Good
Witch: A New England Folktale (2015)=6.5 points
Aliens (1986)=6.5 points
The Birds (1963)=6.5 points
Carnival of Souls (1962)=6.5 points
Night Creatures (1962)=6.5 points
Phantom of the Opera (1962)=6.5 points
The Thing (1982)=6 points
Tales of Terror (1962)=6 points
Okay
The Raven (1963)=5.5 points
The House on Haunted Hill (1959)=5 points
Gremlins (1984)=5 points
Lady Frankenstein (1971)=4.5 points
Man-Thing (2005)=4 points
Creature From the Black Lagoon (1954)=3.5 points
Avoid
Alien 3 (1992)=3 points
The Wolf Man (1941)=3 points
The Last Man on Earth (1964)=2 points
Tuesday, October 2, 2018
What I'm Reading: The Mote in God's Eye
Now this is a great science fiction novel, and simultaneously an illustration of the limits of genre fiction. The Mote in God's Eye, by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, succeeds at every level as an SF story. The primary character in a very large cast is Captain Blaine of the Imperial Space Navy, who leads an expedition to the Mote, a remote corner of the galaxy where humans, whose empire spans hundreds of worlds, have detected the first intelligence alien species they've ever encountered.
Upon arrival in the system, the humans encounter the Moties, as they come to be known. The Moties are shorter than humans and furry, but essentially human-like, with some notable biological differences--a large, strong left arm and two slender but dextrous right arms, for example. The Moties have tens of thousands of years of history and incredibly advanced technology, but have never expanded beyond their home planet and moons due to a weird circumstance. In this book, faster-than-light space travel is only possible through wormholes that have a single destination--and the only wormhole in the Motie's system leads straight to the heart of a supernova. Every attempt they've made to explore deep space has ended in disaster.
The Moties are friendly enough, eager to learn about humans, and seemingly open about themselves. Theirs is a peaceful society, although rather caste-bound. Different types of Moties have different jobs--engineers, doctors, farmers--not just by avocation or ability, but because they're actually genetically-engineered for the role. Farmers have thick fingers for dealing with soil but aren't too bright, porters are huge and muscle-bound but positively stupid, doctors have long, delicate fingers for surgery, messengers have well-developed legs for running and an ability to memorize long messages. The ones of most concern to humans are the mediators, who are intelligent and good with languages (they pick up English in a matter of days) but utterly unable to make decisions on their own. It is the mediators, whose job is to settle disputes between conflicting parties, who are responsible for the centuries of peace that have passed on their planet, and also who befriend the human visitors.
Yet the mediators have a reticence to discuss certain topics, and although their world has avoided war for centuries, there are strange holes when they discuss their history. Not that they're covering anything up--but that they don't know. Carefully recorded histories going back millenia, but with gaps they can't explain. It turns out the Moties have a secret--one that will affect their relationship with the human race in an unforeseen way.
Like I said, this is a great science fiction novel, a realistic account of what an encounter between humanity and an intelligent alien species might be like. It's a long book (nearly 600 pages) but fascinating on almost every page, with tons of great details about the Moties, the human ships, space travel, and the nature of the human empire hundreds of years in the future. I heartily recommend it for SF lovers.
But not for anybody else. Because as great as it is as science fiction, it's highly mediocre by the standards of mainstream literature. The writing is professional and effective, but rarely more than functional. Dialogue too is functional, and though a couple characters have stereotypical accents (Scottish, Russian), everybody pretty much speaks the same way. No characters are fully-rounded people, and beyond Captain Blaine and one or two others, most are strictly two-dimensional. A romance between Captain Blaine and a female anthropologist on his ship, Sandra Fowler, is almost comically bad.
So this is no Ray Bradbury or Robert Heinlein, transcending the genre of SF with gorgeous writing and brilliant characters. It's rare to encounter a book that so fully exemplifies the merits of its genre, but without fulfilling any literary aspirations beyond the genre conventions, or even trying to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)