Connect with us

Published

on

We head back to the drive-in with Joe Bob and Darcy this week to watch The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane (1976) and Housebound (2014). Lock your doors and stay inside with Shudder, because this Friday the 13th double-feature is agoraphobic-approved.

We pick up from last week’s Walpurgisnacht fun to another creepy day for horror nerds, and along the way, we learn some cool history about superstition. But does the theme land, or does this week’s double-feature premise feel a little thin?

The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane (1976)

The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane is a 1972 “cross-genre” film with elements of a teen drama, thriller, horror, and character study. It is certainly no feel-good film, either. It is a dark satire of the worst fears of parents subverted by a protagonist who has lived more than most adults. Directed by Nicolas Gessner, the film stars Jodie Foster, Martin Sheen, Alexis Smith, Mort Shuman, and Scott Jacoby. The film is a Canada/French-produced adaptation of Laird Koenig’s novel of the same name. The film would be written by Koenig.

Poster for The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane (1976)

The plot is simple; a thirteen-year-old girl named Rynn (Jodie Foster) lives in apparent isolation in the town of Wells Harbor, Maine. Her apparent isolation draws the curiosity of the community, including that of a local pedophile, Frank (Martin Sheen), the son of Rynn’s landlord, Cora (Alexis Smith). Rynn’s privacy is repeatedly under assault by the larger community and the obsession of Frank as her father, a poet, is never seen by locals. A chance encounter with a young man, Mario (Scott Jacoby), nephew of local cop Ron (Mort Shuman), unravels the complicated and tragic circumstances behind Rynn’s apparent isolation.

This is not a pleasant film, not in the sense that it is not a good film, but in the sense the mood is oppressive and the world depicted is cruel and unfair. The film frustrated me several times because of what liberties adults take against a child in her own home, against her wishes. The writing in this regard is excellent, with several great moments of conversation. This is one of the “talkiest” films shown on The Last Drive-In, perhaps akin to The Changeling. The film itself is limited in scope as well, mostly playing out within Rynn’s house. The story’s limitations reveal the intent of Koenig, the writer, who originally sought to adapt his novel into a play. I would love to live in a world where The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane was a theater staple.

Advertisement

The film is tightly written with a fairly efficient run time, though two montages cause the film to drag a bit. This is also compounded by the use of Chopin’s piano concerto No. 1 in E Minor, as performed by pianist Claudio Arrau and The London Philharmonic Orchestra. Chopin’s composition overpowers the film score by Mort Shuman and Christian Gaubert. It feels odd to say, but the use of Chopin seems a little much and is used so frequently that having repeated through montages makes them feel longer due to simple aural repetition.

The film’s cinematography is fine, but René Verzier’s work does not do much to sell the film as needing a film adaptation. The quality and the cinematography are fairly rote. Most of the tension comes from performances with little added effect from Verzier’s camera.

The performances are largely excellent, and the critical praise of Jodie Foster, who was twelve as the production began and then turned thirteen during, is well deserved. Foster is one of the finest actresses to ever work in film and seeing her command the screen so readily is impressive. You feel anxiety for her and can’t help but feel broken at the end of the movie because of how wonderful she is.

Sheen is a revelation as well, only three years away from the role that would cement him as Hollywood royalty in Apocalypse Now. Frank as a character is so manic and aggressive in such a weirdly charismatic way. Imagine the worst person in the world with leading man looks and charm, and you get a sense of just how insidious and dangerous the character of Frank is. The truth is, we are lucky to see such a top-tier actor play such a horrific character.

Now, singing the praises of Foster and Sheen is not to say the rest of the cast does not deliver. Alexis Smith’s Core Hallet is an icy busybody who takes her sparring with a child personally, and her brief time in the film results in wonderful dialogue with Foster’s Rynn. Scott Jacoby plays the handsome and charismatic weirdo, Mario, who creates a bright spot in the overall dark life of Rynn. And not least, Mort Shuman’s Officer Ron Migliorti represents a gentle, good man who tries to help but is kept at arm’s length.

Advertisement

Joe Bob-servations on The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane

Joe Bob’s host segments were a lot of fun this week, especially with the recurring discussion on superstition. Perhaps the best of the night came early when he discussed the origins of The Thirteen Club. The whole history was quite fascinating, but also gave way to one of the best laughs of the night: when he cracked a joke about everyone in the club dying, catching Darcy off-guard. The whole night was filled with interesting little asides into the superstitious mind.

Regarding the film, Joe Bob was quite effusive with his praise, as the film deserves. Of the various aspects, he discussed, however, he was particularly vocal about how this film was very much lucky to cast who it had and the time it was made. You get the sense that maybe The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane couldn’t be made today and have quite the impact it did with the one-two punch of Foster and Sheen. Regarding Foster, Joe Bob made a very important point: by the time she was twelve she had already had a strong career as a child actress, so her professionalism in the film isn’t overly surprising as some make it out to be.

Final Thoughts on The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane

The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane is a largely excellent film, among some of the best of the ‘serious’ films that have been shown on the show. The nature of the film as being like that of a play may limit the audience a bit, given how dialogue-heavy it is, but for those who can manage there is a lot to love.

The film does drag at times given the overly artsy montages set to classic Chopin compositions, and the internal logic does frustrate at times given the number of privacy and property violations that seem to occur over the duration of the film. It gives one the impression that maybe the oppressiveness is a more heightened element than was necessarily true. It does certainly inspire a reaction, however. As I was not alive in the 1970s I would love to know the accuracy of how the characters would have behaved from someone who was.

