Movie Review: THE INVISIBLE MAN

THE INVISIBLE MAN

1933
Unrated


"The fools wouldn't let me work in peace. I had to teach them a lesson."
-- The Invisible Man

The Invisible Man is a 1933 dramatic horror film directed by James Whale that's based off the 1897 H.G. Wells novel of the same name. It tells the story of Dr. Jack Griffin (Claude Rains) who, through an experiment gone wrong, has found himself completely invisible to the world around him. Wrapped in a slew of bandages, he stumbles upon an old inn one night and barters for a room to stay so that he can work on an experiment to alter the effects and return him to his normal state. After a few weeks, however, the inn's owners decide to throw Griffin out for not paying the money he owes. Enraged, Griffin hurts the inn's owner and unveils himself to the townspeople, running away as quickly as he can, leaving his things behind. He turns to his old friend Dr. Arthur Kemp (William Harrigan), with whom he worked under Dr. Cranley (Henry Travers), for help and partnership. Griffin tells Kemp of his plans to use his invisibility to create a new world order in which he will lead the people through fear. Terrified for his life and for those around him, Kemp notifies Cranley as well as the authorities of Griffin's proximity before he can start his reign of terror.

I've always been quite a fan of the classic films, and although I haven't seen as many of them as I'd like, I think I have a pretty decent grasp on what makes a good classic film in comparison to what makes a bad one. When it comes to the old-time horror flicks, however, I have yet to come across a truly bad one (well, except maybe for 1943's Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man). The fact that I had yet to see The Invisible Man was a bit of a bother for me, considering I've tried to see most of all the old Universal monster movies. I think I still have a couple left, but that list is definitely dwindling down towards its end.

Let's start with the screenplay for this film. While we're not getting anything terribly impressive, there's enough here to like considering the film's relatively short run-time (it goes on for just over an hour). There's a lot of classic horror cliché playing here: a leading character who isn't truly defined as neither protagonist nor antagonist suffers some sort of medical debacle or mystical enchantment that turns him into a beast that the countryside quickly learns to fear. We have our seeming damsel-in-distress who thinks that love will be enough to cure the beast. We have a strong supporting male who plays foil to our undefined lead, and we have an older man who plays a scientist-type who seems to have all the answers. So in that, our characters are created. However, I especially thought that our Invisible Man was rather well-written, with his maniacal ideas about world domination penetrating quite clearly. The storyline itself is basic: man is changed by failed experiment; man wreaks havoc; man is chased by authorities. You can imagine how it's going to end.

I do want to touch on the acting a little bit because I found it to be a level above what we normally see out of classic horror films like this. Rains is spectacular despite the fact that you only see his face for a few seconds towards the end of the film. Most of his time on-screen is spent covered in bandages, and the rest of his performance is purely vocal, but he still manages to bring a strong presence to the screen even when he isn't physically visible. Had the filmmakers chosen to make the character of the Invisible Man completely invisible, rather than have him put on clothes to make a physical appearance, Rains's voice alone would have been able to make the character believable and still rather terrifying. We also get some good performances from Harrigan and Gloria Stuart, who plans Griffin's love interest in the film.

The real icing on the cake, however, is the special effects used to make the Invisible Man come to life, so to speak. After doing some research, I learned that the special effects wizards who created the effect for the film used a primitive version of "green-screen" technology. Rains would wear an all-black, form-fitting suit then be filmed in front of a completely black screen. When the filmmakers went back to substitute the background, they used matte paintings of the sets behind Rains to fill in the spaces. It's so well-done that you'll almost forget that this movie is now seventy-eight years old. It's hard to believe that special effects this fantastic were made all the way back in 1933, but even today, they should be applauded.

Overall, The Invisible Man is a stunning movie that left me wanting more. While I know that a slew of sequels were made, I'm sure none of them could possibly come close to the greatness that this film exhibited. Is it the greatest classic horror film I've yet to see? Not quite - it'd be rather tough to beat out 1935's Bride of Frankenstein. However, it's still one of the better ones you're likely to come across, so if you're into the classic movie fare, definitely give this one a go.

