It (1990)

There is a tendency among horror fans to scoff at the 1990 miniseries of It. This is largely due to the fact that the miniseries is an extremely watered down version of the popular Stephen King novel. It maintains the basic premise of King’s novel – six childhood friends reunite as adults to face an evil entity (that often takes the form of Pennywise the Clown) they banished nearly thirty years ago – but it lacks any real bite. It is a movie that is at odds with both diehard Stephen Kings and modern days audiences simply for the fact that it isn’t scary (nor gory, for that matter).  Yet, in the fall of 1990 it was a miniseries that no one dared miss – it was a huge talking point in my fifth grade classroom. I had not read the novel at this point in life (I was eleven and didn’t have the patience for an 1100+ page novel), so I had no idea where the movie was headed. When part one ended with Stanley Uris committing suicide in his bathtub, I was genuinely unnerved by this turn of events. The movie already killed off one of its main protagonists and it was only halfway over. What horrors would I witness in part two? Seriously, as dated as this movie is, this is still one hell of a cliff hanger. 

It’s really hard to explain to younger, modern audiences (who are exposed to gore on regular basis with shows like Supernatural) just what a big deal It was in 1990. It came out in an era when prime time television had to be suitable for the entire family (this was before the TV ratings system had been established). Therefore many of King’s more interesting ideas had to be discarded to make way for scares that while “frightening” weren’t too disturbing. It was common for all the local stations to air horror movies on Saturday nights, but cut out content that was deemed too violent and sexual; which means that King’s story was whittled down to its most basic plot structure.  In the novel, young Eddie first encounters “It” in the form of a leper, who offers to give Eddie a blow job. In the miniseries, Eddie’s first encounter with “It” occurs in the school shower room – the shower heads come to life and converge on Eddie, but he escapes completely unscathed. Pennywise then pops up from the drain and taunts Eddie – end of scene.  This is pretty weak moment, and is too reminiscent of the scene in The Goonies when the plumbing in the country club goes haywire, but it’s a case of the filmmakers doing the best they can with the restrictions placed upon them by the network.  However, in 1990 it was a bit jarring to this level of gore in a made for TV production (Billy’s family album leaking out blood, blood erupting out of Beverly’s bathroom sink, and an eyeball popping out of a fortune cookie).  This type of gore was a fairly tame to horror fans, but to an average viewer just wanting to check out something on the tube, this was pretty strong stuff.  Ironically, the Andy Muschietti version, despite having better special effects and more gore than its made for TV counterpart, is also fairly tame compared to more contemporary horror movies.  In fact, there is nothing in the new movie that you couldn’t find in an average episode of Supernatural or American Horror Story. That being said, the Andy Muschietti version is still an improvement on the 1990 miniseries (well, at least Chapter One is, I can’t speak for the upcoming Chapter Two). 

The TV mini-series is really a case of two halves – the first half, dealing with the Losers Club as children facing It is actually fair well done and entertaining, it’s the second half that is the problem (Tommy Lee Wallace admits as much in his commentary). Stephen King structures the novel so that it jumps back and forth between the 1950s and 1980s, so that while the characters are having flashbacks the reader is also being fed new information.  The first half of the movie follows this structure, after receiving the phone call from Mike Hanlon that It has returned, each grown up member of the Losers Club have a flashback to when they first encounter It. Wallace will often use match on action editing as way of bridging the present with past – for instance, a close up of an adult Ben biting his thumb nail is replaced with a close up of a young Ben biting his thumb nail. It’s an extremely effective way of not only linking the two time periods, but also matching the adult versions of the Losers Club with their younger selves. In the novel, Stephen King uses what I call a literary dissolve to link the two eras – whenever the novel transitions to the past the text will initially be in italics before settling to a normal font. It’s an effective way of easing the reader into a different time period. The second half of the miniseries, with a few exceptions, discards the flashback structure and as a result we are constantly being fed information that we already know. The entire middle act of part two is the characters gathering together in various rooms and sharing their memories of the past.  At one point, just before a commercial break, the characters decide to move to a different location so they can do even more talking.  It doesn’t exactly make for a compelling cliffhanger. It becomes fairly redundant and only the re-introduction of the bully Henry Bowers keeps it from slipping into complete boredom. It doesn't help that midway through the movie, Richie Tozier manages to find time to do a stand up comedian for the rest of the Losers Club. Aren't they supposed to be forming a plan to defeat It?  The actors do their best, but they are nearly defeated by the material. Interestingly, the 2017 adaptation drops the flashback structure entirely and is told from the perspective of the Losers Club as children. Honestly, I would be perfectly fine if the studio skips making a Chapter Two, because the adult portions are easily the weakest part of the Stephen King novel.  The story is absolutely magical when it centers on the children bonding together to fight It, but nearly devolves into melodrama when they return as adults.

