The Goonies (1985)

The blockbusters of the 1980s are fairly restrained when compared to the blockbusters of today. Computer technology has made it so that practically everything is possible, hence filmmakers have a tendency to go a bit overboard at times. The special effects of the 1980s were realized  by using more traditional and practical means, so that filmmakers often had go back to the drawing board if a particular effect didn't work. In The Goonies, there was initially supposed to be a scene in which the kids are attacked by an octopus, but much to the horror of the filmmakers it looked terrible, something right out of an Edward D. Wood, Jr picture, and they wisely discarded it (though a clip of it can still be seen in the second part of the Cyndi Lauper video for "The Goonies R Good Enough." )

If The Goonies were made today, no doubt the octopus would have been CG and it would have remained in the film, even though the scene is rather superfluous to the overall narrative. This is not meant as an attack on the films of today, but rather to defend The Goonies from the charge that it is a "loud, soulless Hollywood product." Sure, The Goonies is a loud film at times and it was, indeed, a Hollywood product, but soulless?! Absolutely not! The film has a lot of heart and it's clear that it was a labor of love for director Richard Donner and executive producer Steven Spielberg.

The Goonies was a huge staple in my (and probably most of my generation's) childhood. I first saw it at the Starlight Drive In Theater at the age of six and was elated when I found a VHS copy of it at the (then) recently opened Wal-Mart. I watched it over and over again to the point where I had the entire film memorized. I could relate to the character of Mikey, because I was a bit of an outsider in school and had fairly oddball friends. Not to mention, it was produced by Steven Spielberg and I was, and still am, a huge Spielberg fan boy. Even though Richard Donner was the director on the film, Spielberg's finger prints are all over it. The Goonies is unashamedly an old fashioned movie, it's a throwback to the adventure films of Hollywood's Golden Era with  preteens as its protagonists. It is the kind of film that would make Terry Gilliam heave and cause cynical movie goers to roll their eyes every five minutes. And I love absolutely every minute of it. It is one of the my personal favorite films. Sure, I maybe blinded by nostalgia, but I'd rather watch a movie that features likable characters succeeding in the end, then have some angry filmmaker preach to me about the injustices in the world.

There's a tendency among film scholars to frown down upon "popcorn" films, because they have nothing important to say. The irony is that the "popcorn" films tend to survive the test of time, while the topical "message" films become horribly dated. Just look at Guess Who's Coming To Dinner, it took an important topic, interracial marriage, and served up a heavy handed message at the film's end about how everyone should be nice to one another. It got great notices in 1967, but is nearly unwatchable by today's standards. Practically everyone remembers The Goonies, but  few remember the  "socially relevant" films of 1985.

The characters in The Goonies are all archetypes, they are reminiscent of the kind of friends we had during our childhood.

Brand: He's the jock of the group. In his spare time he lifts weights, works oddjobs to feed his bike hobby, and is smitten by the cheerleader Andy. He is the more practical one out of the group, while everyone is wanting to go on an adventure, he proceeds with caution. He is also the butt of many jokes, because he failed his driver's test.

Mikey: He is the complete opposite of his older brother Brand. Mike is an awkward teenager who wears braces and has asthma. While Brand is the more physically gifted of the two, Mikey is the intellectual one. He has a great knowledge of history and his enthusiasm for an adventures wears off on his friends.

Mouth: He is the wiseass of the group. Mouth is constantly cracking jokes, much to the annoyance of his friends. He talks a lot, but often has very little to say.

Chunk: The fat friend. Chunk devotes a good portion of his time to hanging out in arcades and eating lots of junk food. He is also a horrible liar, often telling incredible stories about famous people he meet or amazing events that he witnessed. He is the boy who cried wolf and that eventually costs him later in the film.

Date: The smart Asian stereotype. Data specialty is inventing gadgets that serve no real function and rarely work. He often stumbles over his English and gets extremely upset when people correct him.

Andy: She is popular cheerleader who Brand is smitten with. Andy is somewhat flakey, but extremely sweet girl who returns Brand's affections. She is initially at odds with the Goonies as she is comes from an upper class background, but by film's end has ingratiated herself with them.

Stef:  She is the slightly nerdy female of the group. She is Andy's close friend and is fairly antagonistic towards Mouth. She is extremely opinionated and vocal, often the voice of reason, especially when it comes towards her friend Andy. At one point Andy starts freaking out and Stef does her best to calm her nerves.

The movie's title refers to the fact that the characters live in "The Goon Docks" neighborhood of Astoria, Oregon. This threatens to be "The Goonies" last weekend together as their houses are being foreclosed on and they are moving to different parts of the country, barring an absolute miracle. That miracle comes in the form of old pirate treasure map that is stored in the Walshes' attic; Mikey and Brand's dad is the curator of the town museum. They read old newspaper clippings about the treasure of pirate One Eyed Willy, supposedly hidden somewhere in the area and Mikey is convinced that this is their ticket out of this mess. The other Goonies are hesitant at first, but Mikey is able to persuade them when he reveals that their houses will be torn down to make way for a new golf course. Brand, however, will have none of this. The Goonies usurp his authority by tying him up while he is working out. To add insult to injury, Mouth lets the air out of the new tires on Brand's bicycle, needless to say this makes Brand extremely mad. After Brand is released by his mom, he sees that his bicycle tires are flat and commanders  a little girl's bike so he can chase after Mikey and his friends. There are two obstacles standing in the way of One Eyed Willie's treasure: booby traps the pirate has scattered throughout the underground tunnel and the Fratellis, a family of criminals, led by their surly and ugly mom. The two brothers, Jake and Francis, are constantly at each other's throats and Mama Fratelli often has to (literally) slap some sense into their thick skulls.  They run into the Fratelli's by sheer happenstance, the entrance to the underground tunnel is located in the basement of a run down restaurant, where the Fratellis happened to be holed up. Chunk naturally gets hungry and opens the kitchen freezer to see if there's any ice cream, only to find much to his (and everyone else's) horror a dead body with a bullet hole in it's head. The Fratelli's come back at that moment and Chunk hides in the freezer with the corpse, while the rest of the gang enters the tunnel. When the Fratellis have exited, Brand and Mikey implore Chunk to call the police. Chunk goes out the window and tries to call the police, but the deputy doesn't believe him. Chunk then waves down a van, explaining to the driver what is going on, only to find that the driver is Jake Fratelli. Jake's brother Francis grabs Chunk and throws him in the back of the van, reuniting Chunk with the corpse from the freezer.

The Goonies has often been criticized for being an extremely loud and relentless film. And certainly there is a lot of truth to this criticism. The film does have a roller coaster feel to it, and too often there are close ups of characters screaming at the top of their lungs. It can wear the viewer down from time to time. On the other hand, it does a great job of establishing the relationships between the characters and can be extremely moving at times.  The most complex relationship in the film is between Brand and Mikey. The two of them are siblings, Brand is the oldest of the two and is often antagonistic towards Mikey. They are polar opposites in  both a physical and intellectual sense; Brand constantly works out and is in great shape, he is the brawn out of the two. Mikey, on the other hand, is the more scholarly type and has a fairly puny physique. Yet, despite constantly being at odds with one another, there is a mutual love between the two characters. Early in the film, after contractors have dropped off papers from their father to sign, everyone goes inside except for Mikey. He stands on the front patio staring into distance, contemplating what the future has in store for him and is on the verge of tears. Just then Brand walks into frame from the side door, Mikey runs toward him and the two of them hug. Brand may get annoyed with Mikey at times, but he does genuinely care about his younger brother.

The heart of the film is the relationship between Chunk and Sloth. Sloth is the black sheep of the Fratelli family; his face is deformed and he is extremely tall. They keep him chained up in the basement of the abandoned restaurant, so he will be out of their way. After the Fratellis have captured Chunk, they tie him up and put him in the same room as Sloth. Chunk is frightened at first, but breaks the ice by offering Sloth a Baby Ruth candy bar. Chunk throws the candy bar Sloth's way, but his aim is off and it hits Sloth in the forehead, landing a few feet away from Sloth's reach. Sloth begins to freak out and in the process breaks the chains that have been holding him. He picks up the Baby Ruth bar and feeds half of it to Chunk. The two of them form an inseparable bond and Sloth helps save the day at the film's end. Chunk offering his Baby Ruth bar is probably the first act of kindness Sloth has ever encountered in his entire life and he doesn't forget it.

