I'm a big horror movie fan, and have been since childhood. I grew up watching scary movies on local NY stations WWOR (channel 9), and WPIX (channel 11), and my mom (a fellow horror fan) took me to just about every horror movie the 1970's produced. All the other kids went to see Disney films. I went to see The Omen and The Exorcist. I was the only nine year old in the theater.

So about ten years ago, I read a lengthy article in a horror film magazine about Asian horror films, and how they were so good. So naturally, being a fan, I dove right in to explore.

Well, they were certainly different, and I have to say, I really took to them. See, American horror films usually have certain "rules" that are followed that the Asians (the Japanese in particular) just squashed.  For example, take a movie about a haunted house. An American film would typically try to answer certain questions:

1. Who is haunting the house?
2. Why is it haunted?
3. How can we stop it from being haunted?

The answers usually involve some spirit who needs a wrong to be righted or a body that needs a proper burial or whatnot. When I watch movies like this, I often wonder what would happen if the wrong can't be righted (like the guy who murdered the spirit lived a long, happy, prosperous life afterwards before succumbing peacefully in his sleep after a great meal and naughty acrobatics with a cheerleader.) But the script usually doesn't go in that direction in American horror films, and invariably, justice will be done and the spirit laid to rest. The end.

The Japanese took a totally different approach to this. In a Japanese horror film, if there's a haunted house, chances are you won't find out exactly who is doing the haunting; you won't know why it's haunted; and no, you can't stop it from being haunted. You simply can't win, and by the way, everyone dies. You get this bad ending even if you do find the body and give it a proper burial.  In fact, the spirits are amused when you do that - they think it's cute. Then they kill you.

So I became a big fan. And maybe eight years later, so did the rest of America, when "The Ring" and "The Grudge" and "Dark Water" were re-made (somewhat decently, too) for American audiences (I say somewhat decently, but if you can stand subtitles, I also recommend checking out the originals, particularly "Dark Water".) Other films of note are Cure, Spiral, Ghost Actress, Audition, Evil Dead Trap, Versus, and Battle Royal (although the last two really aren't "horror", they're pretty close.)

Now, the other thing the Japanese did well is they had very "odd" things being catalysts for horror. Like a haunted videotape that kills whomever watches it seven days later. Or a haunted phone where your future self calls you upon dying. Or a haunted film where the images of ghosts appeared in the film much later. Or a haunted website...

...ok, the website is where it started getting a little silly. I mean, I can buy the idea of a spooky phone. But a haunted internet? And it doesn't end there. Like any great idea, a million "me too" people started coming aboard, and took these premises to ridiculous proportions. There are films about a haunted Cello (yes, the huge violin.) Or a haunted shoe. Plus, after Ring and Dark Water, every film had to have a creepy little girl with long black hair...

I'm sorry, but at some point, it just gets ridiculous, and the haunted Cello and shoe (both with creepy black haired girls) are prettymuch my dropping off point. But for a brief period, they were really doing something special. If you like horror at all, I encourage you to check out the films I mentioned above. 

Ok, back to work...

I used to write movie reviews for a DVD site (no pay, but free DVD's)  For the blog, I'll stick to movies many people may not have seen. All movies I'll review are available on DVD.

1776

If one looks at movies as a magical multi-hour escape from reality, then the musical ranks near the top of the list. I mean, what could be more escapist and fantastic as ordinary people bursting into song and dance as they interact. The musical has been a big part of film history, with Fred Astaire, Gene Kelly, and even street gangs singing and dancing their way through the rain, on ceilings, and in almost any other imaginable scenario. It seems nothing was too ludicrous to put to music. But even knowing how full-blown and over-the-top musicals were, I still find the concept of a musical starring the founding fathers a bit silly. If I didn’t like the movie so much, I’d probably laugh at it.