  

 This will be a pretty unpopular opinion, but Stephen King is simultaneously one of the best and worst writers I have ever read (often in the same book).  He is an absolute master at setting up a premise and phenomenal when it come to character development, but then he will throw the most mind numbingly awful subplot that completely grinds the story to a halt. In the novel of It, Bill’s wife, Audra (an actress) senses that her husband is in danger and rushes to his rescue (despite being in the middle of a movie shoot).  She is immediately abducted by Beverly Marsh’s abusive husband, who is under the influence of Pennywise the Clown.  This turn of events is supposed to raise the stakes of novel, but it is completely undermined by the fact that Audra barely registers as a character.  In fact, Bill is completely oblivious to Audra’s plight (he is having an affair with Beverly while this takes place) that it does little in terms of upping the stakes. There’s really no time element at work (“We must destroy IT or else Audra will die”) and Audra is completely forgotten about until the very end.  The Audra story line is merely filler and could have easily been cut from the novel.  The movie, unfortunately, retains the subplot (sans Beverly's husband) and Audra is even less of a presence here than she was in the novel.  She has less than ten minutes of screen time and half of that is her in a comatose state, and she doesn’t exactly ingratiate herself to us with her nonstop whimpering.  Olivia Hussey is a fine actress, but she is completely ill served here. 

The best thing the mini-series (and the Muschietti version) has going for it is the terrific cast (with the exception of Hussey). The children are terrific, especially Jonathan Brandis as Bill. The character of Bill spends the entire half of the movie haunted by the death of his brother, Georgie, and has vowed to get his revenge on It. He is the leader of the group and Brandis does a great job projecting inner strength, despite Bill’s physical impediments.  Surprisingly, in the 2017 version, Jaeden Lieberher actually improves upon Brandis’ interpretation of the character by giving a genuinely heartbreaking performance. 

The adult cast are not as compelling and are fairly uneven in their performances; Dennis Christopher as the nebbish Eddie Kaspbrak stands out, but Harry Anderson is a bit much as the grown up Richie Tozier.  Tim Curry steals the show as Pennywise the Clown. There are people that complain that Curry isn’t scary enough as Pennywise - they often point to the scene when Pennywise taunts a grown up Richie in the library as proof. Except that It in the form of Pennywise isn’t meant to be scary but rather unnerving.  If It wanted, it could probably kills the Losers Club at any given minute, but rather It chooses to toy with them in the form of Pennywise because It genuinely enjoys playing the role of monster. In the novel, It takes the form of classic monsters like the Wolf Man the Teenage Werewolf the Mummy, not because they are scary, but rather popular icons of horror. When It takes the form of Pennywise the Clown, it engages in silly antics because that’s what clowns do.  In 2017 version, Bill asks the question, “What if this monster is eating kids because that’s what we’re told monsters do?”  Tim Curry’s scene chewing maybe silly, but is absolutely appropriate for this movie.  I also find it believable that Georgie would be fooled by this incarnation of Pennywise than Bill Skarsgard’s take on the character; mainly because Skarsgard is overly creepy from the very get go. Why would Georgie would take time to talk him instead of running away is a mystery to me?  On the other hand, Curry’s Pennywise convincingly puts on a mask of friendliness that it is easy to buy Georgie falling into his trap. 