It's also interesting how The Goonies will often slow down the action to give its characters breathing room. The most memorable moment is the interlude inside the wishing well. Mikey and company stumble upon a cavern that is glittering with coins. Stef points out that it is the old wishing well and Andy comments about how she used to believe that it actually granted people's wishes. Mikey and Data start gathering up coins, but Stef tells them they can't do that, because "These are other people's wishes. They are other people's dreams." Mouth then counters by telling a story about how he once made a wish and it didn't come true. He then adds, "I'm taking it back. I'm taking them all back."

It looks like The Goonies adventure is going to be short lived, when resident douchebag Troy and his friends are standing at the top of the well. Troy's main goal in life is too make it with Andy and he is naturally elated when he finds out that she is at the bottom of the well. They implore Troy to lower down the bucket, so he can pull them up one by one. Andy, naturally, is the first to go, so not only does it look like The Goonies adventures will be short lived, but Troy might make it with Andy as well. Uh-oh!

Mikey, however, persuades them to carry on with a long monologue about how "it's their time, down here." Meaning, this might be their last chance to go on a genuine adventure and it will come to a screeching halt when they go up "Troy's bucket." Sure, it might be a safer route, but they might regret their decision later. Mikey's words touches ever one, including the upper crust Andy, and they all carry on. Andy, who is wearing Troy's letterman jacket, for some reason, wraps it around the bucket. This naturally infuriates the horny Troy and he shouts, "ANDY! YOU GOOOOOOOOOONIE!"

Troy is quite possibly the biggest douchebag ever to grace the silver screen, he is the son of the contractor who hopes to build a new golf course over where The Goonies houses are currently stand. He is spoiled brat that has always gotten everything he wanted and has no concern for the feelings of others. In the beginning of the film, Troy is cruising in his car with Andy and Stef, when they spot Brand riding the little girl's bike. Troy pulls over and Andy asks Brand if he would like a ride. Brand declines, but Troy, being the dipshit that he is, grabs a hold of Brands hand (that is resting on the car door) and begins to drive a fast speed. Andy and Stef implore Troy to stop, but he won't listen. The car goes so fast that the training wheels fly off the little girl's bike. Troy releases his grip and Brand goes sailing off into the woods. Troy never really gets the come uppence he deserves; the worst that happens to him is when he flies through the air when the toilet he is sitting on explodes, but that's not exactly on even trade off, given the fact that he endangered Brand's life. Troy is completely one dimensional character that audiences love to hate, every time he's onscreen everyone boos. He's even more despicable than the Fratellis, who at least are amusing in their nonstop bickering.

There are other memorable moments in The Goonies as well:

Andy decides she wants to have a little make out session with Brand, so she calls for him to come to her. Brand, in the middle of taking a leak, sends Mikey to see what she wants. Mikey walks down a darken tunnel and Andy, mistaking him for Brand, gives him a long, passionate kiss on the lips. Stef, who happens to be holding a lantern, witnesses the entire thing and starts to laugh. Mikey completely dazed by the experience stumbles his way out of the tunnel. Andy, still oblivious that she just made out with a preteen, asks Stef is Brand wears braces. Stef starts laughing and Andy chides her for it and adds that she thinks it cute. Later on, Brand and Andy kiss and she asks, "What happened to your braces?"

The Fratellis capture Chunk and tell him to "spill everything." Chunk starts to confess all the horrible deeds that he has done throughout his short life, the most memorable being how he brought fake vomit into a movie theater, made some heaving sounds, and then threw it over the balcony and onto the audience below, which in turn caused the person it landed on to barf. Then the person sitting next to that person barfed and so on.

The special effects, the stunt work, and the sets (especially the life sized Pirate ship at the film's climax) are extremely impressive, but The Goonies is at its absolute best when the characters are given the reigns. The reason The Goonies has resonated with audiences is that there's at least one character they can relate to, be it Brand, Mikey, Chunk, Mouth, Data, Andy, and even Stef. If the audience likes the characters, they tend to the forgive flaws that are inherent in the film's production. The Goonies is a far from perfect film, but it's cast of colorful characters make it a treat to watch, nonetheless.  Of course, if you can't stand child actors, then this is definitely not the film for you.

Cast: Sean Astin (Mikey), Josh Brolin (Brand), Jeff Cohen (Chunk), Corey Feldman (Mouth), Kerri Green (Andy), Martha Plimpton (Stef), Jonathan Ke Quan (Data), John Matuszak (Sloth), Anne Ramsey (Mama Fratelli), Robert Davi (Jake), Joe Pantolianio (Francis), Steven Antin (Troy), Mary Ellen Trainor (Mrs. Walsh).

Director: Richard Donner
Screenplay: Chris Columbus. Steven Spielberg (story)
Running Time: 114

Blood On Satan's Claw (1971)

Blood On Satan's Claw is an extremely flawed, but fascinating horror movie. Initially, it was supposed to be anthology of three stories all linked together with "the Devil's skin" infecting individuals and turning them into evil, Satan worshiping thugs, but the filmmakers decided to condense the three story lines into one narrative, turning it into a disjointed, often plodding horror film. It's fairly common for characters to disappear from the narrative and never to be heard from again..... WITH NO EXPLANATION.

The story is about a farming community that is effected by demonic possession after a plow boy, Ralph (Barry Andrews), accidentally unearths the remains of a demonic creature with strange fur on it. Shortly afterwards, the children (more accurately young adults) of the community start getting infected with a strange patch of fur on their bodies and join a satanic cult. The leader of the cult is Angel Blake, who is determined to bring the Devil back in the flesh. Apparently, these strange patches of fur are the "Devil's skin" and she needs all of them to resurrect him from the netherworld. The cult aspect of the film is poorly handled, because it's never established when it actually begins. Angel Blake, for instance, goes from being a normal teenage girl to evil temptress in a blink of an eye, there's no transitional period. A half hour into the film, the cult is well underway, and more than half the children in the area have already joined, much to the chagrin of the local Reverend (Anthony Ainley). The first half hour of the film centers around the character of Peter and his fiancee Rosalind. Peter lives with his upper class, well to do aunt, who naturally disapproves of him marrying a peasant girl like Rosalind. Peter's aunt forces Rosalind to sleep in the attic of the house, after Peter has successfully campaigned to let her stay the night, and it's there that Rosalind is possessed by some demonic force. Screams ring through the household and Peter's aunt goes upstairs to check what all the commotion is about, only to have her face scratched to hell by the possessed Rosalind, who's right hand has been replaced by claws....Satan's claws.

The film is lacking in the protagonist department as well, there really is no strong central figure for the audience to get involved with. The Judge (Patrick Wymark) is, by default, the hero of the film as he vanquishes Satan at the film's climax, but he's not a particularly sympathetic character and is off screen for a good chunk of the narrative. He does have a character arc as he goes from being completely skeptical (and ignorant) of the supernatural to eventually accepting it and using his knowledge of it to stop the spread of evil.
The closest the film comes to having a protagonist we care about is Ralph. He is a sympathetic character, but is often on the periphery of events, rather than the center; he is a beat too late from saving his beloved Cathy from the satanic cult. At the film's climax, he contemplates giving into his more primal urges, until the Judge arrives just in the nick of time to save him. He does manage to save Margaret, member of the cult, from certain death by pulling her from the river, after an angry mob has attempted to drown her by tossing her in. Ralph is an idealist and hopes that he can save Margaret from the clutches of the satanic cult. He naturally gets frustrated when the only thing Margaret prattles on and on about is her devotion to the Dark Lord.

The ending of the film is fairly anti-climatic: The Judge and a mob of villagers descends upon the coven, while Ralph is being seduced by the "charms" of a curvaceous cult member. Angel sees the mob coming, panics, and promptly runs into a pitchfork that one of the villagers is wielding. The Judge impales Satan (who is not fully completed, still needing "Devil's skin" from Ralph's leg) with a sword and then throws Beelzebub into a fire. Freeze frame. Credits roll.  The Judge has little difficulty in disposing of the Prince of Darkness and everything is right with the world.

As sloppy and uninvolving as the film is at time, it's also hard to completely dismiss. There are some genuinely chilling moments throughout the film that remain ingrained in your memory.

1) The opening sequence in which Ralph unearths the one eyed skull of Satan. This starts out as a rather tranquil moment with Ralph waving to Cathy and then proceeding to go on with his plowing. Then, quite abruptly, the peace is shattered with the discovering of the deformed skull.