Movie Review Summary
Grade: B+
2 Thumbs Up

Movie Review: THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT

THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT

1972
Unrated

The Last House on the Left is a 1972 horror film that served as the debut feature for Wes Craven, who wrote and directed the movie. On the eve of her seventeenth birthday, Mari Collingwood (Sandra Peabody) chooses to go to a concert with her friend Phyllis (Lucy Grantham). When the two try to score some cheap marijuana, they fall prey to a group of escaped convicts and their accomplices. Led by the sex-crazed Krug (David Hess) and the violence-prone "Weasel" (Fred J. Lincoln), the group kidnaps the girls on their way to the Canadian border. When their car breaks down on the middle of the woods, Krug and Weasel take the girls into the forest where they commence to rape, torture and kill them in rather graphic fashion (for the 1970s, at least). After the crimes are committed, the group finds a local home to stay the night. Little do they know that the home-owners - John (Richard Towers) and Estelle (Cynthia Carr) - are actually Mari's parents...

I feel like I've known about this film for ages, but it was definitely thrust back into the public's collective consciousness when the 2009 remake was issued. I remember the film being called one of the sickest ever made, and the sadistic part of me was definitely intrigued by the prospect. The fact that it was Craven's first venture into feature filmmaking also spurred my interest, but I suppose that's neither here nor there.

The film was shot with what looks to be a low-budget camera, giving the movie the feel of a home video, but not in the vein of more recent releases like The Blair Witch Project or Paranormal Activity. It just looks grainy, and it gives the film a more visceral appeal. It's almost as though everything that happens really happened - an idea alluded to in the opening with a note that says the events are true but the names have been changed. It adds to the overall draw of the film, giving a sense of realism that's difficult to find in movies of any generation. Craven was smart to utilize such a tactic, especially considering other aspects of the film worked in so-so fashion.

There's not much of a screenplay of which to speak. We have a basic story of an unthinkable crime exacted almost immediately with a bit of vengeance, but it's relatively straight-forward. You never have much of a question as to where the film is going. The dialogue is a little bit forced and overly ridiculous in the early going, but it starts to settle down as the film progresses, becoming a tad more believable. However, there will be plenty of eyes rolling in the first ten minutes or so - the lines are just that bad.

Because the dialogue is so bad, I have to wonder whether the acting was equally bad or just a result of what they had to work with. I want to say it's a mix of both, but I honestly can't be sure. There are some pretty bad performances here, with the worst coming from Marc Sheffler, who plays Krug's illegitimate son Junior. However, no one else is delivering anything spectacular. Still, be on the lookout for a familiar face in Martin Kove, whom most of you will remember from the first two Karate Kid films.

I did like the pacing of the film. For the first seventy-five minutes, we have a slow and methodical look at the events on-screen, adding to the visceral and almost real-time experience (at some moments). You're almost forced to take everything in because it's all moving along so slowly - you have to find a way to remain captivated and engaged, and the only way to do that is to give your focus to every minute detail. In the final ten minutes, however, we switch to a bit of a frenzied finish that's predictable but entirely necessary. In a way, everything before the switch serves as a build-up of tension that's ultimately relieved in the climactic moments. It's nothing over-the-top or brilliant, but that release of tension is the only way that the film could have ended successfully.

Overall, I'm a little bit torn on how I want to review The Last House on the Left. Is it a good film? Not really. By today's standards, it's a little rote and cliché, and the dialogue and acting are definitely sub-par. It's also not all that shocking considering what else we've seen in the past ten years, from a man named Jigsaw to human centipedes crawling around. But is this film watchable? Totally. Is it important? Definitely. It launched the career of one of the masterminds of horror, and that alone should give it credence. The Last House on the Left has stamped itself into the annals of horror film history, so if you're a horror fan and you haven't seen it, you should definitely give it a chance.

