The Phantom of the Opera (1989)

You all think I'm going to talk about the 2004 Gerard Butler, Joel Schumaker adaption of Andrew Lloyd Webber's musical don't you? That's adorable.

Directed by: Dwight H. Little
Released: 1989
Staring: Robert Englund, Jill Schoelen, Bill Nye,
Rated: R
Times Viewed: 4

  There are certain movies you watching thinking...I'm really enjoying this, I know I shouldn't because it's probably a ridiculously cheesy horrible movie, but I really am enjoying this. You watch it about three or four times, making jokes in your head but it doesn't matter because it's still a good movie. Then you watch that movie with other people and you realize all those jokes you made to yourself were totally justified and you should probably hide the fact that you bought this movie off of Amazon and you really love it from the general public....Anyone else have that movie?
        Anyone?
                 No?
  Well the 1989 adaption of The Phantom of the Opera staring Robert Englund and Bill Nye is mine. It's 80's, it's gore, it's ridiculous, it's not an accurate adaption of the book, and it is AWESOME. This being said, I have to let you all know....

  The bane of my existence presents itself in two forms. Bad Dracula adaptions {we'll get to this in a review later this month} and bad Phantom of the Opera adaptions. Is it really so impossible to produce a faithful adaption to the book??? The book has all the elements of an awesome horror/romance/mystery movie because it's an awesome horror/romance/mystery novel!
As of 2007 there were over 40 adaptions of Gaston Leroux's book. 
  I really love Phantom of the Opera. I got hooked thanks to a cassette of the Andrew Lloyd Webber Musical my parents bought after seeing the production in the early 90's. I forgot about the show for a while until 2004 when Joel Schumaker made it into a colorless, sub-par, yet enjoyable adaption. After being reunited with the story I hunted down the book and basically every other adaption I could get my hands on...let me tell you, there are A LOT of adaptions of The Phantom of the Opera. Most bad, all cheesy, but all (save the Dario Argento adaption) have their redeeming qualities.

  The 1989 adaptions' is it's 80's thrill and gore and Robert Englund....Poor, poor Freddy Kru... I mean ROBERT ENGLUND. The poor guy signed his action soul to the Devil the day he decided to do Nightmare on Elm Street. I'm sure he's made quite the pretty penny on the series, which boast 7 sequels to the first as well as the 2010 remake, but they've limited him creatively. ROBERT ENGLUND IS A GOOD ACTOR, I truly believe he is. Sadly, like make villains of 80's horror, he's been typecast to no end. Whenever he DOES land a role that is not Kruger, the character still haunts him. Marking people are mainly to blame for this and I have to say whoever was captain for this ship should have been fired because this is not acceptable...He's basically a marketing strategy

Seriously, I don't mean to be rude, but what assholes. From what I've read on the web Englund wasn't too happy about this either, and for good reason! I would not want people to go to a film because they expected to see Freddy, I would want them to go to see what else Freddy can do!
.

  This all being said, the character Englund creates is brilliant but he does offer several Freddy-esque characteristics. He has some great, macabre one liners, creepy laugh, and dream-like presence...In reality this has nothing to do with Englund's acting and more about screen writing. This may be a strong statement, but Robert Englund's interpretation of The Phantom is the closes to what I had generated in my mind from the book.
The Phantom is not a nice, cuddly guy chilling in the basement waiting to watch The Notebook with you *cough* Charles Dance *cough* he's a bad ass, crazy stalker. I say this with nothing but love in my heart, but he is out of his mind. He kills people, he LIKES killing people; but he's some how charming and intelligent!

  The rest of the cast is mediocre at best, even Bill Nye is odd in the role of the Opera House manager. Please don't even get me started on Christine...the young Jill Schoelen is not the worst Christine to grace stage or screen but she's not the best either. Her singing voice {which I don't believe is her own, is no where near "angelic"} I don't think I've ever seen a performance of Christine Daae (outside the musical content) that I enjoyed. Always winy, annoying, just uh...Not much praise can be showered upon this cast apart of Englund of course.


