White Christmas (1954)/ Holiday Inn (1942)

White Christmas is often described as being a remake of Holiday Inn, but, in truth, they  only have two things in common;  both star Bing Crosby and feature the song “White Christmas.”  I am a bit perplexed at how White Christmas has been elevated to classic status over the years– it’s an entertaining movie, to be sure, and has two dynamic leads in Bing Crosby and Danny Kaye, but it’s also terribly contrived and has an unappealing leading lady in Rosemary Clooney. I don’t know if it’s Clooney’s performance, or if it is just the way her character, Betty Haynes, is written, but she is a complete stick in the mud.  Granted, the plot is just a framework to hang all the song and dance numbers on, and Holiday Inn is just as contrived, but here it is just grating. 

I like the first hour of White Christmas a lot; Crosby and Kaye are a fun team to watch, there are some good song and dance numbers, Vera-Ellen is likable as Judy Haynes, and Dean Jagger gives a nice understated performance as Tom Waverly, the boys’ former commanding officer who now runs an inn in Vermont.  Best of all is Marry Wickes as Waverly’s nosy housekeeper, Emma Allen.  Then, unfortunately, the plot kicks in; after having successfully coupled up Bob Wallace (Crosby) and Betty Haynes, the screenwriters contrive to, briefly, separate them, and, as usual, this is accomplished by having it all be one big misunderstanding:

Bob and his stage partner, Phil (Danny Kaye), are disheartened to see just how sad General Waverly is in his current situation - the inn is struggling and he misses army life. They want to rectify this by letting him know that he is not forgotten by his men, so they decide to hold a show in his honor and have the men that served under him come up to the inn for Christmas.  However, the only way to reach all the men is by having Bob appear on the popular television Ed Harrison show and plead his case.  Bob places the call to Ed Harrison, while Emma Allen eavesdrops on the other telephone, however, she only hears half of the conversation, and assumes that Bob and Phil are exploiting Waverly’s situation for publicity. She tells Betty this, and Betty, rather than giving Bob the benefit of the doubt, is angered by this and starts to give him the could shoulder.  This part of the movie absolutely irritates me – it could easily be settled if Betty simply asked Bob, instead of giving him the silent treatment. It also makes you wonder why Bob would even be interested in pursuing a relationship with Betty given how quick she was to judge him. Rosemary Clooney’s cold exterior doesn’t help matters; she is a great singer, but there is very little chemistry between her and Crosby. 

Holiday Inn, of course, also briefly separates Bing Crosby’s character, Jim Hardy, from his love interest, Linda Mason (Marjorie Reynolds), but does a much better job with the story line and feels far more natural to the plot – it is Jim’s jealous actions that drive away Linda, rather than a silly misunderstanding.  This is actually nicely set up in the movie’s beginning when Jim’s fiancée, Lila Dixon (Virginia Dale), leaves him for his stage partner, Ted Hanover (Fred Astaire).  Jim wants to leave show business behind and live on a farm, which doesn’t go over well with Lila, who wants to remain on the stage.  She forms a dance partnership with Ted, while Jim fritters away on the farm.  Realizing he is not much of farmer, Jim, instead, opts to turn his farm into a Holiday Inn; a night club that is only opened on holidays and closed for the rest of the year. Inevitably, Jim finds a new lover in Linda Mason, who becomes a regular performer at the Inn. After Lila leaves Ted for a Texas millionaire, he sets his eyes on Linda, and hopes to lure her away from Jim; a Hollywood producer is going to be at the Holiday Inn and if all goes well, she and Ted will be offered a contract.  

However, Jim manipulates things so that Linda won’t be there by bribing the hired hand, Gus, to drive the inn’s car in circles – it eventually ends up in a creek.  Jim also contacts Lila, who has left the Texas millionaire when tax problems are revealed, and arranges for her to appear at the Inn with Ted. While walking back to the Inn, Linda is picked up by Lila and learns all about Jim’s plans. She is, justifiably, irate with Jim. It never even occurs to him that she might have turned the contract down. The Hollywood producer is, nonetheless, impressed with Ted’s solo routine and offers both of them a contract; Jim throws in the towel and let’s Linda go to Hollywood.  The producer also wants to use Jim’s songs and make a movie about the Holiday Inn, a deal he reluctantly accepts.  Linda and Ted become big stars in Hollywood, while Jim closes down the Holiday Inn and becomes a recluse.  After a few words of encouragement from his maid, he goes to Hollywood to steal Linda back.

The characters in Holiday Inn are truly repellent at times, yet they remain likable due to the charming screen presences of Crosby and Astaire. Certainly, Jim is wrong in his attempt to deprive Linda of a great opportunity, but his actions are understandable – he clearly loves the woman and is afraid of losing her to Ted, and show business.  He lacks confidence and is completely convinced that Linda would never choose a life with him over Hollywood stardom.  Linda, however, really has no desire at being a star, and only agrees to the Hollywood contract because she is convinced that her life Jim is over. Jim Hardy is a much more interesting character than Bob Wallace, who is practically a saint.

Marjorie Reynolds is a much better actress than Rosemary Clooney, and that Linda Mason is a far more appealing character than Betty Haynes. For one thing, Linda is a much more relatable than Betty – she begins the movie toiling away at an airport flower shop, hoping to break into show business. When Ted’s manager, Danny, comes into shop to buy flowers for Lila, Linda uses this to her advantage and tells her about the Holiday Inn.  When we first meet the Haynes sisters in White Christmas, they are already a show business act, albeit an obscure one.  Judy wants to make the next leap to stardom, so she tricks Bob and Phil into seeing the act by writing them a letter and signing it as Benny Haynes, who was the boys’ mess hall sergeant during World War II.  Bob, out of a sense of loyalty, figures they should check out the act, despite Phil’s initial protests.   What reallydifferentiates the two characters is Linda’s sense of humor and overall cheerful demeanor; Betty is a complete wet blanket about everything.  I like that Linda, when learning about Jim’s manipulation, manages to foil his plans by giving Lila faulty directions to the Inn, which leaves her stranded in the creek.  It is also easy believe that Jim would miss a girl like Linda – he spends all of Thanksgiving sulking, depressed at having lost her.  I just don’t buy that Bob would ever want to settle down with Betty, given her self righteous indignation about everything.  Holiday Inn also has the advantage in that the story unfolds over the course of a year, so we get to see Jim and Linda’s romance naturally blossom, whereas, the main story of, White Christmas takes place over a couple of weeks. 