While I enjoyed Andy Muschietti’s version of It, there was a part of me that missed the 1950s setting of the novel (the 2017 version is set in 1989). The Fifties are much better suited to the themes of Stephen King’s novel.  It was a fairly optimistic time in America’s history and all the everyday horrors were hidden below the surface.  There’s a scene in King’s novel 11/22/63, where the protagonist travels back to 1958 and comes across a WHITES ONLY sign - a harsh reminder that this era wasn’t the paradise it seemed to be.  In It, the town’s children a disappearing at an alarming rate, but the citizen’s of Derry turn a blind eye to it. They go on with the daily business like nothing bad is going on. On the outside, Derry has a pleasant appearance, but underneath its shiny surface there is pure evil going on.  

(SPOILER SECTION)
Finally, I would remiss if failed to mention how the mini-series of It has one of the greatest anti-climatic endings in TV history.  For nearly three hours, we are shown just how tricky and funny Pennywise the Clown is – he constantly plays tricks on the protagonists so they are unable to distinguish fantasy from reality – and then it’s time for the final showdown and It takes the form of a…..giant spider….a really crappy looking giant spider. In the novel, the showdown between the Losers Club is more on a metaphysical plane, in the mini-series our heroes defeat it by pushing it over and ripping out its guts. The actors do put on their best “scared” faces, but the giant spider prop is one of the silliest things ever shown on television – it looks like a refugee from the Colin Baker Era of Doctor Who.

Credits
Cast: Richard Thomas (Bill Denbrough), Harry Anderson (Richie Tozier), Annette O’ Toole (Beverly Marsh), John Ritter (Ben Hanscom), Dennis Christopher (Eddie Kaspbrak), Tim Reid (Mike Hanlon), Jonathan Brandis (Bill – age 12), Seth Green (Richie – age 12), Emily Perkins (Beverly – age 12), Brandon Crane (Ben – age 12), Adam Faraizl (Eddie – age 12), Marlon Taylor (Mike – age 12), Ben Heller (Stanley – age 12), Richard Masur (Stanley Uris), Tim Curry (Pennywise), Olivia Hussey (Audra), Michael Cole (Henry Bowers), Jarred Blancard (Henry – age 14), Tony Dakota (Georgie Denbrough), Sheila Moore (Mrs. Kaspbrak), Gabe Khouth (Victor Criss), Michael Ryan (Tom Rogan), Frank C. Turner (Al Marsh), Chris Eastman (Belch), Chelan Simmons (Laurie Anne Winterbarger), Florence Paterson (Mrs. Kersh), Merrily Gann (Mrs. Winterbarger), Steven Hilton (Mr. Denbrough), Sheelah Megill (Sharon Denbrough), Laura Harris (Loni).

Director: Tommy Lee Wallace
Teleplay: Lawrence D. Cohan, Tommy Lee Wallace. Based off the Stephen King novel.
Running Time: 187 min.

Hook (1991)

In Steven Spielberg’s long career he has had very few misfires. While Hook may not be his most maligned movie, it was greeted with fairly negative reviews when it first came out. These reviews were fairly justified – it is overlong, overcrowded, cloyingly sentimental at times, and is nearly undone by a fatal piece of miscasting (more on that later). It is easily one of Spielberg’s weakest movies. Yet, I must confess that I have a soft spot for Hook.  If you have read this blog before, then you know that I am a hopeless Spielberg apologist and tend to find value in most of his movies (the only exception being The Lost World: Jurassic Park, which is just dreadful). Hook is not a great movie, but it makes for a passable entertainment.

The first half hour of Hook is fairly efficient filmmaking.  Peter Pan has grown up to become a lawyer and father. Unfortunately, he is a fairly distant parent – he takes a business call during his daughter, Maggie’s school play (which happens to be Peter Pan) and misses his son Jack’s championship baseball game. He has also completely forgotten about his time in Never Land and dismisses Granny Wendy’s claims as those of a crazy old lady. The workaholic father is a fairly old cliché, but Spielberg is able to get a lot of mileage out of it thanks to Robin Williams first rate performance.  There is a hint of resentment in Williams’ performance – Peter often views his children as a burden rather than a source of joy. He would rather spend time talking business on his cell phone than play with his kids. This sense of resentment is fully realized when Jack blows up at his children because they are being noisy and interrupting an important phone call. Peter Banning is the rare instance of an unlikable protagonist in Spielberg’s filmography – he is total wet blanket and lacks any humor. His attempts at “bonding” with Jack are even more pathetic – he makes promises he doesn’t intend to keep and then gives Jack a watch (which is a family heirloom).  