Now let's talk about the movie itself. This is NOT accurate adaption of the Leroux novel, it takes many, MANY heavy handed liberties included name, location changes, and TIME TRAVEL. The Paris Opera House becomes the London Opera House, I see no reason for this...it's not like they actually shot in either location...Daae becomes to American DAY a change which I despise and Erik disfigurement comes for the Devil in the form of a midget in a brothel....ya I'm just gonna let that one sink in.  LIKE I SAID, heavy handed liberties...they were taken. I've seen so many adaptions I've learned to take them as they come and all the changes in this adaption, while crazy and outlandish WORK with the film and I *screams quietly* love this movie!

  One of the main reasons, it's gross. Just sick...and so good! While no one has ever gotten anywhere close to showing Erik's true disfigurement on screen, the 1989 adaptions offers a pretty nasty take. Instead of wearing a mask made of any synthetic material or fabric, the Phantom chooses to cover his burned face in HUMAN SKIN...that's right a la Buffalo Bill, this Phantom does some patch work sewing on his own face. This is where that 80's gore and horror come in. We the audience get several scenes of Erik skinning people, sewing the skin to his face, the skin be ripped off...and it's awesomely disgusting. There are some top notch make-up jobs in this film no matter how Nightmare on Elm Street inspired they may appear. Having The Phantom wear a mask of human flesh really bumps up the gross out factor that the original novel held so close {in the scene where Christine takes off Erik's mask he takes her hands, and digs her nails into her skull, pealing off dead skin}

Did I mention, Erik has a really AWESOME Red Death costume in this adaption?

  It's not perfect, it's occasionally ridiculous in it's retro-ness, and it's ghastly gory, but it's for those reasons I enjoy it! I don't take it seriously, and you shouldn't either! So if you've watched your collection of Nightmare on Elm Street so many times you can pin point the second a prosthetic tongue worms it's way out of a cored phone, give The Phantom of the Opera a try. Not as hokey as Nightmare but retaining a similar atmosphere and leading man of course. Robert Englund's performance is reason enough to watch Phantom but the gory 80's style are PERFECT for a Halloween viewing. Someday I hope this film will worm it's way onto the cult classic shelf along Nightmare, Halloween and Friday the 13th.

  I was going to talk about the Charles Dance tv miniseries of Phantom from 1990 but it's quite an extensive review all ready. All you need to know is I like it for unknown Charles Dance-y reasons.

I love Charles Dance...he is my favorite character on GOT and I didn't even know this until I rewatched season 2. Dance is no Lion in this miniseries however...he's almost the opposite.

  Charles Dance is an adorable English man who plays a French man with an American accent while everyone else around him keeps their English accents. I'm sorry but when I hear the voice of an Angel he doesn't sound like he's from Iowa. He is a cute and cuddly phantom who actually sings. Possibly one of the worst Christine's even if she is blond like she is in the book. It's both horribly bad and charming all at the same time. If you're bored you can watch the whole whole mini series on youtube.

 You guys...Tywin Lanister was a total FOX.

NOTE: This is definitely NOT from the 1990 adaption of Phantom.

He's just fun to look at

Hitchcock

I figured if this film was filmed in only 36 days, I can take some time and give it a quick review.

Directed By: Sacha Gervasi 

Released: 2012

Rated: PG-13

Staring: Anthony Hopkins, Helen Mirren, Scarlett Johansson, & Danny Huston 

  Well my dears it's October once again, my favorite time of the year! Horror films shall soon be filling up my schedule but before they do I thought I'd give you all a review of a movie I caught earlier this summer, Hitchcock. Released in 2012 this quick, well acted piece tells the tale of cinema's master of suspense Alfred Hitchcock and his wife Alma during the filming and production of his most iconic film Psycho. Labeled a suspense thriller, Psycho has been terrifying audience goers for generations.
  The 60's saw a boom in the psychological horror genre with hits like Rosemary's Baby, Psycho was no exception. Hitchcock revealed the true horror that a brutal killer could be ANYONE. The real monsters are the ones right down the street. Hitchcock reflects this thought and portrays some top notch creepy scenes delving into the psychology of both the story behind the movie and the man brining it to life.