2) The murder of Mark Vespers. It is established early on the Mark has a crush on Angel Blake, so when two girls come to his doorway asking him if he wants to play and that ANGEL with be there, he naturally accepts the invitation. The scene starts out in a seemingly innocent manner as the kids frolic around the wood, but out of nowhere  hand emerges from the bushes and strangles Mark. The strangulation is implied, rather than actually shown, but once again it's rather jarring moment.

3) Angel's seduction of Reverend Fallowfield. Reverend Fallowfield is a stern taskmaster, who gets increasingly frustrated by the lack of focus his pupils have during his lessons. Naturally, when half of his class stops showing up this seriously pisses him off and he puts the blame on Angel Blake, as she is the ringleader of the group. Fallowfield is about ready to close up the church one night, when Angel comes in to have (what he assumes) a conversation him. However, Angel removes all her clothes and tries to seduce the Reverend into sleeping with her, he is tempted at first, but eventually rebukes her advances. The next day, Angel tells her father that the Reverend molested her and he takes this up with the town's squire. The squire has the Reverend arrested and this seemingly puts him out of the way. However, the Reverend is acquitted of all charges, when Ralph comes back carrying Cathy's corpse and telling the authorities that Angel is responsible for the murder. The Reverend, despite his acquittal, disappears from the proceeding altogether.

4) The rape and murder of Cathy Vespers. This is probably the most shocking scene in the picture, because it shows a rather sweet girl getting murdered in a rather brutal fashion. It's definitely hard to watch. Cathy is picking flowers in the woods, when two mischievous boys approach and ask her to play with them. They then tie a rope around her, in a seeming playful manner, and lead her to the middle of the woods where the rest of the coven is waiting. Angel emerges into the frame and starts to recite incantations, while Satan looks on in the background. Then the coven descends upon Cathy and tears off her clothes. One of the male members then step forward, slowly pulls down his pants, and rapes Cathy. After the rape is finished, Angel stabs Cathy in the back with a pair of sheers. Again, this is an extremely hard and painful scene to watch, but's effective in conveying the sheer terror of the moment. Our sympathies lie completely with Cathy and we are sickened by the abuse she is forced to endure. And, we can sympathizes with Ralph's pain when he finds the mangled body of his beloved lying in the woods. It's quite possibly one of the darkest scenes in cinema history. The rape itself is not graphic and rather short lived, but the build up to the moment makes it even more horrific. It's a rather long scene and disorienting one at that, the film cuts between shots of the coven, including a perverted old couple, and close ups of the frightened Cathy. Like her, we have no idea what is going to happen, so when the male starts to undress, our stomachs start to turn.

The 17th century witch movie ( or "folk horror" as Mark Gatiss termed it) was almost a subgenre in itself in the late 60s/early 70s with the release of films like The Witchfinder General, Cry of the Banshee, and Blood On Satan's Claw. In these films, violence is an epidemic that sweeps through the country side, only to come to abrupt end, but at an exceedingly high price. The Witchfinder General is the only one that doesn't have a supernatural element to the story line, but rather it's about a corrupt individual, Matthew Hopkins(Vincent Price), who sweeps through the countryside ridding the world of suspected witches, and people who are antagonistic towards him. It's a film that showcases humanity at it's worst and even the ending is a downer, despite the slewing of Hopkins, because it's implied that the protagonist of the piece, Richard Marshall (Ian Ogilvy) has been driven mad in his quest for revenge. Cry of the Banshee shades the same flaws as Blood On Satan's Claw, but in this case the coven is the wronged party, while their persecutors are part of the decadent upper class.

Another interesting aspect of Blood On Satan's Claw is that it features not one, but two Doctor Who regulars, Wendy Padbury (Cathy Vespers) and Anthony Ainley. Padbury was just coming off her stint as Zoe Heriot, companion to the Second Doctor portrayed by Patrick Troughton, when she made this movie.  Ainley would go onto play the recurring role of The Master throughout the 80s. They share a few scenes together as Cathy is a member of Reverend Fallowfield's parish. Hell, even Barry Andrews would later go on to do a guest starring role in one of Tom Baker's later serials, Nightmare of Eden. 

The film is well acted for the most part, and director Piers Haggard does have a great eye for detail and establishing menace, it's just too bad the script is so incoherent, because the film had potential to be a classic.

Cast: Patrick Wymark (The Judge), Barry Andrews (Ralph Gower), Linda Hayden (Angel Blake), Michele Dotrice (Margaret), Wendy Padbury (Cathy Vespers), Anthony Ainley (Reverend Fallowfield), Charlotte Mitchell (Ellen Vespers), Tamara Ustinov (Rosalind Burton), Simon Williams (Peter Edmonton).
Director: Piers Haggard.
Screenplay: Robert Wynne-Simmons, Piers Haggard
Running Time: 93 min.

I Saw What You Did (1965)

It's common for film critics to bemoan the lack of originality in today's cinema, consistently grumbling over the latest horror remake or sequel that is due for release. Why things can't things be like the good old days? The problem with this attitude is two fold:

1) It completely romanticizes old Hollywood. Sure, a lot of great movies were made during the studio system, but for every great movie Hollywood churned out there were just as many clunkers. So, for every Gone With the Winds there were just as many Return of Dr. Xs.

2) It ignores the fact that the Hollywood of today is EXACTLY like the Hollywood of yesterday. Hollywood has always been about the profit. If one film is extremely successful, then it's only a matter of time before the other studios release a film exactly like it. When Easy Rider became an unexpected hit in 1969, the studios followed suit by making movies in a similar vain. In the 40s, two of Universals biggest money makers were the Monster films and Abbott and Costello series. MGM made a lot of great films in the 30s, but made countless Andy Hardy films as well. To quote Billy Joel, "the good old days weren't always good and tomorrow is not as bad as it seems."

In 1960 Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho hit the cinemas and proved to be a huge commercial hit. Hitchcock took a relatively obscure horror novel (by Robert Bloch) and, with a fairly low budget, turned it into a gold mine. It was only a matter of time before other filmmakers jumped on the bandwagon and produced their own Psycho, complete with relatively predictable twist endings. It is staggering just how many derivatives of Psycho were made throughout the 60s; Hammer studios would produce films like Paranoiac, Nightmare, and Scream of Fear, a young Francis Ford Coppola would direct Dementia 13 for his mentor Roger Corman, and William Castle got in the act by making THREE Psycho-like films.

William Castle is probably best known for the outrageous gimmicks he used to promote his horror films. His best known gimmick is probably Percepto-vision used for the movie The Tingler. Percepto consisted of attaching buzzers underneath select seats in the theater and setting them off during the film's climax (in which Vincent Price implores the audience to scream for their lives). Another gimmick was Emergo, which essentially was a plastic skeleton attached to a wire that floated over the heads of the audience during the climax of House on Haunted Hill. 

I Saw What You Did was William Castle's third attempt at mimicking Hitchcock, his two previous attempts were Homicidal and Strait Jacket, both of which hinge on a twist ending regarding the killer's REAL identity. Castle tries to pull a sleight of hand like Hitchcock did with Psycho, but ultimately fails, because the twist is fairly predictable in both films. I Saw What You Did is probably the most successful out of the three films, because it's the least gimmicky. The film follows two mischievous teenage girls, Libby and Kit, who amuse themselves by prank calling random numbers and whispering the phrase, "I know who you are and I saw what you did."  Unfortunately, one of their recipients, Steve Marak, has just murdered his wife. Libby mistakenly thinks that Steve is playing along with the prank and starts to grow curious as to what he actually looks like. The girls decide to drive by his home to have a look. Their plan is thwarted by Steve's next door neighbor (and would be lover), Amy, who thinks that Steve is having an affair with Libby. The girls beg Amy not to say anything, fearing that they will get in trouble with Libby's parents (who are at party) for leaving the house. Amy, out of spite, takes Libby's ID. The girls drive home dejected. Amy is aware that Steve has murdered his wife and plans to use this information to blackmail him into marrying her. Fat chance! Steve, not one to be caged, offs Amy and discovers Libby's ID. He then drives to Libby's house to confront her. Uh-oh!