The children are a mixed bag. Charlie Korsmo (coming off Warren Beatty’s Dick Tracy) gives a fairly naturalistic performance, while Amber Scott is more of your typical movie child; she is overly cute and could easily be the star of a McDonald’s commercial. She is not terrible, but she can be a bit grating at times (especially when she sings musical number “When You’re Alone”).  

 Caroline Goodall is fine as Moira, but she is given very little to do.  The character of Granny Wendy is a bit problematic; when Peter is reunited with her it is supposed to evoke a sense of nostalgia, yet this only works if you are familiar with the story of Peter Pan. If you have never read the book, nor seen any previous screen adaptations, the reunion with Peter and her falls flat. Later in the movie, we get a brief recap of their long history together, but it covers less than a minute of screen time. Still, Maggie Smith is very good and brings a much needed warmth to the proceedings. 

 

Hook speeds along efficiently for the first thirty minutes and then it hits its first road block in the form of Julia Roberts’ Tinkerbell.  There is one word that perfectly sums up Robert’s performance: AWFUL! She seems less like a magical fairy and more like a vacuous cheerleader; one going through the motions because she has other things on her mind. In defense of Julia Roberts, she was going through a turbulent time in her life (Keifer Sutherland had broken off their engagement) and she filmed the majority of her scenes in front of a green screen, separate from the cast.  However, it’s clear that this was just a pay day for Roberts and her casting was just a cynical move by the studio to generate bigger box office (she was coming off her star making performance in Pretty Woman).  It is one of those rare cases, where the movie might have been better served by a special effect than an actual performer. In the stage version of Peter Pan, Tinkerbell is depicted as a ball of light and this simple effect is  far more interesting than Robert’s performance (and less costly). 

It is also a shame that given the movie’s big budget (70 million, a sizable sum for 1991) that Neverland looks more like a theme park than a magical place of adventure. The introduction of the Lost Boys' Hideout plays less like a scene from a movie and more like a commercial for THE SUPER AWESOME LOST BOYS PLAY SET.  The Lost Boys are another obstacle that the movie has to overcome, because other than Rufio and Thud Butt, they are completely devoid of personality and are fairly interchangeable. The only thing that distinguishes Thud Butt from the others (other than the fact that he is overweight) is his ability to turn into a human bowling ball and knock over various pirates.  Rufio is the leader of the Lost Boys and is antagonistic towards Peter, but eventually recognizes that Banning is the real “Pan.”

SPOILERS FOR A TWENTY SIX YEAR-OLD MOVIE: Rufio’s death at the hand of the Captain Hook is extremely odd and doesn’t ring true. His dying words are that he wishes he had a father like Peter. Why? Up until like five minutes ago Rufio viewed Peter as his inferior.  When exactly did he begin to view Peter as a father figure? They never have a genuine moment of bonding.  It is also amazing how quickly everyone forgets about Rufio’s untimely demise.  Less than a minute after Rufio kicks the bucket, Peter is cracking jokes at the expense of Captain Hook. It is an extremely odd decision. If the movie had a much darker tone, and Rufio was more likable, then his death would make sense.  Was the movie originally supposed to be darker? Nick Castle was originally slated to direct Hook (and even helped developed the screen story) but was replaced by Steven Spielberg.  After looking at Castle’s directorial credits (which include: The Last Starfighter, Dennis the Menace, and Major Payne), I’m not sure his version would have been any better.

Why exactly do I like this movie? The production design is terrible, Julia Roberts is awful, and the Lost Boys are fairly annoying. These are three key elements of the story and should render it an unwatchable mess. Thankfully, Dustin Hoffman and Bob Hoskins arrive in the nick of time to liven up the proceedings. In the 1953 Disney and Broadway musical of Peter Pan, Captain Hook is a comical character, so it is appropriate that Hoffman chews up the scenery with his flamboyant performance. It also makes him a perfect match for Williams’ Peter Pan. If Captain Hook were portrayed as a bigger, more intimidating figure it would be difficult to believe that Peter Pan could best him in a sword fight. 