Holiday Inn is certainly not without its own faults; modern audiences will probably groan at the character of Mamie, Jim’s wisdom spouting black maid, and cringe at the sight of Crosby doing a musical number in black face.  It is always a joy to watch Fred Astaire dance, but I find the pairing of Crosby and Kaye in White Christmas to be much more inspired; Crosby is the perfect straight man to Kaye’s highly eccentric personality. There is a nice give and take between the two actors – I especially love the moment, at the end of the “Sisters” number, where Crosby begins to crack up at Kaye’s antics. It also helps that Bob Wallace and Phil Davis are best friends in White Christmas, whereas Jim Hardy and Ted Hanover are friendly rivals in Holiday Inn; the former team is far more fun to watch. While Astaire had a likable screen personality, he was a fairly limited actor; Bing Crosby, on the other hand, was a very naturalistic actor, and could hold his own with likes of Ingrid Bergman

Vera-Ellen’s Judy Haynes is the perfect love interest for Danny Kaye’s Phil Davis; both of them are schemers and have pleasant personalities. Sure, they may be manipulative in their approach, but they don’t mean any harm, and are usually right - Phil usually gets his way by reminding Bob of the arm injury he sustained when he saved Bob’s life in the war; Judy uses her brother Benny’s military service with the boys as a ruse to get them to see her and Betty’s sister act. They are a fun couple to watch and help breathe life into the proceedings when the movie hits its lull at the midway point.  Thankfully, the contrived plot can’t ruin the good will the movie has build up in the first half, and White Christmas manages to regain its footing in the last twenty minutes that we can forgive its flaws. 

There are a lot of memorable scenes in White Christmas; Crosby singing the title song to a platoon of soldiers outside the battlefield; Danny Kaye’s and Vera-Ellen’s song and dance number, “The Best Things Happen While You’re Dancing”; Crosby and Kaye lip syncing to the girl’s musical number “Sisters,” to give the girl’s time to escape from their sleazy landlord, who wants them to pay $200 for a rug they supposedly burned;  the dining room car scene where the four of them sing “Snow”, it’s not a great song, but it sure sounds great; and the heart warming finale.  Oddly enough, my favorite moment in the movie doesn’t involve either Crosby or Kaye, but Anne Whitfield, who plays General Waverly’s granddaughter, Susan. At the end of the movie, the camera goes into a close up of Susan’s face as she sees her grandfather in his general uniform for the very first time – her face literally lights up and one can genuinely feel the affection she has for the old man. It makes me wish that the movie would have given Susan more to do, instead of just standing quietly in the background – she has an appealing screen presence and just radiates warmth every second she is onscreen.

These are all a great moments, but none of them can hold a candle to Astaire's drunken dance routine in Holiday Inn, or Crosby's crooning of "White Christmas" to a wide eyed Linda by the Christmas tree. I also like the opening number with Crosby, Astaire, and Virginia Dale, "I'll Capture Your Heart," in which Crosby tries to win her heart with singing, while Astaire tries with dancing.

If had to give White Christmas a rating, it would probably give it three (out of four) stars; I don’t believe it to be a classic, but it is a fun movie too watch, and absolute treat to watch at Christmas time.  In fact, one of my favorite Christmas memories is seeing the Times Cinema in Wauwatosa; it is a movie that really comes alive on the big screen and great fun to see with a huge crowd – the laughter and applause was truly infectious.  Holiday Inn is the superior movie of the two, but White Christmas still remains an audience pleaser sixty years after its initial release. 

Credits

White Christmas
Cast:  Bing Crosby (Bob Wallace), Danny Kaye (Phil Davis), Rosemary Clooney (Betty Haynes), Vera-Ellen (Judy Haynes), Dean Jagger (Major General Tom Waverly), Mary Wickes (Emma Allen), Anne Whitfield (Susan Waverly), Johnny Grant (Ed Harrison).

Director: Michael Curtiz
Screenplay: Norman Krasna, Norman Panama, Melvin Frank.
Running Time: 120 min.

Holiday Inn
Cast: Bing Crosby (Jim Hardy), Fred Astaire (Ted Hanover), Marjorie Reynolds (Linda Mason), Virginia Dale (Lila Dixon), Walter Abel (Danny Reed), Lousie Beavers (Mamie), Irving Bacon (Gus).

Director: Mark Sandrich
Screenplay: Claude Binyon. Elmer Rice (adaptation).
Running Time: 102 min.

Scream 4 (2011)

The kindest thing I can say about Scream 4 is that it isn’t terrible. That is hardly a recommendation, but given the circumstances, it could have been a lot worse.  There a few touches here and there that help make it watchable – Marley Shelton’s awkward deputy; Hayden Panetierre’s likable turn as the horror fanatic, Kirby; a few humorous moments involving Gale Weathers and two members of the high school AV Club; and the unmasking of the killer, which is genuinely surprising.  The problem is that we have seen it all before and even the reveal at the end isn’t enough to overcome the familiarity. Though, one could argue that the familiarity is the entire point of Scream 4 – the killer is essentially doing a “remake” by recording the murders and posting them online. 

What’s even more irritating is that original characters in the first film seem to have regressed since the third movie – Dewey and Gale once again are at odds with one another.  How did Dewey get promoted to Sheriff? In Scream 3, at least Dewey was slightly competent – he is the one that notices the photographs of Maureen Prescott, Sidney’s deceased mother, were taken on the same studio back lot where STAB 3 is being filmed.  He also manages to save Gale from certain death by firing his revolver at the killer. Unfortunately, in Scream 4, he just stumbles around the scenery and makes a complete ass of himself. Even more embarrassing is the fact that, in the movie’s climax, he is incapacitated with a bed pan. Dewey and Gale’s story line ended in Scream 3, there was really no reason to have them in the movie, other than the fact that they are “fan favorites.”   Gale’s redemption in the original Scream was an inspired idea; a lesser movie would have predictably killed off the character.  The problem is that, in each sequel, she has the same damn character arc – she goes from a bitchy tabloid journalist to being a more compassionate heroine.  Granted, Scream 4 does a clever variation on the character – she is so desperate to get back into journalism that she is willing to team up with two nerdy high school students, Charlie and Robbie, who have their own podcast.  This leads a few amusing scenes between Gale and the two students, but for all principle purposes, it’s the same story we have seen in the previous movies.  Just like in the first movie, Gale plants hidden cameras at a party hoping that something big will happen.