Movie Review Summary:

Grade: D
1 Thumb Up

Movie Review: THE LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS

THE LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS

1960
Unrated

The Little Shop of Horrors is a 1960 sci-fi film directed by Roger Corman that led to a 1986 remake of the same name. Gravis Mushnick (Mel Welles) owns a rundown florist shop that's just barely scraping by on Skid Row. He employs two workers: the nervous and dorky Seymour Krelboin (Jonathan Haze) and the ditsy but beautiful Audrey Fulquard (Jackie Joseph) with whom Seymour is infatuated. When Seymour ruins a customer's order, Mushnick threatens to fire him. In response, Seymour mentions that he has been nurturing a special plant the likes of which no one has ever seen. Mushnick gives him one week to bring the plant, which he aptly names "Audrey Junior," back to health in the hopes that the eccentric piece of flora can generate some revenue for the store. Seymour exhausts all the normal options for maintaining the plant's health, but one night, it begins to speak (with voice work from Charles B. Griffith), calling out "Feed me" just after Seyour pricks his finger on another plant. On a whim, he attempts to feed the plant drops of his blood, and it is immediately satisfied. The next morning, Audrey Junior has quadrupled in size, forcing Seymour to find other sources of blood and flesh to keep the plant healthy for his employer. As his life descends into a nightly string of murder, Seymour begins to question whether the new-found glory he has received as a brilliant botanist is worth the moral price of what he has to do in order to keep his prize alive.

For those of you who've been reading me long enough, you'll know that I immediately fell in love with the 1986 musical version of Little Shop of Horrors (the link to that review is given in the above paragraph). Because of that, I was rather interested to see the source material which was this 1960 film. Roger Corman, ever the king of B-movies, strikes gold here, providing more of a sci-fi comedy than anything truly horrifying as was the original intention of the film. Perhaps this was scary back in the day, but in a year where Psycho dominated the horror scene, I don't think that anyone truly could have been scared by this film's goofy premise.

"Goofy" is definitely the best word to describe The Little Shop of Horrors. Let's start with the screenplay. While the actual story is a little simplistic, it definitely does enough to captivate your interest. I mean, to be fair, if you're watching a movie about a human-eating plant, you're probably not looking for something terribly brilliant (although, with the musical, that's almost what you'd be getting). And this movie's by no means brilliant, but it's definitely fun. The dialogue is a little bit dorky, and there are a few lines where you'll be scratching your head wondering if you heard the character correctly. But while you're scratching your head, you're bound to have a gigantic smile on your face. That's exactly what this story and the dialogue do: bring a smile to your face, be it out of comedy or absurdity or just plain goofiness.

The actors help to bring that type of feel to the movie, playing each character to a tee (at least, I'm assuming, considering it seems like the characters were written a little bit awkwardly). Haze, Joseph and Welles are good as our three leads, and you can definitely see where Rick Moranis and Ellen Greene got the ideas for their characters in the 1986 version - they're nearly spot on from the original actors. Like the musical, we also have a number of smaller roles that are rather stellar. Dick Miller plays a random man who happens upon the flower shop in search of flowers he can eat. John Herman Shaner plays a local dentist with a knack for instilling pain on his patients (a role that Steve Martin played perfectly in the remake). But like the remake, the best performance has to go to the pain-loving dental patient, this time played by a young Jack Nicholson (he was played by Bill Murray in the musical). I'm not sure who I liked better in that particular role because I loved Murray's portrayal. However, Nicholson's manic energy is just too much to ignore, and he easily brings the best scene to the screen in this film. And it is a little bit shocking to see him as such a young man - I think he was twenty-three when this film was released. It's a short scene, so I've elected to insert it here:

Despite the fact that I put that clip in this review, you really should give this film a watch, especially if you're a fan of the musical. It's not quite as good as the 1986 version, but it serves it's purpose very well. The ending is a little bit different - and a little darker, at that - and I'm still debating whether I like it or not; however, it doesn't take away from the fact that this film is totally worth your time.

Movie Review Summary:

Grade: B2 Thumbs Up

Movie Review: THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED

THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED

2006
Unrated

(Disclaimer: this is an uncensored trailer.)

I'd like to start by saying that This Film Is Not Yet Rated (henceforth to be called TFINYR) is actually the title of this documentary. Director Kirby Dick decided to make a film that takes on the Motion Picture Association of America's (MPAA) rating system, with which all film-goers are familiar. I mean, we've all seen the ratings: G, PG, PG-13, R and the occasional NC-17. Kirby Dick hired a private investigator in order to learn as much as he possibly could about the people who actually grant the films their ratings, spending much of the time focusing on why certain films are deemed R or NC-17 ratings. At the same time, we get a bit of a historical background for the ratings system as it was designed and created by Jack Valenti, showing the conflicting reports he has given over the years.