Hoskins is fun as Smee, Captain Hook’s bumbling sidekick who is not nearly as stupid as he looks. It is Smee that comes up with the ultimate revenge plan:  Have Captain Hook win the love of Peter Pan’s children.  This is pretty clever idea and while Captain Hook doesn’t succeed with Maggie, he comes close to winning over Jack. This is much more interesting than just having Hook and Peter fight it out at the end, plus it actually raises the stakes. It gives the movie an element of time:  Maggie tells Jack that Neverland makes people forget, so the longer Peter is separated from his children, the better chance Hook has at successfully enacting his plan. Will Peter arrive in time? Will Jack forget his parents? Granted, the answer to both these questions is obvious, but it makes the final conflict between Peter and Hook far more personal. 

Hook is definitely one of Spielberg’s weakest efforts. He was simply the wrong director for this movie. However, it says a lot about Spielberg that even his worst movies (except The Lost World) are fairly watchable. Of course, I am also a hopeless Spielberg fan boy, so a good many of you will probably roll your eyes at that sentiment. 

Credits
Cast: Dustin Hoffman (Captain Hook), Robin Williams (Peter Banning/Pan), Julia Roberts (Tinkerbell), Bob Hoskins (Smee), Maggie Smith (Granny Wendy), Caroline Goodall (Moira), Charlie Korsmo (Jack), Amber Scott (Maggie), Dante Basco (Rufio), Raushan Hammond (Thud Butt), Arthur Malet (Toodles), Gwyneth Paltrow (Young Wendy), Ryan Francis (Young Peter Pan), Phil Collins (Inspector Good), Laurel Cronin (Liza), Alex Zuckerman (Latchboy), Thomas Tulak (Too Small), Jasen Fisher (Ace), Isaiah Robinson (Pockets), James Madio (Don’t Ask), Ahman Stoner (No Nap), Glenn Close (Gutless), David Crosby (Tickles).

Director: Steven Spielberg
Screenplay:  James V. Hart, Malia Scotch Marmo. Nick Castle (screen story.
Running Time: 142 min.

Cult of the Cobra (1955)

In the 1930s and 1940s Universal Studios main claim to fame was their monster movie franchise – beginning in 1931 with Dracula and ending the House of Dracula in 1945. The franchise eventually worn itself thin and eventually became the subject of parody with Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein (which, to be fair, is a terrific movie). The 1950s, however, saw a massive revival in monster movies and Universal followed suit - leading to the creation of their last great monster, The Gill Man. From 1953 to 1960, Universal would release over a dozen sci-fi/horror movies and each movie is fairly distinctive from the other one (even the Gill Man series: The Creature From the Black Lagoon, Revenge of the Creature, and The Creature Walks Among Us have a different take on the title character). In 1955 Universal released the Val Lewton inspired Cult of the Cobra.  Lewton produced a series of horror movie at RKO in the 1940s and was far more subtle in his approach to filmmaking than the monster makers at Universal.  Cult of the Cobra borrows heavily from Lewton’s 1942 thriller, Cat People. While in Asia six American Air Force officers sneak into a bizarre cult ceremony and are discovered by the high priest (when one of them attempts to take a picture with a flash bulb), and have a curse put on them. The curse comes in the form of a seductive brunette by the name of Lisa, who can transform into a cobra.  Lisa picks off the men one by one, but soon finds her beliefs compromised when she falls in love with Tom Markel (Marshall Thompson), one of her would be victims.

The most interesting aspect of Cult of the Cobra is how it constantly shifts our sympathies: Lisa goes from being the villain to a tragic heroine – a woman who has been raised to fulfill one purpose but experiences a crisis in her faith. As the movie progress, her killing becomes less about fulfilling the curse and more about self-preservation.  Tom’s roommate (and one-time romantic rival) Paul begins to suspect that Lisa is connected to the murders and, inevitably, figures out her secret. This doesn’t bode too well for Tom, who has already been burned in love. It is established early on that Paul and Tom were both vying for the affections of the comely Julia, who realized that her heart belonged to Paul.  Tom receives the ultimate kick in the nuts when Julia tells him that she is going to marry Paul. This naturally ticks Tom off, but he takes the news better than your average Joe.