The movie I refer to is 1776, and it is indeed a musical about the Second Continental Congress, which for those of you who failed history, convened in 1775-1776 and formally created America. The movie was adapted from the play of the same name, and indeed features many of the same actors who starred in the Broadway production. For those of you who are thinking a movie with a singing and dancing Ben Franklin sounds like a terrible idea, let me dispel that notion right away – as silly as it may sound, 1776 is a first-rate musical, and one of my favorite movies of all time. I watch it yearly (right around July 4th, of course), and always find it fresh and fun. I have recommended it to many people – and not one person has come away disappointed.

1776 tells a story most Americans don’t really know – how the Declaration of Independence came about.  Oh sure, we all know the founding fathers got together in Philadelphia and declared independence, but most people don’t know much more than that. There are many familiar names in this movie – Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, etc etc, but how many people know Dickenson? Or Hopkins? Or how important they were? 1776 shows us the whole story, in an over-the-top manner that is both fun and surprisingly accurate. I’m a big fan of the revolutionary period, and I can only find one or two minor things to nitpick about in this movie. The events and arguments presented prettymuch happened as depicted.

And argue these men do. If you think our present congress is gridlocked, wait until you see “obnoxious and disliked” John Adams (brilliantly played by William Daniels) and John Dickenson go at it. Or Ben Franklin lecture Edward Rutledge. Trying to keep peace is Congress president John Hancock, while Thomas Jefferson just wants to get the damn Declaration written so he can go see his wife.

These are famous men, and playing them requires some degree of acting skill. I’m stunned that nobody in this film got a nomination for any acting Oscar, as the portrayals are brilliant. Also depicted very well is the famous “Dearest Friend” correspondence between Adams and his wife Abigail. Taking many of the words right from their letters, the two are presented talking to each other while not really being together in a physical sense – it’s cleverly done. The film also uses a noted “play” prop in the huge calendar that depicts the date. When it needs to be tomorrow, someone comes in and rips the date off, and it’s tomorrow (err.. today?) These small elements translated very well to screen.

I wish I could say Peter Hunt’s overall direction is as well done as these smaller bits, but it is not. My only quibble with this movie is the fact that the overall translation from stage play to film is not entirely smooth. Hunt sometimes gives us jarring cuts that do nothing to help the film’s flow, but I suspect that is to prominently feature whomever is singing on the various numbers. You’ll notice it right in the beginning of the film during the “Sit Down John”. Still, it’s a minor thing.

I mention the songs – they are really memorable, and jump right out at you. From the above mentioned opening number featuring everyone to Adams and Abigail doing “Piddle Twiddle and Resolve” to the hilarious  “But Mr. Adams”,  featuring  Adams, Jefferson and Franklin  prancing their way to conning someone (Jefferson) into writing the historic document, the songs are amongst the most “clever” I have seen in a musical (whew – that was a long sentence.) In fact, the actors have fun with the songs, occasionally breaking form and chastising the singers for singing. Very funny.

1776 is a wonderful way to spend a few hours and learn a little bit about American history as well. It’s fun, it’s factual, and depicts the colonial period very well. Highly recommended, whether you think you'll like a musical or not.

Just watched "The Departed" on DVD the other night. Great movie.

Not much I can add to the already glowing reviews (and the Oscars, especially for the well deserving Martin Scorsese), but I do have to say, "Gimme Shelter" is one of the best songs ever made. No song quite fits a movie like this Stone's classic does in the above mentioned film (and Goodfellas as well.)   

I used to write reviews for a DVD review site years ago, and still have them. I figured I'd post a few here. Today, we're looking at Fritz Lang's "Metropolis".

*****************

Once more, I find myself not motivated to watch (or review) anything released recently. So I’ll go back to my shelf and again throw in an old classic to tell you about. As in previous “classic” reviews, my motivation is to bring you something you may not have seen before.

Today, I settled on the 1927 silent film Metropolis.