I Saw What You Did "borrows" two distinct elements from Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho:

1. The killing of a star name fairly early in the proceedings: In Psycho, it was a genuinely shocking to see Janet Leigh killed off in the middle of the film. It was simply unheard of at the time to kill off a star name so early in the proceedings and naturally the audience had no idea how to react. William Castle takes a page from Hitchcock's book and bumps off Joan Crawford's character, Amy Nelson, with nearly a half hour remaining in the film. However, Crawford's death isn't nearly as shocking and disorienting as Janet Leigh's, because Amy is a supporting character and a fairly unsympathetic one at that. When she thinks Steve is having an affair with Libby, she becomes extremely jealous and possessive, to the point of blackmailing Steve into marrying her.

2. The shower scene: The shower scene is the most famous set piece in Psycho, so it's not surprising that Castle would ape it in his own movie, but with a twist. Steve is taking a shower when his wife starts to yell at him, he has had enough, pulls her in and stabs her to death. It is the Psycho shower scene done in reverse. The stabbing is shot in a similar fashion to the one in Psycho; shots of blood going down the drain, close ups of the woman's face, etc.

After Steve has murdered his wife, he attempts to cover up the crime by burying her in the woods. This is very similar to how Norman Bates tried to cover up Marion's murder, by dumping her car (with her body in the trunk) in the swamp. Castle milks these scenes to great effect, Steve is constantly on the verge of being discovered. At one point Steve hears a rustle in the woods and realizes a dog is coming his way. The gig is up, or so Steve thinks, but at the last possible second the dog's owner calls it back to the car.

I Saw What You Did is pretty jarring at times due to how tonally inconsistent it is. The scenes with the girls are done in a fairly light hearted manner with upbeat music playing on the soundtrack. These scenes would be more at home in a TV sitcom like Gidget than in a horror film. The scenes with Steve and Amy are extremely intense with your typical "spooky" horror/suspense music playing in the background. The fatal flaw of the film (other than plagiarizing Hitchcock) is that it hinges on characters behaving in the stupidest manner possible. Libby MUST know what Steve looks like, so she drives down to his house, gets caught snooping on his lawn by Amy, and in the process gives Steve the information he needs (her ID that Amy has taken) to track her down. Amy, out of fear of losing to Steve to much a younger woman, tries to blackmail him into marrying her, which, given the fact that he has just murdered his wife for her constant nagging, isn't exactly a bright idea. If Steve wasn't going to allow himself to be tied down to a constant nagger, then why would he allow himself to be held prisoner to a potential blackmailer. It's enough to make you smack your forehead in complete disbelief. On the other hand, at least the girls are played by actual teenagers (instead of the twenty something that often populate high school horror films) and behave as such. John Ireland makes for a compelling villain as well, he's absolutely cold and frigid to the world around him, and shows no remorse for the crimes he has committed. However, he only lashes out at the world when he feels he is being boxed in; his first murder was one of passion, the second was for self preservation. The confrontation between Steve and Libby (and Libby's younger sister Tess) at the end is extremely well done; at one point he tosses a knife as Tess when she screams out a warning to Libby. Castle really pumps up the atmospherics; the outside of the Mannering house is shrouded in fog, while Tess hides in the woods from her pursuer.
I Saw What You Did certainly pales in comparison to Psycho, but it's fairly entertaining in its own silly way.

Credits
Cast: Joan Crawford (Amy Nelson), John Ireland (Steve Marak), Andi Garrett (Libby Mannering), Sara Lane (Kit Austin), Sharyl Locke (Tess Mannering), Leif Erickson (Dave Mannering), Patricia Breslin (Ellie Mannering), John Archer (John Austin).

Director: William Castle
Screenplay: William P. McGivern
Running Time: 82 min.

Batman (TV Series): Why It's Friggin' Awesome, despite what comic book purists would have you believe.

I think for most people from my generation (and my parents) their first exposure to Batman was the campy 1960s television show starring Adam West. It was a show that I watched religiously when I was a kid, to the point that when it was taken off syndication I was absolutely devastated. I sat in my room for days and sulked about it. How could I live without my daily dose of The Dynamic Duo? It also meant that I would deprived of the greatest TV theme song in history.

The highlight of each episode was the fight scenes, whenever Batman and Robin would punch villain, words like, POW, BAM, BOOF, would appear on the screen. It was away to emphasize the very comic book nature of the television show.
The Batman in the TV show was an upstanding citizen who apparently had no vices, he didn't drink, didn't smoke and was able to keep his sexual urges in check, despite the fact that beautiful women were constantly throwing themselves at him. He was a goody two shoes who packed a mean wallop.

As a kid, Adam West was the DEFINITIVE Batman, until 1989, when the Tim Burton/Michael Keaton movie was released. The Tim Burton film went back to Batman's roots and made him a dark, brooding character haunted by the death of his parents, as opposed to the rather whimsical, benevolent authority figure of the old Adam West series. It was the DEFINITIVE Batman movie, until 2005 when Batman Begins was released to the cinemas.  Christopher Nolan's version was more grittier and less stylized than Burton's interpretation, and more importantly, Bruce Wayne was the central figure in the story, rather than a supporting player. Tim Burton's films, Batman and Batman Returns, were more interested in the plight of the villains and often pushed Batman/Bruce Wayne to the sidelines. Last year, Nolan finally completed his trilogy with The Dark Knight Rises, so it's only inevitable that in a few years time another reboot of the Batman franchise will be commissioned. Whether or not it will replace Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy as the DEFINITIVE Batman remains to be see.

I have done a complete 360 on the 1960s television series: I loved it as a kid, was embarrassed by it as a teen (especially after seeing the "serious" Burton films), and now love it as an adult. The television series may be a complete bastardization the original character, but it makes for some rather enjoyable (and funny) television. Of course, it's often overlooked that throughout the 1950s and most of the 1960s (the Silver Age) the Batman comic books themselves had devolved into rather silly children's stories. The villains weren't so much evil geniuses as they were merry pranksters with too much time on their hands. A typical story line from this era might involve the Joker trying to rob a pie factory in Gotham so he could stage the biggest pie fight in history. These comic books were aimed solely at kids and the TV show, for the most part, followed suit. It was also the campy TV show that brought Batman back into the spotlight after years of dwindling comic book sales.

What makes the TV show entertaining is Adam West's ability to deliver his lines in a straight manner, regardless as to how ridiculous they might sound. Oddly enough, when I was a kid, the campy humor went above my head, and I took the show absolutely seriously. When I watch the 1966 feature length film, I couldn't comprehend why my dad was laughing hysterically during the scene where Batman is punching a rubber shark that latched on his leg. This scene features the immortal line, "Hand me down the shark repellent bat spray." It is a moment that makes serious comic book fans cringe, but it is absolutely hilarious, especially with West's dry delivery.

I never liked character of Robin, even in the comic books and cartoons, and Burt Ward's take on the character can be extremely grating at times; to the point where one wishes Batman would give the Boy Wonder a nice crack in the jaw after his latest outburst of "HOLY______, Batman!"  Robin in the TV series main function was to get caught so Batman would have an excuse to fight the villains. Every once in a blue moon the writers would give him something useful to do, but otherwise he was a complete hindrance to the Caped Crusader's war on crime.  Robin in the TV series was essentially a boy scout in tights. 

Then there was the rogues gallery of villains, some of the most colorful characters in television (and comic book) history:

Catwoman: Three actresses played Catwoman during the show's run (well, two played the role on the television, one played the character in the movie), Julie Newmar, Eartha Kitt, and Lee Meriwether. 

Julie Newmar's interpretation is probably the most famous and best loved out of three, partly due to the fact that she had a wonderful chemistry with Adam West, but mostly because she was.....extremely... hot. 

Newmar's Catwoman was flirtatious with Batman and had a soft spot for him, to the point where she even contemplated giving up crime to be with him. In one of my favorite exchanges from the TV series, Catwoman offers turn a new leaf:

Batman: I'll do everything I can to rehabilitate you.

Catwoman:  Marry me!

Batman: Everything, except that! A wife, no matter how beauteous or affectionate, would severely impair my crime fighting.

Catwoman: But I can help you with your work. As a former criminal, I would be invaluable. I can reform. Honestly I can! 

Batman: What about Robin?

Catwoman: Robin?! Oh, I've got it. We'll kill him!

As a kid (and still as an adult) I was absolutely irate that Batman turned down her offer. Sure, killing Robin is excessive, but Catwoman would certainly be a more apt crime fighting partner than Robin, the Boy Blunder. She even tells him as much, but Batman turns her down. IDIOT! For my money, Newmar's portrayal is still the best (and yes that includes Michelle Pfeiffer and Anne Hathaway). 