Now, if you're as avid of a film fan as I am, you probably already know that the MPAA ratings system is a little bit screwy. Fortunately for the American public, the ratings system has been thrown into the media spotlight in the past few months with the very public appeal from the creators of the Oscar-nominated Blue Valentine. After receiving an NC-17 rating, the filmmakers successfully attempted an appeal, dropping the movie's rating to R, which is one of the biggest successes a movie can have in the early going, in my opinion.

Back to TFINYR. It's not a bad movie by any means, but considering I already knew that the system was a bit messed up, it didn't really hit me as hard as I thought it might. I think that Kirby Dick and his private investigator established themselves and their credibility moderately well, but something about the movie just seemed a little exhausted. It couldn't really find a way to hook me into what they were doing. I think a huge part of it comes down to the massive amounts of information that's constantly being thrown at the audience. After a while, it gets to be a little too much to digest, and your mind just has to shut down a little bit.

That's not to say that they didn't get their point across, but I just think it's a little bit of a tired complaint. There's never been a unanimous love for the MPAA's rating system, as is evidenced by the massive amount of big-time interviewees we see during the film. With the likes of Kevin Smith (director of Clerks.), Matt Stone (co-creator of "South Park"), Mary Harron (director of American Psycho) and Maria Bello (actress from The Cooler) - as well as many more - we get a very personal look at some people who have been hurt by the system. In a way, we get to see and hear from the victims, and I think it's a fascinating look at the struggles that filmmakers have to overcome in order to have their sensitive and provocative films reach a larger audience.

All in all, it's an effective documentary, but it's not really shedding any light on a problem that I feel like everyone already knew about. Don't expect any shocking revelations.

Movie Review Summary:
Grade: B
1 Thumb Up

Movie Review: NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD

NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD

1968
Unrated

Night of the Living Dead is a classic horror film first released in 1968 and served as George A. Romero's directorial debut. Filmed on an extremely low budget, the movie follows a group of people who have found shelter together inside an abandoned farmhouse after an outbreak of the walking undead. At first, we're merely watching as Ben (Duane Jones) and Barbra (Judith O'Dea) work to barricade the doors and windows, but after a while, they learn that a group of people has barricaded themselves in the cellar beneath them. When Harry (Karl Hardman) makes his way to the first floor, a spat ensues between he and Ben as they debate whether it's safer to hide in the cellar or in their present place. He informs Ben and Barbra that his wife and injured daughter, as well as a young couple they picked up along the way, are also hiding beneath the house. Reluctantly, both groups join together as more and more zombies continue to surround the house...

I've been meaning to watch Night of the Living Dead for a while, and seeing as today is George A. Romero's 71st birthday, I thought, "What better day to watch it than today?" All I had ever heard was that this is a classic horror film that has stood the test of time and remains one of the best horror movies ever made. And after watching, I'd have to agree that it is very, very good. In terms of the actual horror, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone from my generation that's going to have nightmares over this one, but I can only imagine the shock and terror it caused upon its release in the late '60s. It must have been horrific. I know that this wasn't the first ever "zombie" movie, but I think it's safe to say that Romero's vision changed and revolutionized the entire concept of a zombie flick.

One of the strengths of this movie is actually its story. Normally I say "screenplay" rather than story, but I think that the screenplay (which includes story AND dialogue) has some issues, mostly with the dialogue of our lead characters. However, the basic storyline is actually devastatingly powerful. I won't spoil the fun, but I just felt like the story came full circle, and I'm a bit of a sucker for full-circle storylines. It's very simple, and in a movie like this, the story can get thrust into the background, but this story of survival is so strong that it demands to be heard.