 
  That being said, the movie confuses it's protagonist flitting between Hitchcock, his brief decent into  madness, and his wife Alma; self conscious, dealing with an inattentive husband and her own career. The movie tries to show us what's going on in Hitch's mind, but also tell the story of the woman behind the man and how much she attributed to his success. This is where it becomes muddled and a question of WHO'S movie is this? Hitchcock feels like two films; one about Hitchcock and one about his wife.  On their own they'd be good, but lacking in impact for the silver screen. The story of the director and the story of his wife both seem fit for an HBO movie or mini series. Putting them together made sense for a feature film but not enough for the film to garner any attention from the Academy.

Anthony Hopkins & Michael Wincott have a little chat about murder
as Hitchcock and serial killer Ed Gein. 

The always lovely Helen Mirren, although I don't remember her
smiling this much... 

   All that may give the impression that I didn't care for the movie, but I actually did! Despite it's somewhat confused center, Hitchcock is a charming, witty, and bright film...enough so that some of the more morbid scenes featuring a grizzly Ed Gein popping up in Hitch's subconscious don't bring the film too far south. As a period piece, costumes and hair and make-up especially were spot on! Hitchcock retains a light atmosphere regardless of the unsettling movie that it's characters are producing {referring to Psycho} Hitchcock simply looks clean and features a strong leading, as well as ensemble cast. My concerns expressed above, while valid, didn't produce a negative effect upon my final opinion.  I quite enjoyed this film and I think movie lovers, especially Hitchcock fans will too! 

Jessica Beil reenacts an iconic scene as Vera Miles 

  If you're not a huge film history junky like myself, it's fun to see for the first time just how secretive Hitchcock was during the production and release of Psycho. From buying all copies of the book, to enforcing his rule of no one entering the theater after the movie had started all to preserve the secrecy of the final plot twist!
   
  Pros like Hopkins and Mirren are bound to get the job done and in Hitchcock they did just that, in only 36 days no less! To Hitchcock's benefit, it' running time concludes a few minutes over an hour and a half. Great for a casual watch or popcorn movie marathons, it doesn't depress and it doesn't condescend. Had it been any longer the material would have stretched too thin and turn melodramatic but it ends nicely and with a bit of a humor as well.
 
  There are periods of darkness in the film where we see Hitchcock imagine himself performing grizzly murders accompanied by Ed Gein (the inspiration for Norman Bates for those who didn't know) and dramatic sections featuring Alma wrestling with fidelity to her husband and her own work, but when the two sides come together to produce the final cut of Psycho it's a fun and entertaining insight.
 
Don't let the title fool you, this is Helen Mirren's movie; creating a believable and relatable character. Mirren tops the bill followed closely by Hopkins who's Hitchcock is good (with the help of make-up crew) but never comes to a definitive portrayal of the Master of Suspense. Scarlett Johansson surprised me with her fresh performance of Janet Lee; I feel she, as an actress, is finally coming into her own.

The Remake & Television

  Gus Van Sant, an undeniably talented director, fell short in 1998 when he directed a shot for shot remake of Hitchcock's original. This film is one where we cross ourselves and whisper "God save the Cinema" He produces compelling work, but why would you waste time, money, and talent on such a project? Reason escapes me...

 
  2013 brought us another in a long line of horror movie prequel T.V. shows. Bates Model on paper was a brilliant idea and had so much promise. All the Mommy issues and back story on the characters of Norman Bates and his mother rooted in the book give writers so much to work with...but then, as with almost all made for television prequels, it *excuse me* got it's head stuck too far up it's backside and became ridiculous and outlandish on the verge of a joke. I can honestly say I think Hitchcock would turn over in his grave if he saw what they did with such solid source material. Initially I looked forward to the series but dropped it half way through due to increased head shaking and face palms I implied after every episode. Vera Farmiga's talent alone can't carry this sinking ship.

The Wizard of Gore (2007)

I love B-camp, bloody, gory horror films, but honestly, what just happened? 