Lee Meriwether (Miss America 1955) take on the character was much different, she had an icy cold exterior and didn't get all starry eyed when she encountered Batman. She took her role as a criminal very seriously and used her pretty looks (and sexuality) to lure Bruce Wayne into a trap. 

Catwoman and her cohorts (The Joker, Penguin, The Riddler), came up with an elaborate scheme to kidnap Bruce Wayne, so they could trap Batman when he came to rescue the famous millionaire. They wanted to lure Batman into a giant spring that would send him soaring into the arms of the Joker's exploding octopus. Needless to say, it didn't go according to plan. 

Meriwether was the first Catwoman I ever saw, so I will always I have a soft spot for her portrayal. 

When Earth Kitt inherited the role in the show's final season, the sexual tension between Batman and Catwoman was nonexistent, instead she purred her way through the scenery. Earth Kitt was by no means a bad Catwoman, but the dynamic between the two characters was far less interesting; she lacked Newmar's sex appeal and didn't quite possess Meriwether's cold hearted villainy, either. Though, Kitt's distinctive voice was a lot of fun to listen to.  

The Joker (Cesar Romero): It's common to disparage Caesar Romero's portrayal of the Joker, especially when compared to the much darker interpretations that Jack Nicholson (an multiple Oscar Winner) and Heath Ledger (the role he won the Oscar for) gave to the character.  Romero's Joker is a jovial prankster whose main goal in life is to embarrass Batman on a national stage. His schemes are completely impractical and, as a result, there is often no collateral damage involved when his plan is inevitably foiled. The Joker doesn't wish anyone (except for Batman) harm, he's mainly a criminal for his own amusement. 

While the Nicholson/Ledger incarnations are more truer to the comics, they would be completely out of place in the television series. The TV show was meant to be fun for the family, so the sight of the Joker smashing a guy's skull into a pencil would probably not go over well with parents.  Nor would him hand buzzing a gangster to death. Romero brought a lot of energy to the role, so even though his Joker may not be remotely like the one in the comics, he was still a lot of fun to watch. 

The Riddler (Frank Gorshin): Frank Gorshin's manic portrayal of the Riddler is vastly superior to any of the actors that followed in his footsteps; Jim Carrey's take on the character in Batman Forever is a piss poor imitation of Gorshin. The Riddler absolutely enjoyed toying with the Caped Crusader, his main down fall was his over confidence. He was so certain that he would succeed that he would give Batman and Robin clues to those crimes in the form of riddles, thinking that they wouldn't be able to figure them out, or that he and his cronies would be ready for the dynamic duo when they showed their faces. He always failed, but it never dissuaded him (then again, that applies to all the Batman villains).  The less I say about John Astin's brief stint as the Riddler, the better. 

The Penguin (Burgess Meredith): The Penguin was always a silly character, not even a gritty reboot would be able to disguise just what a ridiculous villain he truly was. He walked like a penguin, had an extremely long nose, wore a monocle, and always had a cigarette holder protruding from his mouth. While he is extremely out of place in the dark, gritty Batman comics, he is a perfect fit for the campy TV show. 

The Penguin's crimes were always bird related and always chose extremely transparent bird themed aliases to throw the law off his track. In Batman: The Movie, he buys a pre-atomic submarine under the pseudonym P. N. Guin.  He labeled himself as being a SUPER GENIUS criminal mastermind, but was always bested by Batman. Whenever the Penguin disapproved of something he would let out a "Quack" sound. 

There were other colorful villains in the shows run as well: Egghead, King Tut, The Book Worm, False Face,The Minstrel, Mr. Freeze, but it's the four highlighted above that were, and still are, the most popular.

In the show's final season the character of Barbara Gordon/Batgirl was introduced. She was portrayed by beach movie regular (and frequent Elvis co-star) Yvonne Craig. Her character served dual purposes, it offered the girls a positive role model and it gave the boys more eye candy to look at. 

Batgirl's identity was a completely mystery to Batman and Robin, and she would often slip away before the Dynamic Duo had a chance to ask her any questions. She was a certainly more competent hero than Robin (and all the Gotham police force, but that goes without saying). Her alter ego, Barbara Gordon, was an extremely intelligent woman and could often figure out the criminals schemes/ where abouts before Batman and without the aid of a computer. She was also fairly adept at handling herself in fights, often holding her own with Batman and Robin (well, maybe not Batman, but she often bested Robin in terms of knock outs). Unfortunately, for all her toughness, she also had a tendency to get herself captured by the villains, then Batman would come along to save the day. Still, she was infinitely better than Robin. Yvonne Craig is leagues better than Alicia Silverstone, who stuttered her way through the role in 1997's Batman & Robin. 

As I mentioned before, Batman purists absolutely loathe the 60s TV show, because in their minds it makes a complete mockery out of the character. It wouldn't be until the 1989 Tim Burton film that the character would be a given a more serious minded treatment and since then the dark, troubled Batman of the Burton/Nolan films have supplanted the warm, whimsical Batman of the 60s. When Joel Schumacher went back to the camp format in Batman & Robin the movie going public rejected it, to the point where it's regarded as one of the worst movies ever made. In all fairness, it is a fairly dreadful film. It successfully killed the first Batman movie series but made way for the Christopher Nolan reboot. It's easy to rag on the Batman show for its camp aesthetics, but let's not forget that the comic book itself was extremely silly at the time. The 1960s Batman TV show is just one of the many faces the Caped Crusader has donned over the last eighty plus years, rather than being disgusted by it, Batman fans should embrace it. There's more than enough for room for two different interpretations of the same character (and in the comic book's case there's been 

more than that), so LIGHTEN UP PEOPLE! 

Besides, nothing in the Nolan films can top the sight of Batman running through this streets with a bomb over his head, looking for a place to dispose of it. (NOTE: This clip has been replaced with music from Benny Hill, as I could't find a decent clip with the original score.) 

Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948)

Depending on who you talk to, Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein is either one of the best horror comedy films ever made, or the absolute the nadir in Universal's monster series of the 40s. To many horror aficionados it is a depressing sight to see three great horror icons (Dracula, The Wolf Man, The Frankenstein Monster) playing second fiddle to the comedy stylings of Abbott and Costello. In their mind, it's on par with shouting "HAIL SATAN!" in the middle of a Sunday church service, ABSOLUTE BLASPHEMY! I am part of the former camp that claim it at as one of the best, if not the best, horror comedy ever made.
 Of course, I'm absolutely biased as I first saw it when I was nine and watched it obsessively throughout the course of my youth. Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein was also my first exposure to both Dracula and the Frankenstein Monster (I saw The Wolf Man before hand). I own it in two different formats (VHS and DVD). I remember seeing the VHS on the shelf at Suncoast video, beckoning me to buy it for the low price of $19.99 and I obeyed, spending two weeks worth of allowance money on it in the process. A few months ago I spotted it on the DVD rack at Wal-Mart for $7.50 and needless to say bought it (especially after learning that it had a Greg Mank commentary on it).

The films of Abbott and Costello are fairly hit or miss, their best films include: Pardon My Sarong, Hold That Ghost, Who Done It, The Time of Their Lives, Buck Privates, Buck Privates Come Home, Africa Screams, and, of course, Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein. Their other films range from being tolerable, but mediocre to downright painful; the 50s, in particular, was not a kind decade for the comedy duo. Though, I have a soft spot from the absolute dreadful Abbott and Costello Go Mars, mainly because it borders on the surreal at times (the boys bump into a civilization of attractive warrior women that inhabit Venus). Costello's childish antics can be funny, especially when paired with the supernatural, but can be irritating as well. Bud Abbott was the perfect straight man and brought balance to the proceedings, often to the point of being able to offset Costello's mugging.
Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein would be the swan song for Universal's classic monsters, they would be replaced in the following decade by giant insects, alien invaders, dinosaurs, and most famously, the Gill Man from The Creature From the Black Lagoon. The plot is fairly simple: Dracula (Bela Lugosi) wants to put the brain of the dimwitted Wilbur (Costello) in the body of the Frankenstein Monster (Glenn Strange) so it will be obedient to his commands. Enter Larry Talbot (Lon Chaney, Jr.) whose top priority is stop Dracula, when he isn't turning into a werewolf and tearing up hotel rooms. While many horror fans complain about the monsters being relegated to supporting roles to a "second rate" comedy team, the truth is that Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein is far more respectful to the classic horror icons than the two previous films in the Universal series, House of Frankenstein and House of Dracula. The Wolf Man comes off rather well in these two pictures, but that's largely because he's central to the plot of both films. Dracula, wonderfully played by John Carradine, gets killed off midway through both films and the Frankenstein Monster is essentially a walking prop. In House of Dracula, the Frankenstein Monster spends most of the film strapped to an operating table, then in the finally closing minutes (the last two to be exact) he stumbles around inside a burning castle, only to have the roof come crashing down on him. To add insult to injury, the shot of the roof caving in on the Monster is lifted from The Ghost of Frankenstein. 
The reason Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein is a success is that it takes the horror elements seriously; never once are the monsters made to look silly. There's no scene in which Dracula's trousers fall down, or the Wolf Man taking a pie in the face. Dracula poses a very serious threat to our protagonists and Lugosi gives a very commanding performance (in the role he made famous seventeen years earlier). The humor comes from the characters reactions to the supernatural elements, or them being completely oblivious to them. In one funny/scary scene, Larry Talbot begs the boys to lock him in his hotel room and they reluctantly comply. However, Wilbur notices that Talbot left his suitcase in the hallway and brings it in, unaware that Talbot has just changed into the Wolf Man. The scene is filled with near misses and in one particularly moment Wilbur sits down to write Talbot a note, letting him know where the suitcase is, ignorant to the fact that the Wolf Man is lurking right behind him. Modern days audiences will probably find the scene more amusing than scary, but I'm sure it was an absolute scream fest in 1948.