Joe Bob gave the film 3 and 1/2 stars, which seems about right. I feel that perhaps the half-a-star deduction was due to the arthouse quality, as this is a drive-in show. Mutants can only go sophisticate for so long a stretch. As for me, I’d about where Joe Bob is regarding my assessment, giving the film 4 and 1/2 Cthulhus out of 5.

Advertisement
4.5 out of 5 stars (4.5 / 5)

Best Line: “School is having people tell you what life is and never finding out by yourself.” – Rynn

A still from The Little Girl That Lives Down the Lane (1976)
Soul: Rotten. Threads: Fresh.

Housebound (2014)

Housebound was the night’s second feature. This 2014 New Zealand horror comedy was written, edited, and directed by Gerard Johnstone. The film made its debut at SXSW where it quickly became an indie darling. The film was a New Zealand accelerator project where government funding was granted in order to assist in the production. The film stars Morgana O’Reilly, Rima Te Wiata, Glen-Paul Waru, and Cameron Rhodes.

Poster for Housebound (2014)

Housebound follows a troubled young woman, Kylie Bucknell (Morgana O’Reilly), who botches an ATM robbery and is sentenced to house arrest for eight months under the care of her mother, Miriam (Rima Te Wiata). Stuck at home with an ankle monitor, Kylie and her mother discuss past instances of hauntings that seem to trigger an awareness of strange things going on within the house. However, Kylie uncovers more about the strange circumstances of the home with the aid of her parole officer, an amateur paranormal investigator, Amos (Glen-Paul Waru), and the guidance of her psychologist, Dennis (Cameron Rhodes).

The film is quite funny but is fairly light on the scares and gore, despite a particularly explosive death that results in a shower of blood. The film was quite critically appraised at the time of release and made waves in the American film industry, but today you do not hear much about it, nor do you hear much about the man behind it, Gerard Johnstone. Indeed, the film seems largely forgotten, which is a bit of a shame given the fresh approach it takes, but also a bit expected in that it doesn’t quite land the punches it throws.

The film’s approach to subverting the haunted house theme is clever at first until contrivances and dialogue dumps begin to drag down what started as a rather tight little haunted house project. The foundation that was so strong progressively begins to look like a tower of Jenga blocks the further on the film goes and the revelation within are clever, but I struggle to say they’re necessarily worth the ride. For example, the Teddy Ruxpin knock-off makes absolutely no sense in the context of the film when all is revealed. Having seen the film twice I am still failing to understand why the bear was able to do what it did, even if it had a “helping hand.” This may be one of the most glaring issues with the logic of the film, in my opinion. That being said, the film has a number of them.

My other big criticism of the film is that the protagonist is unlikeable. A protagonist does not need to be likable to be compelling, but there needs to be some reason to want to follow their journey. I think Morgana O’Reilly is fine as Kylie, but Kylie is such a shit that it is largely hard to root for her. Nor does there seem to be a real sense of growth in her character either as most of the decisions in the final act are largely driven by survival impulses and leave little room for a sense of growth. Rather, the film’s most appealing characters are Amos and Miriam. Amos because he is a weird, earnest dude, and Miriam because Rima Te Wiata does a fantastic job playing a mother abused by her child.

Advertisement

Simon Riera’s cinematography is effective, but nothing particularly outstanding. It is serviceable for the type of film this is. There is a fun moment where Dennis is menaced by the ‘spirit’ of the house and the sequence set across an entirely blacked screen flashes to a chilling reveal of the spirit hovering over the psychologist. A scene involving dentures is also suitably framed to be as uncomfortable as possible, which I appreciate as someone who has a particular fascination with teeth as a vehicle for horror. As for Mahuia Bridgman-Cooper’s score, I found it to be effective, but nothing that really pulled me in, either.

Ultimately, I think the description of “effective but did not pull me in” is an encapsulation of my overall attitude regarding this film. It was, for lack of a better word, fine.

Joe Bob-servations on Housebound

The survey of superstitious carried on into the second film of the night with digressions into rabbits’ feet and the potential origins of the term “knock on wood.” What felt lacking was a real example of the connection of either film to superstition. The connective tissue was the idea of refusing to leave the house, but neither film presented the shut-in nature of their leads as being tied to superstitious anxieties.

Of course, with any New Zealand-sourced film on the show, Joe Bob returns to beating his drum on the misappropriation of the terminology “Kiwi horror” as it relates to the film in question, just as he did back with Deathgasm. In case you missed it with previous horror films out of New Zealand on the show… “Kiwi horror” does not exist – it is not a distinct genre, it is just a label attached to films made out of New Zealand with incubator money during a period of time and there is nothing particularly of New Zealand about them.

Expect to hear that same point again the next time a movie from New Zealand is shown.

Advertisement

Final Thoughts on Housebound

Housebound is a fun mid-2010s horror film out of New Zealand with a clever play on the haunted house trope, but cleverness isn’t enough to win me over completely. Between a thoroughly unsympathetic protagonist, an overly convoluted series of backstory reveals, and the fairly limited amount of horror, I would be hard-pressed to claim this among my favorite on The Last Drive-In. I didn’t really feel a sense of shock or dread. Granted, I was entertained, but the film didn’t blow my mind. The same can’t be said for one of the characters, that’s for sure.