Directed by: Jeremy Kasten 

Released: 2007

Staring: Crisping Glover, Brad Dourif, lots of horrible unknown actors and strippers. No really, they are an actual group of strippers/porn stars...The Suicide Girls

Rating: R or Unrated 

......I wish I had a running sound bite for chirping crickets because that's the only thing I heard when I try to think of something logical to say about Wizard of Gore. The concept of the film was so promising and it's execution so dismally disappointing. And if you're wondering, yes this film was watched on my Crispin Glover viewing escapade...Sadly, not even Glover's creepy charms could save this horrific illusion of a "mind bending" horror rampage. 

Basic Synopsis...A downtown journalsist attends several shows featuring the magician Montag the Magnificent in a seedy, underground venue. During the show, the Wizard of Gore chooses a member of the female audience and appears to dismember their body on stage, but when the lights come up it is revealed as nothing more than an illusion. The following day the bodies of the girls are found murdered in very similar fashion to their on stage deaths. As journalist Edmund travels down the rabbit hole, he discovers that he has become more apart of this wonderland than he'd like. 

  Sounds like a solid outline for an interesting game of cat and mouse movie making right? This is just the problem...this script and the film makers don't keep to this solid story, instead they choose to trip themselves and the audience up on back stories, side stories, incomplete stories, past stories, present stories and any other type of added "story" you can imagine.

  We have a magician who is possibly using his show as a cover for his murderous urges yes? Yes. We also have the possibility that someone ELSE is using Montag's show as a cover for HIS murderous urges yes? Yes. Two, you have TWO great murder motifs that you could run with the whole film. Was it Montag or was it not Montag...Is someone else using his tricks as basis for their murder? If so who and if  so why? If it had just been left at that this movie could have been successful. 

  But no. We have to add in strippers, and drugs, and sex, and vietnam (just what?), and how Edmund knows absolutely everyone, and where he met his girlfriends and how he secretly gets off on beating women, and there is the escort service, and all the girls that are killed are apart of this escort service and how Edmund is involved with the murderers, perhaps HE is the murderer Oh my good, gracious father above, let's make him an UNRELIABLE CHARACTER  so we can JUSTIFY this whole movie NOT making sense or fitting together in the end!

  Ok!!! Now that that is out of my system I'll attempt to do and actual review. I know I usually go a bit deeper into story line and characters but honestly I just can't do it for this film. Why? Because I truthfully still do not know what happened at the end. I watched this movie from beginning to end and do not know who the ultimate killer was at the end. Too many would be killers turned into victims and and with a big part of the story being the use of this drug that can make people believe what you want them to believe, the viewers is in for a big disappointment if they expect to get any real closure with this film.

Is Edmund just being a good boyfriend and giving his girlfriend Maggie and message or is he hell bend on snapping her neck in two? I never figured it out. Kip Pardue & Bijou Phillips in The Wizard of Gore.

Characters and Setting- The main character of Edmund is just dull! Boring, uninteresting and poorly POORLY written. Any development that his character supposedly goes through is NOT well written or in that case performed by the incapable Kip Pardue. His character wanders around in 1940's garb living in a world that apparently "HE created" If Edmund really had collected such an interesting group of misfits to fill his surrounding habitat in, I would have liked to see more characters that mimic his 1940's style and attitude. You could have the squeaky blonde dame, the street wise, chain-smoking best friend who works in the morgue, a mysterious and sexy asian lady who works for the enemy. Is she spying is on him? Is she falling in love with him...just so many characters that hold that sleazy 1940's downtown crime style that the movie tries so hard to emulate but only does for ONE character. There is a Halloween scene at the beginning were a couple of characters are sporting some retro grab and I think if they would have carried that theme throughout the WHOLE movie it would have made it visually intriguing as well as add some continuity to the otherwise jumbled mess of odd characters. The downtown L.A. location is great for that old school crime thriller atmosphere and if the director would have chosen to extend this 1940's esque world that Edmund has apparently "surrounded" himself in it would have made much more sense for the character and the intended feel of the film.

OMG. I'm SO retro.

This gate is retro right?