Now, the acting in Night of the Living Dead isn't exactly the best acting I've ever seen, but it works for this kind of fare. In fact, I found most of the characters to be believable, with one strong exception: Barbra. Judith O'Dea played the character way too over-the-top, and she stuck out like a sore thumb. To make matters worse, the film sets her up as the lead female protagonist (if you watch the movie, you might get the inclination that she's not by the end of the flick, and you'd probably be right - it's more a personal judgment call than anything else). Because she's introduced as the apparent lead, however, we as the audience want to hang on her every word and action, and that just made me want to hate her even more. In the end, her character really wasn't necessary, save for one emotional encounter during the film's climax. Aside from her, however, I have no real qualms with the level of the performances.

Sure, it's not scary by 21st century standards, but there's an aura about Night of the Living Dead that makes me feel like its an absolutely necessary film. There's bits and pieces that are rather disturbing, especially when you consider when the movie was made. It's a definite must-see for any horror aficionado, and it's probably a good introduction for someone who hasn't really introduced themselves into the grandness of the horror genre.

Movie Review Summary:
Grade: B+
1.5 Thumbs Up

Movie Review: FRIDAY THE 13TH

FRIDAY THE 13TH

1980
Unrated

Friday the 13th is a 1980 horror film directed by Sean S. Cunningham that falls into the subcategory of "slasher" flick. We open on a group of teenage or young adult camp counselors who are working to reopen Camp Crystal Lake for the first time in two decades. The camp has a rather tragic past: in 1957, a boy drowned in the lake, and in 1958, two camp counselors were brutally murdered. The camp itself has garnered the nickname "Camp Blood" among the people in town. However, Steve (Peter Brouwer) wants to bring the camp back to life, so he hired the co-eds to refurbish the area in preparation for its grand reopening. They all arrive on Friday, June 13th and get to work. Slowly, the counselors start being killed in graphic fashion by some unseen person, and when Alice (Adrienne King) finally catches on, she does everything she can just to stay alive.

The character Jason Voorhees is one of those characters that essentially everybody knows about. His name is right up there with Freddy Krueger and Norman Bates, yet I had never given the Friday the 13th franchise a shot. When I saw it instantly streaming on NetFlix, I figured I'd give it that chance, but now I just wish I could have those ninety-five minutes back. There's no real story here - we're basically seeing a slow and methodical string of murders that are eventually justified by an extremely warped sense of revenge.

To be fair, the actors weren't really given much to work with, but they still could've brought a little more believability to their respective roles. The screenplay is written so that you never really get a sense of who these people are, and in turn, you never really care that they're being offed so quickly. Essentially, this movie was made for the sake of giving the audience a little bit of gore (I'd say scares, but there's really none to speak of), and even that's tame by today's standards. Maybe back in 1980, it was shocking, but now, it's not even laughable. We do get a look at a young Kevin Bacon, though.

I did have major issues with the film's musical score, which felt like a mix between John Williams's score for 1975's Jaws and Bernard Hermann's score for 1960's Psycho. Composer Harry Manfredini basically spawned the bastard child of those two iconic scores, and I think it took me out of this film more than anything else. The whole time, I just wanted something original, but instead, we've got music that so blatantly steals from other bits of classic cinema. In retrospect, most of the film is unoriginal, taking healthy helpings from other great films.

All in all, Friday the 13th really isn't worth your time. Maybe you'll laugh at it, but I couldn't even give it that much credit. It's just a travesty of a film that Leonard Maltin claimed was "one more clue to why SAT scores continue[d] to decline" in the time when the film was first released.

Movie Review Summary:

Grade: F
Current All-Time Rank: Worst - #100
2 Thumbs Down

Movie Review: 18 YEAR OLD VIRGIN

18 YEAR OLD VIRGIN

2009
Unrated


You can watch the trailer here

Sometimes too much raunchiness is just too much. It's not that 18 Year Old Virgin was the worst movie that I've ever seen. It's just that this typical raunch-com couldn't find a way to make me laugh.

The film, which was directed by Tamara Olson, opens on Katie Powers (Olivia Alaina May), runner up to valedictorian, on the morning of her last day of high school. Convinced by her best friend Rose (Lauren Walsh) to attend a year-end party, Katie goes with the thought that she can win the love of her life, Ryan Lambert (Dustin Harnish). When he tells her that he won't sleep with a virgin, Katie spends the rest of the night on a quest to give it up, much to the chagrine of her secret admirer Spencer (Todd Leigh).