Joe Bob gave the film the 2 and 1/2 stars treatment. I think that is entirely reasonable. It’s worth a watch, but it doesn’t seem like one that will stick with me and other Mutants of my ilk. As for my assessment, I would give it 3 Cthulhus out of 5. 3 out of 5 stars (3 / 5)

Best Line: “You cannot punch ectoplasm.” – Amos

A still from Housebound (2014)
The most unlikeable protagonist ever in a movie on The Last Drive-In?

Haunted MTL Drive-In Totals

As for the official drive-in totals, we have the following.

We also have the Haunted MTL Drive-In totals…

  • 1 Fangoria Chainsaw Award for Achievement in Non-Fiction
  • 1 Dead Hamster
  • 2 Moody Montages
  • 3 instances of “Thee-ate-er”
  • Clipboard Fumbling
  • Superstition Tempting
  • Heaven Joking
  • Cocktail Joking
  • Gratuitous Plot
  • Gratuitous “Hello Moto”
  • Child Rights Advocating
  • Water Moccasin Anxiety
  • Suprise Italian Racism
  • John Brennan Musical Number
Screencap from The Last Drive-In with Joe Bob Briggs season 4 episode 3
My wife suggests Darcy’s top is made from the same material as yoga pants. What say you?

Episode Score for The Last Drive-In: S4E3 – The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane and Housebound

I had expressed some doubt about the theme of last week’s double feature, but I am happy to say this double feature’s theme was much more coherent, although admittedly a bit of a stretch. Friday the 13th is a day about superstition, and while that thread was woven in quite well through the host segments, the film selections were tangential – built around the idea of a “shut-in night” for the ultra-paranoid and superstitious.

The only problem was that neither film really dealt with being shut-in due to superstition. One was a girl living by herself trying to do her own thing as the world pushed back at her and the other is about someone under house arrest. The host segments were fun, but I am wondering if stating a theme outright is the right route to go down with these episodes. Perhaps if the themes were stated as being more open-ended the double features would gel a bit better through juxtaposition. However, setting an expectation of a theme and not really delivering on it feels like a misstep.

Advertisement

I am probably taking this sort of thing a bit too seriously, but I also think the past two weeks represent a stretch that could lead to misfires in the future. I vastly prefer the themes of the double features being more subtle or interpretative outside of the holiday sets. Soon we’ll find ourselves seeing an environmental awareness pairing where one film is set in the woods and one film has a beach… and that is about it.

The episode as a whole is still great, of course, and the host segments are as fun as ever. Yet, something about the loose associations between the last four films is rubbing me the wrong way. 4 out of 5 stars (4 / 5)

And that is it for Notes from the Last Drive-In this week. This has certainly been a little bit more critical than most of the reviews I’ve done, owing largely to the fact that the show is usually firing on all cylinders the majority of the time. Four seasons and multiple holiday marathons in, however, it would make sense that maybe there are some performance issues to be aware of.

What did you think, though? Why not share your thoughts in the comments with us about the show and the two films shown. Did you have a favorite?

With that, please join us on Twitter next Friday as we live-tweet with the rest of the Mutant Fam during The Last Drive-In with Joe Bob Briggs

Advertisement

Love the movie? (Sponsored Link)

Consider purchasing a copy of The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane from Amazon. Your purchase through our sponsored link helps Haunted MTL.

Movies n TV

The Last Drive-In Live: A Tribute to Roger Corman

Published

on

By

The Last Drive-In with Joe Bob Briggs returned March 15th for a special tribute to Roger Corman. Filmed live in Las Vegas during Joe Bob’s Jamboree last October, fans who were unable to attend can finally see what they missed. The Drive-In is available on AMC+ and Shudder.

This week on The Last Drive-In, Joe Bob and Darcy return to pay tribute to Roger Corman’s first 70 years in Hollywood. Roger and Julie Corman join the hosts between films at the West Wind Drive-In for an incredible interview on stage. Legendary actor Bruce Dern is also part of the conversation. Spanning the decades, Joe Bob presents Corman’s A Bucket of Blood (1959) and Deathstalker (1983).

Live from Las Vegas

A Tribute to Roger Corman begins with a live rendition of the show’s theme song in front of the cheering audience. The stage brings the trailer park to Vegas with its familiar set-up of chairs and a cooler. John Brennan croons as Yuki Nakamura beats a colander with a stick before introducing the show’s hosts. Joe Bob gives a special shout-out to the Las Vegas Chamber of Cannabis before introducing Darcy the Mailgirl.

In place of a tangentially related rant, Joe Bob opens with focused praise of Corman. He lauds Corman’s ability to fully meld the business and art halves of producing. Bringing attention to how “cheap” Corman is, Joe Bob highlights the smart decisions that sustained Corman’s long career. He calls them “the decisions of a producer who is being an artist.” Corman’s ability to spot talent and negotiate deals connects him to the beating heart of Hollywood, and leaves Joe Bob “truly in awe” of him.

Beatnik City

Part of what makes Corman special is his fascination with new and culturally relevant ideas. A Bucket of Blood (1959), is perhaps the best example of his ability to take real life and turn it into art. Corman together with writer Charles B. Griffith spent time in beatnik coffeehouses to create what Joe Bob calls “the ultimate parody of the whole beat generation.”