In a recent “Movie Answer Man” column, Roger Ebert writes: “There are more amazing shots in German films from the 1920s than in most new releases”. One viewing of Fritz Lang’s Metropolis will show anyone that Mr. Ebert knows what he is talking about. To this day, I still marvel over the sheer power of the astounding set pieces used in this film, and am continually amazed that it was made over 80 years ago.

For those who don’t know, Metropolis is probably the first true science fiction feature film, and also the last gasp of the German Expressionist movement that dominated the early part of 20th century film. Soon after its release, sound would come and change everything. Movies could then focus more on the actors themselves than trying to rely on largely the camera to tell the story. In my opinion, Metropolis is the last great silent film, and one of the most visual movies ever made.

Metropolis tells the story of a futuristic city where a seemingly utopian society lives and plays. Unknown to this idyllic populace is the fact that their city is powered by a huge underground labyrinth of huge machines tended to by a downtrodden working class, whom also live underground. Both sects are unaware of the other until worker Maria (Brigitte Helm) leads some children to the surface. There, she is spotted by Freder (Gustav Fröhlich), the son Metropolis’ architect, Joh Fredersen (Alfred Abel). Freder follows Maria back to the underground, where he sees for the first time the true source of his city’s power. Horrified at the treatment and condition of the downtrodden workers, he pleads with his father to do something. Meanwhile, Maria is also trying to lead the workers to unite. Fredersen doesn’t want the workers doing anything but work, so he schemes with mad scientist Rotwang (Rudolph Klein-Rogge) to produce a robot duplicate of Maria to lead the workers astray. Rotwang agrees, but he also has his own agenda…

I’m quickly going through the story because it isn’t really that important. In fact, until this DVD was released, I never really even knew the full story, because the prints available made no sense. After the 1927 release, most prints were cut, and then lost, leaving huge gaps in the story. This Kino release has restored every possible frame that could be restored, and has added title cards to fill us in on the few parts of the story that are still missing (in a “meanwhile, back at the ranch” sort of way). While I’m happy to have finally been filled in just why Maria was wandering in that cave, I’m more pleased at finally seeing the awesome visuals on a quality DVD. Think about it for a second - I’ve loved this movie since I first saw it 20 years ago in a high school film class, and until now I wasn’t able to really follow the story. The visuals are just that good.

The visuals… what can I really say? Those of you who have seen this film know exactly what I mean. To start with, the futuristic city looks fantastic, with tall buildings, roads in the sky linking them, and without one bit of the “cheesy” look we sometimes get from older movies with a futuristic slant. But as nice as the above-ground city looks, Metropolis gets its fame from the incredible set pieces and hundreds of extras that make up the underground. The awesome spectacle of hundreds of downtroden workers marching to work, slowly and deliberately in lockstep, as hundreds of others march the other way, their ten-hour day over. The giant machines, as big as mountains, seemingly (and figuratively) like huge devils requiring human suffering and sacrifice to keep them running. The futility of a man, trying desperately to keep his steam powered machine running, never able to slow down for a second, as the machine’s thirst for human power is unending.

Metropolis has set the stage for some brilliant science fiction that came later. Certainly Blade Runner, Dark City , and Total Recall directly pay it homage, and its anti-technology theme has been revisited time and time again (most notably in the Terminator films). C3PO of Star Wars fame is certainly taken right from Rotwang’s robot. In fact, every mad scientist who has a lab with electrical currents running up wires needs to thank Rotwang for inventing that.

In viewing the movie, I can’t help but think that films of the next 20 years took a step back from Metropolis. When I see the horribly laughable Science Fiction “serials” of the thirties and forties with their string powered spaceships and cardboard box robots, I can’t help but think Metropolis looks strikingly better, despite being made far earlier. There isn’t one bit of cheesiness in this film, and it deserves every rave review it gets.

One final note – there are several versions of this film out there on DVD. I implore you to forget about all the others except the Kino release. They are truly horrible. Metropolis is a true classic, and the Kino release finally does it justice.

moved "Ingmar Bergman" to the new blog at www.danfurmanonline.com