The film is loaded with horror film iconography:
1) A creepy wax museum. The owner of the wax museum, Mr. McDougal, has purchased what he thinks are the "remains" of Dracula and the Frankenstein Monster, unaware both are fully intact and very much alive. This is where Wilbur first encounters Dracula and the Frankenstein Monster.
2) The shot of the full moon. In the opening sequence, Larry Talbot is on the phone in his London hotel room, trying to convince Wilbur, a baggage clerk at a railway station, not to deliver the crates that contain Dracula and the Frankenstein Monster to McDougal's House of Horrors. However, before he can finish his sentence, he notices the full moon and transforms into a werewolf and proceeds to tear apart his room.
3) A dilapidated, old castle. Dracula lives inside the castle under the pseudonym Dr. Leighos. It's also where he keeps his laboratory is located.
4) Secret passages. Chick and Wilbur, while searching the castle, stumble upon a underground passageway. Wilbur leans against a brick wall, which turns out to be a revolving panel that leads to a secret room where the Frankenstein Monster is being kept. Wilbur experiences a few close calls with both Dracula and the Monster. When Wilbur goes to get Chick, they have both seemingly vanished into thin air.
5) Hypnotism. Dracula is able to hypnotize Sandra (Lenore Aubert) and Wilbur into obeying his will.
6) The bat on the string effect. We get plenty of shots of Dracula, in bat form, flapping about the countryside.   It's also one of the few horror films of the decade in which the audience gets to see Dracula transform into a bat and vice versa. This is achieved through animation and, while not entirely convincing, is a rather neat effect to watch.
7) The laboratory scene. At the end of the film, Dracula has both Wilbur and the Frankenstein monster strapped to operating tables inside his laboratory. However, before he can begin his operation Chick and Larry come bursting into the save the day. Just when it seems Wilbur is finally safe from all harm, Larry turns into the Wolf Man.

The only real flaw of the film is the character of Dr. Stevens (Charles Bradstreet), whose main function is to serve as a love interest to Joan Raymond (Jane Randolph), an insurance investigator working for McDougal.
He is a rather uninvolving character and nearly drains the fun out of every scene he is in, which, thankfully, isn't too many. He does destroy the Frankenstein Monster at the film's end (by setting it on fire), but even that is a bit anti-climatic, considering Chick and Wilbur are rowing to safety in a row boat, while the Wolf Man and the Dracula have plummeted to their supposed deaths.

However, this is an extremely minor flaw in an otherwise great film. Abbott and Costello would bump into other monsters (The Invisible Man, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, the Mummy) in the next decade, but none of those films come close to capturing the magic of Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein. It was lightning in a bottle that would also signal the end for the classic Universal Monsters.

Credits:
Cast: Bud Abbott (Chick Young), Lou Costello (Wilbur Grey), Bela Lugosi (Dracula), Lon Chaney,Jr. (Larry Talbot/The Wolf Man), Glenn Strange (Frankenstein Monster), Lenore Aubert (Sandra Morney), Jane Randolph (Joan Raymond), Frank Ferguson (Mr. McDougal), Charles Bradstreet (Dr. Stevens).

Director: Charles Barton
Screenplay: Robert Lees, Frederic I. Rinaldo, John Grant.
Running Time: 83 min.

The Hobbit: The Unexpected Journey, Or, The Bad Assification of J.R.R. Tolkien

In the past few months we have bombarded with cinematic re-imaginings of children's stories: Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters, Jack the Giant Slayer, Oz: The Great and Powerful, and The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. The thing these films have in common (other than being adaptations of children's stories) is that they focus more on action and spectacle (to the 3D format) than telling an actual story. Hence, the bad ass factor is ratcheted up several notches, while characters and narrative get lost in the mix. It is only a matter of time before we are treated to a re-imagining of The Tortoise and the Hare (in 3D), which will end in a huge slug fest between the two characters and the tortoise coming out triumphant after he beheads the evil hare. 

Everything in today’s commercial cinema must be cool and bad ass otherwise, in the mind of Hollywood execs, the audience might have no interest in seeing it. So, not only do modern fight scenes defy the laws of physics, but they are now tailored to fit the needs of 3D as well. Therefore, when some bad ass warrior gets into a long elaborate duel with a baddie, there’s got to be a few shots in which he lunges directly at the camera.
Unfortunately, once the gimmick begins to wear thin, the easier it becomes to spot the flaws in the storytelling. Directors are sold on the idea that the audience will be in complete awe of the 3D effects that they will overlook the film’s many shortcomings. Consequently, the best 3D films tend to be the ones that are rather conservative with the 3D gimmick, while focusing more on the actual story line  They don’t “WOW” audiences in the movie theaters,  but they hold up a lot better after multiple viewings than their more flamboyant counterparts. 

Which brings me to The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, or as I like to call Lord of the Rings, Episode I: The Unexpected Journey. When it was announced that Peter Jackson was going to adapt J.R.R. Tolkien’s classic CHILDREN’s story into a three part movie, it left a good many people (Internet message boards) dumbfounded.  “How in the hell is Peter Jackson going to adapt a 300 page novel into a nine hour epic?” they asked.  After viewing the film, the answer become obvious: by adding as many subplots as humanly possible and shoehorning as many Lord of the Rings references in as possible…ALL IN GLORIOUS 3D. 

 Normally, I don’t have anything objections to when a filmmaker makes changes to the novel; after all, these changes are often necessary, ideas and characters that read well on the printed page don’t necessarily translate well onto the big screen.  When Jackson adapted The Fellowship of the Ring, I, for one, did not miss the character of Tom Bombadil. He would have been absolutely insufferable to watch (“Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo! Ring a dong! hop along! fal lal the willow! Tom Bom, jolly Tom, Tom Bombadillo!").  He was also fairly extraneous to the plot. He’s main function is to add a little color to the narrative.

However, Peter Jackson’s adaptation of The Hobbit maybe the rare example where it will take more time to watch the movies (all three of them) than read the actual novel. Whereas most adaptations omit characters/subplots from the novels to make them more streamlined for the cinema, Jackson actually adds characters/subplots to his cinematic rendering of the The Hobbit.  Fans may argue that it adds to depth to the overall proceedings and nicely ties it in with the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but it also has the unfortunate effect of making Bilbo (Martin Freeman) a supporting character in his own story. 