Advertisement
A poster for Roger Corman's A Bucket of Blood.
A poster for Roger Corman’s A Bucket of Blood

Bucket tells the story of Walter Paisley (Dick Miller), an impressionable busboy who is determined to impress the customers he serves. Jealous of the attention poet Maxwell H. Brock (Julian Burton) commands; Walter decides to become a sculptor. While attempting to sculpt the face of the coffeehouse’s hostess Carla (Barboura Morris), Walter inadvertently kills his pet cat. Seizing the opportunity, he covers the cat in clay and passes it off as original work. When the sculpture gives him a taste of the adoration he seeks, Walter continues down the dark path of melding murder with art.

The Drive-In Totals include but are not limited to: 4 dead bodies, 1 dead-cat sculpture, attempted busboy seduction with heroin, skillet fu, and gratuitous beatnik poetry. “Four stars. Joe Bob says, ‘Check it out.’”

Decisions, Decisions

Despite the film only being 67 minutes long, Joe Bob emphasizes how its length in no way limits the complete and complex story. Corman cuts down film times as a production decision. According to Corman, 78 minutes is the perfect length for a movie because it lowers distribution costs. Low run-times also make movies more likely to receive a television sale as it allows for more commercials.

Joe Bob credits Bucket with defining the acting style of Dick Miller and kicking off his career of playing oddball characters. The film also shows the strengths of Julian Burton as a character actor. Corman expected those in his films to continue in the industry, but not necessarily with him. Speaking about a conversation he had with Corman once, Joe Bob recounts him saying, “If you make a third movie for me, I tend to lose all respect for you.”

Budgeting

Bemoaning that a producer like Corman doesn’t exist for the modern age, Joe Bob asks the audience who they think could be analogous. Eric Butts gleefully shouts out “Lloyd Kaufman!” Darcy agrees with Butts, but Joe Bob doesn’t seem to think one truly exists. If one does, I agree that Kaufman is the closest thing. Joe Bob seems to think Blumhouse might be it, but concedes “they make expensive movies now.” Corman was not one to make expensive films even if it was within the budget.

Utilizing cost-saving measures, Little Shop of Horrors (1960) was filmed shortly after Bucket and utilized the same sets. Little Shop is the only Corman film in the National Film Registry. Joe Bob seems perplexed by this as Bucket and Little Shop are “identically structured movies.” Between the two, he believes Bucket to be the superior film.

Advertisement

When Darcy asks Joe Bob what he would do with $10 million in production funding, he says he would make 40 movies. Bucket of Blood 2, Gatorbait 3, and Hogzilla 2 are all thrown out as options. As soon as hogzilla is mentioned, the crowd bursts out in the now-familiar “Hogzilla! Hogzilla! Hogzilla!” chant. Being there, it felt good to be able to join in on the chant live instead of yelling it at my screen.

My rating for Bucket of Blood: 4.7 out of 5 stars (4.7 / 5)

Crowd Pleaser

Due to the live format, there is no mail break between movies. Instead, Joe Bob announces that Darcy will be going through the crowd to collect their letters. This appears to be news to Darcy and she responds with a startled look on her face, “Oh, I will not be moving amongst them!” She may have become more confident with her place on The Last Drive-In, but sending her out into the dark among the masses is too far. We’ll try to not take it personally, Darcy.

Joe Bob sits on stage next to Darcy the Mailgirl
Joe Bob attempts to convince Darcy

Instead of leaving the stage, she asks Joe Bob if he has his questions ready for Corman. She braces again when he replies that he is going for spontaneity tonight. Joe Bob says he’s already asked all of his questions in previous Corman interviews, so he’s left with no choice but to wing it. “Whenever you say something off the top of your head, you make everyone mad, and I defend you,” she reminds him. 

Welcome to the Stage

A sense of joy and reverence overtakes the stage as Roger and Julie Corman join the hosts. It is easy to tell from Joe Bob’s face how much love and reverence he holds for Corman. Their relationship/friendship has lasted since Joe Bob presented Corman with a lifetime achievement award 40 years ago. Of course, the award was inscribed on a Chevy hubcap. And of course, it’s presentation took place at a drive-in theater.

Joe Bob Briggs interviews Roger Corman on stage.
Joe Bob interviewing Roger Corman

Noting that a Chevy hubcap just wouldn’t cut it this time, Joe Bob gives both Roger and Julie lifetime achievement awards inscribed on Cadillac hubcaps. When Darcy hands Corman his award, he smiles in delight. “That’s great, that’s great! I love it!” The synchronicity of the moment is a beautiful thing to behold.

Always Prepared

Although Joe Bob told Darcy he did not have questions planned, he dives into the interview. “You were the man who brought Ingmar Bergman to the drive-in,” he starts. Corman reveals part of his distribution strategy and notes that drive-ins typically suffer in the fall from a lack of pictures. He says they decided to put Bergman’s film Cries and Whispers (1972) into drive-ins and see what happened. “We were delighted to find we had done average business.”

Advertisement

Corman is just as endearing and affable throughout the remainder of the interview. As Joe Bob delves into his genre-spanning career, Corman’s answers are a wealth of institutional knowledge and personal stories. This is an interview that anyone and everyone planning on going into film should watch. Going through the multiple genres reveals how much of a finger Corman kept on the pulse of culture as well as his chameleon-like ability to fit himself into any situation.