We are not going to talk about Edmunds idiot of a girlfriend Maggie because I don't even want to go there and I don't believe I can without repeatedly swearing and confusing myself and you even more. Brad Dourif, a.k.a Grima Wormtonge to us Lord of the Rings fans, plays a...a doctor/vietnam vet/message therapist/ acupuncture/ drug dealer who we think is maybe, was, sort of not, could be friend of Edmund...I mean he helps him figure things out (because obviously stellar journalist sleuth can't do that on his own) and tells Edmund that he supplies the hallucination drug Treto Detoxin (?) to Montag who dispenses it throughout his audience by greeting each one at the theater door with a hand shake...mmm, slimy! Dourif's character almost makes sense in this film...I mean he's suppose to be a crazed war vet/drug dealer and I'm not going to lie, he plays that part well...gold start to the drug lord! ...who may or may not be the murderer and may or may not know who the killer is and may or may not be controlled by the drugs he distributed...you see how this movie works now?

I'm pretty sure these were the four main facial expressions I made throughout the film.
Sometimes pictures say so much more than words.
"Uh...wha?" "Oh mah Gosh!" "No GROOOSS!" And the end "WTF?"

  Uh...and now for the part that I really don't want to talk about but must...because Crispin Glover is the only reason I'm writing this review. 

  In this film...Crispin Glover is strange...and I don't mean like his regular, cute awkward intriguing strange...I mean like eh this part is so bad I'm just sorry you took this role and I don't want people to judge you for it because it's not your best work although you are the best actor in the movie and I wish you had more screen time and oh my gosh those are really tight white pants they have you in and I like your hair like that but oh my gosh why are you eating that squid intestine baby is that thing from Prometheus and is that the voice you use when you have sex because you basically sound like you're having sex throughout your entire stage performance and I kind of like it but not really because I'm actually quite terrified of you right now but not in a good way please just don't shove that florescent light down your throat again....and ya.

Umm...well I don't remember him actually EATING it in the movie...I though he just rips it out...

Glover's character Montag the Magnificent was written to be the cynical, psychological villain who messes with our minds and seems to justify each killing with an analogy for the lack of emotions humans posses and our desensitization to horror and gore (WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN A GREAT MOTIF FOR A GORE BASED HORROR FILM TO PLAY UPON...but no. We had to have strippers and drugs.) These could have been some great monologs for Glover to deliver except he uses this gasping, sexual voice when he's on stage as the illusionist. The only time we don't get this disturbing delivery is when he chooses the girl who will assist him in his demonstration of gore and debauchery. I believe "SIT DOWN BITCH! You die tonight." are the lines...interesting...I must say that things like screen play are not the actors fault...it's the screenwriters. Zach Chassler (according to IMDB) YOU die tonight. Or just please never write another screen play ever again. 

"Sit down bitch! You die tonight."
Crispin Glover as Montag the Magnificent...just crazy as hell. 

For as uncomfortable as Montag the Magnificent is, I do wish his character would have gotten more screen time. At least he's intriguing, amusing, and actually sensical believe it or not.  

On the plus side, Glover gets to use his Creepy Thin man sword training again! :D

  And that's all the farther I feel like I can go with this one...can't really recommend it for anyone unless you're a huge blood and gore horror fan, which I know there are a ton of people our there who love this movie. I watched solely for Crispin Glover and while I wasn't really disappointed with him, it was just the fact that I'll never get back the two hours I spent watching this movie...and even more tying to figure out who actually DONE it!  Concept I like. Production I hate.

P.S. I KNOW that this movie is based off of a Herschell Gordon Lewis slasher flick from the 70's, but as I said in my review for Willard I'm not a big fan of 70's film so I've left it alone and haven't checked it out. I thought the 2007 version might just be one of those bad remakes of a gory, horror classic but when I look on IMDB their ratings only differ by .3 Original Wizard of gore at 5.3 stars and the 2007 version at 5.0...so I figured the original can't be much better...especially if it was from the 70's. 

If you read the whole review wow and thanks a lots! I know it was kind of an odd one but I can't praise every movie I watch...this review was more of a subconscious train of thought.

  -Cheers!