Story-wise, we've basically got a standard (read: predictable) romantic comedy on our hands. We can see from the opening sequence that Katie and Spencer are going to end up together at the end of the movie. I'm sorry if that "spoils" the movie for you, but if you can't figure that out after the first five minutes, you have no idea how romantic comedies work. All of the in-between just works towards that inevitable end, with some situations pushing Katie and Spencer farther apart, while others bring them even closer. In other rom-coms, we actually may get a bit of a story arc, and there may be legitimate conflict in that in-between stage; in 18 Year Old Virgin, however, all of our in-between involves Katie's failed sexual exploits, and it gets old pretty quick.

The acting isn't the worst I've ever seen, but it definitely leaves something to be desired. Aside from our lead, every other character either appears as a high school cliché or as an entirely unbelievable character inserted into the film for purely comedic effect. To be fair, it's not as though there's much characterization needed for a film like this, but I would have liked to have been able to relate to someone at some level.

The only thing this movie really has going for it is its soundtrack. I probably couldn't tell you what any of the songs were, but I found myself enjoying the background melodies more than the actual film itself. I'm not sure whether that's good or bad for the film.

All in all, you can't really judge 18 Year Old Virgin too harshly. It was a straight-to-DVD film that I found on Instant Watch in NetFlix after having it be suggested by my friend Katie. For once, NetFlix's prediction of my rating was right on par: one star out of five.

Movie Review Summary:
Grade: F
Current All-Time Rank: Worst - #95
Thumb... Almost down

Movie Review: DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE

DR. JEKYLL & MR. HYDE
1920
Unrated

You can watch the trailer here

Dusting off a piece of classic, silent cinema can lead you in one of two directions: it can either be a boring humdrum of work, or it can be one of the best films you've ever seen. Thankfully for me, I found Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, which was directed by John S. Robertson, to be of the latter category.

Technically you can call this a horror film (see: the picture above), but obviously by today's standards, there's not much shock or terror value (then again, if you want shock and terror value, you can watch the much less pleasing Halloween remakes, which were drivel at best). Instead, the audience is given a taste of drama this time around, with the necessary thrills and chills needed to make this a legitimate horror classic.

I have a hard time associating the word "screenplay" with silent films, simply because the main storyline is either acted out or told on title cards throughout the movie. Instead, I'd like to refer to them simply as stories because they're really giving the bare necessity for the viewer. Fortunately, the story presented here is rather good, and it's very easy to follow along. In today's culture, you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who doesn't know the story of Dr. Henry Jekyll and his famous alter-ego, Mr. Hyde. In a wanton desire to further a scientific train of thought, Jekyll creates a formula that essentially removes the evil element from himself, transposing it into a completely separate body. This creature (Hyde) then goes about and fulfills all of Jekyll's desires that may go against normal, upstanding convention. However, as time begins to pass, Jekyll begins to spend more and more time as Mr. Hyde, ultimately finding great difficulty in staying either one man or the other.

The key to this film's success is the acting of our lead, John Barrymore. While the rest of the cast does a good job keeping up, Barrymore himself steals the show as our Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde. The dual role called for two completely opposite characters, and Barrymore nails both of them on the head. However, some of the most convincing scenes are the ones in which the line between Jekyll and Hyde has become more of a gray area than the black-and-white we see early in the film. Barrymore convincingly conveys the struggle within him between good and evil, and at times, it's heart-wrenching to behold. At the same time, his Hyde brings heaps of terror to the screen; I wouldn't want to run into that on the street.

Also, on a brief side note, some of the visual effects are simply astounding considering this film was made in the early 1900s. The transitions from Jekyll to Hyde (or vice versa) are simple by today's standards, but incredible considering they're about ninety years old now. Oh, and I can't say enough about the makeup for Mr. Hyde; it's stunningly grotesque.

Now, I would love to recommend this movie to everyone, but I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who wouldn't want anything to do with a silent film. However, if you're like me and love a bit of classic cinema every now and again, do yourself and favor and take this one in. You won't be disappointed.

Grade: A-
Current All-Time Rank: Best - #126
Thumb... Up