What a Trip

Genres he has worked in include (but are not limited to): westerns, redneck action, film-noir, rock-and-roll musicals, historical action, ripped from the headlines exploitation, gangster, comedy, pure action, costume drama, women in prison, sword and sorcery, and motorcycle movies. Corman reveals he holds an affinity for the science-fiction genre in particular. “[It] is laid in fantastic areas, but to a large extent, it can be a comment on the present day.” Julie chimes in to reveal the first story Corman ever wrote was a science-fiction piece, and Corman looks wistful as he remembers failing to sell it.

When asked about his art-film period, Corman talks about dropping acid with the cast of The Trip (1967). Intending to draw from the experience while filming, Corman says the experience didn’t go entirely to plan. “I had such a great trip.” He remembers worrying it was “going to end up as an ad for LSD.”

Surprise Guest

Unbeknownst to everyone in the audience, Joe Bob arranged for a member of The Trip’s cast as a surprise guest. Bruce Dern enters the stage clad in a leather jacket. I’m not sure if this is his normal garb, or if he is making a nod to another Corman film he starred in – The Wild Angels (1966).

Dern is bursting with praise for Corman and his impact on the film industry. When Joe Bob asks about working with Jack Nicholson, Peter Fonda and Dennis Hopper, Dern asserts “We went to the University of Corman.” I immediately wish I could buy merch emblazoned with that. He summarizes Corman’s career succinctly, “You do shit that’s never been done.”

Advertisement

Dern acknowledges that the pay wasn’t always fantastic, but that Corman always made sure his stars received the proper billing. “He put our names above the title.” Dern recalls being offended on Corman’s behalf for the lack of proper recognition throughout the years. “It was always fun to be with him and be able to say this kind of stuff about a guy, who God damnit deserves it.”

Lifetime Achievement

The interview ends with three incredible moments. First, Corman recalls receiving a death threat from Big Otto Friedli (a former President of the Hells Angels). Friedli was suing Corman in regards to The Wild Angels. His response to the threat leaves the audience in laughter. “My advice to you is forget the momentary pleasure of killing me and go for the million dollars.”

Next, the audience learns from Corman that a remake of Little Shop is coming in conjunction with Brad Krevoy. Joe Dante is directing the film, which is called The Little Shop of Halloween Horrors.

To end, Corman reveals that not only does he still have his original Chevy hubcap given to him 40 years ago, but that he brought it with him. In an incredibly touching moment, Corman bestows the award back to Joe Bob. “It’s my pleasure to give you the lifetime achievement award.” I cannot think of a higher honor.

You’ve Been Warned

Content warning: The second film of the night contains multiple depictions of sexual violence. Consequently, Joe Bob refers to it within his discussions of the film.

Advertisement

Despite there being literally hundreds of Corman films to choose from, Joe Bob selects Deathstalker (1983) as the second movie. He breaks his decision down to three factors. First, he wants to present a sword and sorcery movie. Second, he wants to highlight Corman’s use of foreign countries to “make movies that otherwise would not be made.” Third, the movie has a lot of naked women in it and is “loincloth city.”

A poster for Roger Corman's Deathstalker.
A poster for Roger Corman’s Deathstalker

Deathstalker tells the story of, well, Deathstalker (Rick Hill) and his quest to acquire three magical items in order to defeat the evil sorcerer Munkar (Bernard Erhard). As Joe Bob puts it, “There’s rape and there’s pillage and there’s magic swords and there’s castles and there’s peasant hoards…”

The drive-in totals include but are not limited to: 30 breasts, 24 buttocks, limb ripping, spears through the gizzards, heads roll, leprosy fu. “Four stars. Joe Bob says, ‘Check it out!’”

Parental Advisory

This film has an almost absurd amount of sexual violence in it. It is rare for a woman to be on screen without there being sexual violence. If you are uncomfortable with watching that take place, Joe Bob does an accurate summation at each break. If you don’t want to hear about it, skip the second film entirely. As Darcy says, “This movie is very rapey.” 

Thankfully, Joe Bob does also delve more into Corman’s history during the breaks. Corman struck a 10-picture deal with Héctor Olivera and Aries Films based out of Buenos Aires. Joe Bob credits this deal with saving Aries Film during a time of hyperinflation in Argentina. Apparently, The Argentine film industry wasn’t a fan of Deathstalker and criticized the exploitation inherent in its production.

The stunt-work in the film is impressive. While the stunts are fun to watch, it’s hard to forget that the performers were risking bodily harm at a pay-rate that was only acceptable because of Argentina’s economic situation. Joe Bob highlights the work of José Luis Arévalo as the character Pig-Face specifically as deserving praise and recognition.

Advertisement

A New World Order

Moving away from the film, Joe Bob goes deeper into Corman’s film distribution history. Starting with New World Pictures in 1970, Corman went on to create and sell various distribution companies. In the process, he created numerous sub-genres and launched the careers of several successful filmmakers. Martin Scorsese and Ron Howard are included in the list.

Corman would not allow someone to direct a film for him until they had editing experience. According to Joe Bob, Corman believes “editing is the key to great movies.” This calls back to his idea that 78 minutes is the perfect length for a movie. 

Lack of Defense

The film performed well in America but was a dud in its production home of Argentina. Joe Bob notes early into the film, “I am, by the way, one of the few defenders of this movie.” Darcy agrees that she is also a defender of the film. I am not.