Peter Jackson’s often seems more invested in the character of Thorin Oakenshield than he is in Bilbo Baggins, the titular character.  Thorin is given not one, BUT TWO BACK STORIES. The first tells about how the dwarves were driven from Lonely Mountain by the dragon Smaug, the other is a lengthy flashback that details Thorin’s epic battle with the White Orc, Azog, (a character that is only mentioned in passing in the book).  Thorin mistakenly believes that he killed the White Orc a long time ago, but the bugger is still alive and seeks vengeance.  This, of course, leads to a show down at the film’s climax where Thorin and the White Orc duke it out. Thorin is thoroughly beaten, but Bilbo saves the day. Yup! Jackson finally remembers that Bilbo is the actual protagonist of the story and has him dabble in an act of heroism that wasn't in the book. In the novel, the dwarves are being chased by the Orcs and take refuge in the trees. The Orcs set the trees on fire and it looks like the Dwarves are cooked, when all of a sudden eagles swoop down and fly them to safety.
However, this resolution is not nearly bad ass enough for today’s audience, not to mention it wouldn't make for exciting 3D. So Jackson adds a small battle to the proceedings, after a horribly drawn out scene in which the trees tumble over like dominoes, forcing the Dwarves to hop from tree to tree until finally there is only one left and it’s hanging over the edge of a cliff. The tree slowly begins to uproot and leans at such an angle that Thorin is able to walk straight off it and face his tormentor face to face. The two duke it out, then Bilbo comes to save the day. The other Dwarves join in (the ones not hanging for their dear lives on the branches of the hanging tree) and it becomes a big free for all. When everything seems lost, the eagles come and save the day. BAD ASS! Go easy on the high fives, dude, you might spill the Mountain Dew.

The problem with this sequence, other then being horribly long, is that it resolves Bilbo's character arc much too early in the story; there's no reason to doubt his heroism after this scene, because he bravely risked his life to save Thorin's. In the book, the turning point for Bilbo is when the dwarves are captured by the giant spiders, he is on his own (Gandalf has left) and is essentially forced into an act of heroism. Up until this point in the book, Bilbo is a fairly timid character who is often more of a hindrance than actual help. After he slews the spiders and saves the Dwarves, Bilbo grows increasingly more confident in himself to the point that doesn't hesitate in facing Smaug. Of course, because Jackson decided to stretch the story out over the course of three movies, there needs to be some resolution at the end of the first film, hence, Bilbo's heroism and Thorin's new found respect for him.
It's also for this reason that the White Orc is such a prominent character throughout the film; without him there would be no clear antagonist. Smaug isn't set to make his appearance until the next film, the Necromancer is still in the shadows, and all the other baddies they encounter (Trolls, Goblin King) are stumbling blocks at best. Had Jackson just adapted The Hobbit into one film, there would absolutely  be no need for the White Orc, as Smaug would be more than enough to suffice. It's ironic that the 1977 Rankin/Bass version, despite being only 80 minutes in length, is far more faithful in tone to the novel than Peter Jackson's EPIC film. Of course, the Rankin/Bass was more in tune with their intended audience (children) than Jackson, who seemingly doesn't know who this movie is for; it seems like he's aiming for a children's movie that is frat boy approved. It ranges from being fairly whimsical at times (Bilbo's first encounter with Gandalf, the scenes with the wizard Radagast) to down right violent at others (practically all the fight scenes). It doesn't help that many of the scenes (especially the escape from Goblin Town) have the feel of Playstation video game. Like video games, their fun for the person that's playing it, but get fairly boring to the person who has to watch.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey often seems less like an adaptation of Tolkien's novel and more of a rehash Jackson's version of The Fellowship of the Ring. In fact, The Hobbit follows The Fellowship of the Ring almost beat for beat.

1. In The Fellowship of the Ring we are shown a prelude that involves the War of the Ring. In The Hobbit we are shown a prelude of Smaug attacking Lonely Mountain and driving the Dwarves away from their homeland.

2. After the prelude, we go back to aged Bilbo (Ian Holm) writing his memories down in a journal. Frodo makes a brief appearance by getting the mail, while looking completely confused.

3. Thorin is essentially the stand in for Aragorn; a king without a kingdom. Of course, the difference is that Aragorn dodged his responsibility because of his inner doubts, Thorin has been waiting for the right moment to return. However, both are exceptional warriors and have an air of mystery about them that slowly gets revealed as the film progresses.

4. In The Fellowship of the Ring, Frodo and company are being stalked by the Black Riders. In The Hobbit, Bilbo and friends are being stalked by the Orcs, led by the extremely evil Azog.

5. The Fellowship of the Ring has the Council of Elrond, while The Hobbit has the White Council (NOT IN THE BOOK).  Both occur in Rivendell. Like Gimli, Thorin has an extreme dislike for Elves.

6. Goblin Town scene in The Hobbit occurs at about the same time as the Mines of Moria sequence from Fellowship of the Ring. The escape from Goblin Town isn't very detailed in the book, because as Gandalf and Dwarves are running away, Bilbo is knocked off the back of the Dwarf that is carrying him and falls down a chasm. It's then he meets Gollum. In the film, Bilbo falls down the chasm while the Dwarves are being captured by the Goblins. The Riddles in the Dark scene happens during the encounter with the Goblin King as opposed to after. This allows for Jackson to show the Dwarves escape in full detail and to take advantage of the 3D effects, hence, lots of shots of collapsing bridges and characters running towards the camera.

You shall not pass!

The pity is that somewhere in the rubble is a potentially great movie. Peter Jackson has assembled one hell of a cast; Martin Freeman is ideally cast as Bilbo and it's always a joy to see Ian McKellan as Gandalf. The Riddles in the Dark scene with Gollum is as good as I could have hoped for and the Goblin King is well realized. Had Jackson been more interested in adapting the story the Tolkien wrote as opposed ladling out subplots and ties in, he could have had a genuine classic on his hands. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is not bad movie, but it's a disappointment nonetheless.

Credits:

Cast: Ian McKellan (Gandalf), Richard Armitage (Thorin), Martin Freeman (Bilbo Baggins), Andy Serkis (Gollum), Sylvester McCoy (Radagast),  Hugo Weaving (Elrond),Christopher Lee (Sauron), Cate Blanchett (Galadriel), Ken Stott (Balin), Graham McTavish (Dwalin), William Kircher (Bifus/Tom Troll), James Nesbitt (Bofur), Stephen Hunter (Bombur), Dean O' Gorman (Fili), Aidan Turner (Kili), John Callen (Oin), Peter Hambleton (Gloin/William Troll), Jed Brophy (Nori), Mark Hadlow (Dori/Bert Troll), Adam Brown (Ori), Barry Humphreys (The Great Goblin), Ian Holm (Old Bilbo), Elijah Wood (Frodo).

Director: Peter Jackson
Screenplay: Peter Jackson, Philippa Boyens, Fran Walsh, Guillermo del Toro.

Running Time: 166 min.

Atom Man Vs. Superman (1950)

There have been many Lex Luthor's in cinema/television history, but for my money Lyle Talbot was the absolute best! Gene Hackman was great, but tended to overdo the wisecracks. Ditto Kevin Spacey. Whereas the other actors who portrayed the role never really left much an impression on me. Of course, Lyle Talbot has a distinct advantage over the others, in that he was the first actor to portray Lex Luthor on the big screen. Interestingly, he was also the first actor to portray Commissioner Gordon (another DC character) on the big screen in the 1949 serial Batman and Robin, made by the same team. Talbot is probably best known for his association with the the infamous movie director Edward D. Wood, Jr. Talbot co-starred in three of Woods films: Glen or Glenda?, Jail Bait, and Plan Nine From Outer Space. 
Talbot's Luthor is downright sinister, yet has an air of dignity about him. Clark Kent sums up best when he proclaims, "Luthor has a strange evil genius. Far above any scientist I've ever known."

 In Atom Man vs. Superman, Luthor is released from prison and vows to change his ways; he does so by becoming a respected television producer. This, not surprisingly, turns out to be a front for his criminal deeds. He has television trucks stationed all across the cities and each truck has a secret compartment in which his thugs can hide out after having robbed a jewelry store or some other establishment. He even manages to get the lovely Lois Lane (Noel Neill) to work for him, so she can can do puff pieces about the city. This is just one of many phases in Lex Luthor's agenda; the other is to rid the world of Superman by transporting the Man of Steel into a parallel dimension (The Empty Doom as he calls it) via his teleportation machine. To get Superman into the machine, Luthor creates a synthetic form of Kryponite, which weakens the Superman while he is at a public ceremony. Luthor's henchmen (disguised as ambulance drivers) steal away the Man of Steel to his apparent doom. Will Luthor succeed? Of course not!

Atom Man Vs. Superman was one of the few times (if not the only time) that a movie serial actually used a villain from the comic book it was adapted from. It was common for serial adaptations to invent their own villain. The villains in  serials tended to be masked scientists/criminals out for world conquest; in the first Superman serial, the Man of Steel faced a masked villainess called the Spider Lady. In Batman and  Robin, the villain was a masked scientist called the Wizard. Even Atom Man Vs. Superman follows the masked villain format by having Lex Luthor don the disguise of Atom Man to throw the law and Superman off his scent. Granted, Superman from the get go is convinced that the Atom Man is really Lex Luthor, but everyone else is convinced that Luthor has gone straight.
Despite a few changes the Superman serials remained fairly faithful to the comic book, which was fairly rare for a movie serial. The most famous case of a serial being drastically different from it's comic book source was 1944's Captain America, starring Dick Purcell in the title role. In the comic books, U.S. Army Private Steve Rogers became Captain American after being injected with a super serum that gave him great strength. Most of this adventures happened overseas as he fought Nazis and, most famously, the Red Skull. In the serial adaptation, Captain America's secret identity is Grant Gardner, who is not an army soldier, but a district attorney. His nemesis is a masked villain known as the Scarab, who turns out to museum curator Dr. Cyrus Maldor.  Most adaptations didn't take as many liberties with the source material like Captain America, but often, due to budgetary problems, a lot of compromises had to be made. In Batman and Robin there is no Batmobile, instead the dynamic duo drive around in a 1949 Mercury.
Atom Man Vs. Superman is a fairly ambitious serial, but the problem is that it doesn't have the budget nor the resources to match its scope. In chapter one, Luthor builds a sound ray and threatens to destroy the Metropolis River Bridge if his demands are not met. The authorities scoff at Luthor's demand, so he turns his ray towards the bridge and it begins to sway back and forth. This is achieved through the use of stock footage.....well known stock footage I might add; the collapse of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge (or the Galloping Gertie as it was called). Much to the horror of the Daily Planet Staff and police there is a woman on the bridge passed out in her car. Just when everything seems lost, Superman flies into frame to save the damsel in distress. Initially, I thought Superman would grab the woman and fly her to safety.......NOPE! Instead he stops the bridge from swaying by grabbing hold of its suspension cable and then calls for the cops to rescue the woman. The cops run in, grab the lady, and then run to safety. Superman lets go of the suspension cable and we then cut to footage of the Galloping Gertie collapsing. After the woman is taken to safety, Lois Lane coos, "Superman saved her! I knew he would do it!"

Chapter seven is a re-cap of Superman's origin, narrated by Luthor, with footage lifted from the first Superman serial. Jor-El (Superman's Krypton father) managed to send out radio waves in his Kryton language and Luthor was some how able to translate them, thus making him an expert on everything Superman - with the exception of Superman's secret identity.
When Superman flies he turns into an animated figure and then will land behind a landmark, where Kirk Alyn will then emerge from. This was done because the wire work on Kirk Alyn was so bad that the footage had to be scrapped and the producers, rather hastily, decided to settle on animation. Of course, the problem with the animation is that not only is it jarring at times, but it often kills the urgency that is required in the scene. Superman will often land behind a huge boulder, or some other landmark, and then run the rest of the way to his destination, hence wasting precious time.

It is these lapses in budget and plotting that prevent Atom Man Vs. Superman from being a classic.  Too often the plot is set up by complete coincidence; Lois and Jimmy have a knack for running into Luthor's henchmen, who then proceed to kidnap them just so Superman can save them at the last second. The perils tend to be a bit redundant as well; twice Jimmy is saved from an exploding car. Granted, these flaws are more apparent to the modern day viewer with a DVD player than a movie goer of the 50s, especially little children.
Yet, there are a couple of genuinely clever ideas scattered throughout the serial, the most compelling being "The Empty Doom." Lex Luthor builds a machine that transports Superman to another dimension  that he christened "The Empty Doom." The ghostly image of Superman often pops into frame and attempts to stop a crime from happening, but is forced into the role of a spectator, helpless to do anything about it. He, through sheer will power, is able to communicate with Lois Lane through her electronic typewriter and sets up a plan that will set him free. It also finally dawns on the Daily Planet staff that Clark Kent and Superman just might be the same person.  Perry White orders Lois Lane to write an article that asks the question, "Is Clark Kent Superman?" Lois is hesitant to do so, but obeys White's orders. However, she conspires with Jimmy Olsen to keep the story from every being printed by having him call White and pretending to be Clark Kent. The fairly convincing imitation fools White and he orders the story to be scrapped. However, once Superman is released from "The Empty Doom" the "Is Clark Kent Superman" subplot is completely discarded; Lois and Jimmy never seem interested in finding out the answer for themselves. Luthor becoming a successful TV producer in many way anticipates DC reboot of Superman in the 80s, in which Lex Luthor went from being mad scientist to a respected multi-millionaire with a sinister side.
Kirk Alyn's Superman is appropriately bland; he's pretty much a boy scout with super hero strength. This was essentially how Superman was depicted in the comics at the time and Alyn plays it to perfection. His Clark Kent is way more interesting character, in that he's not nearly as wimpy and bumbling as Clark was in the comic books. Alyn's Clark Kent is slightly clumsy (or pretending to be clumsy), but he's an excellent reporter and is fairly handy in a fight as well. Lois Lane thinks him a coward for always disappearing when danger is near, but we know better.  In TV Show The Adventures of Superman, starring George Reeves, there were very little difference between the Clark Kent and Superman personas, the only thing that really separated them was that Clark wore glasses and suit, while Superman wore a leotard costume. In the two Superman serials starring Kirk Alyn, there is just enough of difference between the two personas that makes it plausible (if not entirely believable) that no one would suspect Clark Kent of being Superman.
My favorite part of the serial is how it doesn't shy away from showing off Superman's strength; in one of the early chapters Luthor's henchmen fire bullets at Superman and they bounce off him, while he grins off the entire thing like it's nothing. This is done with animation, but it's a neat moment nonetheless  At another point, Superman effortlessly lifts up two henchmen, raises them above his head, and bangs their heads together, knocking them out cold.
I've never been a fan of Noel Neill's "Golly Gee Whiz" approach to the role of Lois Lane, granted, it's not nearly as bad in the movie serials as it was in the television show. In season one of The Adventures of Superman, Lois Lane was played by Phyllis Coates, who's interpretation of the role was far and a way my favorite. Coate's Lois Lane was a no nonsense reporter who took her job seriously and often put it ahead of her own safety. Secondly, she didn't have a school girl crush on Superman, like all the other Lois Lanes, but rather admired him and was grateful for his help. In the first season, there was a sense that Lois and Clark were beginning to bond as friends; initially Lois resented him for joining the Daily Planet, but by season's end she grew to appreciate him. However, when season two began filming Coates was no longer available and was replaced by Noel Neill, because of her appearance in the serials. Lois Lane went from being a professional trying to create her own breaks to being a fairly clueless reporter more interested in swooning over Superman than doing her actual job. In the serial, there's is very little sense of growth between Clark Kent and Lois Lane, even when he keeps constantly bailing her out; she constantly talks about him in a very condescending manner and is fairly resentful of his success. When it is suggested that Clark Kent might be Superman, Lois Lane has this to say, "If Clark Kent is Superman, we have no right in revealing in his secret. If he isn't, then why give a dope such a big build up."  Half the time, I was almost hoping the villains would succeed in bumping off Lois Lane, just so it would finally shut her up. Neill certainly isn't aided by the writing, which often relegates  Lois Lane to a plot device  so Superman has an excuse to fight the villains. Lois gets capture, Superman saves her. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. Not to mention her dialogue is fairly cringe worthy as well, practically ever other sentence has her referencing Superman. "Not even Superman himself could do such a thing."
Tommy Bond as Jimmy Olsen main function is comic relief, but to his credit, he's not nearly as annoying as Jack Larson's portrayal on The Adventures of Superman. At least, Bond's Jimmy Olsen was occasionally useful in capturing the villains, whereas Larson stumbled through the scenery and practically killed every scene he was in.
Atom Man vs. Superman is fairly entertaining serial, despite it's many limitations. However, it's best to view it over the course of a few days (like the audiences of 1950) than in one sitting, otherwise you might go insane.


Cast: Lyle Talbot (Lex Luthor), Kirk Alyn (Clark Kent/Superman), Noel Neill (Lois Lane), Tommy Bond (Jimmy Olsen), Pierre Watkin (Perry White), Jack Ingram (Foster), Don C. Harvey (Albor), Rusty Wescoatt (Carl), Terry Frost (Baer).
Director: Spencer Bennett.
Screenplay: George H. Plympton, Joseph F. Poland, David Mathews.
Running Time: 252 minutes (15 episodes)