 

 However, things seem to take a turn for the better when Tom meets the attractive, and mysterious, Lisa, who happens to be his next-door neighbor. However, every time it seems their relationship is about to get serious, Lisa becomes extremely cold. She claims she loves Tom, but she can’t be with him.  Tom is a very clingy and jealous – he decks his friend Carl in the face after he witnesses Carl hitting on Lisa at a party.  Marshall Thompson is very good. He imbues a lot of anger into his performance and is completely sympathetic, even though Tom isn't a particularly likable character. 

It is hinted that even though Tom has become romantically involved with Lisa, he still hasn’t gotten over Julia, and views Paul as an antagonistic figure.  He initially scoffs when Julia breaks the bad news to him and even questions Paul’s manhood. It absolutely sickens Tom that Julia will be that breadwinner in that relationship – she has a solid career as a stage actress, while Paul works as a lab assistant.  When Paul airs his suspicions to Tom that Lisa might be responsible for the murders of their friends, Tom is absolutely livid over these accusations. It is bad enough that Paul stole away Julia but now he is accusing Lisa of being a murderer. 

The movie does a complete 180 on the audience.  It sets up Paul as being the protagonist. He is the one that begins to suspect Lisa is responsible for the deaths of his friends and takes his suspicions to the police. He is the biggest threat to Lisa. So, naturally we expect a huge confrontation between the two characters at the movie’s climax. Yet, Paul is completely sidelined at the end, while it is Tom that ends up saving the day.  He ends up killing the woman he loves to save the woman that dumped him. In a traditional narrative, Tom would get the girl, but at the end he is completely alone.  It is a truly downbeat ending. 

The biggest flaw, unfortunately, is Faith Domergue as Lisa. When she is in full femme fatale mode, she is alright, but when the script requires more nuisances in her performance that is when she falls flat. It doesn’t help that there is zero chemistry between her and Thompson, which is essential if we are to believe that it is her love for Tom that ultimately proves to be her undoing. Domergue was a fairly limited actress, and the movie probably would have worked better if she played a full-fledged seductress.  

It doesn’t help that Kathleen Hughes (as Lisa) has more screen presence than Domergue and turns Lisa into a sympathetic character. It is clear that Julia genuinely cares about Tom, and doesn’t want to hurt him, but she must go with her heart, which belongs to Paul. She might be more financially secure with Tom, but she is happier with Paul.  The juvenile leads tend to be a stumbling block in many horror movies, but both Richard Long and Kathleen Hughes (and the screenwriter) deserve credit for bringing an air of credibility to what are usually underwritten characters. The nice thing about Paul is that he often behaves in an intelligent manner – when he finally suspects Lisa, he immediately shares his suspicion with the police. They don’t buy the supernatural element of his story, but they are forced to admit that all the other evidence he presents actually adds up.

 The filmmakers get a lot of mileage out of the silly premise by merely suggesting the presence of the cobra, as opposed to showing outright – it is either seen in the shadows, or the movie will switch to a distorted, low angle shot from the cobra’s point of view.  It isn’t until the very end that we see onscreen transformation – Tom has pushed the cobra out of a window, and it transforms into the corpse of Lisa. Yet, even this is done in a long shot, as opposed the close ups we were often given in the Lon Chaney Wolf Man movies. Cult of the Cobra is by no means a classic, but it is a fairly interesting piece of 1950s horror. 

Credits
Cast: Faith Domergue (Lisa Moya), Richard Long (Paul Able), Marshall Thompson (Tom Markel), Kathleen Hughes (Julia Thompson), William Reynolds (Pete Norton), Jack Kelly (Carl Turner), David Janssen (Rico Nardi), James Dobson (Cpl. Nick Hommel), Leonard Strong (Daru), Myrna Hansen (Marian), Walter Coy (Police Inspector).
Director: Francis D. Lyon
Screenplay: Jerry Davis, Cecil Maiden, Richard Collins