My rating for Deathstalker: 1.3 out of 5 stars (1.3 / 5)

Wrap it Up

Although Darcy never waded into the crowd to collect letters, fans still wrote on whatever scraps they had and threw them in the collection box. Darcy chooses four letters, but my favorite comes from Victoria from Virgina. She writes in with a topical blonde joke: “Why did the two blonds freeze to death at the drive-in? They went to see ‘closed for the winter.’”

The night can’t really end until Joe Bob tells his jokes, and that he does. As the night draws to a close, John Brennan and the Bigfeet come back out with Yuki to sing the mutant oath as a send-off. Appropriately, the night ends with the crowd lovingly chanting Joe Bob’s name.

Advertisement

While I may not be a fan of Deathstalker, the special overall was incredible to experience. Sitting live in the audience (and catching glimpses of myself on TV) is something I will never be able to forget.

It’s fascinating to see how the live experience translated to the screen, but production did a fantastic job making it seamless. The energy of the crowd is really what makes this special. Chanting will never be the same again.

Darcy on stage chanting "loincloth!"
Loincloth! Loincloth!

My rating for A Tribute to Roger Corman: 4 out of 5 stars (4 / 5)

Continue Reading

Movies n TV

Unraveling the Artistry in Sean Mathias’s Hamlet Film with Ian McKellen

Published

on

2b v ~ 2b

Imagine Sir Ian McKellen, an icon of the stage and screen, diving back into the turbulent waters of Shakespeare’s Hamlet. This isn’t just any adaptation; we’re talking about a cinematic spin on Sean Mathias’s groundbreaking 2021 production, where age is just a number, and McKellen’s Hamlet shatters expectations. This Hamlet film is a feast for the senses and a triumph of storytelling.

Now, I’m not just whistling Dixie here; as someone deeply entrenched in Shakespeare’s rich tapestry and perpetually on the edge of my seat for fresh adaptations, the buzz around this particular version of Hamlet has me all kinds of excited. With IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes ready to chart its journey, and echoes of David Tennant to Helena Bonham Carter reminding us of Hamlet’s storied cinematic past, Sir Ian’s version is primed to stand tall amidst the ghosts of Kenneth Branagh and the tragic echoes of Ophelia. This film isn’t just a recount of Denmark’s doomed prince; it’s a beacon for Shakespeare enthusiasts and cinema buffs alike.

Overview of the Film

Diving headfirst into the heart of this cinematic marvel, “Hamlet” with Ian McKellen at the helm, is like stepping into a Shakespearean whirlwind spun into the modern age. Directed by the visionary Sean Mathias, this film plants its roots in the historic Theatre Royal Windsor, UK, transforming every corner of this iconic space into the brooding world of Elsinore. The cast, oh, the cast! It’s a lineup that reads like a who’s who of the acting world – from Jonathan Hyde’s (Claudius) gravitas to Jenny Seagrove’s (Gertrude) elegance, and let’s not forget the powerhouse that is Alis Wyn Davies (Ophelia). This ensemble, including Ben Allen (Horatio), Ashley D Gayle (basically everyone not named already) and Emmanuella Cole (Laertes), navigates Shakespeare’s complex language with a finesse that’s downright enviable.

Advertisement

This isn’t just any adaptation; we’re talking about a cinematic spin on Sean Mathias’s groundbreaking 2021 production, where age is just a number. McKellen’s Hamlet shatters expectations. Jim Phoenix

Picture, if you will: the world’s been hit with the stillness of the 2020 COVID-19 shutdown, and amidst this, “Hamlet” emerges as a beacon of artistic resilience. It’s not just any adaptation; it’s a modern-dress treatment that speaks to the here and now, pared down to a gripping two hours. The production breathes life into the Theatre Royal Windsor, turning its abandoned nooks and crannies into the very heart of Elsinore. From the safety curtain to the theatre foyer, every scene unfolds with an intimacy that only enhances the drama.

This film isn’t just about showcasing stellar performances; it’s an exploration, a conversation between cinema and theatre. How does one enhance the other? Can the grandeur of theatre translate onto the silver screen? With Neil Oseman’s ingenious cinematography, every frame of this film attempts to answer these questions, offering viewers a Hamlet that’s both familiar and startlingly new. Set your tvs on stun as this version hits shelves and electrons on April 8 coming out on DVD, Blu-ray, and Digital Download, this film is a testament to the timeless allure of Shakespeare, reimagined for a world in pause.

Ian McKellen dressed in a white fencing outfit with the title Hamlet

Ian McKellen’s Performance

Let me tell you, seeing Sir Ian McKellen take on Hamlet again, especially at 84, is like watching a master painter revisit his masterpiece with new colors. This isn’t just any performance; it’s a nuanced, age-blind portrayal that flips the script on traditional casting, making it a must-see for anyone who’s even remotely intrigued by Shakespeare’s work.

  • Age-Blind Brilliance: Let’s face it. Even my first thought was ‘how the hell is McKellen going to play Hamlet at 80??!’ Well, the answer is…brilliantly. McKellen’s casting in an age-blind production adds layers to Hamlet’s character, showcasing a blend of youthful energy with the wisdom of age. This duality brings a fresh perspective to the role, making it relatable across generations.
  • A Masterclass in Delivery: His performance is a quiet storm. It’s meditative, focusing on the weight of Hamlet’s words rather than overt dramatics. McKellen’s command of the language, his ability to find new inflections in well-trodden speeches, is nothing short of a masterclass. Shakespeare aficionados will be hanging on every word, reveling in the masterful delivery of the bard’s intricate verse. For those struggling with the text of the play, this might be the most friendly adaptation to sink your teeth into. McKellen’s delivery hits all the high notes, but his wisdom in holding back where others might push helps newer audiences connect with the material.
  • Physicality and Emotional Depth: Despite the quieter, more reflective approach, McKellen’s physicality and emotional depth do not wane. His portrayal is a testament to his skill, bringing a compelling prince to life who is both vulnerable and unpredictable. The scenes with the players, in particular, highlight his calculated madness, offering a glimpse into the prince’s tormented psyche.