The character of Sidney is far less interesting to watch, despite being a “ stronger” character she still makes questionable decisions that endanger her and the lives of the others.  As flawed as Scream 3 was it, at least, gave Sidney a strong character arc; she begins the film as a complete recluse that is highly paranoid of the outside world (she has a fence around her property and arms her house with a security system).  Her only contact with the outside world is through the telephone – she counsels abused women on a hotline. She occasionally visits her dad and talks to Dewey, but otherwise she lives a lonely existence. Eventually, after learning about the murders of set the set of STAB 3, Sidney chooses to come out of hiding and face her fears. More importantly, she is opening herself up to other people. Scream 3 may be the weakest out of the original trilogy, but Sidney does make for a compelling heroine.  In Scream 4, Sidney has become a best selling author of a self help book and her hometown, Woodsboro, is the final stop on her book signing tour.  She finds, much to her horror, that her much younger cousin, Jill, and friends are being terrorized by a killer donning the “Ghostface” mask.  Given Sidney’s past experiences with serial killers, you would think she would be a more formidable opponent for the killer, but she is fairly useless for the most part. Sidney is not that engaging of a protagonist and this is largely due to her passivity this time around; it doesn't help that she is often pushed to the sidelines to make room for her younger and “more attractive” co-stars.

Scream 4 opens with not one, not two, but three pre-credits scenes. In the first scene two girls are watching a horror movie in a house and receive a threatening phone call. They, naturally, bite the big one, but it is all revealed to be a movie being watch by two blondes sitting on a couch. One of blondes, Rachel, complains about how stupid the movie is, only to be stabbed by other blonde, Chloe, who tells her she talks too much. However, this is also revealed to be a movie (a movie within a movie within a movie) being watched by two teenage girls, Jenny and Marnie, hanging out in the living room.  Jenny plays a prank on Marnie by calling her cell phone and impersonating “The Voice.”  Needless to say, both girls are promptly disposed of and then the SCREAM 4 title card flashes across the scene. This is meant to be hip, but it completely undermines the horror of the scene – the deaths of Jenny and Marnie are too abrupt to have any real impact.  In the first movie, the death of Casey Becker (Drew Barrymore) was so unnerving because it slowly built to that moment. It was a rare instance in which stunt casting great benefited the movie–Drew Barrymore, the biggest star in the cast, is killed off in the first ten minutes, thus letting the audience know in the advance that NO ONE is safe. The opening to Scream 4 makes me yawn with indifference. WHO ARE THESE GIRLS?  I admit I’m out of tune with the times, therefore I have no clue if the two actresses cast in this scene (Aimee Teegarden, Britt Robertson) are big named television actresses, or if this was a movie they happened to get cast in. Were their deaths supposed to be shocking? It lacks the freshness of the first movie and the shock value of the second film – the first two victims are murdered (in a movie theater) during a screening of the movie STAB. Hell, even the much maligned Scream 3 had an interesting variation on this formula – the opening scene is a (failed) chase to the rescue; Cotton Weary, while stuck in traffic, receives a phone call from the killer and races to his apartment to save his girlfriend.  Naturally, it turns out disastrous for both of them. The whole “movie within a movie” idea was amusing in Scream 2, especially with Tori Spelling playing the “movie” Sidney, but it is pretty tiresome this time around.

Scream 4 reflects Wes Craven’s, and Kevin Williamson’s, contempt for the endless horror remakes that have plagued the cinemas over the last decade; three of them being  updates of Craven films (The Hills Have Eyes, The Last House on the Left, and The Nightmare on Elm Street). Hence, it is no coincidence that practically all the young, NEW characters come to horrible ends, while the original cast members (Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, David Arquette) survive the ordeal with a few injuries.  Sidney sums up everything perfectly when she tells the killer, “You forgot the first rule of remakes, __. DON’T FUCK WITH THE ORIGINAL!”  It is also not too surprising that the teenagers in Scream 4 are meant to be pale imitations of the characters in the original – Jill (Sidney), Kirby (Tatum), Charlie (Randy), Trevor (Billy), and Deputy Judy Hicks (Dewey).  Though, I would argue that Kirby is superior to Tatum, however, I’m probably in the minority on this one.  It also a tad bit ironic seeing Craven being critical of remakes considering he was a producer on a few of them; the aforementioned The Hills Have Eyes and The Last House on the Left, as well as a dreadful remake of the 1962 classic, Carnival of Souls. 

This is one of the few instances where a downbeat ending might have worked better; it would have been genuinely shocking if Sidney had been killed off at the end, thus forcing one of the younger cast members to take up the torch. Sure, it would be a cheap shock, but it would also be quite unexpected. 

 Initially, this is what Kevin Williamson seems to be setting up in his script -the character of Kirby is pretty savvy when it comes to horror movies and is, probably, the most sympathetic character in the entire movie, but this turns out to be a ruse. Plus, making Kirby the heroine would contradict the whole “anti-remake” theme that pervades the movie.  

Also, like other slasher movies, Scream 4 is loaded with pretty useless characters, the most obvious being Rebecca, Sidney’s publicist, played by Allison Brie. Rebecca is excited by the murders in Woodsboro and hopes to exploit them for her, and Sidney’s, benefit. Sidney is appalled by her attitude and fires Rebecca. We know that her time is brief and she is killed in a particularly brutal fashion – stabbed multiple times and thrown from the roof of a parking garage.  There are also the extremely inept police officers, Perkins and Hoss, who are assigned to guard Sidney and her relatives. They have a horrible habit letting their guard down – people are murdered on their watch and they allow the killer to sneak up on them.  How many bumbling police officers can one movie have? There’s Dewey, Deputy Hicks, and these two idiots. It would be far more interesting if the police were actually presented in a more competent manner, yet still at loss when it came to the murders (see John Saxon in Black Christmas). As a result, there are a lot of pointless, and redundant, scenes of police officers puttering about, while teenagers are getting butchered at an alarming rate. Who knows? Maybe Wes Craven is paying homage to his first movie The Last House on the Left – which features similar scenes of lawmen acting like idiots.

-----------SPOILERS-----------------

It’s hard to do a review of Scream 4 without revealing the killer’s identity, so if you still haven’t seen it (and desperately want to), then I suggest you skip this section of the review, because I will RUIN it  for you.  If you have seen Scream 4, or have no desire to see, or simply don’t care, then READ ON. 

Finally, after all the bodies have piled up, it is revealed that the killers are Jill and Charlie. The reveal of Charlie itself isn’t too surprising, but the unmasking of Jill was a jaw dropping moment, at least for me.  Jill proves to be an extremely ruthless villain and even murders Charlie once she no longer has any use for him.  Why commit all these murders? MEDIA ATTENTION!  Growing up, Jill was jealous of all the attention that Sidney got in the family and decided that turning to murder would be an ideal way to direct the spotlight towards her.  After bumping off her friends at a party, and believing she killed Sidney, Jill inflicts injuries on herself and frames her ex-boyfriend Trevor by planting a gun on his corpse to make it seem that she is the sole surviving victim of the night’s atrocities. Ironically, at the movie’s end, Jill is given the media attention she always craved, but isn’t alive to enjoy it.  I like the reveal of Jill being “Ghostface”– it is hard to believe that such a sweet faced, innocent looking, girl could be a cold blooded killer. The critical flaw is that Emma Roberts doesn't have the acting chops to pull off the transformation; she plays the “psychopathic” Jill by acting all fidgety, shouting her lines, and emphasizing certain words (“Sidney THIS! And Sidney THAT!”). Also, she isn’t remotely intimidating in any of her later scenes, and it is completely baffling how the survivors have such a hard time taking Jill down – she is so tiny.

It is hard to swallow that the scrawny Charlie and petite Jill were capable of committing the murders that “Ghostface” does throughout the course of the movie – that’s the disadvantage of having a stuntman donning the “Ghostface” costume. I also have a hard time believing that Charlie would murder Kirby. She  is, essentially, Charlie’s dream girl and her finally showing interest in him would, at the very least, give him second thoughts about carrying on with the whole“let’s murder everyone” plan. It would be more interesting if Kirby became a source of friction between Charlie and Jill, 

 which, in turn,  allows for Sidney to take advantage of the situation. The whole finale in the hospital is so silly that it undermines the tension that Wes Craven was trying to create - Dewey gets hit in the head with a bed pan; Gale and Deputy Hicks stumble into the room in the nick of time; Sidney takes out Jill by shocking her head with a defibrillator; Jill some how survives the shock and comes at Sidney with a knife, then Sidney shoots her in the head with Deputy Hicks’ gun. It’s easily the weakest ending in the entire series – yes, it is even weaker than the ending to Scream 3.

----------------END OF SPOILERS------------------------

Scream 4 was a flop at the domestic box office; grossing 38 million on a 40 million budget. This was a huge come down from the previous entries in the series (the first two grossed over a 100 million, while Scream 3 made 89 million). Its poor performance at the box office almost guarantees no more Scream sequels; though, I guess a Scream TV series is in the works.  Maybe I am being too hard on Scream 4 – it’s not a great movie, but it is certainly better than the Slasher genre dictates.  It is overly familiar at times, but it moves a long at a fairly swift pace and is never boring.  I have no desire to own it on DVD/Blu-ray, but if it’s on television, or Netflix, it is worth a look – there are certainly worse ways to spend 111 min. If you go in with extremely low expectations, then you will be pleasantly surprised that it isn’t terrible. Again, that’s not exactly high praise, but that is about the best I can do.

Credits

Cast: Neve Campbell (Sidney), Emma Roberts (Jill Roberts), Hayden Panetierre (Kirby), Courtney Cox (Gale), David Arquette (Dewey), Rory Culkin (Charlie), Allison Brie (Rebecca), Nico Tortorella (Trevor), Erik Knudson(Robbie), Marley Shelton (Deputy Judy Hicks), Mariella Jaffe (Olivia), Anthony Anderson (Deputy Perkins), Adam Brody (Deputy Hoss), Mary McDonnell (Kate Roberts), Lucy Hale (Sherrie), Shenae Grimes – Beach (Trudie), Anna Paquin (Rachel), Kristen Bell (Chloe), Aimee Teegarden (Jenny), Britt Robertson (Marnie), Roger Jackson (The Voice).

Director: Wes Craven
Screenplay: Kevin Williamson
Running Time: 111 min. 

Son of Dracula (1943)

Son of Dracula is one of the most unusual entries in the Universal Monster franchise.  It was released at a time when the series became more kid friendly and usually devolved into a full out monster brawls; the franchise would end on a fairly low note with the ridiculous (but amusing) House of Dracula, in which the Wolf Man is cured of his lycanthropy, the Frankenstein Monster stumbles around for a few seconds, and Dracula, despite being the title villain, is killed off half way through the movie.  Therefore, it is genuinely surprising how sophisticated Son of Dracula is on both a technical and thematic level.

The biggest flaw (and it’s a huge one) is the casting of Lon Chaney, Jr in the role of Count Alucard. Chaney was at his best when playing blue collar simpletons, or lumbering brutes, but is completely out of his element when playing the aristocratic Alucard – he lacks the sophistication and mystique that the role desperately needs.  It is interesting to note that Chaney was only actor to play The Wolf Man, Dracula, The Mummy, and The Frankenstein Monster – no doubt this was a ploy by the studio to capitalize on the famous Chaney name and prove the Junior was just as versatile of an actor as his  prolific father.  The problem is, with the exception of Larry Talbot/ The Wolf Man, there is nothing distinguishable about Chaney’s performances in any of these movies – his portrayal as the Frankenstein Monster is adequate, but it lacks the pathos that Karloff brought to the role.  His performance as the mummy, Kharis, in The Mummy’s Tomb, The Mummy’s Ghost, and The Mummy’s Curse is so lackluster that it could have easily been played by a stuntman. The only memorable thing about Count Alucard is that he possesses super strength, which he never fully uses to his advantage – he throws Frank across a room.  Thankfully, Chaney has very little screen time (about ten minutes total) that is doesn't heavily damage the movie. If one can overlook Chaney’s awkward performance, then you will be rewarded by a genuinely interesting movie.

The movie gets a huge boast by Louise Allbritton, who is excellent as the morbid Kay – one of the more complex women in the Universal Monster series.  At first, Kay doesn’t seem to be any different from any of the other heroines the populated the franchise – she has an interest in the occult, but is happily engaged to her childhood sweet heart, Frank.  When she unexpectedly elopes with Count Alucard, we naturally assume that he has placed her under his spell and is using her to further his own goals– Alucard wants to use Kay’s family plantation for his base of operation.  We, naturally, sympathize with Frank for losing the love of his life to an absolute monster; we hope that he can wrestle Kay from the hypnotic hold that Alucard has over her. After all, Jonathan Harker, with an assist from Professor Van Helsing, was able to rescue Mina from Dracula’s satanic grip, so it is plausible that Frank, with help from Doctor Brewster, can do the same for Kay.  Our happy ending goes straight out the window when Frank accidentally kills Kay while attempting to shoot the Count with the gun – the bullets pass straight through Alucard and strike down Kay. Frank ,on the verge of insanity, confesses his crime to Dr. Brewster, the kindly town physician. Brewster goes to the plantation to check out Frank’s story and, much to his surprise, finds that Kay is very much alive. She tells Brewster that visitors will no longer be welcomed at the plantation and that she can never see Frank again. 

This is a great piece of misdirection by the filmmakers, because the audience naturally assumes that Kay is the victim in all of this and Alucard is the loathsome parasite leeching off her status in life.  However, this proves to be entirely FALSE, Kay is the loathsome parasite and it is Alucard who is being played for a sap – Kay is using him to gain immortality for her and Frank.  She explains her plan to Frank, while he is locked up in a jail cell, and convinces him that he must kill Alucard; she tells Frank the Count’s weaknesses and where to find him.  Kay turns out to be extremely ruthless in her ambition and even tells Frank that they must eliminate anyone that stands in her way - including her sister, Claire. Kay is one of the all time great femme fatales – after all, this isn’t some sleazy insurance salesman that she is duping, but the son of friggin’ Dracula. Allbritton plays the role to absolute perfection; she is vulnerable in the early scenes, but becomes a commanding presence as the movie progresses. It’s easy to believe that the savvy Alucard could fall victim to such a woman, she is pure ice.  Son of Dracula is essentially the inverse of the previous movie, Dracula’s Daughter; the latter is about a woman who desperately wants to be cured of her vampirism, while the former is about a woman who desperately wants to become a vampire.  Both movies greatly benefit from strong female leads and rather downbeat endings.

Robert Paige, as Frank, is a much more interesting than the usual romantic male leads you find in these movies. For instance, compare Paige’s Frank to David Manners’ Jonathan Harker and you will find that Paige brings far more intensity to the role than Manners.  In Dracula, Jonathan Harker is slightly annoyed that Dracula has eyes for his fiancée, Mina – but he never takes any real action. In Son of Dracula, when Frank learns that Kay has eloped with Alucard, he is seething with hatred and is willing to commit murder; Harker probably would have just shrugged his shoulders and walked out of the room slightly irritated. Also, Frank nearly loses his mind after believing that he has killed Kay; she was the crux of his existence and now he has absolutely nothing. When he tells Claire and others that Kay has visited him in his jail cell, they, understandably, believe that he is just hallucinating. 

Evelyn Ankers is given the less showy role as Kay’s concerned sister, Claire. Ankers is, probably, the best known scream queen of the 1940s, and co-starred in seven movies with Lon Chaney, Jr.  It’s odd seeing her in a role that isn’t the love interest; as she was in The Wolf Man, Hold That Ghost, Ghost of Frankenstein, and in many other Universal movies.  Claire isn’t an especially interesting character, but she is at least likable and, more importantly, never grinds the movie to a halt. At least Claire takes action in the story – on the advice of Dr. Brewster, she orders the body of Kay to be cremated. Ankers was a much better actress than given credit for and gives an excellent performance in the Sherlock Holmes thriller, The Pearl of Death, as the obsequious Naomi Drake – a villainess with a penchant for disguises. She must have relished the opportunity to play an unsavory character as opposed to the glamorous goody two shoes she played in most movies. 

There are a few interesting touches that separate Son of Dracula from all the other, run of the mill, monster movies from the 1940s.  For instance, the entire middle of the movie is shown from the perspective of Doctor Brewster. At this point in the story, Kay is a vampire and Frank has been drive to madness, so Doctor Brewster becomes the audience surrogate. He is the first, and only, character to realize that Alucard is an anagram and promptly seeks out Professor Lazlo, an expert on the occult, for advice.  It is also one of the first movies, if not the first, to show a physical vampire transformation; there a few scenes where a bat changes into Count Alucard. This effect was achieved through animation and a jump cut, and, while not up to the standards of today effects, is pretty effective.  The most memorable moment is of Count Alucard hovering over a swamp and slowly approaching Kay.  

Son of Dracula is loaded with so many wonderful visuals, and interesting characters, that I believe it is a superior movie to the Tod Browning-Bela Lugosi original. Lugosi is certainly a better lead than Chaney, but once Dracula moves its setting from Transylvania to London, it turns monotonous – the direction and acting, other than Dwight Frye, is extremely lifeless.  Son of Dracula is a much more cinematic movie and goes by at a rather quick pace.  Robert Siodmak’s direction is top notch and he rarely gives the audience a moment to breathe; there is always a surprise waiting around the corner.  Son of Dracula may not be a classic, but it is easily one of the better Universal monster movies of the 1940s. 

Credits

Cast:  Lon Chaney, Jr. (Count Alucard), Louise Allbritton (Kay), Robert Paige (Frank), Evelyn Ankers (Claire), Frank Craven (Doctor Brewster), J. Edward Blomberg (Prof. Lazlo), Samuel S. Hinds (Judge Simmons), Pat Moriarty (Sheriff Dawes), Etta McDaniel (Sarah), Adeline De Walt Reynolds (Madame Zimba), George Irving (Col. Caldwell).

Director: Robert Siodmak
Screenplay: Eric Taylor. Curt Siodmak (story)
Running Time: 81 min. 

Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943)

A phrase often associated with the Golden Age of Hollywood is, “They don’t make them like they used to." In this age of remakes, reboots, and sequels, it is common to be overly nostalgic about the good ol' days of cinema; when Hollywood seemingly could no wrong and was consistently pumping out quality, and original, movies. Of course, this is one big lie - reboots, remakes, and sequels are nothing new to cinema; they go back to the very beginning of film itself. The 1940s, in particular, may have been of the most sequel heavy decades in movie history – and the studio that was pumping them out on a regular basis was Universal. Modern audiences groan on the endless string of Saw and Paranormal Activity movies, but Universal was basically doing the same thing with their classic Monsters line up - in 1940, they released The Mummy's Hand and The Invisible Man Returns (with Vincent Price); the former being a reboot of  the Boris Karloff classic, and the latter being a belated sequel to the 1933 film starring Claude Rains. In 1941, Universal added The Wolf Man to their monster line up and it proved to be a tremendous success; the character would pop up in four more movies throughout the course of the decade.

Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man was the first movie to pair up Universal’s classic monsters, as well as being a sequel to both The Wolf Man and The Ghost of Frankenstein.  It is also marked the only time that Bela Lugosi would play the Frankenstein Monster. It is by no means a classic, and is heavily flawed, but it is a lot of fun. It may not up to par with Bride of Frankenstein, or The Wolf Man (which is arguable), but it is certainly not the worst monster movie to come out that decade. It benefits greatly from a first rate cast, beautiful cinematography (by George Robinson), and fast paced direction by Roy William Neill; its short run time, 74 minutes, doesn't hurt either.

Bela Lugosi's performance as the Monster has often been the source of criticism - it consists of stumbling through the scenery with his arms outstretched and letting out an occasional grunt. Though, in all fairness to Lugosi, it's not entirely his fault; the Monster stumbles about as a result of being blinded in the previous film, Ghost of Frankenstein, and, originally, Lugosi was given dialogue to perform. However, when the movie was finally released to the cinemas in 1943, all references to the Monster's blindness was deleted, as was all of Lugosi dialogue - though there are a few times in the movie where you can actually see the Monster moving his lips. There is also a moment in the finale, during an elaborate operation, where the audience is given an extreme close up of the Monster opening his eyes, indicating that his sight has been restored. It has often been reported that the reason for deleting Lugosi's dialogue was that a test audience found the idea of the Monster speaking with a Hungarian accent funny. I'm not sure if I believe this story, considering that the previous movie, Ghost of Frankenstein, ends with the Monster talking in the same Hungarian accent (Bela Lugosi dubbed Lon Chaney, Jr. in these scenes), so the studio must have known in advance whether or not audiences would balk at this plot point. I personally believe the Monster's dialogue was removed to tighten up the movie and, more importantly, because it was superfluous to the actual story line. 

To add further insult to injury, the Monster is often played by a stuntman; this  is especially obvious in the Monster's first scene. As a result, the characterization and the look of the Monster is pretty inconsistent throughout. The Monster is essentially reduced to a walking prop and, unfortunately, this would be the standard that the later movies in the series would adopt. Lugosi, despite his prominent billing, has less than ten minutes of actual screen time.

The story line itself is pretty dour; Larry Talbot is accidentally released from his crypt by a pair of bumbling grave robbers and, rather than having to endure an existence of living as the Wolf Man, seeks out Dr. Frankenstein (on the advice of the gypsy Melava), hoping that he can put him out of his misery.  That's right, Larry Talbot, merely wants to die. On his journey, he stumbles upon the Frankenstein Monster, preserved in a block of ice, underneath the catacombs of the Frankenstein castle. Odd, considering that in The Ghost of Frankenstein, the Monster met a fiery demise.  Talbot's learns that Dr. Frankenstein is dead, so he contacts Elsa, the doctor's daughter, hoping that she can lead him to her father's notes about life and death. Also thrown into the mix is Dr. Mannering, who has been searching all of Europe for Talbot; he thinks Talbot is in desperate need of medical help. Dr. Mannering agrees to help Talbot, and learns from Frankenstein's notes that he can drain the life out of Talbot and transfer into the Monster.  Then all hell breaks loose!

The character of Elsa Frankenstein is also a carry over from The Ghost of Frankenstein, except in that movie the role was played by Evelyn Ankers. Why Universal recast Ilona Massey in the role is a mystery? Perhaps, given that Ankers also played Lon Chaney, Jr.'s love interest in The Wolf Man, the studio was afraid that audiences might confuse the two characters. Massey, at best, has a superficial resemblance to Ankers, but otherwise they might as well be two different characters. What happened to Erik, Elsa's suitor in The Ghost of Frankenstein? 

Ankers

Massey

The leading ladies in the Universal Monster movies usually had the thankless task of screaming and looking pretty- which Miss Massey does rather admirably. Elsa doesn't appear until the movie's halfway point  and most of her screen time is reaction shots; Larry Talbot freaks out, cut to a close up of Elsa looking confused. Dr. Mannering becomes fascinated by the Monster, cut to a close up of Elsa looking worried. She solely exists to show Dr. Mannering and Larry Talbot where her father hid his journal, then she is promptly shoved into the background.

Dr. Mannering is a bland character as well - I never bought his transition from concerned physician to mad scientist. He is initially going to drain the monster of all its power, but then decides, seemingly just for the hell of it, that he must see it at full strength. Patric Knowles is a serviceable actor, but he lacks the panache that Colin Clive, Basil Rathbone, and Cedric Hardwicke brought to the previous films. The best thing you can say about Knowles is that he doesn't get in the way of the proceedings. Thankfully, the movie only hints at a potential romance between Dr. Mannering and Elsa as opposed to turning it into a major subplot. It also should be noted that Knowles also appeared in The Wolf Man as Frank Andrews, Gwen's fiance and Larry's romantic rival. That might explain why Larry is so apprehensive towards Dr. Mannering - he reminds him of that dullard Frank.

 Lon Chaney, Jr. gives an effective performance as the gloomy Larry Talbot. The audience actually sympathizes with Talbot, because he doesn't want to harm anyone and is willing to take his own life rather than live a cursed existence. Chaney is actually at his best when silent - his sad eyes effectively convey the eternal guilt that haunts Larry Talbot. The Wolf Man was Chaney's best role, because, essentially he was playing himself - a seemingly decent man who was haunted by his own inner demons; in Chaney's case it was alcohol. By all accounts, when Chaney was sober he was one of the nicest men you could meet, but when drunk, he was extremely unpleasant and volatile to be around.

The movies gets a lot of mileage out of its great supporting cast:  Dennis Hoey is great fun as the dimwitted Inspector Owen. Comedy relief in old horror movies is usually painful, but in this case it is welcomed. Maria Ouspenskaya reprises her role from The Wolf Man, as Meleva, the sympathetic gypsy woman. She takes on a maternal role to Larry Talbot and hopes to end his torment. Lionel Atwill is amusing as the jovial mayor of Vasaria. It is interesting to see Atwill in such an inconsequential role as he was usually cast as either a stern lawmen or a shifty eyed villain. In the previous movie, Ghost of Frankenstein, he played the treacherous Dr. Bohmer - the man responsible for putting Ygor's brain in the Monster's body. Here, his main concern is keeping the anxious villagers under control. Rex Evans is easy to hate as Vazec, the belligerent innkeeper. Oddly, enough it is this character that resolves the plot and not Dr. Mannering. Finally, it's great to see Dwight Frye, co-star of Dracula and Frankenstein, in a small role as a paranoid citizen. Often, the difference between a bad movie and a watchable one is the cast, and, fortunately, Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man has a lot of aces up its sleeve.

The direction by, the underrated, Roy William Neill is first rate. Neill's greatest feat is keeping the movie going at a swift pace. He accomplishes this by constantly having characters on the move; the movie begins in the Talbot family crypt, in Wales, and ends in an a dilapidated castle in Eastern Europe. Larry Talbot searches the countryside to find Dr. Frankenstein and Dr. Mannering follows him. Neill also does a great job in handling exposition - while at a village festival, Talbot tells Dr. Mannering about Frankenstein's journal. Instead of doing this in a typical two shot, Neill places the two characters at the back of the frame, while in the foreground Vazec can be seen listening in on their conversation. This helps add tension to the scene and fuels Vazec's growing suspicions about Dr. Mannering,

Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man is definitely a step down from the previous movies in the franchise, and it is certainly no classic, but there are far worse ways to spend 74 minutes. It is definitely worth a look for its interesting cast and atmospheric direction by Roy William Neill. Hell, it even has a catchy musical number at the midway point. "For life is short, but death is long. Faro - La Faro - Li."

Cast:  Lon Chaney, Jr. (Larry Talbot/The Wolfman), Patric Knowles (Dr. Mannering),  Ilona Massey (Baroness Elsa Frankenstein), Bela Lugosi (The Monster), Lionel Atwill (Mayor), Maria Ouspenskaya (Melava), Dennis Hoey (Inspector Owen), Don Barclay (Franzec), Rex Evans (Vazec),  Dwight Frye (Rudi), Harry Stubbs (Guno).

Director:  Roy William Neill
Screenplay: Curt Siodmak
Running Time: 74 min.

Halloween: Resurrection (2002)

The only controversy that really surrounds Halloween: Resurrection is whether it is the worst or second worst movie in the franchise. Occasionally, a brave soul will come out of the woodwork and admit that they “kind of” liked it, but otherwise it’s greeted with absolute disdain from the fans.  I admit, while I find the movie terrible, I am compelled to watch it every now and again, but more on that later. The main reason for the hate is that it completely negates  the ending to the previous movie, Halloween H20: 20 Years Later –which saw Laurie Strode beheading Michael Myers with an axe. Halloween: Resurrection retcons the ending of the previous film, so that instead of beheading Michael Myers, Laurie Strodie mistaken decapitated a paramedic wearing the Michael Myers mask – he pulled the old switcheroo on Laurie. Laurie, haunted by the guilt of killing an innocent man, spends the next few years in a psychiatric hospital, convinced that Michael will come for her.  When audiences heard this explanation, they let out a collective groan. It is revealed that Michael crushed the man’s larynx, so he couldn’t cry out for help.  Okay, but then, why didn’t he just take off the mask?  A policeman does so later on without any effort – so why couldn’t he?  Granted, the filmmakers needed to find away to bring Michael Myers back, but this is so stupid that it is completely insulting.  

The only thing more cringe worthy is the unceremonious death of Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis).  Laurie successfully snares Michael in a trap and is about to drop him to his death, when doubt begins to creep into her mind – she has to make sure that this is the right man.  She’s about to remove the mask, when Michael stabs her in the back, and then drops her to her death off the hospital roof.  Pretty pathetic!  This scene also undermines Laurie’s character arc in Halloween H20; in that movie Laurie has spent her adult life running away from her past – she fakes her death in car accident, relocates to Northern California, and changes her name to Keri Tate. After Michael has found her, and has killed a few people, Laurie chooses to stay behind and face him head on; her character becomes stronger as the movie progresses and she emerges victorious at the end.  Of course, that was until the filmmakers of Halloween: Resurrection said, “Too hell with Laurie’s character arc! Let’s have her institutionalized at the beginning!”  It was all a ruse!  

Oddly enough, the opening scene is rather superfluous to the actual movie itself; it exists solely to establish that Michael is still alive (and because Jamie Lee Curtis was contractually obliged to appear in it).  The movie could have easily opened with Sara sitting in her college lecture and no one would have batted an eye. Sure, someone in the audience might have wondered how Michael is still alive, but the filmmakers could have easily bullshitted their way through it. After all, in Halloween 4, the filmmakers made no effort in explaining how Dr. Loomis survived the explosion in Halloween II, or, for that matter, how Michael not only survived the same explosion, but also got back his eye sight (Laurie shot out his eyes in that film). 

I mentioned before that I am compelled to watch Halloween: Resurrection every once in awhile and that’s because I can easily imagine the thought process of the (original) screen writer as he typed up his script: 

This isn’t going to be your standard Halloween movie – it’s going to be a scathing satire on reality TV, man. Even though it claims to be real, it is completely fake. Well, I’m going to turn that on its head, dude. The participants are going to be on a fake reality show, only to find that the horror is real. Everything is staged, except the murder. Oh, the irony! 

Then, the screenwriter saw the actual movie and was horrified by what director Rick Rosenthal did with his concept.  The movie actually has an intriguing premise – six college students win a competition to appear on an internet reality show in which they will spend the night searching Michael Myer’s childhood home for clues that might explain homicidal tendencies. They are all equipped with head cameras and there are cameras stationed throughout the house as well; this gives the viewers the option of which point of view they want to follow.  I’ll give Halloween: Resurrection this – it accurately predicted the supernatural reality show; it was released two years before Syfy launched the TV show Ghost Hunters. Like that show, and many copycats, the characters spend most of the time scaring the living shit out of each other.  It turns out that many of the “clues” in the house have been planted by the director, Freddie Harris (Busta Rhymes), who also dresses up as Michael Myers at one point to scare the contestants.  Of course, everyone remains oblivious to the fact that the REAL Michael Myers is in the house until it is too late.  

What exactly went wrong? Well, despite the interesting premise, the movie doesn’t do anything interesting with it.  The only thing Rick Rosenthal can come up with is to cut to different camera angles; the point of view seems to shift every ten seconds. This, in theory, should ratchet up the tension, but it quickly becomes a distraction, not to mention redundant, and is simply irritating. Also, it’s amazing that, given the number of cameras in the house, Michael Myers is able to glide through the house undetected. It also interesting that not once, but twice in the movie, characters manage to look away from the TV monitors at just the right (wrong) time – at the psychiatric hospital, a security guard is called away from the monitor, which allows Michael to sneak in undetected. Later on, Michael kills a crew member, with the tripod of a camera, while Nora, Freddie’s producer, makes herself a Cappuccino.  She sings and shakes her booty to a song on the radio, while making her Cappuccino, meanwhile Michael is very slowly dragging the corpse out of the house. Simply amazing! It should be noted that Rick Rosenthal also directed Halloween II, where he was content in aping John Carpenter’s style. This is not a bad thing, considering that Halloween II directly picks up where the first one left off, so at least, visually, it is consistent with the first movie.  In Halloween: Resurrection, he seems to take many of his visual cues from The Blair Witch Project; he even references the most famous moment in that movie – the close up of the girl’s eyes and nose as she apologizes to the camera.  

Then there’s the characters, oh boy, the awful, awful characters. Let’s take a look, shall we?

Sara - The poor man’s Laurie Strode. She is a fairly pretty, but socially awkward girl.  She isn’t the worst leading lady, just forgettable. It’s hard to distinguish her from all other attractive, but bland attractive women that have dominated modern horror films; the movie is set in the Midwest, yet Sara looks like she’s wandered off the set of Dawson’s Creek. Sara is, supposedly, the movie’s protagonist, but too often she gets lost in the shuffle.  Hell, she even botches her one true heroic moment; she comes after Michael with a chainsaw, but gets it tangled up in wires hanging from the garage ceiling and it dies on her. Luckily, Freddie arrives in the nick of time to save her. 

Jen – Sara’s best friend and complete smart ass. She specializes in annoying the shit out of other people, which means, her time on earth is fairly limited.

Rudy – Sara’s other friend and gourmet enthusiast. He talks about food nonstop and his good for a few laughs, but that’s about it.

Bill – The most obnoxious character in the entire movie. It doesn't help that he is played by Rookie of the Year (and American Pie) star, Thomas Ian Nicholas. He is slightly nerdy, but, more importantly, a complete pervert. He constantly throws all sorts of stupid innuendos at Jen. Thankfully, he only has about ten minutes of actually screen time.

Jim – He is a horny musician with a morbid sense of humor. He spends most of his time trying to bed the attractive red head, Donna, and nearly succeeds. 

Donna – The flakiest psych major in movie history.  She spends the entire movie putting down Jim, but then, rather unexpectedly, throws herself at him in the next scene. There is literally no transition – one minute she finds him disgusting, then seconds later she wants to have sex with him. Hmmm….. I wonder if she’s going to survive the night. Her main function is to provide the gratuitous nudity (we get a brief flash of her breasts).  

Freddie – The flamboyant reality show director. He is a kung fu enthusiast and provides much of the comedy relief.  He utters the catchphrase, “Trick or treat, mother fucker!”  He is one of two characters that are given a character arc – he learns that it is wrong to sensationalize a serial killer like Michael Myers.

Nora –She has no real narrative purpose. She is just there.

Myles – Easily the best character in the entire movie. Myles is Sara’s online chat buddy; he never actually meets her and they only interact through online messaging. Though, in an alternate ending, he does show up and save Sara. In fact, it is better than the actual ending that was tacked on for the theatrical release. He is the other character that is given an arc - he goes from being a complete outsider to the life of the party (literally).  

The subplot involving Myles (his screen name is Deckard) may be the only part of the movie that actually works for me.  He is at a Halloween party, but separates himself from every one else so he can watch the broadcast, in a study room, on a big TV screen. As the movie progresses other party goers begin to trickle into the study room to watch the broadcast with him. When the bodies begin to pile up, the other party goers thinks it is all a hoax and laugh it off. Myles, on the other hand, believes the murders are real and even tries to contact the police.  When Sara is the only survivor left, she uses her Palm Pilot to contact Myles and he helps navigate her through the house, using instant messaging.  It is the one moment where Sara actually displays common sense – using modern technology to her advantage. Though, I’m still confused as to why Myles needs to change the font every time he messages Sara. 

The movie lacks a proper foil for Michael Myers; Sara is too dull and Freddie is a living cartoon. Busta Rhymes is clearly having fun with the role, but he is just silly. Laurie Strode is killed off early on and, sadly, Donald Pleasence passed away in 1995, so there’s no Dr. Loomis to liven up the proceedings.  One of the few positives you can say about Halloween: Resurrection is that it makes you appreciate Donald Pleasence’s performance in the earlier entries.  Dr. Loomis was a unique character and really is what separated the Halloween series from all the other Slasher movies

The bland cast would be forgivable if Michael Myers was scary, but that is simply not the case. In the original Halloween, there was a childlike simplicity to Michael Myers – he viewed everything as one big game; he dresses up as a ghost to trick Lynda and constantly plays dead to fool Laurie. Here, he is just another superhuman psychopath that stumbles through the scenery while butchering attractive people in gruesome ways.  The original Halloween was innovative, Halloween: Resurrection, other the hand, is pretty indistinguishable from all the other Slasher movies that were popping up in the early 2000s.  

Credits

Cast: Busta Rhymes(Freddie Harris),  Bianca Kajlich (Sara Moyer),  Jamie Lee Curtis (Laurie Strode), Brad Loree (Michael Myers), Ryan Merriman (Myles Barton), Sean Patrick Thomas (Rudy), Katee Sackhoff (Jen),  Luke Kirby (Jim), Daisy McCrackin (Donna), Thomas Ian Nicholas (Bill), Tyra Banks (Nora),  Billy Kay (Scott),  Gus Lynch (Harold), Dan Joffre (Willie), Haig Sutherland (Aron), Natassia Malthe (French Maid), Lorena Gale (Nurse Wells), Marisa Rudiak (Nurse Philips), Brent Chapman (Franklin), Kyla Labine (Teen Party Guy), Rick Rosenthal (Professor).

Director: Rick Rosenthal
Screenplay: Larry Brand, Sean Hood.
Running Time:  86 min.