Incorporating these elements into his portrayal, McKellen not only honors his past performances but also elevates this Hamlet film to new heights. It’s a celebration of Shakespeare’s timeless language and the psychological complexity of its characters, delivered by a cast led by a titan of the stage and screen.

Supporting Cast and Their Contributions

Alright, diving into the world of Elsinore beyond McKellen’s Hamlet, let’s talk about the squad that brings this Shakespearean drama to life. It’s like assembling a dream team where each player has their unique flair, but instead of dribbling basketballs, they’re slaying lines in iambic pentameter.

McKellen’s Hamlet is a feast for the senses and a triumph of storytelling. Jim Phoenix

  • Jenny Seagrove as Gertrude: Seagrove’s take on the Queen is interesting. I’ve seen Gertrude played a lot of different ways. Mostly, the audience should find some sympathy with Gertrude (enough to make a real connection that she truly loves Hamlet and is, most likely, innocent in most things). There are times where Seagrove approaches this, but the royal mask stays tightly on. Some have suggested her performance as ‘wooden’, but I think they are missing the point. Seagrove does move to emotion when she must, but the excels at keeping the ‘Royal Mask’ intact. In the end, Queen Gertrude is exactly that–Queen. When was the last time you saw England’s former monarch express a lot of emotion in public? This doesn’t suggest either were incapable of emotion, but rather a master of theirs.
  • Jonathan Hyde as Claudius and Emmanuella as Laertes: Hyde’s Claudius is the smooth villain you love to hate, capturing the complexity of the character with finesse. Cole steps into Laertes’ shoes and runs with them, delivering a performance that’s solid, given the big shoes she had to fill.

Mix in the age- and gender-blind casting, and you’ve got a recipe for a Hamlet that’s as fresh as it is classic. From modern-dress Polonius to a female Ghost stirring the pot, this cast turns Shakespeare on its head in the best way possible. And let’s not forget the costumes – or lack thereof, in terms of evocativeness. It’s like everyone decided to raid a very somber, very Shakespearean version of H&M. This works in the movie’s favor. It’s a zero-shits given version of Hamlet casting. They cast the best person for the role, gender, age, color be damned. It’s pretty refreshing to see this cast and they knock it out of the park.

Critical Reception and Audience Response

So, let’s dive into the sea of opinions swirling around this Hamlet film, shall we? I mean, it’s not every day you get to see Sir Ian McKellen give life to one of Shakespeare’s most tormented souls, right? The buzz was real, folks – from critics singing praises to some scratching their heads in puzzlement. Here’s the lowdown:

Let’s face it. Even my first thought was ‘how the hell is McKellen going to play Hamlet at 80??!’ Well, the answer is…brilliantly. Jim Phoenix

  • Praise for McKellen and the Modern Twist:
    • Critics and audiences were all about McKellen’s portrayal. The blend of youthful energy with the wisdom of age? Gorgeously done as we all knew he would.
    • The contemporary take on this classic tragedy had folks intrigued. It’s like Shakespeare met 2024 and they decided to throw a party.
  • But, Not All Was Rosy:
    • The relationship between Hamlet and Ophelia felt like it was on a diet – underdeveloped and leaving us wanting more. I’m not sure where it goes ‘wrong’ here. The acting is spectactular for both Hamlet and Ophelia, but there isn’t a joint spark. Hamlet’s kiss to his mother was more romantic than anything happening between these two (and that kiss was a tad creepy).
  • Production Woes and Wins:
    • Experimental space and tone had its ups and downs. Some decisions had us scratching our heads, wondering if the chaos was part of the charm. This includes some setting (how many flights of stairs did Gertrude run down to nark on her son?) and sometimes the lines either cut or–oddly–added.
    • With all that said, the good far outweigh the bad here. Even the wonky stair run works to show a level of Gertrude’s literal and metaphorical descent. It goes to show space in the madness–a madness that is quite contagious in this play.

Navigating through this mixed bag of reactions, it’s clear this Hamlet wasn’t just another adaptation. It was a conversation starter, a bold experiment in blending theatre with cinema, and a showcase for McKellen’s undiminished talent. As a Shakespeare enthusiast, it’s these daring takes that keep the bard’s work alive and kicking in our hearts.

For those new to Shakespeare…

I know someone who is currently teaching Hamlet in class. After seeing Sir Ian’s vision of Hamlet, we both agreed: This might be the bridge for younger adults to get a greater understanding of Shakespeare. The run time, the choice of words and scenery, and the stellar cast all form a ‘relatable’ version of Hamlet. There are some food for thought with this version that we discussed earlier (e.g., age and gender blind casting; some of the text is from elsewhere, etc), but if you’re new to Shakespeare and want to tip-toe in–this is your jam. Even better–if you love Hamlet and thought you saw it all–this is also your jam.

Conclusion

Through this detailed exploration of the Hamlet film starring Ian McKellen, we’ve navigated the complexities and novelties introduced by a profoundly compelling adaptation. The artistic innovation that underpins this rendition extends from its age-blind casting to the incorporation of modern dress, illustrating Shakespeare’s enduring relevance. McKellen’s portrayal of Hamlet, enriched by his depth of experience and fresh perspectives, alongside a robust supporting cast, fortifies the film’s appeal not only to Shakespeare veterans but also to those who are newly discovering the intricacies of the Bard’s masterpieces. This narrative fervor aligns harmoniously with an audience that is simultaneously well-versed in Shakespearean lore and eager to witness this unique adaptation unfold.

As I conclude, the significance of this adaptation transcends mere entertainment, heralding a vibrant dialogue between traditional theatre and contemporary cinema. The anticipation surrounding its release is a testament to the lasting impact of Shakespeare’s work, ingeniously reimagined for today’s audience. For enthusiasts and scholars alike, the film promises to be a captivating experience, merging the old with the new in a celebration of Shakespearean drama that is not to be missed.

To ensure you don’t miss out on this cinematic feat, make sure to go buy it from Kaleidoscope Home Entertainment when it comes out on Blu-ray, DVD, and streaming April 8. This adaptation not only redefines the parameters of classical theatre in the modern age but also beckons us to revisit the timeless questions and emotions that Shakespeare so masterfully encapsulated.

Final Rating

4.5 out of 5 stars (4.5 / 5)

Short Synopsis: McKellen reprises his lead role as Hamlet, a man who descends into madness as he seeks vengeance against his uncle for the alleged murder of his father. A tale of revenge that has stood the test of time, Shakespeare’s classic tragedy is reimagined for the modern day as a gripping psychological thriller. Kaleidoscope Home Entertainment

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movies n TV

Goosebumps, Night of the Living Dummy: Part 2

Published

on

After last episode’s spectacular ending that honestly felt like a season finale, I was apprehensive about this episode. I was expecting this one to feel slow, tacked on, and a little gimmicky. Fortunately, it was only two of those things.

The story

We begin our story with Nathan, just finishing up the book he’s written about Slappy and the town. He sent it off to a publisher who loves it! Except, for the ending.

Cover for Goosebums Night of the Living Dummy 2

Nathan tries valiantly to write an ending. But in the end, he just can’t come up with one. With his publisher breathing down his neck, Nathan decides the only way to end the book is to bring Slappy back for an encore.

Slappy manages to immediately endear himself to Nathan by bringing Fifi back to life. And I’ll be honest here. I probably wouldn’t have retrieved a homicidal dummy for the perfect ending to a book. But I’d do some shady shit for someone who could bring my dead pets back to life. Even if they did have scary monster teeth.

Advertisement

Of course, this sort of thing never goes to plan. Soon enough Slappy has everything he wants. And the ending of Nathan’s story is the least of his concerns.

Meanwhile, the teens are in Seattle with Margot and her mom. Margot is thinking about moving there, and there are conflicting opinions about this. Lucas realizes he never wants to leave their hometown, which causes conflict. Conflict that I didn’t think was bad enough that he needed to get on a bus and head home alone, but what do I know?

The only real reason why this matters is that the kids, who are clearly the only ones paying any attention in this town, are in fact out of town when Slappy returns.

What worked

A lot of the joy from this episode came from Nathan. It was a really fun episode if you are a fan of R.L. Stine, a fan of Stephen King, or a writer. As I’m all three, this was quite fun for me. At least half the episode was.

Advertisement

First, I loved the generational stupidity of Nathan Bratt. We know that it was his ancestor, Ephraim Biddle, who first found Slappy and locked him up in the Biddle house. It was then, of course, Harold Biddle who was corrupted and eventually killed by Slappy. So when Nathan goes to find Slappy, you can almost hear generations of his family yelling at him.

This episode is littered with jokes about R.L. Stein and Stephen King. King is name-dropped several times, and you can see at least one of his books in the background while Nathan’s talking to his publisher. Also, the publisher’s note that Nathan’s ending is bad could be a reference to King.

Stine also has a wonderful cameo in the form of a writing podcast Nathan is listening to. If that podcast exists, I need to find it. I also appreciated the dig about ‘everyone being dead the whole time’. This episode took shot after shot at my favorite childhood author and my favorite author from adulthood and I loved it.

Justin Long in Goosebumps.

What didn’t work

Sadly the episode couldn’t all be horror writing in-jokes. Sometimes we did have to pay attention to the main characters. And that storyline was, to put it bluntly, boring.

I couldn’t care less that Margot is considering moving. I don’t care that Isaiah and Lucas are both in love with her. I don’t care that Lucas has never heard of long-distance relationships. I don’t care that Isabella has feelings for Isaiah. I tuned into Goosebumps to watch killer dummies and vengeful ghosts. If I wanted to watch teenagers have hormones at each other, I’d have watched Degrassi. None of the teens’ love lives have anything to do with the plot and this portion of the show was so, so very dull.

Advertisement

All in all, this wasn’t the strongest episode of the season. It was one of those dreaded bridge episodes, there more to set the stage for what’s to come than to be enjoyable in its own right. But, it did that. I’m excited to see what the last episode has in store for us. 3.5 out of 5 stars (3.5 / 5)

If you’re a fan of my work, please check out my latest story, Nova, on Paper Beats World. New chapters launch every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending